The Vice-Chairman again looking out for the best interests of the owners by suggesting the RP be raised to the original proposal given by the MA in their presentation - only to be shot down by the majority consensus. It looks like the original proposal was just the usual lure and it's just down, down, down from here on in. The old and tired mantra that "the RP was adopted by the SPs" is a cop out and used by a committee as a shield to mask their inaction. What 'current market situation' did they put forward? Did anyone offer charts or qualify their opinion with facts? Have they done any real analysis or are they relying on the marketing agents vested interest viewpoint?
4. The Chairman of the SC will be writing to the MC Chairman seeking formal confirmation of the collection of Enbloc Sale fund by the MC, as decided at the last EGM on 24.09.20011
Hold you horses here! No such thing was ever agreed at the last EGM. The resolution presented to and passed by the owners was:-'To resolve and set up an Enbloc sale fund to meet the preliminary enbloc expenses, out of pocket expenses, meeting expenses, independant valuers/property agent fees and authorise SC to collect and account for such funds.'
The MC is not and should not be entangled in the money matters of en bloc. They follow the BMSM, the SC follow the LTSA and they only overlap at the holding of the EGMs. The MC is not there to do administrative work for the sale committee or their backers and they are certainly not debt collectors for errant majority owners. What the SC should do is formally ask for the Strata Roll (and pay the administrative fee as this is stated in the LTSA) and do their own collecting. The SC are prohibited from using MCST funds, and this would include the large amount spent on stationary and postage that would necessarily be involved in collecting sums of money from owners, not to mention the time taken away from the managing agent in his official duties in overseeing the maintenance of the estate.
No comments:
Post a Comment