• Creator
    Topic
  • #9835

    I haven’t come across the situation we are facing, in, you guessed it, Qld.  We are new arrivals here from Sydney and have bought into a 25 townhouse, 8 year old development.

    Something very strange is going on and the woman who is the chairperson of the committee came up with the idea that she should be paid to do the ‘coordination of common property maintenance’ at a figure of $21,450 for her efforts. 

    This money is not to actually do any work, merely phone a tradesperson, organise quotes, present quotes to the committee etc. Hubby and I think something is very suspect about this, there are 7 people on the committee of whom 6 are overwhelmingly (to the point of being hostile to those of us against the motion) in favour of it. 

    It seems inconceivable that owners would jeopardise their investment as should the motion pass, our levies will go up to $5,300 – and that is for a complex with not a single solitary facility.  That is around $2,000-$3,000 more than comparable buildings within the area.  So levies are already high. 

    I got a letter from the main selling agent of this complex where he stated that this building is being increasingly difficult to ‘sell’ as for what we pay in levies most other buildings have a pool at the minimum for the same levies.  And this motion would put our already high levies up by 17%.

    When I sent this letter to the committee and the strata manager they dismissed it out of hand, saying ‘what would a real estate know about body corporates’. 

    Sorry this is getting long but one more issue that is really disturbing, I have phoned various government depts up here and have been told that basically the body corp can do what it wants to IF the majority of owners vote for the motion to pass.  The problem is that most of the 25 owners are off-site and let the committee vote for them by proxy.  As 6 out of 7 are gung ho pro this motion, it is quite likely it might pass. 

    The secretary of the body corp and the body corp manager have both told us (and presumably others who asked) that is ‘very common’ to have a paid person to organise maintenance and repairs – again, just to organise, not carry out any work. 

    I have asked both of them twice to support this assertion by telling us of some other buildings that indeed have such a person (the person the committee want to nominate is a part time shop assistant with no building background) but they have failed to come up with one comparable, notwithstanding their assertion that it is. 

    In your opinion, do we have a case against the secretary of the body corp and the strata manager for assuring us this is very commonplace when they can’t even come up with one or two buildings that pay someone $21K to make some phone calls and send some emails? 

    We have it in writing from the secretary of body corp so we can hold him to that but only spoken word from the strata manager.    Your input and advice would be fantastic.

Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #22831
    kiwipaul
    Flatchatter

      Basically if the motion is properly approved then it is legal. The motion has to be approved at an AGM and the person (chairperson) must specify in their nomination to be on the committee that they will be entitled to the said remuneration and a breakdown of the remuneration must be supplied to all owners prior to voting the chairperson onto the position.

      18 Requirements for nominations (for committee)

      (2) A nomination must contain each of the following details—

      (e) details of any payment to be made to, or to be sought by, the candidate from the body corporate for the candidate carrying out the duties of a committee member.

      This is from Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2008

      It’s available online for download

      and Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997

      It actually beggars belief that owners would actually vote to give away 21K to a person when you are already paying a SM to effectively do the same thing. You need to do a mail out to ALL owners telling them they are going to be ripped off if this goes through.

      #22832
      Sir Humphrey
      Strataguru

        I suggest you find an ally. There must be someone among 25 units. Together you can put a motion in opposition or at the least proof-read each others work after writing a statement in opposition to the motion. The strata manager should agree that a statement in opposition to the motion be included with the meeting papers along with (I would assume) the EC’s statement in support of the proposed budget that includes this particular expenditure item. 

        As an aside, I do sometimes wonder what I might get paid for all the times it has been easier to organise something myself (I am treasurer) rather than try to explain it all to our managing agent, even though I am generally happy with their service. I am sure our OC would not agree to spending that much on any EC member or the chair or all of us on the EC, and we have a much larger OC.  Some ECs, even with a manager, do a lot of unpaid work, and sometimes I think an honorarium might be nice, but $21K does seem excessive.

        #22833
        Sir Humphrey
        Strataguru

          And how did they arrive at such a specific number, $21,450? Do they show their working? Why not just a round $20K?

          #22834
          DaveB
          Flatchatter

            It would be worthwhile to do a little arithmetic when notifying the other unit owners how much this service is costing them individually.  If all unit entitlements were equal, it would be $858 per lot, quite a substantial sum.  

            The other aspect is whether this individual is declaring the income received in their tax return, a call or message to the ATO dob-in line may be in order.

            Regards

            DaveB

            #22835
            Sir Humphrey
            Strataguru

              @DaveB said:
              It would be worthwhile to do a little arithmetic when notifying the other unit owners how much this service is costing them individually.  If all unit entitlements were equal, it would be $858 per lot, quite a substantial sum…

              Even if the entitlements are not equal, it would be enough to note that the amount is ‘substantial, about $860 per unit on average’.

              #22836
              Jimmy-T
              Keymaster

                The average cost of a professional strata manager is $250 per unit per annum.  A professional strata manger will have some sort of training and professional indemnity insurance.  

                So for about four times what it would cost to get a professional to do the work, your owners are going to get an enthusiastic amateur with no training and no fall-back if they make a bad decision.

                Sounds very dubious but then we have forgotten the golden rule in Queensland – nothing must be allowed to prevent anyone from making money out of apartment owners.

                By the way –  and this may answer the question on how this person came to such a specific figure –  $21,450 a year is exactly $15 dollars per unit, per week for a year (plus GST).

                More evidence, if it were required, that the figure has been plucked out of the air and bears no relation to any work that may be done.

                And if you look at our thoughts HERE, maybe she’s already working on selling the idea on the basis of how little per week each owner has to pay.

                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.
                #22838

                Hi, thank you for your input. Kiwipaul, unfortunately this proposed motion is for her to be a ‘contractor’ so on her nomination ballot where is says payment sought it reads ‘nil’ as she is not seeking compensation to be a committee member, rather as maintenance co-ordinator. Yes you’re so right, it does beggar belief that the owners here seem to be accepting of what is so detrimental to the value of their property.  The committee however has done an excellent propaganda campaign that tells owners it will ‘only’ cost them $15.50 per week and is terribly necessary to have a so called maintenance co-ordinator who knows the complex etc.  I have emailed every single owner, can only hope common sense prevails. 

                #22839

                Hi PeterC, thanks for your answer.  Regarding the meeting papers, they have already gone out for AGM on 22 Jan, 2015.  I sent an email to all owners raising the subject and the person who the committee is backing (bar one committee member) has answered it by saying how vitally important it is that we have someone to carry out the role.  2 pages of defense. To me, this is conflict of interest and Im going to speak to a lawyer tomorrow.  Also, this will shock you.  The figure of $21,450 has been arrived at by a figure given to the secretary of the BC by Hays.  Hays places professional roles, technical roles, high level roles.  Not someone sitting at home making phone calls to tradesmen and sending emails to owners.  Again, I have to look into this tomorrow as soon as the business world is operating again.  The sec of BC sent us all a ‘job description’ which reads like it is a very complex role, two pages of tripe such as ‘must be an exceptional communicator with the ability to grasp key points’ etc. That type of thing.  The people in the complex who are against it are all utterly horrified, there will be votes against the motion for sure but what we fear is that as there are only 9 owners on-site (and 4 of them are on the committee that want the motion) some of the balance of owners may not even vote, some of them will give their proxy to the committee and some will vote for it, being cajoled into it by the committee saying it is a great thing and ‘only’ costs $15.50 per week per owner.  With rents of $450 and up, that is indeed a small figure but the ramifications are huge. 

                #22840

                Hi Dave, interesting thought, re tax.  Should it pass I will keep that in mind. Yes all 25 townhouses have the same entitlements, we all pay the same. Thank you.

                #22841
                Sir Humphrey
                Strataguru

                  Another thought occurs to me. Does the Qld legislation have an explicit Code of Conduct for executive committee members? If so, it might provide an angle. If not, you might be able to use words from the ACT Code of Conduct to express how an EC member ought to behave anywhere, regardless of whether the local Act spells it out. The following from the ACT Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 Schedule 1 seem relevant:

                  4. Acting in owners corporation’s best interests
                  An executive member must act in the best interests of the owners corporation in exercising the member’s functions as an executive member, unless it is unlawful to do so.

                  7. Unconscionable conduct
                  An executive member must not engage in unconscionable conduct in exercising the member’s functions as an executive member.

                  Examples

                  1) improperly using the executive member’s position on the executive committee to gain, directly or indirectly, an advantage personally or for someone else
                  2) exerting undue influence on, or using unfair tactics against, the owner of a unit in the units plan

                  8. Conflict of interest
                  An executive member must disclose to the executive committee any conflict of interest the member may have in a matter before the committee.

                   

                  Note, I don’t think it would always be bad to pay an EC member a modest honararium in appreciation of the time they put in to meeting trades people on site, making calls and preparing material for the consideration of members, but $21K is over the top. 

                  #22842
                  Whale
                  Flatchatter

                    …..or point to the relevant provisions of the NSW Legislation where Committee Members may only be paid retrospectively, that is for the services that they’ve provided in the previous year and which can be substantiated before a General Meeting.

                    #22843
                    DaveB
                    Flatchatter

                      Peter

                      Have just looked at the Queensland legislation entitled Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 and indeed there is a code of conduct for EC Members at Schedule 1A.  Similar provisions apply to the ACT legislation about members acting fairly, acting in  the best interests of the body corporate and disclosing any conflict of interest.  

                       

                      DaveB

                      #22854

                      Under the Regulation Modules in Queensland,  there is a ‘relevant limit for major spending’.  If the amount of money proposed to be spent by the body corporate is greater than the relevant limit,  the body corporate or the person proposing the motion must obtain at least 2 quotes (except in limited circumstances).  The default relevant limit is the lesser of $10,000 or $1,100 @ the number of lots.   The body corporate ma approve a higher limit by ordinary resolution at a general meeting.

                      So at your scheme the limit is $10k unless a higher limit has been adopted (because $1100 @ 24 > $10k).  This means that the motion to spend  $21k to appoint a maintenance coordinator should include at least 2 quotes.

                       

                      See the Standard Module section 152.

                      You can also contact the Queensland Body Corporate Commissioner’s office for free advice over the telephone. 

                      #22855
                      Sir Humphrey
                      Strataguru

                        @Queenslander said:
                        …This means that the motion to spend  $21k to appoint a maintenance coordinator should include at least 2 quotes….

                        Good one! Having to vote on a motion to not get a second quote for the services provided by the EC member might focus the minds of a few members!

                        #22913

                        thank you everyone, the AGM is tomorrow (22nd Jan), let’s hope common sense prevails. Will be back to say what happened. 

                      Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)
                      • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.