- This topic has 12 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Some years ago a SC member arranged for a contractor to sweep the common pathway in a small strata every month.
Once a month allegedly a person comes to sweep for which he is well paid for the very short time he is there. (As an aside, years ago my suggestion to have a resident do this and be paid was rejected).
A retired resident advises me that he has not seen the sweeper for three months.
I asked the managing agent about this and was told “well you do know it’s been wet in Sydney for a while, so I expect the sweeper did not attend”. Ok I thought. But I was curious. So a few days later I asked the agent to indicate whether the sweeper was paid in Jan and Feb. The agent advises “yes he was”.
My search through the records unearthed two invoices: one for “cleaning in Jan” and another for “cleaning in Feb”. No more particulars are listed on the invoices.
I asked the agent:
1. Pls advise what day in Jan did the cleaning take place? How much time did the job take?
2. Pls advise what day in Feb did the cleaning take place? How much time did the job take?
3. Who authorised the payments, presumably after inspecting the work and being satisfied?
The agent has not replied.
Can the agent (who routinely passes emails to the SC) and SC ignore my questions?
Can invoices be paid without having been approved by anyone?
Can invoices be so meaningless as to raise the possibility that the OC is being fleeced?
-
Replies
-
TruEConcerned asked,
- Can the agent (who routinely passes emails to the SC) and SC ignore my questions?
- Can invoices be paid without having been approved by anyone?
- Can invoices be so meaningless as to raise the possibility that the OC is being fleeced?
Unless enough owners are willing to demand better the agent can do all those things even if they aren’t aren’t authorised or legal. Everything maybe above board or it may be as dodgy as hell. My view is that this, like most issues regarding common property, is one that must be transparent to all owners.
I have experienced such issues often. The only way to properly address this issue is to get enough other owners on side. Approach them point out how much the owners are paying and how little they really know about what value they are getting for that money. Put a resolution either at the AGM or otherwise.
Can the agent (who routinely passes emails to the SC) and SC ignore my questions?
The agent doesn’t work for you, they work for the owners corporation (of which you are part). It may be that there are instructions to or a tacit agreement with the Strata Manager not to engage directly with owners. If that’s the case and you want it changed, propose it at as a motion at your next AGM and see if it flies as Owners Corp policy. By the way, one of the reasons strata managers are discourged from dealing directly with individual owners (except, perhaps, in emergencies) is that each contact can cost money in Schedule B charges.
Can invoices be paid without having been approved by anyone?
Again this depends on the agreed relationship with the strata manager. Some schemes demand that a Strata Committee office-bearer co-signs all invoices. Some leave it up entirely to the strata manager. Again, this is a policy that can be changed by a simple motion to the next AGM.
Can invoices be so meaningless as to raise the possibility that the OC is being fleeced?
That can happen in any walk of life, can’t it? Again, it’s up to the strata committee and owners corp to determine the level of diligence required. If you want to change it, propose a standard format for all invoices that service providers have to use, and have that passed at a general meeting.
If you suspect serious fraud, that’s another matter entirely and should be pursued through Fair Trading and NCAT in the first instance, and the police therafter.
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.
The agent (relatively new) does engage with owners outside of the SC. Compared to many agents I ahve dealt with, this one is good.
Like all other agents I have dealt with, he will not reply to an email until he receives chapter and verse from the SC, in this case the Sec/Tsr.
These statements above appear to be completely contradictory.
I have no idea of the current policy [on payment approvals] which as I recall was never articulated by anyone at an AGM. So what you’re saying is that to ensure compliance with transparency, I should list a motion at the AGM accordingly?
Or you could just ask the committee, or propose a motion to the next committee meeting that someone explains how payments are approved.
Can I ask the SC if any member (there are two) has direct or indirect links or associations with the cleaning company, its owner(s) or staff? A link was never disclosed to the OC.
You can ask and, if there are, it should have been disclosed under Part 18 of Schedule 2, of the Act and recorded in a book kept specifically for that purpose. Failure to disclose can lead to fines of up to $1100 but doesn’t render any decisions invalid.
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.
The agent (relatively new) does engage with owners outside of the SC.
AND
… he will not reply to an email until he receives chapter and verse from the SC.
These statement seem to be contradictory. Also your quoting and requoting and referencing yourself in the third person is confusing. Keep it simple, please, but let us know how you get on with your various approaches to the strata committee.
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.
Out of interest, have you obtained any independant quotes on what it would cost to have the area cleaned once per month? How does this compare to the current costs?
From a contractors point of view, they would be charging for the travel time to/from your property, as well as transport costs (eg vehicle costs, etc), employee time, and equipment costs (even if that is a simple broom and dust pan). Sure, it is always cheaper to do it yourself, and every job always looks easier when someone else is doing it. My suggestion, get three quotes, and then present those at the next SC meeting or AGM. Even older people will be able to decide if they want to pay a higher/lower price for the same job to be done.
Finally, perhaps you should also ask about the original agreement to provide services. Maybe it was to have the cleaning done on the xth day of each month for a fixed monthly fee. When there is inclement weather on the nth day, then obviously services can’t be performed, but it is quite possible that the agreement still permits charges to apply. Again, this might be something that could be re-negotiated if you feel the OC would be better served with a more flexible service (ie, provided any day within a week after the xth day where the weather permits), potentially at a higher cost.
When looking at alternative suppliers, ensure you are quoting for the same thing.
PS, have you tried talking to the actual worker when they show up to do the cleaning? If you approach them in a friendly manner, introduce yourself as a new owner, and being curious as to what they do, how often, etc, you could get a lot more information than beating your head against the SC wall. Although, the SC may have already pre-warned the contractor about you if you have already been raising questions, so that may not go so far now.
Best of luck, I think this is probably going to be just the first of many battles ahead of you 😉
…I recall the Tsr/Sec year ago poo-pooing my idea for a resident to spend the 45 mins or so sweeping because he did not want the OC to be liable in case of injury to the resident….Our strata insurance policy includes cover for volunteers working on things on common property. It might not be as much of a liability exposure as was feared.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.