Welcome to the blog of NSW strata investigative journalism
Thursday, 23rd February 2017
strata-nospam34
Hi,
There is a very good reason why I am asking this question on behalf of many silent and scared owners.
According to Flat Chat publishing on 31 May 2016 stated that there was not a single instance (that they knew of) of a strata manager losing their licence for being bad at their job by Department of Fair Trading (who license them).
Allegedly, Fair Trading, when they get a complaint about a bad strata manager - they “counsel” them and try to “educate” them.
So, my two qestions. I can elaborate why I want some authoritative answers that can be verified if anybody asks:
1. Has Department of Fair Trading ever revoked licence from unscrupulous and unprocessional strata managers and strata agencies?
2. Has Strata Community Australia, specifically NSW branch, ever seriously investigated and applied their Code of Conduct against their members when evidence was submitted?
3. What is the main role of Strata Community Australia: to protect their members (strata managers), or public?
Thank you.
Wed, 18/01/2017 - 21:31
louise
not sure of the answer to that but what I see is that OFT and NCAT support strata mangers rather than owners.
Thu, 19/01/2017 - 09:07
billen ben
I would begin by saying that if you consider anyone that ‘the system’ licences then you will find there needs to be rather extreme circumstances before a licence is revoked / cancelled, except in the case of a motorist in which case if you break the rules, even trivially, enough you will lose your licence.
Personally I have tried to have Fair Trading investigate an agent or two and to my knowledge the process goes no further than a person making a complaint.
That somewhat highlights the inadequacies in the system but what is most important from ‘the system's’ perspective is that we not expose the failures of the system to such an extent that the public losses confidence in it. It is all about the public perception so as long as there is not a long list of revoked licences, even though some owners rightly feel there should be, then all is fine.
Take one of my issues raised as an example. The agent does the wrong thing, the agent cannot be persuaded it is the wrong thing no matter how much case law or legal commentary is thrown at the agent, the agent gets paid ~$600 to represent the OC at mediation and then weeks later after even more legal commentary (one of which used the word ‘illegal’) the agent finally pulls his head in and stops doing the wrong thing.
The agent created the problem, was too pig headed to understand he was the problem, got paid to defend his wrong position and finally after a great deal of legal commentary and case law realized he was still doing the wrong thing. The upshot was typical in that the EC (now a SC) resented the matter and the agent got paid for additional services at close to $200 per hour. Fat lot of good the EC Treasurer was during the whole issue as his standard line was talk to the agent. During the public submission period of strata reform the lack of accountability of agents was an issue for some writers. Ask the current Minister what came of all that and you will get a lovely letter letting you know that the new laws have greater accountability for agents. I recommend going to product review (website) and reading the reviews of owners regarding some agents. It is a genuine question “how can these people still be licensed” and the only honest answer is the system fails the owners, but that is not an answer the generates confidence so don’t expect any one within the system to publically state it.
I won’t comment on SCA except to say that agents pay to be Members. If SCA started declining membership to poor agents or actually disciplining them then SCA would not have many members.
strata-nospam34
Thanks to all for the comments.
They confirm my investigations about Department of Fair Trading, CTTT (now NCAT) and Strata Community Australia (SCA NSW).
Let me be more precise by providing undeniable and undisputed evidence how SCAN failed to take any action against one of their largest members. That strata agency was voted out and removed from managing my complex at AGM in October 2016 after 16 years of "winning" contract renewals without any tenders or competition.
The strata agency was involved in highly-organised, pre-meditated, and carefully orchestrated mismanagement of my complex with financial losses amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars. There were secret payments to selective owners and EC members, large expenses without tenders, grant to exclusive rights to common property to EC member through false count of proxy votes, poor maintenance of the complex at high cost, poor repairs, allowing wireless ISP to run business and using common property without benefits to owners and not earning money for the owners as per contract, and much, much more.
Strata agency was also involved in active attempts of bullying and threats, which, for most ordinary people was a good deterrent.
The time-line of contacts with Strata Community Australia (NSW).
4 March 2013
Enquiry sent to SCA (NSW) how to submit a complaint against an SCA
member.
Reply received on some day advising me that in order to progress
this matter SCA (NSW) required me to undertake the following:
1. Read the SCA (NSW) Code of Conduct;
2. Complete the Complaint Management Form, (they had received my
evidence but required the form to be completed).
Documentation and forms were submitted in neatly-organised folders to SCA promptly.
8 April 2013
SCA (NSW) declined to review the complaint, one month and four days
after encouraging me to submit the complaint.
Their official reason was that I needed formal support from members of the Executive Committee!?
21 April 2013
I replied that I could not obtain the EC's approval because they
worked with the Strata Manager (some of them were receiving
personal and undisclosed benefits from common funds) and were
directly involved in mismanagement themselves. I also advised that
my strong statement could easily be proven.
I therefore acknowledged the receipt of SCA (NSW) note dated 8 April 2013 in which they declined to review a serious case of misconduct and unprofessional actions of one of their members.
I was disappointed that formal reason to reject my request for investigation was based on a reason which should not be an obstacle.
I then requested my folder with files be returned as SCA (NSW) would never read them anyway.
21 April 2013
SCA (NSW) responded that my complaint would be reviewed on 9 May
2013 again.
1 June 2013
As there were no responses from SCA (NSW), I asked about outcome of
the decision and provided more evidence of misconduct and
mismanagement by the strata agency.
13 June 2013
SCA responded that they had meeting that morning and decided that
they could not proceed without "support from the Executive
Committee" which was not listed in any
requirements for submitting a complaint.
Couple of days later, I collected files from SCA in
person.
The folders were never opened and they were in the same position as
I had prepared them. Not a single attempt was made by SCA (NSW)
staff to read any evidence.
14 December 2014
I sent another letter reporting that SCA (NSW) actions did not seem
to be valid and professional.
In addition, it turned out that the same strata agency received
an award for best company for the year. More evidence was provided
that strata agency was, in fact,
unprofessional and failed code of conduct imposed on members of CSA
(NSW) and failed compliance with many Australian laws related to
companies and strata agencies.
No reply from SCA was ever received.
16 May 2015
Another email sent to SCA.
I also documented conflict of interest for few SCA (NSW) Directors who had direct connections with the strata agency. One of them was, in fact, CEO of parent company of strata agency and he was obviously on the panel who awarded 2014 best company to his own "subsidiary".
No reply was ever received from SCA.
13 November 2016
Another reminder sent to SCA (NSW).
No reply was ever received from SCA.
For the moment, this keyword tells everything:
NSWSTRATASLEUTH
To understand lack of any serious investigations by Department of Fair Trading and SCA (NSW), the following short notes are provided:
1. Personal attacks:
Anonymous hate email in letterbox. Police Event on 7th of October 2011.
EC member’s attempt to bully my wife in garage in 20th of October 2011.
Anonymous phone death threat sometime in 2012. I reported it to Minister of NSW Department of Fair Trading in 2013.
EC member’s attempt to bully my wife at petrol station in August 2015.
EC member's verbal attack and light assault on my wife in October 2015.
Police Event against EC member and strata agency in November 2015.
2. For five years, strata agency declined to provide access to financial files and strata documents, in spite of PAID document search as per SSMA 1996 S108.
3. For 13 years, strata agency reimbursed selective owners (including three EC members) for their private water and gas usage without Special Resolution, or Special By-Law, and without disclosure to owners in any financial or other reports. For financial years that some access was accidentally obtained, the losses in common funds amounted to above $100,000.00.
4. Ran rigged building painting tender, where two bids from different companies were identical up to a cent! Then, persuaded EC members to vote for the "best offer" without general meeting (one of the two identical offers that was personal friend of strata manager was chosen). Painting job was so poor that Dulux consultant resigned after several months in protest. Total cost increased by $110,000.00 without approval at any general meeting, of which around $43,000.00 are still unaccounted for. Within five years, remediation work was required due to bulling and peeling.
5. Elevator maintenance contracts were not approved at general meetings, and run without tenders, in 2005 and 2010. The one in 2005 was later proven to be extremely expensive. Elevator maintenance contract was secretly approved and signed off by strata manager and a single EC member with new service provider in 2010 for seven years under unfavorable conditions.
Elevator original quote in 2010 was based on THREE-YEAR contract through two types of services:
Platinum Full Comprehensive Agreement ($22,200.00 per year, plus GST)
Gold Partial Comprehensive Agreement ($16,400.00 per year, plus GST)
Quote for the lift maintenance contract was kept undisclosed from the members of the Executive Committee for two months before strata agency and the single EC member negotiated and approved it alone, increasing it to SEVEN-YEAR CONTRACT (expiring on 30 June 2017), with difficult conditions for cancellation by the owners corporation:
Limited-Scope Agreement ($20,000.00 per year, plus GST, with automatic increases matching CPI after the first two years)
The real expenses for lift maintenance in 2010 exceeded $161,000.00 when two phases in apartment block's power supply were short-circuited by human error and Strata Manager forced owners corporation to urgently upgrade electrical switchboard with main goal to provide additional power capacity for Optus mobile phone antennae.
6. 10-Year Sinking Fund was never approved or even seen by owners corporation until the last AGM when the strata agency was removed from managing my complex. And that Sinking Fund was proven to be incomplete, inaccurate, and missing many recommendations by professional organisations. These are some of the reports that strata agency kept secret from owners until today:
Leary and Partners Sinking Fund forecast 17 November 1999.
McMillan, Britton and Kell report dated 21 March 2000 in regards to wall cracks. Cost undisclosed to owners.
Napier & Blakeley in July 2012. Total cost of the report (GST inclusive) was $12,144.00. They warned about roof status and many other problems in the complex. This report was hidden from CTTT and Department of Fair Trading.
Murdocca & Associates report on Block D internal cracking in April 2010. Total cost of the report (GST inclusive) was $792.00.
ThyssenKrupp Elevators report on elevators in December 2013.
Vertical Transport Management Services report on elevators in February 2014. Total cost of the report (GST inclusive) was $1,430.00.
Building roof water penetration testing in mid-2014.
Integrated Consultancy Group on 4 November 2014. Total cost of the report (GST inclusive) was $1,815.00. The report includes warnings about concrete cancer that was not attended to for more than one and a half years later.
7. More than 3.5 million dollars was paid to caretaker over 16 years, without tenders. By accident, there were two better bids in 2004/2005 that were never presented to owners corporation.
8. In 2013, strata manager provided false Statutory Declaration to CTTT.
9. Seven strata managers and three branch managers were replaced for my complex in the same strata agency (same office) in period 2010-2016.
10. Poor maintenance of the complex, with repetitive works without warranties. An example: a single unit on top floor had 16 water leakages from the roof and in the walls in period 2012-106. Frustrated by it, the vendor send a stern report that all floors on the top floor in the same building need significant repairs in 2016 (including rebuilding the roof area).
This has been kept secret from owners. ...
And much more.
billen ben
On the balance of probabilites do i believe the system is a sham or do i believe the system is functional?On the balance of probabilities level of proof the evidence supports that the system is a sham and i would suspect that if that level of proof was upgraded to the beyond reasonable doubt level then the system would still be guilty of being a sham. The 'political service' (even the staff know it is not the public service) is of no assistance and organisations that flog themselves off as 'peak bodies' have such a vested interested in the benefits their key personnel derive that they are less than useless.I have attended Fair Trading information sessions where the speaker from the mediation unit, who has a very distinctive accent, was seriuos when he said 'never ever buy strata'; his reason being what he sees come across his desk.
Interesting that we have just been through the once in 25 odd year reform and yet it is business as usual.Personally i think the MInister should resign but Ministerial accountability is not what it set out to be.
Fri, 10/02/2017 - 22:04
strata-nospam34
Thank you to all who replied.
It confirms my, and other people's comments, that Department of Fair Trading (along with NCAT - previously known as CTTT) and Strata Community Australia do not protect consumers. I am fully aware that members of those organisations monitor this forum. Their silence is unplesantly deafening.
In 2015, after providing additional evidence against the strata agency, they recommended to submit Motion at general meeting for forensic financial auditor. The strata agency flatly denied the owner's right to do it. What did Department of Fair Trading and Strata Community Australia do: absolutely nothing.
At AGM 2016, the stata agency prevented 34 Motions from appearing on the agenda. List of what they did in my complex and others that I collected is so long, with strong evidence, that an average-skilled person would be able to execute various penalties in matter of days.
Three years ago, I asked LawAccess for advice. When they heard my evidence, their reprentative , in defence of strata agencies, simply said: "It is OK to steal a little bit". I wonder if he could qualify it: is it 10% of the owners corporation funds, or figure in range of $50,000.00, or some other value?
The point is: owners and tenants are not protected. Fights against unscrupulous strata agencies and managers are as good as how much money solictors and lawyers are paid to help. This statement by NCAT is misleading, inaccurate, and misconceived:
"At NCAT parties are encouraged to conduct your own case without representation. Although this may seem daunting, you can expect to have your matter heard and determined fairly and according to law".
I do not think anyone who has experience with the system is going to argue very hard against your, experience based, summation. The system is a failure but that knowledge is not sufficiently widespread or damaging that the system needs to concern itself with that problem at this stage.
billen ben
I am big fan of parties conducting their own case except in exceptional circumstances. I hold that position predominantly because of the way owners run strata plans. I feel if owners want to run a SP then let them explain their running to NCAT if someone has issue with it. Such a position might encourage owners to make an effort to understand the framework they are required to operate within. Of course that only covers applications regarding certain issues, typically non compliance matters, but that type of application makes up a reasonable chunk of all strata applications.
NCAT’s 2016 policy on representation: (link below) 1. Generally, a party in proceedings in the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Tribunal is responsible for presenting the party’s own case.
2. Parties may, however, have representatives to present their cases if the Tribunal gives permission, or “grants leave”, for this to occur.
3. In a limited number of cases, a party is entitled to be represented without leave.
The 2016 version is very much simplified compared to the 2014 version. I find strata an interesting beast when it comes to representation because the owners corporation is an artificial entity (not a real person) so someone (a real person) has to represent the OC if the OC is one of the parties.
Examples of cases where leave to be represented may be given.
The Tribunal will often grant leave to a person to represent a party in the following circumstances:
(a) if the party is an owners corporation under the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) and the proposed representative is a member of the Strata Committee or the strata managing agent;
http://www.ncat.nsw.gov.au/Documents/ccd_guideline_representation.pdf
I think it is a little funny because someone has to represent the artificial entity. Also some of the other circumstances might apply (see link) depending on how soft NCAT are with their operation of the other cases where leave might be granted. I am not a big fan of the agent getting leave to represent as often it is the agent who has created the problem and the agent will do little more than cover his/her butt rather than act in the best interests of the OC; and typically representation by the agent is an additional service attracting a significant per hour rate (typically around $200 per hour).
One of CTTT’s finer moments came in the following matter; Sadlo v Viceroy Gilead Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCTTT 559 (at [10]):
“[10] … the [respondent] opted to be represented by a lawyer. It had no obligation to do so. The tasks involved in providing evidence, and making submissions at the hearing could have been undertaken by an employee or officer of the [respondent]. The [applicants] should not be obliged to pay an expense the [respondent] had no obligation to incur.”
Fine work from Member Rosser on that occasion and something the rest of NCAT should keep in mind. Hopefully the NCAT 2016 policy is operated in a such a way as to minimise the participation of the legal fraternity because once a lawyer walks into NCAT it is more often than not it is a trigger for a costs order and that is just the boys looking after the boys and no one wants to see that; except the boys.
There is a saying in strata that is “you get what you deserve”. The ‘you’ in that is the OC so if your OC is apathetic and getting shafted by an unscrupulous agent then the systems misguided view is that the owners have the power to address the matter. It is true but also ill conceived. Problem with that ill formed view is that it fails to take into account the apathetic who do not know, do not want to know and do not care when they do know.
“The legislation has always envisaged that generally, strata schemes would be managed by ordinary lot owners for their own benefit.” J Bordon: Nulama Village P/L v Owners Strata Plan 61788 (Strata & Community Schemes) [2006] NSWCTTT 550 (25 September 2006)
The current legislation is no different but you might find it curious that on page 20 of that fantastic propaganda sheet “Making NSW #1Again” that under the heading of ‘Accountability’ it is claimed that 60% of SPs are managed by an agent, rising to close to 100% for large and complex schemes. Seems ordinary lot owners do not really want to manage their SP if Fair Trading’s numbers are our guide. I did submit during reform that to continue legislation that reflected Mr Bordon’s view was to be out of touch with where owners were at in 2015. The propaganda goes on to say that approximately 25% of disputes are about conduct of a managing agent. And that is without the huge volume of people who do not make an application. An application is not cheap, not easy, not a desirable recourse and typically something I would estimate over 90% of people, who could, do not engage with.
I think your case showcase the epic fail of the system at all levels. Wouldn’t it be nice just to pick up the phone, report the matter, have someone investigate it and when appropriate have the dirt-bags dealt with by responsible authorities.
Reform will be in about 20 years, maybe then; although probably not.
strata-nospam34
Hi,
Members of this forum are right in their statements herewith.
And my personal experience can prove it.
1. Five attempts to bring this Strata Management Agency to mediation and discussions at Department of Fair Trading were refused by the Strata Manager and the Executive Committee. That, by itself, shows how legally, strata laws are designed to incur further costs at customer's expense, which, in most cases, end with customers selling the property, or quietly withdrawing from the case.
2. Three cases were dismissed by CTTT on grounds of “too much evidence” provided by me, in spite of Strata Management Agency giving no proof of their actions, preventing me from access to documents, in non-compliance with SSMA 1996 S108, five times, and even prividing false Statutory Declaration to CTTT.
3. In final attempt, I initiated a CTTT case on 30 May 2012, highlighting problems with maintenance of the complex, lack of compliance with special by-laws, financial mismanagement, false statements by the Strata Management Agency in their prior submissions without any evidence, and their professional misconduct.
4. CTTT almost closed the appeal due to owner’s “application not lodged on time”, but I proved that the issue was entirely on CTTT’s side. Cornered by thorough evidence, CTTT tried to put the blame on courier company delivering mail to them.
5. Solicitor, who was illegally representing Strata Management Agency and EC at the time, failed to comply with CTTT’s orders three times before the Hearing. CTTT took no action. Everything that I did (including all evidence) was ignored.
Around $62,000.00 was paid to Solicitor defending Strata Management Agency and EC, without proper engagement and approval by owners corporation. This was even confirmed in findings by the Office of Legal Services Commissioner, dated 31 of May 2013, but such information Strata Management iAgency did not allow to be given to owners.
6. Directions Hearing was conducted on 8 August 2012, followed by Hearing on 17 October 2012. By the orders made on the day of the Directions Hearing, I was to file my submission by 15 August 2012 (which was complied with), and the Respondent (Strata Management Agency and EC) was to file their submissions by 12 September 2012 (not complied with).
7. The Solicitor, on behalf of the Respondent, who was not approved at any general meeting and without full disclosure to owners corporation, filed two request for my case to be summarily dismissed because it was “misconceived” (the word quoted from his submission):
5 September 201213 September 2013
In both cases, the CTTT did not approve the summarily dismissal.
8. Directions Hearing on 8 August 2012 in paragraph 4 imposed an obligation on the Respondent to provide the Tribunal and the owner with a copy of all documents on which they intended to rely at the Hearing by 12 September 2012. The Solicitor did not comply with the Tribunal’s orders.
9. Upon owner’s complaint about not receiving documents from the Respondent on 10 September 2012, the Tribunal issued notice of non-compliance with procedural directions on 17 September 2012. The Solicitor did not comply with the Tribunal’s notice.
10. On 19 September 2012 the Solicitor submitted a request for extension of time by 2.5 weeks to provide the documents to the Tribunal and me (to 28 September 2012).
11. His request was granted in Tribunal’s notice issued on 26 September 2012. The Solicitor did not comply with his own request for extension of time and the Tribunal’s notice for the third time.
12. At the Hearing on 17 October 2012, Solicitor appeared on behalf of the OC and the Strata Management Agency. No evenidece was brought in by him. As well, he provided false statements whic I easily proved.
CTTT ignored undisputable evidence about Solicitor’s false statements. Throughout the Hearing, Serior Trubunal member was stressing to me that this Solicitor had aspirations to become member of the Supreme Court and that he was "well respected", and that I "did not know the law", and so on. He was publicly showing annoyance because of my knowledge of the law, in spite of me not having any formal degree in that area.
13. CTTT was aware of faudelent insurance claims for non-existent legal case and decided to ignore it. The Solicitor actually persuaded Strata Management Agency to secretly change insurance policy for the complex and then immediately started making legal cost claims for non-existent CTTT case before the Hearing even happened. In the end, Strata Management Agency made four insurance claims in amount of $24,919.31 for alleged "defence" of this lot in CTTT case in 2012/2013 (there was no CTTT case related to this owner):
First claim on 31 August 2012 $367.64Second claim on 7 December 2012 $12,714.65Third claim on 26 April 2013 $1,320.00Fourth claim on 4 June 2013 $10,517.02
The end result: my case was dismissed.
14. On 10 December 2012, the Solicitor commenced proceedings to reopen CTTT case. The decision to reopen the file was not made at any Executive Committee meeting, and they did not provide evidence to prove it at the Tribunal. In his statement in the submission dated 29 January 2013, justifying the appeal in relation to Section 192 of the Strata Act (case frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance), the Solicitor stated in paragraph 15:
QUOTE
Even if these matters were not apparent from the Tribunal’s Reasons, the Tribunal is able (and to the extent necessary is invited to) make findings to this effect for the purpose of determining the question of costs.
END QUOTE
15. In reopened Hearing, (appeal by the Solicitor for "indemnity costs") CTTT again failed to force the Solicitor to comply with their own directive to provide documents to me by 28 January 2013.
16. Yet again, for the FOURTH TIME, the Solicitor failed to provide documents by the due date of 28 January 2013. Three attempts by me to ask CTTT to enforce its own directions upon the Respondent failed. CTTT advised me that if I wanted the files, I had to come to CTTT office and pay for them, which I did on 25 February 2013. In the end, I was forced to pay for the document viewing at CTTT. At the same time, CTTT forced me to provide the Solicitor and the Strata Management Agency with all my documents (more than 1,000 pages) at my own cost!
17. CTTT refused to issue summonses to access to documents on my behalf to three EC members and Strata Managing Agent two times, without providing any detailed explanations.
18. I submitted request for summonses to three members of the Executive Committee and the Strata Manager at CTTT on 25 February 2013. I even visited CTTT and spoke to CTTT staff in person on 27 February 2013. They rejected the first version of summonses and made corrections in accordance with what the CTTT required. I then submitted an updated version to Strata Managing Agent and members of the Executive Committee on the same day.
19. Tribunal denied my application for summonses on 5 March 2013 without any explanation:
QUOTE
The aplication for the issue of summonses dated 27/2/2013 at the request of the applicant is refused.
END QUOTE
Not a single line of explanation why!
20. EC (in that year Strata Managing Agent acted as Secretary, Treasurer, and President of the EC) voted at paper meeting on 28 March 2013 NOT to have a representative at the Hearing on 15 April 2013. When I questioned the legal right for the Solicitor to be at the beginning of the Hearing, and produced minutes of the EC meeting, Senior Tribunal member refused to accept it, and at his discretion, decided that the Strata Managing Agent made an accidental error (in spite of majority oc EC members approving the decision in writing)! No comments are needed for action by the CTTT. Audience in this forum is smart enough to draw conclusions.
21. The second application for issue of summonses was rejected three days later, on 29 April 2013:
QUOTE
The aplication to issue summonses requiring the attendance at the hearing is refused.No relevant forensic purpose is demonstrated in the request and the issue of summonses in the present circumstances is therefore oppressive.
END QUOTE
22. For more than three months CTTT failed to verify illegal engagement of the Solicitor, and refused to ask for documents confirming it from Strata Management Agency. When the owner successfully destroyed the defence of the Solicitor about so-called EC meeting on 9 July 2012 which had allegedly approved his engagement, CTTT decided to allow him to organise Statutory Declaration through Strata Managing Agent.
23. I obtained secret email from the Solicitor (through legal process), where he instructed the Strat Managing Agent to produce a signed copy of his Contract, although the copy that the Solictor himself submitted to CTTT on 28 January 2013 DID NOT HAVE IT.
24. CTTT forced two adjournments of the Hearing allowing Solicitor and the Strata Managing Agent to create forged evidence and even submit false statements in Statutory Declaration.
25. In effect, CTTT accepted the false Statutory Declaration by the Strata Managing Agent, and allowed Strata Management Agency to prepare it through three delays of the Re-Hearing.
26. Strata Managing Agent provided Statutory Declaration on 19 April 2013. It was referred to, and relied on, in Tribunal’s final decisions dated 6 November 2013 in paragraphs 78 and 82. On page 19 of the Statutory Declaration, annexed was a letter sent by the Solicitor to the Respondent on 2 July 2012 (before the CTTT Hearing was even scheduled). In his letter the Solicitor stated:
QUOTE
I note that many strata insurance policies contain cover for legal defence expenses up to $50,000. You should therefore consult with your insurer about whether or not my legal costs would be covered by the insurer if the owners corporation decides to retain me in the appeal.
END QUOTE
27. CTTT forced me to make two copies of the additional evidence at the Hearing on 15 April 2013 (more than 2,000 pages) at my own cost, in attempt to drain financial resources and force me to give up. At the same time, they refused to enforce the same rules to the Solicitor four times when counting the beginning of the original case.
28. CTTT accepted time-warped paper EC meeting as valid (happened seven days ahead of scheduled time and without giving advance notice to owners as per SSMA 1996).
Strata Management Agency and time-warped EC meeting seven days ahead of the scheduled time (in style of Star Trek science fiction):
Pressed by CTTT in one case against Strata Management Agency in my complex, short agenda for the paper Executive Committee meeting was sent to owners on 16 April 2013. The meeting was scheduled for 26 April 2013 at 10:00am at Strata Management's office.
Normally, meetings in my complex were organised in the evenings, when owners can be present if they desire so, unless there is something that the Strata Management Agency wanted to push for without owners attending. We had several of those "mid-morning" meetings and they were never attended by any owner (most people go to work during the day and have to earn for living), thus making decision process "very easy".
All roles of office bearers – Secretary, Treasurer, and Chairperson, sometimes held by members of the Executive Committee, were delegated to the Strata Managing Agent since the Annual General Meeting on 17 October 2012, making the Strata Manager’s role an omnipotent one.
Instead of meeting being held on 26 April 2013, Strata Management Agency declared it complete SEVEN DAYS AHEAD OF SCHEDULE on 19 April 2013.
None of the EC members attended, and only paper votes were counted.
Minutes of paper EC meeting on 19 April 2013 did not contain any details of the venue of the meeting and time when it happened.
29. Here are some of the laws and regulations that applied to organisation of EC meetings in NSW at the time.
a) SSMA 1996 Schedule Clause 6 (1) and (3) which require notice of meeting and DETAILED AGENDA to be sent to owners at least 72 hours before the meeting, and in compliance with the Interpretation Act 1987 Section 76.
b) Strata Management Agency was fully aware of special requirements of the time required to send notices to owners. This is a verbatim extract from their own "Smart Strata Fact Sheet Notice period for meetings (NSW)" publication:
QUOTE
In describing any notice period for meetings, the legislation does not describe the nature of the ‘days’ notice - whether they be business days, calendar days, etc. In the absence of such specification, the Interpretations Act 1987 Section 36 requires that the period of time shall be reckoned so as to be exclusive of the day of the ‘event’ i.e., the meeting. Section 76 of this same Act also declares that a letter sent through the post is deemed to have been delivered on the fourth working day after it was posted.
END QUOTE
c) SSMA 1996 Schedule 3 Clause 10 (2) which states:(1) A resolution is taken to have been validly passed even though the meeting at which the motion for the resolution was proposed to be submitted was not held if:(a) notice was given in accordance with clause 6 of the intended meeting, and(b) a copy of the motion for the resolution was served on each member of the executive committee, and(c) the resolution was approved in writing by a majority of members of the executive committee.(2) This clause is subject to clause 11 (2).Clause 11 stipulates that decision of an executive committee has no force or effect if, before that decision is made, notice in writing is given to the secretary of the executive committee by one or more owners, the sum of whose unit entitlements exceeds one-third of the aggregate unit entitlement, that the making of the decision is opposed by those owners.
By running a meeting on undisclosed date ahead of schedule, owners corporation (all 209 owners, apart from nine members of the EC) were denied rights to respond.
For a meeting to be declared valid as per strata laws and regulations on 19 April 2013, Strata Management Agency had to send agenda to all owners around 11 April 2013. That did not happen.
Because of missing formal and legally-valid notice for paper Executive Committee meeting on 19 April 2013 prevented owners from attending, as address of the meeting was, in practice, not provided.
Strata Management Agency failed to comply with their own publication on the website.
30. But, all that did not matter. CTTT made a decision that I and OC had to split the cost for "indemnity".
31. What conclusion do you think any reasonable person should form about the Department of Fair Trading, CTTT (NCAT) and SCA NSWi when evidence in this case is displayed?
32. I offer several phrases for further analysis:
NSWSTRATASLEUTH
100 SHADES OF BAD PRODUCTREVIEW
COOKBOOK MISMANAGEMENT WHIRLPOOL
STRATA SCHEME FROM HELL
33. More than 50 direct attempts to enage CEO, CIO and Managing Directors of this Strata Management Agency were ignored by them. Its CEO and Managing Director publicly committed to investiage all my claims on 9 December 2015 (one year and one month after I published complaint in another forum). To this day, no news from him or his team.
34. When Police Constable heard some of the issues after my wife was attacked by a member of the EC in 2015, all he said was: "Get out of that place".
The problem is: getting out just moves the problem to some other place and some other person...
36. The Department of Fair Trading, CTTT (NCAT) and SCA NSW allegedly think there is nothing wrong with this agency. The problem is: this Strata Management Agency and their partners manage more than 200,000 properties and I collected complaints from around 60-70 of them already.
An update worth sharing and the news is not good for ordinary customers.
I have just received an unexpected letter from Strata Community Australia NSW.
As a reminder, last time I attempted to contact SCA NSW was on 13 November 2016.
What prompted them to finally respond all of sudden is difficult to comprehend (because they stayed silent and unresponsive in last two emails from me):
14 December 2014
16 May 2015
In any case, this is the outcome of their meeting (readers are reminded that I sent formal complaint on a specified form as early as 4 March 2013!):
QUOTE
Notwithstanding that your complaint was not accompanied by a formal complaint form, this matterwas discussed at a the recent Code of Conduct Meeting held on 14 February 2017.
At that time the complaint was dismissed in accordance with the Complaint Management Policy as the issues you raise are not considered to be within the scope of the SCA (NSW) Code of Ethics.SCA(NSW) will now close the file and no further will be taken.
SCA (NSW) is a not-for-profit company that provides education, information and other membership benefits to the strata sector. SCA (NSW) have a limited ability to resolve disputes as the panel that reviews complaints comprises a team of volunteers that meet regualrly, and SCA (NSW) powers to discipline unethical behaviour are limited to revoking membership of this organisation. You may consider taking your complaint to NSW Fair Trading on Tel: 13 32 20, or you may, you may consider getting legal advice from a specialist Strata Lawyer.
Specialist strata lawyers that are members of SCA (NSW) are bound by its Constitution and Code of Conduct. SCA (NSW) Strata Services Directory has a list of specialist strata lawyers can be found on the SCA(NSW) website.
END QUOTE
Several important conclusions can be drawn from it:
1. Code of Conduct is meanigless as it can not be enforced easily and penalties are almost non-existent.
2. SCA is referring cases to Department of Fair Trading, which is also known as powerless organisation, as shown in many publications.
3. SCA is politely "washing hands off" and urging desperate customers to engage strata lawyers to make more profit for themselves.
4. The role of SCA is very clear (as per their own admission): "education, information and other membership benefits to the strata sector".
Just for the sake of record, in one of the CTTT cases against this unscrupulous strata agency, Tribunal told me that they expected SCA NSW to help with a review of professional mismanagement. After what I have experienced (and heard from other cases), one might draw a conclusion that Department of Fair Trading, CTTT (now NCAT) and SCA NSW are playing ping-pong game, at customers' expense.
I am open to all comments that can prove me wrong with conclusive evidence.