• Creator
    Topic
  • #54378
    TrulEConcerned
    Flatchatter

      Hello, at a recent AGM, two owners (of whom I am one) complained about the absence of details in financial statements offered in the agenda by the managing agent.

      The two of us were assured that if we want more details eg a listing of payments made by the strata and lot owners’ levy ledgers, all we need do is ask and the agent shall email it to us immediately, “as it’s easily available, captured by the software used”.

      The two of us accepted that.

      However it is now 2 days since the Chairman confirmed my emailed request for specific details to be sent to me. He stated that he and the agent need to discuss my email with the rest of the SC. No time frame was mentioned.

      My questions are:

      1. What exactly is there for the SC and agent to discuss? Can the SC deny my request? If so, on what grounds?

      2. Can the SC trot out the same lame excuse they trotted out in the past, being: “that sharing lot owners’ individual ledgers with all owners is a breach of lot owners’ privacy”. Note, back in the day NSW Fair Trading told me that is a load of baloney (not to mention a breach of the NSW SSMA) and when I told the EC (as it was) that if the details are not sent to me pronto I will take the matter to NCAT where they can explain to the Member exactly on what grounds the Treasurer and Chairman are denying me the information, they sent me the details post haste.

      Please advise what sections of the Act I need to quote in my application to NCAT, if the super secretive SC remains unwilling to share financial information with those not sitting on the SC.

      Thank you.

       

    Viewing 15 replies - 16 through 30 (of 39 total)
    • Author
      Replies
    • #54633
      TrulEConcerned
      Flatchatter
      Chat-starter

        Good evening,
        You may recall that I was shocked as were Jimmy and Scotlandx that a SC member of my block is having the OC pick up the tab for his “strata education” subscription.
        After asking for access to ALL of the strata’s documents, the agent granted me access to invoices via an electronic portal, which doesn’t work properly. I can only view some but not all invoices.
        I made one discovery so far. I found that the “strata education” is in fact a subscription to something called Your Strata Property. I say “I discovery” because Mr Secretary submitted an invoice that looks like a neatly typed shopping list and included two line items for Your Strata Property: $400 and $58. He did not (as far as I can see, note the portal is problematic) include a copy of the actual invoices or receipts from the publisher he would have received upon paying his subscription dues with our funds.
        The $458 was included as part of an invoice whose bottom line mentions: “All items are cost recovery total of $911” , that Mr Secretary passed to the agent (for payment to himself) after having the Chair note by hand on the invoice that she “approves payment”. I was not made aware nor can I find records of any agendas for and minutes of meetings that took place to discuss and approve this payment.

        Cunningly Mr Secretary does not list payment for his time, but only for 62 trips via the bridge (@$3 each) for which he billed $186 (he states to attend to strata repairs) as well as purchases of paint, lights, gloves etc, items whose original invoices which were never sighted by the OC nor is there any way of knowing how much of what was bought ended up in Mr Secretary’s possession for personal use.

        Interestingly, regarding the $458 subscription, on the website he signed up to, I found the following Q & A:

        Q. Can I ask my strata building to pay for my membership?
        A. It doesn’t hurt to try!
        If you are a committee member in a NSW strata or community scheme, you may be entitled to an “honorarium” – a small annual payment for your services as a committee member. Some YSP members who are also committee members ensure that the cost of their YSP membership is covered by their honorarium. If you’d like to find out more about how to claim an honorarium as a committee member….

        Q. Can my building join, or is membership only for individuals?

        A. We are currently only offering individual memberships. If your building is interested in a ‘building wide’ membership, please let us know via support@yourstrataproperty.com.au and, subject to the level of interest, we will consider offering YSP memberships to buildings…..

        As these expenses (of $458) were never discussed or approved by the OC; the fruits of the membership (papers, discussions and phone calls) were never shared with the OC; as no honorarium was ever discussed or approved by the OC; as the provider herself makes clear: the service is “for individuals”, am I correct to conclude that Mr Secretary is brazenly breaching the SSMA and enriching himself?

        I look forward to your guidance.

         

        #54638
        Jimmy-T
        Keymaster

          I can’t see how a subscription to YourStrata Property is enriching himself.  It’s a legitimate web resource run by a highly qualified and experienced strata lawyer.  Why would he need it for anything else than to better understand the workings of the strata committee on which he serves?  And why would it be somehow inappropriate for them to advise him that he could claim the expense, even as an honorarium.

          As for the travel expenses, these are very small potatoes and may well be completely legitimate.  This sounds like poor reporting of expenses, at worst.  I don’t see anything terribly wrong here, apart from that.

          My dismay at the initial report was that it suggested there was no actual training or education taking place.  But why else would he subscribe to Yourstrataproperty.com?  It’s not an entertainment website.

           

          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.
          #54656
          TrulEConcerned
          Flatchatter
          Chat-starter

            Jimmy I don’t dispute that the site in question is legitimate.

            I dispute that this strata plan receives a scintilla of benefit from this expense which was paid for by the OC. Of course I can’t speak for other strata plans Mr Secretary may be involved with.

            The facts are:

            1. s. 46 of the SSMA (as Scotlandx indicated) requires payment to a SC member be approved retrospectively by the OC.

            s.46 Payment of officers of owners corporation
            An owners corporation may pay to a person who is an officer of the owners corporation or another member of the strata committee of the owners corporation an amount determined by the owners corporation at an annual general meeting in recognition of services performed by the person for the owners corporation in the period since the last annual general meeting.

            This failed to occur.

            One does not need a Winston Terracini or a Chris Murphy to argue that paying a person’s subscription is synonymous with paying him directly and that payment without the OC’s approval – let alone discussion – is a breach.

            2. Mr Secretary has no practical role at this agent-managed strata. The agent was delegated all the functions of the SC. The SC don’t accept emails and at the last AGM they RESOLVED that they do not to have to respond to emails (and they listed their subjective reasons for that).

            The SC are so uninvolved that they don’t even hold meetings where they could share the wisdom he gleans from the subscription. That’s not entirely true, they do hold a single 5 min SC meeting: being the one tagged on to the AGM, where he and another vote himself as Sec/Tsr while the other member is voted in as Chairman; and

            3. As to his alleged 62 visits to the strata plan to make repairs (again without quotes and without reports as to what, why and how), I will see if the portal I was offered to look into has documents that can shed light on these alleged visits and associated spending.

             

            Regarding inspection of records, if the portal I was given access to again malfunctions, as it did today, am I within my rights to insist on access to the original documents: invoices, emails, contracts etc in the agent’s possession?

            Thanks again.

             

             

             

            #54658
            kaindub
            Flatchatter

              One question comes to my mind Truleconcerned.

              If you are in a block of 5, why are you not on the committee? its unlikely that if you  nominated that you would not get a seat. You then have front row access to all correspondence between the strata manager and the committee.

              Whilst its not  strictly to the letter of the law, smaller strata schemes tend to be less formal with decision making. With fewer owners communication channels are far less complicated and its often more expedient to do business by email.  The level of expenditure for a small strata is low so financial decisions are of low impact.

              To me you seem to be on some  crusade which for the small amount of expenditure is out of proportion with the effort your putting in.

              Why not just wipe the past, get more involved  with the committee and see what you can do to help. Its hard to change the past, especially in “small” matters like this. The committee and the strata manager will find more excuses to justify their decision. Your only hope then is a visit to NCAT and in the the scheme of things your issue is small bickies to NCAT.

              The last thing you want, especially in a small strata is to be labelled as that troublemaker.

              Perhaps this is not the advice you want to hear, but I am a pragmatic guy and believe in directing energy towards the big issues.

               

              #54664
              TrulEConcerned
              Flatchatter
              Chat-starter

                Hi Kaindub,

                You ask:

                If you are in a block of 5, why are you not on the committee? its unlikely that if you  nominated that you would not get a seat. You then have front row access to all correspondence between the strata manager and the committee.

                I was on the committee as was everyone years ago, when it was self managed. One day I proved that Mr Secretary/Treasurer mixed his funds with the OC’s funds and that he behaved in a questionable manner. For instance, he used OC funds to buy a stove for another lot, claiming stoves were the responsibility of the OC. In fact the Chairman (who still is Chairman) also smelled something fishy and had a colleague inspect the books which proved me right and then it was decided unanimously that we hire a managing agent.

                I  remained on the committee for a short while as was everyone else, with a managing agent in place. We met at times as the SC and at times as the OC, after all 5 lots, 5 votes all attending meetings.

                But I was impeded in rejoining the committee after I disagreed with Mr Secretary/Treasurer with his move to allow one lot to have two people (being two votes) on each committee ie on the SC and OC. I made clear that on the OC if a lot owner wants two representatives, then they can have half a vote each, not one vote each. Mr Secretary/Treasurer has decades of strata experience and knew his motion was wrong in law when he made it yet he persisted, thinking I can be intimidated like others. When I pointed out that I will ask the CTTT (at the time) to rule on this motion if it is carried, he withdrew it.
                When I tried again to join the committee, Mr Secretary/Treasurer threatened others in the block that he could not work with me and would not sit on a committee if I was elected. When you consider he was talking to one owner, a senior with memory issues and another owner, also a senior who like many seniors is easily influenced by domineering personalities, both elderly folk folded like a pack of cards.

                Given my experience, which I am sure is not unique, perhaps a useful reform of SSMA is to consider all owners of small schemes automatically as members of the SC unless they themselves choose to opt out of the SC. That should improve situations like I have experienced, by ensuring I am on the SC if I want to be and those not wanting to be on the SC, can choose not to be. I think it imperative when, as in my case, the same person with a questionable history has held virtually the same position on the SC for nearly thirty years.

                #54673
                Jimmy-T
                Keymaster

                  I was going to say that the real problem here is a lack of transparency and accountability, rather than dishonesty, and while that may be the case, it’s becoming apparent that there’s a clash of personalities at the heart of this.

                  I sympathise.  I found myself in a similar situation in the past, at loggerheads with a chair who said that he’d quit if I was ever elected to the committee.  I wasted a lot of time and energy bashing my head off that brick wall but eventually decided that I could get my opinions across by other means, via more sympathetic voices.

                  They say it’s better to die on your feet than live on your knees – but then living on your feet trumps them both.  The sense of relief when you decide to stop fighting unwinnable battles and not take the bait when it’s dangled before you is immense.

                   

                  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.
                  #54683
                  kaindub
                  Flatchatter

                    May be a final comment from me.

                    You can’t in normal  circumstances be “unvoted” from a committee

                    The act says the maximum number of  committee members is 9. In a block of 5 if all lots nominate one person every nominee will be on the committee,  unless a motion is passed to limit the numbers of committee members. But then a vote needs to be taken to elect members from the nominations.

                    I agree that Jimmy’s last advice is pretty correct.

                     

                     

                    #54685
                    Jimmy-T
                    Keymaster

                      In a block of 5 if all lots nominate one person every nominee will be on the committee, unless a motion is passed to limit the numbers of committee members.

                      Just to clarify, under the Regulations, the process is that the chair announces the nominations made in writing and calls for nominations.  Then they must take a vote on the number of people required on the committee.  If the nominations exceed the number of seats, an election takes place.

                      So it’s nominations first, size of committee next, then a poll if necessary to choose the members.

                      This is a tried and tested way of a tightly held committee restricting its membership, especially in a small scheme.  In this case, it is possible that three owners could nominate themselves, vote to have only three seats on the committee and then elect themselves to those seats.

                      I like the idea that in small schemes all owners should be on the committee by default, but how small when the Act allows a maximum size of nine?

                      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.
                      #54687
                      TrulEConcerned
                      Flatchatter
                      Chat-starter

                        Hi Kaindub,

                        Thanks for yr insight. I may have been unclear.
                        At the AGM that from memory immediately followed my objection to Mr Secretary’s move to allow one lot owner to have two representatives on the OC, with a vote each, Mr Secretary/Tsr  made clear to the OC that he would not sit on the SC if I am voted on. He convinced two seniors in the block of five that they would be “fortunate to have him with his experience as a solicitor on the SC”. The inference being it’s him or it’s me. Not both. Never mind that I was Tsr of a block of over 60 units for nearly a decade (with a committee of between 5 and 7) and after some years decided not to re-contest as I had other matters in my life to deal with.

                        Naturally he had the lot he was batting for (who wanted 2 seats) in his pocket, so with his vote and the two seniors:  the vote was 4:1.
                        Oddly, from that AGM onwards I recall he always asks me before the meeting takes place if I have a recording device with me. Once I brought a friend to the meeting and Mr Secretary grilled my friend with the same question, in addition to inspecting my friend’s very large key ring for possibly a minute recording device.

                        As to your point on numbers on the SC: Mr Secretary begins discussion at the AGM on the topic asking who wants to be on the SC. At the 11/2020 AGM three hands went up via a ZOOM meeting – Mr Secretary, Madam Chair and me. He then asks “how many people should we have on the SC” and volunteers “2” and we vote on that number. 4 support a 2 member SC. I object and ask for 3 members on the SC. We vote and I alone support 3 members.  We then vote on which 2 of the 3 nominees will go on to the SC. Naturally I alone voted for myself.

                        I found it quite disturbing that while all 5 owners were to independently join the AGM via ZOOM, presumably from their own abodes, Mr Secretary arranged to have the 2 seniors sit with him at the meeting, held in the home of one senior. The seniors seemed overly compliant with Mr Secretary.

                         

                        #54694
                        Jimmy-T
                        Keymaster

                          At the AGM that from memory immediately followed my objection to Mr Secretary’s move to allow one lot owner to have two representatives on the OC, with a vote each …

                          On what basis is this being allowed?  The only way that is permissable would be if the owner concerned owned two properties.  Is that the case? Co-owners of the same lot cannot be on the committee at the same time.

                          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.
                          #54705
                          TrulEConcerned
                          Flatchatter
                          Chat-starter

                            Jimmy, the folk Mr Secretary wanted to put on the committee own one lot jointly. Your point “Co-owners of the same lot cannot be on the committee at the same time “ is correct. Mr Secretary, a lawyer of 30 years plus standing with a deep interest in strata affairs pretended not to know the law and addressed the motion as though it was another insignificant procedural matter. He acted very chummy with the seniors: “the more on the committee the better, no”? seemed to be his cunning attitude in promoting this outrage. When I made clear to the seniors that he is breaking the law by doubling the voting entitlements of one lot to the detriment of them, the seniors, I had to repeat myself given their  memory problems. I did not know that it was illegal for one lot to have multiple representatives on a committee and I was alone in initially opposing Mr Secretary’s outrage (which I thought MAY be allowed, he is after all a lawyer he keeps reminding the OC) but I said that it stands to logic that irrespective of how many reps a lot can have on a committee, in total the reps cannot have more than one vote. I said that I would not oppose the motion so long as the lot in question’s two reps would have half a vote each. And if they brought a third person I indicated again I would not object so long as the one vote for that lot would be split again, this time to one third of a vote each.

                            The seniors finally saw the light.

                            Mr Secretary did as you would expect. Accepted his shenanigan had hit a brick wall and dropped the matter.

                             

                            #54700
                            kaindub
                            Flatchatter

                              If I understand your comments, you have the in to the committee that you need.

                              I understand that the committee consists of two people from the same lot.

                              You nominated for the committee but the OC voted to have only 2 members.

                              One of these members is not allowed because they are from the same lot, so you are automatically the second committee member.

                              If you cant convince the committee and strata manager of their errors, take this to NCAT, You may also want to consider asking to have the solicitor removed by NCAT from the committee for the lack of knowledge of the act.

                               

                              #54713
                              TrulEConcerned
                              Flatchatter
                              Chat-starter

                                Kaindub, thanks again for your feedback.

                                You may have misread my post.

                                You wrote: I understand that the committee consists of two people from the same lot.
                                Not quite. It is two people but from 2 separate lots. Pls see my explanation as to the attempt to foist onto the committee multiple reps from the one lot, in my most recent email.

                                You wrote: You nominated for the committee but the OC voted to have only 2 members.
                                I nominated myself as did Mr Secretary and Madam Chair. Three nominees.
                                Mr Secretary then asked how many folk do we want on the committee. I said “3”. We voted and I alone voted for 3. He then moved for a committee of “2”. I voted against. He, the Chair, another senior and a new owner sided with Mr Secretary. I mean, why wouldn’t they? He is very assertive with the seniors and the new owner is no doubt influenced by him more than anyone else they have met in the building. After all, he surely informed them of his 30 year tenure as Secretary, as a sign of his importance.

                                After it was settled that the committee would have 2 members, we voted on which 2 persons would be on the committee. No prizes for guessing that Mr Secretary got his way and the 2 SC members who have been on the SC for years, him and the senior woman, were re-elected.

                                You wrote: If you cant convince the committee and strata manager of their errors, take this to NCAT, You may also want to consider asking to have the solicitor removed by NCAT from the committee for the lack of knowledge of the act.
                                Kaindub, if I went to NCAT I would not argue that he lacks knowledge of the Act, but that he behaved as far as I can see in a manner that does not rise to the level of honesty. He knows the Act inside out.

                                Let me say that if I went to NCAT, assuming I had all my ducks in a row, I will certainly give y’all a heads up of the date, venue and time.

                                #54727
                                Jimmy-T
                                Keymaster

                                  You may have misread my post.

                                  So what you are saying is the in the past the Chairman tried to convince the other owners that two people from the same lot can both be on the committee but you managed to thwart that efffort.  Nevertheless, the owners still voted to have only two people on the committee and you were not one of them.

                                  To be honest, I don’t think this battle of wills or clash of personalities is going to further your case one iota.  The seniors in your block will be more alarmed by agitation and dissent (regardless of how justified it is) than any hypothetical claims, however valid, that the block isn’t being run properly.

                                  In my experience, the one way to convince older owners – who are often on fixed incomes – to change their minds is to tell them that their money is being wasted. Telling them that someone they trust shouldn’t be trusted is a much harder sell.

                                  Thus, your original approach that the “hidden” subscription to a strata law web service was suspicious, may have worked against you, whereas questions about money being spent on things the scheme doesn’t need would probably  have more effect.

                                  So your initial thrust in getting more tranparency on the finances was right, but your tactic may have been wrong.  Presenting the owners with a simple approach along the lines of  “here’s how we can save  money” rather than “you are being swindled” might just get you that extra vote that you need to get on the 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.
                                  #54740
                                  TrulEConcerned
                                  Flatchatter
                                  Chat-starter

                                    Jimmy-T wrote
                                    In my experience, the one way to convince older owners – who are often on fixed incomes – to change their minds is to tell them that their money is being wasted. Telling them that someone they trust shouldn’t be trusted is a much harder sell.


                                    I agree in principle, but the dynamics in this strata is different.

                                    Jimmy-T wrote
                                    Thus, your original approach that the “hidden” subscription to a strata law web service was suspicious, may have worked against you, whereas questions about money being spent on things the scheme doesn’t need would probably  have more effect.


                                    Please note that I shared my suspicions with you and nobody at the strata. I want access to all the strata records first so I can determine the extent of the absence of transparency, before making noise with the agent and SC/OC. I found it very interesting that in recent two chats with NSWFT, they were for the very first time in my experience, encouraging me to adopt an aggressive posture with respect to the agent who is holding back strata records, even though I asked politely.

                                    Jimmy-T wrote


                                    So your initial thrust in getting more transparency on the finances was right, but your tactic may have been wrong.  Presenting the owners with a simple approach along the lines of  “here’s how we can save  money” rather than “you are being swindled” might just get you that extra vote that you need to get on the committee.


                                    Maybe. Let me clarify. The 5 lots are as follows: “A” (Mr Secretary), “B” (Madam Chair), “C” (senior gentleman with memory issues), “D” (new owner) and me.
                                    “B” is constantly assured by “A” that issues will always come to the attention of the SC and that she can rely on A, so long as he alone can sort matters out. He is a solicitor, after all he reminds us. “B” is frankly an extension  of “A”. As far as I have seen, she is not involved let alone responsible for admin, repairs, maintenance, instructing, hiring or liasing with the agent, convening or even Chairing meetings (as there are none). When I ask her about any matter regarding the SC, she refers me to the agent who will contact Mr Secretary.
                                    Case in point: Her chronic deference to the Secretary (without question) was most visible last year. The smoke detector in my unit was not working. It is a common property asset and hard wired. Like all such units it is connected to a common fire board. When I mentioned to Madam Chair that it was not working, she referred me to the agent who would seek instructions from Mr Secretary. In due course Mr Secretary via the agent emailed me that I have a choice: I can either pay the OC for their electrician to fix the problem or I can pay an electrician of my choice to fix it. “Let us know”, I was told.
                                    I replied to the agent and relayed the contents of my email verbally in person to Madam Chairman (when I bumped into her) that “this is not my problem as the detector is common property”. Her reply to me: “just sort out the payment for repairs with the Secretary”. I doubt she understood my point on common property. Only after I emailed the agent with advice from NSWFT: “such fire systems are OC assets and OC responsibility” did Mr Secretary stop his demands. From her perspective it seemed to me that I was a nuisance and not “being fair”.
                                    When I reminded her that several years ago, at the same strata with a different agent, Mr Secretary tried the same shenanigan on me, she could not recall. I do however have the emails wherein the agent in that case pretty quickly broadcast just who is responsible for a common asset – the OC. I am worried by her automatic deference to Mr Secretary and what seems to be his ignorance of the Act. You’d think after 30 years he’d know it inside out. Or does he know it and he’s having a go at me?
                                    As to the senior gentleman, “C”, he is more and more forgetful and is prone to mood swings. Mr Secretary sits with him at AGMs in order it seems to secure his vote. After all, such people are not reliable, unless they are “managed” by another person, such as one of authority at a meeting, sitting by his side.
                                    This explains I believe why at the last AGM in 11/20 via ZOOM, Mr Secretary traveled to “B’s” abode and sat with both “B” and “C”. Silly me thought the point of ZOOM was to stay safe and stay at home, so everyone can meet virtually from their own homes or offices, without the need for travel.
                                    So here we have A+B+C voting as per Mr Secretary’s wishes.

 Appealing to either “B” or “C” as you suggest will not work in this strata, unfortunately. “D” is a relatively new owner and as I have found when Tsr of a large block, new owners often go just to the committee for background information on the strata and when seeking directions on voting when presented by a AGM agenda. Especially owners who reside elsewhere. a

                                    Sorry for the long winded reply, but I wanted to clarify as much as I could.

                                  Viewing 15 replies - 16 through 30 (of 39 total)
                                  • The topic ‘Strata’s financial statements withheld from OC’ is closed to new replies.