giri

thank you so much JimmyT

it is a big relief to know what’s what

regards

giri

JimmyT said

and the intent of the  “cut and paste” items may be clear, despite the errors .

thanks JimmyT.

am i right in thinking you’re saying that if the intent of the cut and paste is clear, it can be fixed at the meeting?

regards

@rthorburn said:
Hi giri,

Thanks for the clarifications.  My suggestions are as follows.

The key issue to a achieving a speedy rectification of the problem is the confirmation that the leaks are a result of defective common property.  If the two professional reports state this

the reports say leaks are due to defective waterproofing and drainage in bathroom and laundry, and they need to be pulled out and re-installed to current standards. They don’t comment on whose responsibility.

and the EC has earlier acknowledges this

they haven’t as such, but they did instruct me to get 3 quotes based onto do the work stated in the 2 thorough reports, and bring the quotes back to EC for next step. 

EC’s do have an obligation to be absolutely confident in their assessment when authorising expenditure of OC money but at the same time have an obligation to address the matter promptly. 

So far, the tenant has had about 10 lots of people already going through in a short period about this (including to fix things left unfinished by the Strata investigators). It was 4 months ago that the investigations already done were carried out, 2 months ago I went to ECM and told to get quotes. Now Strata want to go back to square 1 getting another – a  4th – investigation. 

There is no problem speaking directly with EC member if they are agreeable, however ensure you follow-up in writing to the OC.  Do not pursue EC members individually unless they have been formally nominated to represent the EC on this matter.

I’m not sure what you mean by that. Aren’t all Exec in that position since they pass the motions about works. 

If the EC wants to do another report, do not simply allow them to without them giving a satisfactory reason for needing to. 

Is the following a satisfactory reason given they commissioned the first 2 investigations, one of which was thorough and the findings of my 3rd investiogation confirmed the findings of thier thorough investigation?  their stated reason is

7. noted your view regarding a fourth assessment and make the following additional comments

 a. the forth assessment is deemed necessary for the purpose of the owners corporation seeking independent EXPERT ADVICE for and on behalf of the owners corporation. We note that the expert advice received to date was obtained by you and on your behalf and not for the owners corporation. It is further noted that whilst the owners corporation have arranged two assessments  to date neither of these assessments have been conducted by an expert . There is no limit on assessments that an owners corporation can arrange for any one matter, they should not be denied of the opportunity to assess/conduct thorough inspections and investigative works   relating to al common property works nor should they be limited on the number of inspections required to properly arrive to a resolution that allows each party to fulfil their obligation in particular the owners corporations obligation under section 62 of the Strata Schemes Management 1996.

I think the actual reason is to get a cheaper option. maybe a trial and error type approach. Because of the cost. I want it fixed once and fixed properly.  

If the report turns out to be unfavourable, you might need to enlist the help from the previous building consultants to comment. 

This is what I’m concerned about. It will lead us down a complex costly and dangerous path. Do we get another comment/report? and another til we get agreement in 3 out of 5? or 4 out of 6? and anyway, they’ll stick to their report won’t they?   

As a mean of exerting some gentle pressure to progress the matter, I suggest you write immediately (ahead of any further reports) to the OC (in a polite but firm tone) on the basis of the two professional reports confirming a common property defect and include the following:

• State the basis for it being OC’s responsibility, the time taken to date, the disruption is has caused and the costs you have incurred;
• State also that there is potential for further losses if feel that could be the case;
• State that you require the problem be rectified ASAP
• Request a program for the work and the other critical activities dates including quotes received, EC approval, start on site, key disruptions and completion date.
• Ask them to indicate the likely impacts on the tenant so that you can start making arrangements to minimise disruption and any rent adjustment negotiations.

Thanks, that’s lovely and clear. I can try that again – I suspect 

I’ll get the same answer siince Strata has already stated the above in reply to my email (not consenting to a 4th investigation on the basis of having two professional reports confirming a common property defect 3 months ago, authorisation from ECM to go ahead and get 3 quotes for the work recommended in those reports, and my doing  that). 
 

PS how did the ‘band-aid’ work turn out.  Did the leaks stop?

the bandaid has worked for the time being thank heavens as the tenant has been extremely unhappy and a substantial retrospective rent reduction was agreed. So things have calmed down on that front for the time being. I really don’t want it all messd up again with bitsy solutions. and revisiting it all over and again. 

thank you so much Rob T for your time and help

@JimmyT said:
I was working on the basis that there was another motion coming up aty your AGM to seek further quotes.  If that isn’t the case, then, yes, propose a new motion for the AGM that the Owners Corp accepts one of the two quotes and proceeds with the work ASAP.

When you speak to the motion at the meeting explain that any decision to delay the work any further will result in you talking the Owner Corp to the CTTT to have an order issued  forcing them to do the work.

thanks JimmyT. sorry to take up so much of your time. I really appreciate it.

 i haven’t even gotten to the accepting a quote stage. We are now stuck at accepting the investigation reports. what they want to do now 3 months later is get another investigation of the problem (not another quote). this would be the 4th investigation in all and the 3rd by them (to date, they had the first 2 and i had a 3rd done which confirmed the findings of their 1st and most thorough report). They say they have the right to get another investigation (and indeed as many more as they want) even though they have already had 2 done because this latest would be by ‘their expert’ .  I’ve included some of their argument below. my query – 1. would the CTTT agree and thinkit is reasonable for them to now bring in ‘their expert’ ? 2. How expensive is the CTTT likely to be (ball park figure if that’s at all possible)

some of the response fr strata manager is below

‘noted your view regarding a fourth assessment and make the following additional comments

 a. the forth assessment is deemed necessary for the purpose of the owners corporation seeking independent EXPERT ADVICE for and on behalf of the owners corporation. We note that the expert advice received to date was obtained by you and on your behalf and not for the owners corporation. It is further noted that whilst the owners corporation have arranged two assessments  to date neither of these assessments have been conducted by an expert . There is no limit on assessments that an owners corporation can arrange for any one matter, they should not be denied of the opportunity to assess/conduct thorough inspections and investigative works   relating to al common property works nor should they be limited on the number of inspections required to properly arrive to a resolution that allows each party to fulfil their obligation in particular the owners corporations obligation under section 62 of the Strata Schemes Management 1996.

9. there  is no limit on the number of assessments the owners corporation can be restricted to obtaining, nor is it in our view unreasonable  that a expert inspection be conducted for the owners corporation. The complicity of the issue has resulted in the need of further assessments. Obtaining a expert opinion on behalf of the owners corporation is intended for the purpose of verifying the recommended repairs and ensuring the repairs are not a betterment in any way. This is not unusual for each party to engage an expert to provide assistance in determining the correct scope of works which each party are obligated to carry out  

 10. the quotations you obtained will still be considered as agreed at the committee meeting held on … , it was the intention of having (…) inspect prior to the next meeting so that they can also comment on the scope of works set out in the quotations you have obtained, with the focus being on the correct scope of works agreed upon to properly address the issue

In conclusion you are advised that

11. Should you deny the owners corporation access to further inspections this would cause delay in considering the repairs in question/relating to your lot

12. potentially causing additional cost for the owners corporation should (…) not be able to inspect your unit at the same time as others and resulting in a separate inspection.

@JimmyT said:

@giri said:

2. previous input by jimmyT advised that if motion was voted on at EC meeting, I couldn’t put an amendment to it at the AGM. 

No, you have misunderstood my response and I think that’s because you misunderstand the use of the word ‘amendment’ which has quite a specific meaning when it comes to meetings.

You can put forward a new motion that countermands a previous decision of the EC – that’s not an amendment, it’s a new motion.  This is a valid process because Owners Corp (AGM) decisions are superior to EC decisions.

FYI:  An amendment, in the context of a meeting,  is a change proposed to a motion before or while it is being discussed.  You can’t amend a decision that has been made – but you can propose a motion to make a new decision that differs from the previous one.

By the way, I think all the jiggery-pokery over how many quotes to get and from whom misses the point.  The Owners Corp has an absolute responsibility to fix common property.  If they do it cheaply or badly, they have to do it again properly.  Quick non-fixes by an incompetent tradesman are just throwing good money after bad and this should be forcibly pointed out at the meeting where this is being discussed.

If I were you I would propose an amendment to the motion you have mentioned that simply says the Owners Corp accepts the two assessment that have been given and gets on with repairing the problem.

Thanks very much JimmyT. Yes i agree, i wish you were on the OC. what you say sounds right and  sensible. I think the problem is they are trying to get out of it cheaply even if that’s a short term solution.

I will try what you suggest – it makes sense, i can only hope they can see the sense of it too. And if not?