- This topic has 7 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Topic
-
Our EC (I'm one of it's members) needs advice on how to deal with an EC member who is a nuisance, to put it mildly. When the majority of members voted to select a contractor's quote for a job recently, he resorted to petitioning owners for his preferred quote. This is not the first time this has happened. Because he is so persistent, aggressive, and negative, EC members have caved in to his point of view in the past. We are attempting to put together a strategy to deal with this impasse, and to head off continual repetition of this type of situation. Our managing agent believes the dissenting EC member has the numbers, though his petition is flawed. He believes we need to hold a general meeting, and that we cannot appoint the original preferred contractor. Is this correct? We are presently considering petitioning the OC separately.
-
Replies
-
Fight fire with fire. You are perfectly entitled to call a general meeting to sort this mess out once and for all, sending out material explaining why you have made the decision that you have and rejecting the rogue member’s case.
If this rogue member is a persistent nuisance, you could also have a item on the agenda to declare his position on the EC vacant (although that will require a 75 percent vote). However, if working with him is intolerable, you could make it clear that if you don’t get the support you require, you will all resign. Another way to do this is to declare all seats vacant (by the same vote) then offer a new team that has someone in the offender’s place.
One thing though, be careful what you say about this person in any literature you send out to owners … there is only limited ‘privilege’ in strata committee dealings and you could find yourself hit with a defamation suit if there’s even a whiff of malice.The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
JimmyT said:
One thing though, be careful what you say about this person in any literature you send out to owners … there is only limited 'privilege' in strata committee dealings and you could find yourself hit with a defamation suit if there's even a whiff of malice.
Last time I checked defamation suits cost squillions to bring on and how many people living in apartments are worth suing anyway? (Rhetorical question.)
My experience of strata living is anybody can say whatever they like about anybody else; lies, innuendo… in writing or slyly circulated rumours and gossip. Anything goes. It's not even worth spending a couple of thousand getting an expert defamation lawyer to write a threatening letter. Nothing will come of it except the lawyer will be two grand richer.
If only that were true. I know someone who was sued for sending out literature to owners asking for support in a CTTT case. The litigant was estimated to have spent $250K to $500K pursuing defamation. Even though they had EC insurance, it cost the defendants sleepless nights, time and energy and the insurers had to pay a proportion of the legal costs, even though they won. There are still people in the defendants' building who criticise them for defending themselves at the OC's “expense” because insurance premiums then went up.
So here's something to consider – say the even the right thing about the wrong person and you could be entering a world of pain.The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
JimmyT said:
Say the even the right thing about the wrong person and you could be entering a world of pain.
I wonder why the 'Owners Corporation' didn't just simply retract what they said and / or apologise? Or deny it was the larger OC's opinion, hanging the 'defendant' out to dry, leaving it as an unprofitable exercise for the lawyers (who are really the villains, let's face it).
And wouldn't resolutions at General Meetings have been required to expose the OC to these type of financial doings? Hard to fathom.
What an astounding and fascinating tale. Any chance of posting more about it?
I’d be risking ending up in court myself if I said too much. The options you suggest were not available for a number of reasons. That’s all I can say. I have written and rewritten this many times over but the people involved suffered two years of extreme stress – even though they did nothing wrong – and I really can’t say any more, as much as I’d love to tell their story. That’s the real weakness in defamation law in this country – being right is not enough. You have to be right and rich. Forget not being able to afford to lose, sometimes you can’t afford to win. And that’s why I was cautioning people to be careful of what they write about other owners.
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
I am living in a Strata Retirement Village where the Operator (also biggest owner) in effect ignores the RVA 1999 and Regulations from 1 Mar, 2010-except when it suits them. EG we have neither RV receipts nor RV expenditure (basically payments)! There is one set of accounts only which are done “under the S.S.M.A 1996”. This is against advice from OFT and the responsible NSW Minister the Hon. Anthony Roberts MP. A CTTT Hearing between myself and respondent is scheduled for Friday 10 Feb, 2012.
Sorry for this necessary introduction: I am talking real life. For 10 years now the E.C of the O.C. has been regarded to delegate all their duties and powers to the Strata Manager (at least during the 2.5 years i have been an owner/resident). Also the operator gives it’s 53 proxies (800 od UE) to the Chair, a clear indication that E.C. and operator are fully “trust each other.
As an owner/resident i am scorned by the members of the E.C because i write letters or ask questions (all very polite)! Faces are turned away and i (and others) feel we are not represented by those who claim to and should do so.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.