• This topic has 5 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 4 weeks ago by .
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #48306
    AvatarCM
    Flatchatter

    We authorised an investigation into some defects in our building and on the basis of the report and recommendation, our strata manager requested some plumbers to attend and do further investigation and tests. This was before the EC had been sent the report. We’ve now been invoiced for the plumbers’ fee which we’ve disputed as we didn’t raise the work order. Do we have a basis to request the strata manager cover the fee and if so, what would be the best way to approach it?

    #48467
    AvatarLKY
    Flatchatter

    You are lucky. At least there is a work order, possibly work done and the invoice submitted for approval.

    In our case when building defects work was going on, the SM paid a company owned by Strata Secretary ( as evident from the invoice ) a number of payments for TIME SPENT by Strata Secretary with lawyers / contractors without obtaining ANY approval from  STRATA COMMITTEE Chairman & Treasurer or the AGM as stipulated under Section 25 of 1996 Strata Management Act.

    And we couldn’t get any relief either at NSW FT or  at NCAT. NCAT judge wanted us to engage a lawyer before I can even speak and no Strata lawyer was prepared to represent us because of conflict of interest.

    I suggested to NSW Minister Matt Kean ( when he was looking after Strata ) to put a ceiling on number of large strata a SMA can manage.

    He said it will be taken up at next review. Otherwise, we will have an oligopoly and no remedy for ANY grievance against SM.

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by .
    #48747
    AvatarLogicprObe
    Flatchatter

     

    You authorised them to investigate and they have engaged people they thought could help.

    I can’t see where the problem is.

    #48753
    Jimmy-TJimmy-T
    Keymaster

    I think the issue seems to be that the secretary appears to have been paid, through his company, for work done as secretary, which can only be done retrospectively via a motion at the AGM.

    The conflict of interest in hiring someone who might be the best person for the job but who also happens to be secretary should have been addressed at a strata committee meeting and minuted in the interests of transparency.

    I have a feeling this looks a lot dodgier than it may actually be.

    #48760
    AvatarLogicprObe
    Flatchatter

     

    Oh, I was addressing the O/P, not post #2………………yes, that does look dodgy.

    #48763
    scotlandxscotlandx
    Strataguru

    #2 is really dodgy.

    I don’t see an issue with #1, and no, you would have almost no chance of disputing it.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.