A Minority Owner's chronicled journey through 3 Collective Sale attempts; the last one being successful. TC was a 560 ex-HUDC estate with a thriving community spirit (up until the enblocs that is). I have moved on to a new, 37 unit Freehold estate. Life is quiet now with zero community feeling.
There is no mandated timeframe; there is no mention at all that owners need to be informed about the CSA. There is only an EGM "to approve the terms and conditions of the CSA". Third Schedule 7(1)(c)
I am now convinced this is probably a hardball tactic, not necessarily by the SC, but by the professionals who might feel that the shorter the time owners have to scrutinize the document, the easier it will be to pass at the EGM.
There is no reson why the main body was not posted with the Notice - anything missing could have been sent at a later date. To me, it is a feeble and facile excuse and is a measure of the people we are dealing with.
I am afraid 'technically' is not enough here. To quote from the Horizon Towers Appellate Court decision:-
" The first principle is that an SC has to work for the benefit of all the subsidiary proprietors. This will no doubt involve going beyond just paying lip service to the relevant procedural rules under the LTSA and its mandate under the collective sale agreement."
The SC has a moral duty above and beyond mere statutory compliance (or looking for loopholes in the LTSA to escape culpability) to ensure that owners are not bullied, browbeaten, shortchanged, lied to or ignored.
The SC are our trustees, and must act in the interests of all owners and not just to push the sale along regardless. They must show strength in this matter, because if they don't, then we have no hope for later on, when the real hardball tactics come in to play.
if they are technically not at fault, then it is up to the owners to decide if their action is acceptable. They can do so with the vote at the EGM or their signature on the CSA.
Whether they are working in the interest of the owners is debatable. They are owners themselves. 80% of us will decide.
Any idea what is the mandated timeline the owners need to be informed of the details of the draft CSA?
ReplyDeleteThere is no mandated timeframe; there is no mention at all that owners need to be informed about the CSA. There is only an EGM "to approve the terms and conditions of the CSA". Third Schedule 7(1)(c)
ReplyDeleteI am now convinced this is probably a hardball tactic, not necessarily by the SC, but by the professionals who might feel that the shorter the time owners have to scrutinize the document, the easier it will be to pass at the EGM.
There is no reson why the main body was not posted with the Notice - anything missing could have been sent at a later date. To me, it is a feeble and facile excuse and is a measure of the people we are dealing with.
So technically, the SC has done no wrong. Thanks, I was under the impression that they were not forthright.
ReplyDeleteWe, the owners can decide whether we accept the CSA in it curent form. It is still in our hand.
I am afraid 'technically' is not enough here. To quote from the Horizon Towers Appellate Court decision:-
ReplyDelete" The first principle is that an SC has to work for the benefit of all the subsidiary proprietors. This will no doubt involve going beyond just paying lip service to the relevant procedural rules under the LTSA and its mandate under the collective sale agreement."
The SC has a moral duty above and beyond mere statutory compliance (or looking for loopholes in the LTSA to escape culpability) to ensure that owners are not bullied, browbeaten, shortchanged, lied to or ignored.
The SC are our trustees, and must act in the interests of all owners and not just to push the sale along regardless. They must show strength in this matter, because if they don't, then we have no hope for later on, when the real hardball tactics come in to play.
if they are technically not at fault, then it is up to the owners to decide if their action is acceptable. They can do so with the vote at the EGM or their signature on the CSA.
ReplyDeleteWhether they are working in the interest of the owners is debatable. They are owners themselves. 80% of us will decide.