| From: |
SP52948 owner |
| To: |
Peter Bone BCS Strata Management |
| CC: |
Bruce Copland, Elizabeth Saulits, Maureen McDonald, Stan Pogorelsky, Moses Levitt, John Ward, Rafael Hirschhorn, Jeffery Wang, Paul Banoob BCS Strata Management |
| Subject: |
SUMMARY: Lot 158 Brief and Partial Response for Minutes of EC Meeting held on 22 May 2013 |
| Date: |
05/07/18 20:40 |
Hello,
The minutes of the EC meeting held on 22 May 2013 arrived via email today. Whilst I will provide full summary to the CTTT by the due date 4 June 2013, several quick corrections (the minutes are full of inconsistencies and errors but that was to be expected and did not surprise me):
a) As I stated, and now proven right, the Solicitor is not authorized to represent and work on CTTT case SCS 12/50460 (related to Annual General Meeting 2012).
He never had that mandate and the owners corporation was never notified that he mislead two government organizations about it so far. The evidence has been presented to the Office of Legal Services Commissioner, the DFT, and the CTTT.
The Solicitor knew perfectly well about issues about the AGM 2012 as he charged fees for “reviewing” my complaints on 10 October 2012 (a week before the AGM) and later on (see below).
To make things worse, the Solicitor charged fees for work related to CTTT SCS 12/50460, although we now all know that he was not hired for it. Here are some of many proofs in relation to charges the Solicitor claimed in this case illegally:
b) To highlight a very important issue because most owners would not pick it up: Chairperson Mr. Bruce Copland notified the Solicitor that the EC members would not attend free mediation at the Department of Fair Trading (DFT) on 21 February 2013. By that time, the EC members, the Strata Manager, and the Solicitor had plenty of documents provided by me but they simply avoided the mediation in hope that high legal expenses would act as deterrent for future cases:
To explain the mediation process at the DFT (Department of Fair Trading): it is supposed to be open, without any legal representation, and free. Each party is supposed to bring their own evidence at the mediation, not before! The parties are encouraged to discuss issues openly, in front of the DFT Mediator. For some reason (owners can make up their own conclusion) this is the FOURTH time that Mr. Bruce Copland avoids open talks.
c) The minutes of the EC meeting on 22 May 2013 state that the owners of Lot 3 had the public liability insurance. I am glad if it is true.
That question was raised by me SEVEN TIMES and even the Solicitor was asked to provide full proofs for the last eight years. To this day, such evidence is non-existent. So, if the public liability insurance documents for the last eight years are available – good – provide them, if not, then we have a problem with the Special By-Law compliance for many years and the EC and the Strata Manager are personally responsible for not upholding the by-laws in the complex.
The four emails that the Solicitor mentions above are enclosed in the PDF attachment.
“SP52948-emails-to-MA-After-Hearing-and-AGM-2012-17Oct2012.pdf”
These emails related to requests for information and evidence on:
Water and gas rebates
Insurance
Public liability insurance by owners of Lot 3
None of them were ever replied to! It is now seven months without a response. In addition, it was the Solicitors CONTRACTUAL DUTY to respond to all my requests for information.
d) The Chairperson Mr. Bruce Copland claimed there was a legal reason to exclude me from attending the meeting during Motions 6,7, 8. I challenged him for a legal ground and he assured that it would be provided in the minutes. It is now obvious that the exclusion of ANY owner (unless due to unruly behavior) was/is ILLEGAL. There is no legal basis for not allowing owners to attend properly-convened EC or general meeting. Therefore, the statement about his rights to do it by the Chairperson Mr. Bruce Copland was false and deceiving. This is now part of the CTTT case.
e) The Chairperson Mr. Bruce Copland still have a problem with even admitting the total expenses for the Solicitor so far.
Cred. Code
|
Creditor Name
|
Doc. Ref. No.
|
Doc. Date
|
Doc. Total
|
Chq. Date
|
Mtd.
|
Cnl. Chq.
|
Date Presented
|
84446
|
J S MUELLER & CO SOLICITORS
|
61223
|
10/05/2013
|
11568.72
|
20/05/2013
|
BankDirectCredit
|
N
|
20/05/2013
|
84446
|
J S MUELLER & CO SOLICITORS
|
60252
|
6/03/2013
|
1452
|
22/03/2013
|
BankDirectCredit
|
N
|
22/03/2013
|
84446
|
J S MUELLER & CO SOLICITORS
|
58762
|
15/11/2012
|
13986.12
|
27/11/2012
|
BankDirectCredit
|
N
|
27/11/2012
|
84446
|
J S MUELLER & CO SOLICITORS
|
57380
|
10/08/2012
|
1504.4
|
22/08/2012
|
BankDirectCredit
|
N
|
22/08/2012
|
84446
|
J S MUELLER & CO SOLICITORS
|
56130
|
28/05/2012
|
198
|
31/05/2012
|
BankDirectCredit
|
N
|
31/05/2012
|
84446
|
J S MUELLER & CO SOLICITORS
|
55003
|
13/03/2012
|
2500
|
27/03/2012
|
BankDirectCredit
|
N
|
27/03/2012
|
|
|
|
|
$31,209.24
|
|
|
|
|
It does not matter if such costs can be claimed from the insurance, because the INSURANCE WOULD RAISE THEIR PREMIUMS next year due to these claims, so the owners corporation still suffers. As far as my “liability” for these costs is concerned, I will not accept it simply because:
I proved that the Solicitor was not engaged at any properly convened EC meeting because one on 9 July 2012 was not a formal meeting.
The retrospective “ratification” of the Solicitor’s retainer was illegally approved on
19 April 2013 due to invalid notification of the meeting that had to be sent at least
72 hours earlier to and lack of full details in the "agenda".
I proved that I wanted access to information and open discussions
and no legal expenses.
In any case, that is something we will deal with either (finally) though proper decision at the CTTT or in the District Court.
f) The attempt to delay the “mediation” until the general meeting in late October 2013 will be rejected by me because:
There was enough time to prepare the Extraordinary General Meeting, and,
in the worst case, several week delay till the end of June is more than enough,
The illegally approved (we will talk about it why such claim is valid at a proper
place), inequitable, and discriminatory water and gas rebates for some
townhouse owners (Special By-Law has not even been registered yet) cannot
continue without an urgent review for another four months till the AGM,
Professionalism and duty of care by the trainee Strata Manager has failed in
many areas. Defending his work for another four months without any changes
would be detrimental to the owners corporation,
The issue of who generated, distributed and collected illegal proxy papers (29
of them) is another important element. This is fraud, plain as that, and several
members of the EC were actively involved in it.
Apart from other 11 motions, the one that was crucial to prevent legal cost,
was excluded from the agenda at the AGM 2012 and the Solicitor was
DIRECTLY INVOLVED in organizing this fraudulent action.
The Solicitor advised the EC and the Strata manager to modify 10 of
my motions, remove all explanatory notes, and then simply exclude
two other motions of which one would have disabled him to make
more than $31,000.00 so far (by forcing the mediation at meetings
within the complex without engaging legal services),
Regarding the complex maintenance – the folder with the new photos are
ready. In addition, highlights from the Napier & Blakeley’s report will be
used too.
The notion that the EC and the Strata Manager did not know what needed to be
maintained is preposterous. There are lot of proofs that I warned them
about status of the buildings (especially higher floors), gardening, pavers,
and garden beds.
Other pressing issues that need to be resolved sooner than later.
Final comment: even a simple engagement of the Solicitor cannot happen without the Standard Costs Agreement and Standards Costs Disclosure (unless it is below $750.00, excluding disbursements), so to request services of the Solicitor to respond to the CTTT by 4 June 2013 is again illegal and against the owners’ wishes (I know that many of them specifically said that no involvement of the legal aid is approved by them).