Investigative Journalism and Learning Hub - Unfinancial SP52948 Committee Member Moses Levitt Silently Refused to Return Private Property on 3 June 2021

Good evening,

At around 19:35 hours this evening, six folders were delivered to security guard on ground floor, Block A.

A copy of the email was also delivered for Mrs. Marianna Paltikian (EC Secretary) in Body Corporate letterbox.

Good morning,

Thank you for not responding.

This is advanced notice that seven folder (six for committee members and one for NCAT), have been prepared.

Due to the size, the packages will be available in security office in Block A in late afternoon on Thursday 15 October 2020. You can pick it up from there.

Since Mr. Wang does not live in the complex, there are ONLY two options for him:

a) Come in person and pick his own copy of the folder from the security office,

b) Provide us with his full home address (P.O. Box is not acceptable) so that we can send him the folder by Australia Post.

Regards,

On 25/9/20 6:25 pm, SP52948 owner wrote:

FYI

Sent to NCAT today...

Good evening,

• The first concern is in relation to making six copies of the files to the respondent, which does not make sense. If it has been decided or agreed at today's hearing that due to exorbitant printing costs the applicants decided not  pursue SECT 238 (a) (orders removing the members of the Executive Committee), then it is logical to only send ONE COPY of the files (to owners corporation).

        NCAT must note that there are NINE members of the committee, so why would six only receive the files?

• Second concern: if, and only if, some solicitor is approved by owners corporation at LEGALLY-CONVENED general meeting where ONLY FINANCIAL OWNERS CAN VOTE, then it does not make any sense for the applicants to send six copies of the same files when only one of them would be read and used by a legal entity.
  

         That is why it is crucial to wait for the outcome of the general meeting on 22 October 2020 because at the meeting number of outcomes that the applicants seek might be resolved in natural way, making NCAT case unnecessary and simple to close without high costs.

• Third concern:, we ask Tribunal to extend time for the applicants to provide to each of the respondents (six members of the committee) a copy of the
  strata schemes application and the documents relied on by the applicants by 2 October 2020.

        We need more time and propose new date of 26 October 2020 for the following VERY STRONG reasons:

        a) Organizing new printer and the toner as the old is out-of-order now (quite costly for laser printers and we need to look for reasonable purchase costs),

        b) Wait for agenda of the general meeting scheduled for 22 October 2020 to verify if Mrs. S.P.B. Motions will be included intact and without changes.

        c) See outcome of the general meeting (validity of the meeting, conduct of the meeting, which owners allowed to vote, and so on).

        d) Although we are trying very hard to avoid any party to incur unnecessary costs, we now want to consult with our Criminal & Civil Solicitors, who have requested owners corporation to respond on the following dates and received no responses so far:

        14 November 2019
        21 November 2019
        24 April 2020

        We also remind NCAT that it should not be necessary to engage legal help, especially since the respondent appears to want to use the Solicitor who has been found, with irrefutable evidence, to deliberately provide false statements (lied) to Fair Trading NSW and CTTT in files SCS 12/32675 and SCS 12/50460, acted without approval to represent owners corporation, and even prepared false statements for strata manager in their Statutory Declaration and Affidavit (engaging him or his colleagues would be a serious conflict due to his personal apprehension of bias):

        Sadlo v Viceroy Gilead Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCTTT 559 (at [10]):
        “[10] ... the [respondent] opted to be represented by a lawyer. It had no obligation to do so. The tasks involved in
        providing evidence, and making submissions at the hearing could have been undertaken by an employee or
        officer of the [respondent]. The [applicants] should not be obliged to pay an expense the [respondent] had no
        obligation to incur.”

• We are very concerned with different attitude towards us and the respondents. NCAT appears, or gives impression, of favoritism. And it seems not to be the first time. In spite of strong suspicions, in 2013, CTTT refused to issue summonses to strata manager and EC members, allowed Solicitor Adrian Mueller to continue with his actions, and then failed to reimburse us as per Mr. Harrowell's' decision in SCS 12/32675 on 29 April 2013:

        "You will receive a refund of the summons fee in due course"

        We never received our money back.

        We, the applicants, were forced to submit our files to the Tribunal in paper format, and email was strictly disallowed. Yet, the respondents are not doing the same in return. Based on the orders made by Senior Member G. Blake, in Item 6:

        The respondents shall provide to the applicant and the Tribunal, either in person or by post, and by email, a copy of all documents (see note below), on which the respondent seeks to rely at the hearing by 20 November 2020.

        We, the applicants, were not allowed to provide evidence by email.

• Today, we, the applicants, have again approached the five members of the committee (email to the sixth member bounced back with unknown user), and asked them to be reasonable and accept electronic delivery of documents.

        Five members of the committee already got from us personal login details on a secure website with all files, so Item 5 has been complied with one week ahead of the schedule (2 October 2020).

• Members of the committee were notified by us today that we have reconsidered the application:

        If six members of the committee refuse or ignore reasonable request to receive/send files in electronic format, we, the applicants, decided to proceed with making copies of the evidence in paper format (in spite of UNNECESSARY costs) and proceed by reinstating the following order:

        STRATA SCHEMES MANAGEMENT ACT 2015 - SECT 238 (a), Orders removing the following members of the Executive Committee: Mr. Moses Levitt (Lot 147), Mr. Stan Pogorelsky (Lot 181)

We trust common sense will prevail and equal rights be allowed to all parties.

Regards,