| From: | SP52948 owner |
|---|---|
| To: | Gary Webb BCS Strata Management |
| CC: | Paul Banoob BCS Strata Management, Bruce Copland, Maureen McDonald, Stan Pogorelsky, Moses Levitt, John Ward |
| Subject: | SUMMARY: Procedural error in EGM May 2012 giving exclusive rights to common property to Lot 136 and 137 |
| Date: | 23/5/12, 09:19 |
For your information...
Upon my persistence, the managing agent acknowledged that they made an error in the way the adjourned EGM was held:
a) The proxy vote from Unit 152 was declared invalid (and seemingly several others) was due to the fact that ONLY proxies received PRIOR TO THE FIRST GENERAL MEETING could be counted!
b) In other words, ONLY proxies issued on the date of the FIRST GENERAL MEETING could (and can) be legally used.
c) Apart from those, the non-expired proxies from the last Annual General Meeting (AGM) are counted too.
d) Raine & Horne made a serious error for using another proxy form for the adjournment of the EGM. It gave owners a false sense that they could still make their vote count.
e) In total, there should be 5 valid proxy votes for Lot 158, plus mine = 6. All of them voted against the the exclusive rights to common property, mainly due to unanswered questions and the way the EGm was conduted. In addition, Mr. Bruce Copland said at the first EGM (that fialed to satisfy quorum) that he had received several proxy votes who instructed him to vote against the motion.
f) Just for your information, a third error in proxy counts was uncovered today (how many are there?!):
One for owners who gave me a proxy vote for the second EGM but that turned out to be a "procedural mistake" by the agency as proxy votes could be counted only at the first meeting!
One for owner who voted against the Motion 2 but was counted incorrectly!
One for a proxy vote who was counted in favor of the Motion 2 but should have been discarded because it was not signed by the second owner of the Lot! In other words, both co-owners must sign it. I have an approval from that owner to use it in court.
In fact, I am investigating the fourth vote too. But, more details will be passed in due course of time.
Note that some proxy votes were rejected in the past because they were not signed by both owners (for example, there is a well-documented case at AGM 2010 and 2011 where the second owner did not sign and the votes were invalid).
g) Apart from it, I am puzzled by the low invoice that the owner of Unit 136/137 paid back to the owners corporation - only $400.00 (GST excl) (assuming that the cost of registration of the By-Law was paid directly by the owner!):
SP52948-Lot-136-and-137-payment-for-exclusive-rights-to-common-property-EGM-2012.pdf
1. Before the first EGM, each owner received eight-page document. There are 218 owners in the complex;
2. The cost of each photocopy that your office charges is $0.80 (80 cents). I know because of previous documents that I needed to obtain.
Hence:
218 x 8 x $0.80 = $1,395.20
Therefore, just photocopying costs for the first EGM were around $1,395.20.
3. Then, there is postage. For each owner, the postage is at least $0.60 (60 cents) for small letter or $1.20 for large letter up to 125 grams, or $1.80 if weight between 125 grams and 250 grams.
Plus, there are owners who live overseas and interstate and their postage might be higher.
If we take, as a simple exercise, just small letter (although I believe your documents were sent in large letters), the cost for is postage is:
218 x $0.60 = $130.80
So, for just these two expenses, owners corporation needs to be reimbursed by $1,526.00.
If large envelopes were used for deliveries to owners, the expense is even higher.
4. Second letter (reschedule of EGM): three pages, small envelope, the postage cost:
218 x $0.60 = $130.80
and the photocopying costs:
218 x 3 x $0.80 = $523.00
5. Third letter: Outcome of EGM (two pages), small envelope, the postage:
218 x 0.60 = $130.80
... and the photocopying:
218 x 2 x $0.80 = $348.00
Without trying to be nasty or unfair, it looks to me that the owner of Unit 136 and 137 got owners corporation to pay for what should be their private expense.
The owners deserve to get some response from the Treasurer of the EC to justify this.
h) The agenda for the EGM held on 7 of May 2012 was non-complaint with the SSMA 1996 Clause 32 (1) and the Interpretation Act 1987 Section 76 as it was not sent to owners in prescribed timeframe.
Meeting rushed to approve exclusive rights to common property to an owner on 7 May 2012. In person attended only two (out of nine) members of the Executive Committee, plus one townhouse owner, and the owner who requested exclusive rights to common property (Mr. Timothy Kemsley), and two managing agents.
Due to lack of quorum, it was adjourned for 14 May 2012.
At the original meeting, according to Mr. Bruce Copland’s own statement, between 10-12 votes were missing to declare meeting valid. 55 owners, or 2500 entitlement points were needed to make the meeting valid. Mr.Bruce Copland and BCS Strata Management refused to provide access to proxy votes at the beginning of the meeting. That means that around 45-47 votes were present at the original meeting.
At the adjourned meeting, 53 votes were counted as valid, which did not match the EC member’s statement at the original meeting.
One proxy vote was counted INCORRECTLY with wrong vote for (not against) the Motion. In his email to me, Strata Manager Mr. Paul Banoob acknowledged the error promising to update the minutes. That never happened.
Owner who requested exclusive rights to common property did not pay all costs as per approved Special By-Law.
Outcome: Meeting was non-compliant with SSMA 1996 Schedule 2 Section 12 2 (a) and (b), SSMA 1996 Schedule 2 Section 10 (8), SSMA 1996 Clause 32 (1) and the Interpretation Act 1987 Section 76, and SSMA 1996 Section 183.
In spite of all evidence that the owner did not cover all costs for the general meeting (more than $2,500.00 missing in common funds), BCS Strata Management and EC refuse to reimburse owners corporation for the general meeting organized for purely private benefits. This is confirmed in undisclosed email correspondence between the Chairperson of the committee Mr. Bruce Copland and the Strata Manager on 21 January 2015. In it, Mr. Bruce Copland offers advice how to hide expenses like this in “bundled disbursements” charged by BCS Strata Management, whilst incurring costs to owners corporation:
i) Another amazing fact: BCS Strata Management rushed to register this Special By-Law just two days after allegedly successful Extraordinary General Meeting:
I am looking forward to getting information from the insurer and the clarification about the invoice sent to the owner of Unit 136/137.
It will be interesting to see if BCS Strata Management will publish this in the minutes of the executive committee meeting.
There is not much more I can say. Wherever I look and poke, I find mistakes and errors. Are they accidental - no, I do not believe so.
Regards,