- This topic has 7 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Topic
-
I found this in an email from a paralegal who works for a well known strata brief In Sydney.
“Moving forward I would like to only receive instructions from your strata manager to avoid any further issues.”What I find interesting is the desire to only receive instruction from the employee (agent) of the principal (the OC). I have seen this from a number of service providers from key cutters through to briefs.
I really struggle with the way agents are viewed in a higher regard than the principal and it is very problematic for those who still self manage.
- This topic was modified 2 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Replies
-
I really struggle with the way agents are viewed in a higher regard than the principal and it is very problematic for those who still self manage.
I think it may be simply pragmatic; if you understand and accept that strata manager can only act with the tacit approval of the strata committee, and that committee members come and go, and that some committee secretaries and chairs assume powers that they are not entitled to, then you can see why service providers might prefer to take instructions and fulfil orders from someone whom they know has the authority to issue them.
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
Whenever you contact a lawyer working for you, the charge clock starts. They bill in six minute blocks.
If you get a whole bunch of owners just calling the lawyer for a chat, or to tell the lawyer how to do their job, you can see that the bill is going to rack up pretty quickly.
It doesn’t have to be the strata manager thst the lawyer takes instructions from. Any person nominated by the committee or owners can be the lead. In the absence of a nominated person, it’s logical for the strata manager to instruct the lawyers.
They might also be getting conflicting instructions from different people on the OC, while the SM is (supposed to) act on behalf of the OC via resolved instructions.
They might also be getting conflicting instructions from different people on the OC, while the SM is (supposed to) act on behalf of the OC via resolved instructions.
We’ve had a couple of instances here where ordinary owners have acted as if they were the committee chairs when they weren’t – one wasn’t even an owner, he was bullying people on behalf of his daughter. I wish it were not so, but I totally understand why service providers might only want to deal with the strata manager.
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
The OC I belong to has used a lawyer on a few occasions. One of their first bits of advice was to nominated a person from the committee from whom they would be authorised to receive instructions.
Two issues here. Often the ‘Committee’ who have many proxies in their hands often make decisions favourable to themselves. Many ‘Committees’ are made up of 5 persons or less, voted for from friendly proxies (or in person) at the AGM.
Then you have Strata Managers who have been in place for many years (in my case 10 years) who are willingly siding with the ‘Committee’ who vote to keep the Strata Manager in place & pay their fees. The Strata Manager side with the these Committee members even though they are aware that a number of owners are not being treated fairly but want to keep their Strata Management Strata Agreement in place each 3 years.
Cynical? Yes. True? Yes. Sad? Yes
5 owners who control 11 proxies in a complex of 21
Is there a remedy? NCAT?
Is there a remedy? NCAT?
Only if the law is being breached or if the scheme is clearly dysfunctional, or decisions are being made that clearly benefit some owners to the financial detriment of others, or if the committee is engaged in fraud or financial impropriety or the scheme is not fulfilling its legal obligation to maintain and repair common property.
NCAT will look at valid proxies as an indication that those people are generally happy with the way things are being run. The easiest way to change things may be to harvest some of those votes for your side.
Obviously, when you say 5 committee members control 11 proxies, you are including their own votes plus another from supporters. In a scheme of 21 lots, each owner can only carry one proxy.
That would be a very fragile majority if the other 10 owners were united in opposition and persuading one owner to change sides would change everything. But that’s easier said than done and the scenario you describe is very common.
In the days prior to limits on proxies, in one scheme I know of, before each AGM the chair used to diligently go round people who weren’t interested in attending and offer to vote on their behalf, however they wanted on the issues they cared about, which might only be one or two motions.
Armed with that proxy, he might even have voted against his own motions but he had their votes for all the other motions on the agenda.
He had done nothing legally wrong and NCAT would not have raised an eyebrow – even when he turned up at an AGM with more votes and unit entitlements than everyone else put together and used them to replace the only dissenting voice on his committee.
Later, with the 2016 law changes imminent, his submission to Fair Trading on why there shouldn’t be limits on proxy farming was a master class in equivocation.
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.