I now need to extend that dispute under section 227(1)(h) of the BCCM Act 1997, with the committee of the Body Corporate of Somerset Gardens CTS 2522.
1. From the committee meeting of the 20th February 2023:
a. motion 1.2 was not a reasonable decision to change the minuted of a meeting that had been resolved as true and correct to add owners motions that were not discussed at the meeting of the 24th August 2022, at which there is an audio recording. Especially, when the actions of the secretary with regard these minutes is in dispute with the commissioner.
b. Motion 2.1 was not required under by-law 12.1 as that by-law applies to signs or similar and by-law 4.1 (b) does not prevent owners from install any screen.
c. Motion 2.3 was not appropriate as the caretaker has record of the fact that they did not suggest that “no information to provide”. Also the motion related to unauthorised improvements that the secretary has on her lot. It was unreasonable to remove the item from the agenda.
d. Motion 2.15 is not a function of the body corporate under section 94 and was not covered in the caretakers report.
e. Motion 2.16. The decision was unreasonable not having an unbiased “audit” of the fences before electing to do a part of the fence that backed onto the lot of a committee member.
f. Motion 3.2 was not made in accordance with the Act
g. Motion 3.3 was not made in accordance with the Act, as the by-law have no requirement with regard to audio recording and the this is not a function of the committee under the Act.
h. Motion 4.1 was a request for a motion to be considered under section 50 as not treated as required under the Regulations.
i. Motion 4.2 was a request for a motion to be considered under section 50 as not treated as required under the Regulations.
j. Motion 10.2 was not required as lot 12 has an exclusive right that is an exception under by-law 1.1(b)
k. Motion 11.1 was was not reasonable as the Body Corporate Manager contract finished before the proposed date of the AGM.
2. On the 23rd February 2023 Lynne Smith gave instruction to the body corporate manager that was that was not by way of a vote of the committee as required by the resolution of the committee on the 8th December 2021 and the decision to approve the application of lot 62 was not made by way of a vote from the committee under section 57 or 60.
3. On the 21st April 2023 Lynne Smith gave instruction to the body corporate manager that was that was not by way of a vote of the committee as required by the resolution of the committee on the 8th December 2021 and the decision to approve the application of lot 54 was not made by way of a vote from the committee under section 57 or 60.
4. On the 26th February 2023 Lynne Smith gave instruction to the body corporate manager that was that was not by way of a vote of the committee as required by the resolution of the committee on the 8th December 2021 and the decision to approve the application of lot 85 was not made by way of a vote from the committee under section 57 or 60 and it was inappropriate to advice the lot owner to take actions that would give a right to common property to a lot owner.
5. On the 27st April 2023 Lynne Smith gave instruction to the body corporate manager that was that was not by way of a vote of the committee as required by the resolution of the committee on the 8th December 2021 and the decision to approve the application of lot 48 was (a) not made by way of a vote from the committee under section 57 or 60. (b) not required under by-law 20 as it was not a structural alteration to the interior of a lot.
6. On the 2nd May 2023 Lynne Smith gave instruction to the body corporate manager that was that was not by way of a vote of the committee as required by the resolution of the committee on the 8th December 2021 and the decision to approve the application of lot 91 was (a) not made by way of a vote from the committee under section 57 or 60. (b) not required under by-law 20 or by-law 4.
7. On the 5th May 2023 Lynne Smith gave instruction to the body corporate manager that was that was not by way of a vote of the committee as required by the resolution of the committee on the 8th December 2021 and the decision to approve the application of lot 20 was (a) not made by way of a vote from the committee under section 57 or 60. (b) not required under by-law 20 or by-law 4.
8. On the 6th May 2023 Lynne Smith gave instruction to the body corporate manager that was that was not by way of a vote of the committee as required by the resolution of the committee on the 8th December 2021 and the decision to approve the application of lot 85 was (a) not made by way of a vote from the committee under section 57 or 60. (b) the decision was a restricted issue of the committee as it assigned right to lot 85 for common property and the authority should not have been made under section 177(2)(c) as the gate would have cause a contention of by-law 3.
9. On the 6th May 2023 Lynne Smith gave instruction to the body corporate manager that was that was not by way of a vote of the committee as required by the resolution of the committee on the 8th December 2021 and the decision to approve the application of lot 36 was (a) not made by way of a vote from the committee under section 57 or 60.
10.On the 7th June 2023 Lynne Smith gave instruction to the body corporate manager that was that was not by way of a vote of the committee as required by the resolution of the committee on the 8th December 2021 and the decision to approve the application of lot 90 was (a) not made by way of a vote from the committee under section 57 or 60.
11.On the 7th June 2023 Lynne Smith gave instruction to the body corporate manager that was that was not by way of a vote of the committee as required by the resolution of the committee on the 8th December 2021 and the decision to approve the application of lot 35 was (a) not made by way of a vote from the committee under section 57 or 60. (b) the decision was a restricted issue of the committee as it assigned right to lot 35 for common property and the authority should not have been made under section 177(2)(c) as the deck would have cause a contention of by-law 11.1(e)
12.The committee was given all requirements to act under section 183 of the Regulation in relation to lot 45 but failed to enforce the by-laws under section 94(1)(b)
13.From the committee meeting of the 29th May 2023:
a. There is not requirement under section 63 to indicate which motion comes from which committee member and the labelling is not applied to other committee members
b. Motion 1.2 was not made by way of a VOCM under section 60 and should not been confirmed
c. Motion 1.3 was not made by way of a VOCM under section 60 and should not been confirmed
d. Motion 2.3 was not a function of the caretaker under the agreement and was nor a reasonable decision.
e. Motion 2.5 was not a function of the committee ti delegate a function to the caretaker under section 97.
f. Motion 2.3 was not a function of the caretaker under the agreement and was nor a reasonable decision
g. Motion 2.11.2 was an reasonable decision for transparency for the body corporate.
h. Motion 3 was an reasonable decision for transparency for the body corporate as it is not a function of the body corporate under section 94 of the Act.
i. Motion 3.1 was not a function of the caretaker under the agreement and was nor a reasonable decision
j. Motion 3.2 was not a function the committee as not by-law authority is required.
k. Motion 4 is not a truthful representation as audio indicates that no correspondence was read.
l. Motion 5.1 was not a function of the committee as there is not option under the Act or regulations to “ratify” an approval that was not made by vote of the committee. A new application should have been considered and aspect presented to the committee for reasonable decision.
m. Motion 5.2 was not a function of the committee as there is not option under the Act or regulations to “ratify” an approval that was not made by vote of the committee. A new application should have been considered and aspect presented to the committee for reasonable decision.
n. Motion 5.3 was not a function of the committee as there is not option under the Act or regulations to “ratify” an approval that was not made by vote of the committee. A new application should have been considered and aspect presented to the committee for reasonable decision. Also no communication for email approval was sent to the caretaker and not application sent to the caretaker.
o. Motion 5.4 was not a function of the committee as there is not option under the Act or regulations to “ratify” an approval that was not made by vote of the committee. A new application should have been considered and aspect presented to the committee for reasonable decision.
p. Motion 5.5 was not a function of the committee as there is not option under the Act or regulations to “ratify” an approval that was not made by vote of the committee. A new application should have been considered and aspect presented to the committee for reasonable decision.
q. Motion 5.6 was not a function of the committee as there is not option under the Act or regulations to “ratify” an approval that was not made by vote of the committee. A new application should have been considered and aspect presented to the committee for reasonable decision.
r. Motion 5.7 was not a function of the committee as there is not option under the Act or regulations to “ratify” an approval that was not made by vote of the committee. A new application should have been considered and aspect presented to the committee for reasonable decision.
s. Motion 5.8 was not a function of the committee as there is not option under the Act or regulations to “ratify” an approval that was not made by vote of the committee. A new application should have been considered and aspect presented to the committee for reasonable decision.
t. Motion 6.1 was not a function of the committee as there is not option under the Act or regulations to “ratify” an approval that was not made by vote of the committee. A new application should have been considered and aspect presented to the committee for reasonable decision.
u. Motion 6.2 was not a function of the committee as there is not option under the Act or regulations to “ratify” an approval that was not made by vote of the committee. A new application should have been considered and aspect presented to the committee for reasonable decision.
v. Motion 6.4 was not a function of the caretaker under the agreement the Act and was nor a reasonable decision as transparency was required to the body corporate.
w. Motion 7.2 is not a truthful representation as audio indicates that no aged balance was tabled
x. Motion 9.1 is not a truthful representation as audio indicates that no register were tabled no alteration registered, as required under 217 of the Regulations
y. Motion 10.2 was not a function of the caretaker under the agreement and was nor a reasonable decision
z. Motion 10.3 was not on the agenda and was taken off the agenda on the 20thFebruary 2023
aa. Motion 10.4 was not discussed in the meeting and is delegating an authority to the caretaker that is not a function of the caretaker and is not allowed under section 97 and the committee should have acted under section 94(1)(b)
bb. Motion 10.4 was not a motion of the caretaker but a motion of the Chair
cc. Motion 10.7 was not a function of the caretaker and is an unreasonable decision
dd. The tabling of documents give privates to committee members before the meeting is not a requirement of the Act.
14.The minutes distributed by Archers on the 19th June 2023 The minutes do not meet the requirement of section 63 as audio of the meeting show that
i. some motions are not accurate recordings of the motions passed
ii. some motions passed are not recorded
iii. motions that were not passed are recorded in the minutes
15.On the 14th June 2023 Lynne Smith gave instruction to the body corporate manager that was that was not by way of a vote of the committee as required by the resolution of the committee on the 8th December 2021 and the decision to approve the application of lot 82 was (a) not made by way of a vote from the committee under section 57 or 60. (b) authority should not have been made under section 177(2)(a) as the installed value was greater than $3000 and required an ordinary resolution of the body corporate.
16.On the 23rd February 2023 Lynne Smith gave instruction to the body corporate manager that was that was not by way of a vote of the committee as required by the resolution of the committee on the 8th December 2021 and the decision to approve the application of lot 69 was not made by way of a vote from the committee under section 57 or 60.
17.Between the 29th May 2023 to 30th June 2023 the secretary was not acting in accordance with her code of conduct in not giving notice under section 60 to have a VOCM to call an EGM to authorise the spending on roof repairs.
18.On multiple dates between the 29th May 2023 to 30th June 2023 contacted the caretaker without the authority from the committee by vote making instructions contrary to section 14.1 of the caretaker agreement and section 57 and 60 of the Regulations.
