How to effectively complain against an unresponsive strata manager?

I also have the same problem. The Strata manager always tried to defer the matters or diverse your or other members attention to other issues.

I wanted to have a system for us to log a complaint against this Strata company or even blacklist these company on the website.

Even worst, they spend the money without the proof of invoice. I have a thought to log a complaint to ICAC or taxation office.

If it is allowed, I would like to mentioned the Strata company in this forum.

JimmyT said:

If your strata manager isn't in ISTM, that's a very good reason to get rid of them.

I don't know how much help Fair Trading will be with someone who is just ineffective rather than professionally incompetent.

 

Jimmy is absolutely right, if your agent is not a Member of the ISTM then seriously look for one who is. The ISTM have standards and if Members can't cut it then they might find they are not Members for too long.

Agents have poor reputation with some Members at CTTT and one goal of the ISTM is to bring confidence to the consumer in the product (i.e. the agent).

Fair Trading are not much help. There are numerous cases where agents are not very good (to put it politely) and Fair Trading are very reluctant to revoke a license unless there is something seriously negligent or corrupt going on. Even CTTT has many cases of where OC's try to change agents but Members decline to make orders even though the agents compliance level is not much better than a bunch of volunteers operating a non-compliance culture to keep the levy low.

In the cases above, rchin77 and explorer, the owners need to look at the scope of the agents appointment and remember that the agent is generally subordinate to the EC who are subordinate to the OC at a General Meeting. Often owners feel because there is an agent he/she is the king-pin, this is rarely the case.

If you want something done then it will generally need EC approval or OC approval at a General Meeting depending on the detail.

The agent just gets the instructions from the EC or OC; the agent rarely call the shots. If the EC or OC is being unreasonable in withholding an approval or neglecting a duty then there is the dispute resolution mechanism in the Act.

Do not forget who controls the Owners Corporation; it is the owners, not the agent. If you have an EC then that is where most approvals come from otherwise take motions to a General Meeting if the matters are restricted to such meetings. Permission from the agent is often not needed; always check the management agreement and see what duties the agent has been given.

RichardPhillipps said:

…….  If a strata manager’s failings are such that the management of the strata scheme is not functioning satisfactorily, then there is a procedure whereby you can apply to have a managing agent appointed by an adjudicator: see s162 of the strata schemes management act………..

It isn't as simple as being dysfunctional it must be SERIOUSLY DYSFUNCTIONAL.

Mortlock and Anor v Owners of Strata Plan No 55434  [2006] NSWSC 363 (3 May 2006)
“the tribunal must makes its determination based on objective considerations and there must be objective evidence that the management of the owners corporation is seriously dysfunctional (emphasis added) before the tribunal would be disposed to make such an order under section 162.” JUDGMENT OF: Associate Justice Harrison

The curious part of the Judge’s comment is that what constitutes seriously dysfunctional is never stated.

There is always inconsistent statements from CTTT such as:
“I consider the phrase “functioning satisfactorily” refers to the achievement of the scheme in meeting the requirements laid out in the relevant legislation. This does not have to be perfect although the management must strive to meet all legislative requirements – but that does not mean perfection.“
G Meadows Member CTTT  Burgess & Ors v Community Association of DP 270065 (Strata & Community Schemes) [2011] NSWCTTT 96 (16 March 2011)

From my experience the Treasurer needs to be sitting on a beach in Spain drinking cocktails after eloping with the Secretary before CTTT feel something is sufficiently wrong to use s162.
Seriously, it is not until the financial position of the Strata Plan (SP) is being seriously compromised OR the Owners Corporation (OC) is seriously neglecting its maintenance and repair obligations that CTTT consider s162. Apart from those two areas s162 applications rarely seem to succeed.

An OC can neglect so much of the Strata Act it is not funny; the idea an OC must strive to meet all its legislative requirements is rubbish. CTTT are not the strata police; there is no strata police and so an OC can essentially disregard all but the most critical aspects of the Strata Act before CTTT will take the management of the OC out of the hands of owners.

One reason why is;
The legislation has always envisaged that generally, strata schemes would be managed by ordinary lot owners for their own benefit.
J Bordon: Nulama Village P/L v Owners Strata Plan 61788 (Strata & Community Schemes) [2006] NSWCTTT 550 (25 September 2006)

The above case seems to be a principle etched in the minds of CTTT Members and the idea of taking the management of the OC out of the hands of owners, for up to 12 months, seems to be considered an extreme and radical step.

I do not subscribe to the theory that removing the owners from the management for such a short period of time is such an extreme step. Section 162 was included in the Act for a reason and I contend a part of that reason was that s162 was to be used as a corrective tool when the owners became “free spirits”.

 “The Owners Corporation is not a “free spirit” to do anything that comes into the collective heads of the lot owners. ….
J Smith Senior Member CTTT Lawson & Clarke v Owners Corporation SP 61788 (Strata & Community Schemes) [2011] NSWCTTT 270 (27 June 2011)

Section 162 applications are a messy business; you need objective evidence of “seriously dysfunctional” – whatever that is. The burden of proof can be difficult to meet.

Before embarking on a s162 application you really need to weigh up the chances of success. A lot more s162 applications fail than succeed.

If things are bad to demand change but not bad enough to convince the CTTT, I think you have to give due consideration to the option of mounting a 'coup' by acquiring enough votes to clear the incumbents out. 

I know from personal experience that that's not as easy as it sounds but it's far from impossible.

First get a hold of the list of addresses for all owners.

Then write to them about how you think the value of their property is being eroded by bad management. For instance, get comments from local real estate agents of how much more apartments would be worth if x, y and z were done.

Then tell the other owners how you think their money is being wasted. Point to obvious 'holes' in the accounts and contracts that cost more than they should.  Again, back it up with quotes.

Then tell them what you and your cohorts plan to do about it.

Once you have the numbers, either call an EGM or wait for the next AGM, reduce or increase the size of the Executive Committee to the numbers that will work best for you, propose your “slate” as a group and if you've got your numbers right, take over.

Then work your backsides off to show that people were right to have faith in you.

But what you don't do is:

• Attack the incumbents personally – your legal 'privilege' of fair comment is wiped out if the other side can prove malice.
• Appeal to other owners' sense of fair play – that's a lot less compelling than the financial arguments
• Demand change on principle.  It won't wash. Investor owners, especially are only interested in making money and not losing it.  They aren't interested in politics.

So even if the real problem is that you are dealing with self-interested bullies,  the argument always has to be financial.  To people who don't live in the building, everything else is just hot air.

Oh, and one last thing, be careful what you wish for.