SP52948 Some of Real Expenses in 2014

Hello,

Owner of Lot 136 and 137 tried to defend Strata Manager and the Executive Committee
using the same language as Chairperson of the EC and finding "no issues" but offering no
evidence.

I gave him the answer he deserved.

Here are just five spreadsheets with expenses in FY 2014. Each of them is
grossly misrepresented and wrongly listed in balance sheet that
EC members and BCS Strata Management prepared. The figures for them easily show that
balance sheet is "off track" by $40-$50,000 through incorrect entries.
And that does not take into account all invoices.

Not only it is questionable what the real expenses are, but as well these
"cooked books" create false basis for planning future expenses and
Sinking Fund (which we do not have properly prepared for 14 years anyway
- that will also be talked about at the AGM).

And small note: it seems that some (currently unknown) owners
reimbursed $475 by closing date of 17 November 2014. Invoices
are yet to show who paid it. In any case, that symbolic sum is absolutely
insufficient to recover lost money from Admin Fund for non-compliance
with Special By-Law 13.

Alleged Reimbursements before 1Sep2014 $445.00

Alleged Reimbursements between 1Sep2014 and 17Nov2014 $30.00

Receipts for these reimbursements still undisclosed in spite
of SSMA 1996 Section 108 legal requirements.

Much more to be presented at the AGM 2014.

PS. This was part of my response to "concerned" owner of Lot 136 and 137.
I would have loved to see some evidence that my figures are wrong. But,
that did not happen:

BEGIN QUOTE
...There is only one way to manage common property: in accordance with the
law and duty of care. You obviously never worked in any government or
large organisation. You have no idea what "duty of care" and
"fiduciary responsibility" mean.

1. Special By-Law 10, for your exclusive private use of common property,
was organised in non-compliance with SSMA 1996 in regards to clear days
for notice of meetings. Hence, EGM that approved your Motion was illegal.

You know it, and still stayed silent because it suited you.

2. In spite of promises you gave to owners, you did not pay all
costs for the EGM and the registration of Special By-Law. Instead,
owners paid majority of expenses.

You misled owners when you begged for proxy votes by stating
that all costs would be covered by you.

If you are so "honest and ethical", how about you show it by paying
EGM expenses and the By-Law registration in full? Then, you might
command some respect.

3. Unit 186 voted AGAINST your Motion but was counted INCORRECTLY.
In his email to the owner (who happens to be a Lecturer at the University of
Western Sydney) Mr. Paul Banoop acknowledged the error and promised to update the minutes.

Unit 193 vote was invalid because BOTH owners should have signed the form. Wife of
the owner DID NOT SIGN IT and she was happy for me to document it. This ruling was
heavily used in several previous cases where the managing agents refused to accept
proxies that were not co-signed (see DFT and CTTT cases that I had logged for AGM
2010 and 2011 previously).

Upon my strong insistence, Mr. Paul Banoop admitted that he rejected proxy vote from Unit 152,
an older Asian couple, who gave me a proxy vote. Mr. Paul Banoop, clearly and without any doubts,
admitted a serious error in organizing the adjourned EGM.

That apology and updates of the EGM minutes have not happened yet.
By the way, Mr. Paul Banoop was "promoted" by Mr. Greg Freeman recently.

4. To avoid complications, even three members of the EC did not want to support the EGM
and they did not attend:

J. Wang
M. McDonald
J. Ward

5. You support illegal activities in many areas (which are well documented):
financial mismanagement, non-compliance with laws, and others. You do not seem
to comment much about them, like 14 years of secret water and gas
reimbursements without By-Law or Special Resolution, which took around $160,000
from Admin Fund illegally). Or, $43,000 unaccounted for from rigged tender for
building painting, or rigged Caretaker's contract that, with direct proofs show
that owners paid at least around $150,000 extra over 14 years, and so on.

Or, for example Special By-Law 4, for exclusive rights to common property by owner
of Lot 3 is not on the listing of By-Laws for owners for 11 years and Strata Manager
does not enforce compliance with it.

Or, Peter Bone providing direct and undeniable false statements in Statutory Declaration
to CTTT (pending criminal record). You support it? What have you done to correct it?

If you claim these serious issues do not interest you (and then actively prevent others
to uncover those huge mismanagement issues and even criminal activities),
then why are you voting and what is your agenda?

Why would you not want to save money by preventing financial and management abuse?
Ask yourself: why is Chairperson and the gang so desperate to stay on the
committee and why he surrounds himself with oblivious followers? Why, for example,
EC members and you avoided putting on the EC owners like lawyer with two degrees,
certified accountant, and so on? The answer jumps in your face. EC members do not like
anyone who questions, and to avoid scrutiny, they engage followers like you to make
noise and distraction.

Or, are you getting something that we do not know about? Do you get undeclared
private benefits from the EC and the Strata Manager?

About "private" access to financial documents: think again: you support
actions that clearly abuse common funds and present false
balance sheet to owners and then you say you are not interested in
knowing about it. You know that law says the documents must be provided
(not your choice or mine, that is the law), and then give support to people
who break the law continuously!