Welcome to the blog of NSW strata investigative journalism
| From: | SP52948 Lot 215 |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Bone BCS Strata Management, SP52948 owner |
| Subject: | VOTES AGAINST THE ENGAGEMENT OF SOLICITOR AND NOTIFICATION FOR OWNERS ABOUT PENDING CTTT CASE SCS 12/50460: 20 May 2013 |
| Date: | 21/5/13, 11:43 am |
Hi all,
Thank you for those people who voice the concern about the solicitor's fee.
I totally agree with those units owners who oppose the legal procedures about this particular issue.
The fee will well be above the estimated figures which no one is willing to pay I soppose.
Please let me know if there is another special meeting in the coming days I will be there for sure.
Regards
Unit 215
From: SP52948 owner
To: Peter Bone BCS Strata Management
Cc: Paul Banoob Pica Group, SP52948 owners
Sent: Monday, 20 May 2013 4:17 PM
Subject: UPDATE: VOTES AGAINST THE ENGAGEMENT OF SOLICITOR AND NOTIFICATION FOR OWNERS ABOUT PENDING CTTT CASE SCS 12/50460: 20 May 2013
Hello,
An important update for owners to share. Please distribute to all owners.
Of around 120 owners I contacted, only two did not want to get involved or receive any messages.
Over the last several days, number of owners expressed their unhappiness and unwillingness to spend money on legal fees, which is in line with what I want and always offered.
They called me in person, or sent emails. With some of them I had very decent, open, and long phone discussions and there was no disagreement in our views: open talks are required and all parties must be given a chance to talk and provide evidence. I am certainly ready at any time.
Among those people who DO NOT WANT ANY SOLICITOR INVOLVEMENT is the owner of Lot 122 and here is his message today:
Please note that I am against legal procedures as I believe that legal costs will escalate to at least 100k. We need to call for a special meeting. I am willing to mediate among parties. Please convey my message to all parties. Best Regards u122
The same sentiment is shared by some other owners who do not wish to be publicly disclosed as yet.
Therefore, we have a proper mediation process: extraordinary general meeting without any external involvement and costs within next four weeks (the agenda of the general meeting is required 7 days advance notice plus three clear-days for letters by post - in total at least 10-11 working days advance notice with the full agenda that includes the Motions presented by me three times in 2013).
If all parties agree to it, I am happy to stop or delay the CTTT process as I can control it in full. Today and tomorrow, other owners can send their private messages to the Strata Manager for consideration at the EC meeting this Wednesday evening. Taking some action is appropriate as this is everybody's chance to decide against further waste of money on legal costs without any valid reason.
On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 19:16 +1000, SP52948 owner wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Last week, I documented why the Solicitor was not required.
> The report was sent to the members of the EC and yourself. Nobody attempted to respond to me.
>
> Earlier today, an agenda for the EC meeting on 22 May 2013 was received.
>
> BY THE PROXY VOTES VESTED IN ME AND MYSELF, YOU ARE INSTRUCTED TO RECORD THAT WE DO NOT APPROVE ENGAGEMENT OF ANY SOLICITOR AS UNNECESSARY, COSTLY, AND UNAPPROVED AT THE GENERAL MEETING.
>
> * You were supposed to organize the general meeting, where, if conducted properly, all issues could be discussed and voted without any involvement of the Solicitor would be utterly unnecessary.
>
> * You were supposed to seek one or preferably two more proposals for cost agreement from other Solicitors - you FAILED TO DO IT,
>
> * You were supposed to request the Solicitor to reimburse the owners corporation for over-inflated and illegal Solicitor's expenses that I documented last week. You FAILED TO DO IT.
>
> * The Solicitor failed in his duties to provide services to the owners corporation and failed to notify the owners about major issues that changed since the issue of the Standard Cost Agreement on 16 July 2012.
>
> The Solicitor was requested to provide evidence why he did not notify the owners corporation about all expenses and substantial changes to the Cost Agreement as per Legal Profession Act 2004:
>
> If the Solicitor becomes ‘aware’ of a substantial ‘change’ in anything ‘included in’ prior disclosure, there is a duty to update the disclosure under Section 316
>
> It is actually covered by Section 309(1)(b)(iv) (and Section 316) of the Legal Profession Act 2004. HE REFUSED TO DO IT.
>
> This was also listed in his Standard Cost Agreement but not adopted by the Solicitor.
>
> YOU, AS STRATA MANAGER, HAVE DUTY OF CARE TO ENSURE OWNERS HAVE SUCH CLEAR AND PRECISE INFORMATION BEFORE THE MEETING.
> Otherwise, you will be in breach of the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996, Schedule 3, Part 2, Section 6, Clause (3):
>
> 6 Notice of executive committee meetings
> (3) The notice must specify when and where the meeting is
> to be held and contain a detailed agenda for the meeting.
>
> My estimate is that total costs for Solicitor Mr. Adrian Mueller have exceeded $23,000.00, possibly $25,000.00 so far (against the "approved" proposal of $11,500.00). That is more than 100% increase above the "budgeted value" and yet, no owner is given the full figure yet!
>
> Here are the reasons why it seems the EC and you avoid the general meeting:
>
> a) I offered that all issues be dealt with at a general meeting within the complex.
>
> Only owners with bad intentions would prevent the general meeting from happening in an orderly and open manner.
>
> b) You failed to disclose to owners the reasons for the CTTT case SCS 12/50460. Short documents are enclosed herewith. All owners should have received them since 24 April 2013.
>
> c) The reason why the EC and you might not wish to proceed with the general meeting is that there are lot of issues outstanding for a long time:
>
> * My 12 Motions (passively waiting since 29 January 2013 and sent to you again on 10 May 2013),
>
> * Corrections of the minutes of the AGM 2012,
>
> * Response to other major issues have to be provided as part of the agenda for the EGM:
>
> SkyNet Global running business in the complex without any benefits to owners, and all owners have been paying for their electricity bills for eight years,
>
> * Missing multiple quotes for major projects in the complex so that real financial situation can be assessed,
>
> * Full disclosure of "equitable" water and gas reimbursements (I asked you and the EC to provide the spreadsheet and latest information to all owners last week, but that did not happen, so I enclose it herewith). I am sorry that I have to provide full names of those townhouse owners, as they are not guilty for claiming something the EC members and the Strata Manager told them they could do.
>
> * Investigation about alleged illegal electrical work by a previous EC member who seemingly did not have license to do such work (it can affect our insurance and cause major fire if done improperly),
>
> * Copies of the Special By-Laws as registered after the AGM 2012 (I asked for them three times and you failed to do it). I enclose herewith a proof that you did not register Special By-Laws as you were supposed to do straight after the AGM 2012 (document from the Land and Property Information Division of NSW).
>
> That means the "equitable" water and gas reimbursements are not yet legally enforceable, for example.
>
> d) In addition, last week, straight after the Hearing, the Solicitor and you received an email from me requesting:
>
> * The EC and you immediately review the invoice in amount of $1,452.00 that you submitted to the owners corporation on 6 March 2013 because almost all expenses in it were related to the CTTT File SCS 12/50460 (and corresponding DFT SM12/1537JR), and some even private financial matters between Raine & Horne Strata and myself (which you cannot claim from owners corporation).
>
> A quick reimbursement of the illegal expenses is required immediately as the funds of the owners corporation have been abused without approval. The Solicitor and you provided false statement to the DFT and CTTT that Mr. Adrian Mueller legally represented the owners corporation in case SCS 12/50460.
>
> Note that I sent these details about imposter representing the owners corporation in case SCS 12/50460 to the Director General at the DFT and the CTTT this week.
>
> e) Raine & Horne Strata already broke the laws on three previous occasions in regards to putting Motions on the agenda for the general meetings:
>
> At AGM 2010, the Strata Manager Mr. John Fry, upon strong opposition by EC members, refused to add two of my Motions on the agenda:
>
> * Future proposals to run business on common property and extraordinary general meetings
>
> * Analysis of Optus proposal and past mistakes at the committee level
>
> I have all the evidence.
>
> At AGM 2011 the Strata Manager Mr. Simon Wicks refused to put my Motions:
>
> * Removal of By-Law 8
>
> * Future proposals to run business on common property and extraordinary general meetings
>
> In fact, he put the first Motion on the agenda but changed it so much that it became useless because he refused to add the explanatory notes.
>
> I have all the evidence.
>
> At AGM 2012, the Strata Manager Mr. Peter Bone refused to put on the agenda two Motions:
>
> * Discuss Special By-Law 10
>
> * Improved Dispute Resolution Process
>
> He also misconstrued and changed two other Motions:
>
> * Rescind Motion 8 at AGM 2005 - Limit on spending by executive committees of large strata schemes
>
> * Rescind Special By-Law 8 - Acquisition of Additional Common Property
>
> And seven other Motions were not provided with the explanatory notes, thus making them useless.
>
> Legal expenses are not needed in our strata plan. As soon as all owners get the full information about the management of our complex and numerous serious issues disclosed, I am sure things will change very quickly.
>
> If we were a real "friendly" neighborhood, we would form a special committee (not from the members of the EC), call an internal meeting or series of meetings, and mediate between you and me (based on proper legal grounds and with full view of the SSMA 1996). That is what good communities do. They sit and review things together. We have enough smart people in the complex who can organize the "mediation". That is why I proposed the Motion at AGM 2012 (which you deliberately removed) and again for the EGM/AGM 2013 (pending now).
> PS. For the record, another folder with evidence is now given to the CTTT in case SCS 12/50460 and the complaint against the Solicitor prepared for the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner for professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct.