Welcome to the blog of NSW strata investigative journalism
| From: | Simon Brikha BCS Strata Management |
|---|---|
| To: | SP52948 owner |
| Subject: | SP 52948 AGM Agenda 19.10.2016 - first comments on 4Oct2016 |
| Date: |
I hope you are well.
I can confirm receipt of your email and have forwarded it onto the Executive Committee for their reference.
Many thanks and have a great afternoon.
Kind Regards
Simon Brikha
Strata Manager
Dip of Mgt (Strata)
Body Corporate Services
-----Original Message-----
From: SP52948 owner
Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2016 6:17 PM
To: Linda Leong BCS Strata Management, Simon Brikha BCS Strata Management, Mike Smythe BCS Strata Management, Greg Freeman Pica Group
Subject: Re: SP52948 AGM Agenda 19.10.2016 - first comments on 4Oct2016
Hi,
For public notice:
1. As predicted by me in the past, the levies are now going significantly up (6.1%), after artificially being held low for many years under pretence that we have abundance of money in the funds.
This increase, which I will vote against, because mismanagement of funds created the loopholes, could have been avoided had proper duty of care been applied.
In fact, it can still be avoided if parties responsible for losses from common funds are forced to repay (BCS Strata Management, BigAir Wireless, and so on).
Even more, if all owners receive details of every expense, they will certainly get shocked where money goes.
2. Motions for loose-fill asbestos program are of very limited usefullness for several reasons:
* Our complex was build in 1996 - in post-era of asbestos.
* Back in 2012, Prensa Pty Ltd (Prensa) was engaged by Napier & Blakeley (N&B) to conduct an Asbestos Building Materials Assessment (Assessment) of Macquarie Gardens, 1-15 Fontenoy Road, North Ryde NSW (the site). Clint Wright of Prensa conducted the Assessment on 23 July 2012 at the request of Alan Stewart of N&B.
The objective of this Assessment was to identify and assess the health risk posed by asbestos building materials which are considered accessible during normal occupation of the building.
The scope of the Assessment only included the common and plant areas of four (4), eight (8) level apartment buildings this was also to include underground carpark and central spa facilities building which consist of a gymnasium, pool and sauna. The assessment also included the exterior façade of twenty-six (26) terrace type properties situated at the western side of the site. No internal areas to the apartments within the apartment buildings and terrace houses were made accessible at the time of the inspection and were outside the scope of the Assessment.
Overall, no asbestos was found. This undisclosed report (owners never received a copy), cost owners $12,144.00.
3. Who authorised, changed and even excluded some Motions for AGM 2016 (see attachment that BCS Strata Manager and Pica Group received several times during 2016)?
My attachments are enclosed again and it is obvious which ones are missing, for example.
4. Who authorised the removal of Ryan Strata tender from the Motions and why are owners not given right to vote for it.
In 2014, without any prior experience in Caretaking as business owner, maintenance was "granted" contract as increase of above 16% in comparison to previous caretaker, without tender or review.
It is obvious that BCS Strata Management and Waratah Strata have almost identical quotes, which is common method for rigged tenders done by BCS Strata Management.
Was Ryan Strata approached and given explanation why they were excluded? If the contract is properly defined, there is no risk in granting business to a new company.
5. The contract for Caretaker was allegedly "renewed" for an extra year without tender, in spite of poor services in many areas, at increased cost of around 16% in 2014, and now 1%. I am personally and solely responsible for not allowing 2% increase this year, as originally planned by EC on 21 March 2016 (see my Motion that BCS Strata Management failed to acknowledge and include for AGM 2016).
It is now official that EC meeting in March 2016 was illegal and conducted without SSMA 1996 rules.
6. Back in 2004, contract for building painting cost owners above $556,000.00.
In the end, the total cost of the painting was $556,640.00 as reported by the Strata Manager, who even provided different value of the contract to the one that EC stated at AGM 2004. Without access to financial statements (that is one of the main issues over many years as expense transaction reports have never been provided), it is difficult to confirm which version is correct – the one from the EC member or the one from the Strata Manager. In both cases, it is undeniable that the contract for the painting project was not approved by the EC or owners corporation in full.
The EC is claiming that the project was conducted in “legal and compliant manner”. The EC “officially” approved only:
$446,380.00 (initial contract value)
$23,540.00 (Block D extra coat of paint)
$21,780.00 (Block A extra coat of paint)
$21,780.00 (Block B extra coat of paint)
Total: $513,480.00 (GST inclusive)
The cost “blowout” from the originally approved value of $446.380.00 was 24.7%!
Dulux consultant resigned from supervising painting project in 2004/2005 because he did not agree with how the job was done in the complex. The photos of the complex show how poorly it was done. Tomorrow, I shall publish latest photos of garden beds, and the buildings.
It is worth noting that full details of the alleged tenders for painting contract are missing from owners. Owners need to know if tenders include scaffolding (or ebb-sailing), how many coast of paint, crack refills and rendering, any remediation work for concrete cancer, type of paint used, warranty periods, warranty conditions, variance to the project if required (maximum allowed cost blowout, nbot in percentages but in absolute dollar-value), and so on.
Nobody in their sound mind would spend $600,000.00 or more without extreme checks and verification.
As well, the person involved with this bad and expensive project in 2004 (Mr. Brian Tompson) is hired again for "supervision" at a very high cost!?
7. Alleged 10-Year Sinking Fund plan dated 2010 is not based on any valid surveys or professional assessments. As admitted in the Notice for AGM, it is not a planned maintenance program. Worthless in proper planning for the future.
Overall, poorly prepared general meeting, without substance and important accompanying documents.