Archer BCM (Gold Coast) should act to comply the code of conduct in the Act, particularly in
points 1 “must have a good working knowledge and understand of the Act”,
point 2(1) “must act honestly, fairly and professionally in performing the functions under the person engagement”
point 2(2) “ must not attempt to unfairly influence the outcome of an election of the body corporate”
point 3 “must exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence in performing the person functions under the engagement”
point 4 “must act in the best interest of the body corporate.”
Point 5 “ must keep the body corporate informed of any significant development or issues about an activity performed for the body corporate”
Point 6 “must take reasonable steps to ensure employees of the person complies with this Act.”
Point 7 “must not engage in fraudulent of mislead conduct in performing the person functions under the engagement”
Point 8 “mist not engage in unconscionable conduct in performing the person function under the engagement”
– requiring the body corporate to comply with condition that are not reasonable necessary.
- Exerted unfair tactic against the body corporate and a lot owner.
The engagement requires agreed secretarial service to be undertaken. Among the agreed service are:
- Attending the annual General Meeting
- Preparing and distribution the notice of the AGM and ancillary documentation for statutory motions
- Prepare ta distribute notice of committee meetings
- Attend committee meetings
- Records and distribute and file minutes of the committee meetings
During the provision of these service Archers representatives are required “at all time comply with the Act, regulations and code of conduct”.
While attending the General Meeting and Committee Meeting the code of conduct requires to have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement, to act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate.
My proposition is that while, the agreed service do not specifically include giving advice to the executive of the body corporate committee, the code of conduct is such that such advice should be given to ensure the committee’s action are in keeping with the Act and Regulations in the performance of the meeting that the body corporate manager is attending as that is an expected term of the contract.
My complaint is that representatives of Archer BCM (Gold Coast) failed to comply the code of conduct in the Act. This failure caused serious and significant damages to both the body corporate and individual lot owners.
It is my belief that the behaviour of Archer BCM (Gold Coast) contravenes the code of conduct of Strata Community Association
I note that a letter sent to the caretaker after internal dispute resolution on the 6th September 2018 the committee:
“ agreed that all future decision made by the committee will comply with the legislation and be conducted at a committee meeting of by way of a vote outside of committee”
This document should be part of the body corporate records and should have been know by the body corporate manager.
The failure to comply the code of conduct in the Act with the:
- Behaviour of Jason Boatswain at the committee meeting of 3rd December 2020
- Behaviour of Jason Boatswain in publishing the minutes of the meeting of 3rd December 2020
- Behaviour of Jason Boatswain at the committee meeting of 10th February 2021
- Behaviour of Jason Boatswain at the committee meeting of 21st May 2021
- Behaviour of Jason Boatswain at the committee meeting of 25th August 2021
- Behaviour of Jason Boatswain at the committee meeting of 8th December 2021
- Behaviour of Jason Boatswain at the committee meeting of 24th January 2022
- Behaviour of Jason Boatswain at the committee meeting of 11th May 2022
- Behaviour of David Bourke at the committee meeting of 24th August 2022
- Behaviour of David Bourke in publishing the minutes of the committee meeting of 24th August 2022
- The behaviour of Behaviour of David Bourke between the committee meeting on the 24th August 2022 and the general meeting of 26th October 2022
- Behaviour of David Bourke at the general meeting of 26th October 2022
- Behaviour of David Bourke at after the AGM till the committee meeting of 28th November 2022
- Behaviour of David Bourke at the committee meeting of 28th November 2022
- Behaviour of Lesley McLaughlin at the committee meeting of 20th February 2022
- Behaviour of Lesley McLaughlin in publishing the minutes of the committee meeting of 20th February 2022.
- Behaviour of Lesley McLaughlin in communications with owner of lot 77
- Behaviour of Lesley McLaughlin in communications with owner of lot 1
- Behaviour of Lesley McLaughlin in communications to the caretaker on the 29th May 2023, verbally and in emails.
- Behaviour of Lesley McLaughlin at the committee meeting of 29th May 2022
- Behaviour of Jason Boatswain at the committee meeting of 29th May 2022
- Behaviour of Lesley McLaughlin in communications with owner of lot 1
- of 30th May 2022
The specifics from the events that give will give rise to “details sufficient to identify either:
- the misconduct that happened,
- the duties that have not been carried out and
- the facts that show provision of the code of conduct have been contravened and
- the regulations to the Act that have been contravened,
to satisfy the requirements of section 142(4)(b)(2) to provide a written remedial action notice under section 142(3)(a) are as follows, for the particular
The evidence that support my complaint are given as screen shots to allow you to see without having to move to attachments in annexes. This increased the length on the document, but I feel it make it more understandable. I obvious have all the documents and in any formal situation can produce them.
I reference the BCCM Act of 1997 as “the Act” and the BCCM (accommodation module) Regulations 2020 as “the Regulations” and will provide the appropriate section with highlighting of relevant part of any regulations or legislation as required, to save you time having to look up the Act or Regulations.
These are the specifics of the events,
- Behaviour of Jason Boatswain at the committee meeting of 3rd December 2020
The chairman will state under oath that he was given the advice in the minunte by Jason Boatswain and that advice is incorrect at both points. The clause in the caretakers contract is about meetings between the caretaker and the body corporate to discuss performance is a sperate matter to the attendance at committee meetings are a non voting member of the committee.
At the committee meeting of the 29th May 2023, Mr Jason Boatswain confirm that a nominee is a non voting member of the committee, meaning his advice of the 3rd December 2020 did not show a god working knowledge of the Act and was not him acting fairly or honestly.
Mr Jason Boatswain should have advised the committee that passing motion to reduce the spending limit from $200o to $500, which as the source of previous complaint and had been elevated to $2000 by subsequent committee was an unreasonable and unfair action, as the caretaker was not at the meeting and there is no discussion on the mater.
Also Mr Jason Boatswain the motion on the Body Corporate Representative is a delegation to the powers of the body corporate to one person and is contrary to section 94 of the Act.
In not providing the advice to the committee Mr Jason Boatswain did not have good working knowledge and understand of the act. Did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, nor exercised reasonable skill care and diligence. Or acted in the best interest of the body corporate.
Mr Jason Boatswain should have advised the committee members that there action were contrary to their code of conduct.
Mr Jason Boatswain should have advised committee that to exclude the caretaker and to them raise such a motion, with actions that are not part of the caretaking agreement and were addressed in correspondence was not an action that was fair or honest.
Mr Jason Boatswain should have advised it is not a function to the committee to instruct the body corporate manager under section 94 to communicate with caretaker. Also that “a formal complaint” is not an action under the act. If the committee had details sufficient to issue a section142 notice it should have placed such a motion on the agenda of the next general meting. Such a motion was never actioned.
In allowing the above motion Mr Jason Boatswain did not have good working knowledge and understand of the act. Did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, nor exercised reasonable skill care and diligence. Nor acted in the best interest of the body corporate.
- Behaviour of Jason Boatswain in publishing the minutes of the meeting of 3rd December 2020
The statement appeared in the minutes.
As Les Blackstock and subsequent Violet Blackstock were exclude from the committee meeting the statement is a false imputation on the reputation of Les Blackstock and the caretaker. This comment has defamatory imputations.
Jason Boatswain did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence in publishing these details or advising the committee not to publish these statements
- Behaviour of Jason Boatswain at the committee meeting of 10th February 2021
Jason Boatswain did not send notice of the meeting to all committee members. Specially excluding the caretaker as a non voting member, but attended as a non voting member. This action demonstrates he did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement. Further this action demonstrates he did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate.
Jason Boatswain in allowing the above motion the be resolved without the caretaker present at the meeting was an example of him not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate.
The above motion indicted a breach notice had been sent but between the meeting of the 3rd December to 10th February 2021 there had been no VOCM to issue such breach notice and no VOCM were confirmed at the meeting of the 10th February 2021.
This action by demonstrates he did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement. Further this action demonstrates he did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate.
Jason Boatswain in allowing the above motion the be resolved without the caretaker present at the meeting was an example of him not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate.
The motion contained assertion that are false and misleading, and examination of minutes would have easily shown no such “direction from the committee”
Such a direction as resolved is not a function of the body corporate under section 94 of the Act and Jason Boatswain in allowing the above motion to be published with defamatory imputations is example of him not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate.
The motion concern a dispute with the commissioner but there is no indication that any votes were taken to allow non committee members to stay in the meeting.
Jason Boatswain in allowing the above motion the be resolved without committee voting on the attendance of a non committee member is an example of him not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate.
- Behaviour of Jason Boatswain at the committee meeting of 21st May 2021
Jason Boatswain should have been aware of the following motions on the 15th November 2018 that:
“the Arborist Report & Tree Management Plan, by TPZ Project Arborist on the 17th May 2018 is to be accepted and that the caretaker will use this as the basis to Tree Management for Somerset Gardens over the next 10 year.”,
To allow a committee to remove a plan passed 3 years previous because it would cost money is not a reasonable action and should have made aware committee.
Jason Boatswain in allowing the above motion the be resolved at the meeting was an example of him not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate.
This is not an action of the body corporate under section 94 of the Act. This action by demonstrates he did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement. Further this action demonstrates he did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate
- Behaviour of Jason Boatswain at the committee meeting of 25th August 2021
The above motion indicted waring letters and form 10 is. Breach notice for continuing breach. However, between the meeting of the 21st May 2021 to 25th August 2021 there had been no VOCM to issue any such warning letters not breach and no VOCM were confirmed at the meeting of the 25th August 2021.
Section 94 dictates how a body corporate should deal with enforcing the by-law and that is under section 183 in the case and there is no warning notice.
These action by demonstrates he did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement. Further this action demonstrates he did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate.
The above is not an action of the Body Corporate and the action would have been under the Act to rectify the damage and take action for breach of By-Law.
This is an unreasonable motion.
Jason Boatswain in allowing the above motion the be resolved is an example of him not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate.
The above motion does not comply with section 72 of the Regulationst o authorise a member to call a meeting.
The above motion do not comply with section 83 of the regulations and when compared to the agenda that was produced for the 2021 AGM, the agenda could only have been prepared by
- Archers without instruction
- Committee members without the authority of a motion passed under section 57 of 60.
Particularly motions 8, 9 of the AGM of 2021 were not approved by the committee.
This action by Jason Boatswain demonstrates he did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement. Further this action demonstrates he did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate.
This was the precedent that was set for the 2022 AGM that causes significant problems.
- Behaviour of Jason Boatswain at the committee meeting of 8th December 2021
No VOCM were recorded between the meetings of 25th August 2021 and 8th December 2021.
Allowing this motion to be actioned by Jason Boatswain demonstrates that he did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement. Further this action demonstrates he did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate
This is a sensible advise given to the committee and brings into question that multiple times that advise is note recorded.
The action has been constantly not adhered to.
- Behaviour of Jason Boatswain at the committee meeting of 24th January 2022
This is a breach of by-laws and should have been dealt with as such.
The issue is that the secretary has a large structure that was not approved by the body corporate no council and was allocated to deal with this issue is a conflict of interest.
This action by Jason Boatswain demonstrates he did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement. Further this action demonstrates he did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate.
This is not an action of the body corporate under section 94 of the Act. Allowing this motion to be actioned by Jason Boatswain demonstrates that he did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement. Further this action demonstrates he did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate
The fact that these are not “application” is a misleading recoding of the minuntes when they are spending by the caretaker and others that are above the caretaker spend limits and were “approved” by members of the committee without action by way of vote outside of committee meeting.
No VOCM were recorded between the meetings of 8th December 2021.
and 24th January 2022.
Allowing this motion to be actioned by Jason Boatswain demonstrates that he did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement. Further this action demonstrates he did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate
- Behaviour of Jason Boatswain at the committee meeting of 11th May 2022
The production of a “gardening plan” or “fence audit” by the committee is not an action of the body corporate under section 94 of the Act. Allowing this motion to be actioned by Jason Boatswain demonstrates that he did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement. Further this action demonstrates he did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate
This is not an action of the body corporate under section 94 of the Act. There is a misleading issue to the advice as no documentation was presented council.
Allowing this motion to be actioned by Jason Boatswain demonstrates that he did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement. Further this action demonstrates he did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate
The fact that these are not “application” is a misleading recoding of the minuntes when they are spending by the caretaker and others that are above the caretaker spend limits and were “approved” by members of the committee without action by way of vote outside of committee meeting.
No VOCM were recorded between the meetings of 24th January 2022 and 11th May 2022.
Allowing this motion to be actioned by Jason Boatswain demonstrates that he did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement. Further this action demonstrates he did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate
- Behaviour of David Bourke at the committee meeting of 24th August 2022
David Bourke should have been aware that the quotes were below the spend limit of the committee and were not required to be put to the general meeting.
The quotes were discussed and tabled, but in subsequent notice from committee member the committee member did not have the quotes at a later date.
The caretaker asserts strongly, and it is recorded that she recommended the soft wash be undertaken
The actioned by David Bourke demonstrates that he did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement. Further this action demonstrates he did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate
This motion had been on the agenda since January 2022 and the fact that a person who had the an unauthorised structure was not actioning the motion should have raised professional concern. Action should have been taken under secion 183.
The actioned by David Bourke demonstrates that he did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement. Further this action demonstrates he did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate
This motion by the committee is not an action of the body corporate under section 94 of the Act. Allowing this motion to be actioned by David Bourke demonstrates that he did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement. Further this action demonstrates he did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate
subsequently on the agenda
Motion 9 (9.1 and 9.2) vastly different to the motions suggested
Motions 10, 11, 12.1, 12.2, 13.1 13.2, 14. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 not on the agenda
David Bourke was requested to give John Wurth the motions from owner send to the body corporation and refused.
These were provided and showed they were present at the meeting but not tabled.
Noting that motions previous sent to a general meeting in 2018 assessed on legal advice and owner approached before the meeting and offer to abridge the motions.
- Behaviour of David Bourke in publishing the minutes of the committee meeting of 24th August 2022
There is significant dispute about the minuting ting of this motion. The caretaker asserts strongly, and it is recorded that she recommended the soft wash be undertaken
David Bourke in allowing the above motion the published when it not passed as a motion would have influenced the election.
This action of David Bourke is an was an example that he did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement and not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate.
- The behaviour of Behaviour of David Bourke between the committee meeting on the 24th August 2022 and the general meeting of 26th October 2022
Meeting held at
This does not comply with section 81 and 82 of the Regulations and made the AGM invalid. A VOCM should have been called to correct the dates.
Allowing this motion to be actioned by David Bourke demonstrates that he did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement. Further this action demonstrates he did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate
This explanatory note was never the subject of a motion from the committee to be in the explanatory notes of the AGM so were published by
The last statement in the explanatory note is false and misleading. The committee had passed not motion to approved the quote of Frist Class Cleaners.
Allowing these notes to be published by David Bourke demonstrates shows that he did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement. Further this action demonstrates he did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate.
The inclusion of a committee explanation in the explanatory schedule that held notes for owners motions, contravenes section 80(6) and 80(7) of the Regulations.
Allowing these notes to be published by David Bourke demonstrates shows that he did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement. Further this action demonstrates he did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate.
As noted the voting papers state that motions are by the committee unless othersise stated and motion for the removal of the chairman are not idenetied as beign owners motions. The is contrary to section 78(5) of the Regulations.
The explanatory notes do not have the name submitters names
This action is contrary to section 80(2) of the Regulations.
- Behaviour of David Bourke at the general meeting of 26th October 2022
David Bourke advised the people at the meeting inaccurately with regard section 88(3), i should have advice that the motion should have voted to reverse the ruling due to disagreeing with the ruling.
It would have also been professional to indicate that the opinion giving by the chairperson is accurate and reversing the decision would lead to a dispute that would not be in the best interest of the committee, acting for the body corporate.
This advice by David Bourke demonstrates shows that he did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement. Further this action demonstrates he did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate.
- Behaviour of David Bourke at after the AGM till the committee meeting of 28th November 2022
This emails show the communication from David Bourke to Mr Wurth
Allowing this motion to be actioned by David Bourke demonstrates that he did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement. Further this action demonstrates he did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate
- Behaviour of David Bourke at the committee meeting of 28th November 2022
This motion by the committee is not an action of the body corporate under section 94 of the Act. Allowing this motion to be actioned by David Bourke demonstrates that he did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement. Further this action demonstrates he did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate
This motion has a history related to unauthorised additions but the secretary and the caretaker indicated that no such correspondence was sent to them. If the correspondence was from the body corporate it should have been tabled as apart of the body corporate records. This did not occur.
David Bourke demonstrates shows that he did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement. Further this action demonstrates he did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate.
This motion by the committee is not an action of the body corporate under section 94 of the Act.
The notice is clearly identified as a dispute notice and the committee should have acted under practice direction 23.
Also some members of the committee acted before the meeting to correspond without authority.
Allowing this motion to be actioned by David Bourke demonstrates that he did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement. Further this action demonstrates he did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate
This action is contrary to section 57 and 50 of the Regulations.
Allowing this motion to be actioned by David Bourke demonstrates that he did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement. Further this action demonstrates he did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate
The above needs to be noted that this letter was send to Mr Wurth on the 25th November, 3 days before the meeting,
This motion by the committee is not an action of the body corporate under section 94 of the Act.
The notice is clearly identified as a dispute notice and the committee should have acted under practice direction 23.
Allowing this motion to be actioned by David Bourke demonstrates that he did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement. Further this action demonstrates he did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate
Despite the motion the notice of meeting was given at 7 days before the meeting of the 20th February 2023
- Behaviour of Lesley McLaughlin at the committee meeting of 20th February 2022
This motion by the committee is not an action of the body corporate under section 94 of the Act. Allowing this motion to be actioned by Lesley McLaughlin demonstrates that he did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement. Further this action demonstrates he did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate
This motion by the committee is not an action of the body corporate under section 94 of the Act. Allowing this motion to be actioned by Lesley McLaughlin demonstrates that he did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement. Further this action demonstrates he did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate.
This the motion that had been allocated to the secretary, who had an unapproved addition then she stops the motion. The caretaker advises that they did not make the statement. Allowing this motion to be actioned by Lesley McLaughlin demonstrates she did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate.
The motion, on the back of the damage to the roof that had been reported was an unreasonable decision. A subsequent audit found nearly $100,000 of work need on the rood, some urgently needed. This action by Lesley McLaughlin demonstrates her did not acting honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate.
Allowing this motion to be actioned by Lesley McLaughlin demonstrates that he did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement. The owner had presented a motion to the committee and the secretary choose to ignore it, and not act on it as per the section 50 of the Act.
The statement “it is unreasonable for lot owners to be involved in the interview process” is not fact from the is legislation. It demonstrates the lack of transparency desire by the body corporate manager.
Further this action demonstrates he did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate
Allowing this motion to be actioned by Lesley McLaughlin demonstrates that he did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement. The owner had presented a motion to the committee and the secretary choose to ignore it, and not act on it as per the section 50 of the Act. The resolution that “the secretary provide a formal response to the owner of lot 77 within the making period being 6 weeks from the receipt of the motion.”
The correct action of the motion is:
Allowing this motion to be actioned by Lesley McLaughlin demonstrates that he did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement
These motion are in accordance with the bylaws of somerset gardens, as lot 12 and 13 have exclude use parking and that is exclude from bylaw 1
This actioned by Lesley McLaughlin demonstrates she did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate to check the by-laws and advising the committee.
- Behaviour of Lesley McLaughlin in communications with owner of lot 77
The communication was sent when there is no motion by the committee authorising the body corporate manager to send this communication to the owner of lot 1. The nominee to the body corporate, Lynne Smith, did not have authority to give that instruction under the motions of 8th December 2021. Thus the body corporate manager should not have sent this communication.
There was no motions from committee to make this statement to a lot owner between the 20th February till the date of this letter.. This statement had no authorirty as it can only come from individual owners.
- Behaviour of Lesley McLaughlin in communications with owner of lot 1
The communication was sent when there is no motion by the committee authorising the body corporate manager to send this communication to the owner of lot 1. The nominee to the body corporate, Lynne Smith, did not have authority to give that instruction under the motions of 8th December 2021. Thus the body corporate manager should not have sent this communication.
There was no motions from committee to make this statement to a lot owner between the 20th February till the date of this letter.. This statement had no authorirty as it can only come from individual owners.
- Behaviour of Lesley McLaughlin in communications to the caretaker on the 29th May 2023, verbally and in emails.
- Behaviour of Lesley McLaughlin at the committee meeting of 29th May 2022
- On multiple occasions had to confer with Jason to check if the assertion of the caretaker was correct in terms of the legislation.
This demonstrates that Lesley McLaughlin did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement.
- Indicated that the caretaker report would cost over $450 to post to lot owners, but had to admit that if was sent with the minutes the cost would be nothing to the body corporate.
This demonstrates that Lesley McLaughlin did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement did not act fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate providing false and deceptive information to the meeting.
- Behaviour of Jason Boatswain at the committee meeting of 29th May 2022
- Said words to the effect “So you don’t want to work with the committee”
This action demonstrates Jason Boatswain did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate
- Gave an estimate that the body corporate would charge for exact time for a task as additional service, was later shown to be a false representation as Lesley McLaughlin indicated that charging was every 6 minutes (so you be charged for 12 minutes)
This action demonstrates Jason Boatswain did not act fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate providing false and deceptive information to the meeting.
- Behaviour of Lesley McLaughlin in communications with owner of lot 1
of 30th May 2022
- Sent email to caretaker at the email of the owner and stated that motions had to comply with s standard and the link was not for motions to a committee meeting (of which there is a guideline) but for motion to a general meeting. The response was in relation to the caretaker’s forwarding of motions to be put to the meeting as a member of the committee.
This demonstrates that Lesley McLaughlin did not have a good working knowledge and understand of the act relative to their functions under the engagement. Further this action demonstrates he did not act honestly, fairly and professionally, exercising reasonable skill care and diligence and act in the best interest of the body corporate