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 20^th 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 24^th 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 23^rd  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  8^th 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 21^st 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  8^th 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 26^th  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  8^th 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 27^st 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  8^th 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 2^nd 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  8^th 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 5^th 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  8^th 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 6^th 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  8^th 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 6^th 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  8^th 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 7^th 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  8^th 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 7^th 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  8^th 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 29^th 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 20^thFebruary 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 19^th 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 14^th 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  8^th 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 23^rd  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  8^th 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 29^th May 2023 to 30^th 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 29^th May 2023 to 30^th 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.

 

I am informing the committee that I have a dispute, as defined under section 227(1)(h) of the BCCM Act 1997, with the  committee of the Body Corporate of Somerset Gardens CTS 2522.

I have responsibilities to the body corporate. Raising this dispute will not improve the position of the caretaker. In fact historically, there have been concerted efforts to discourage me from voicing my opinion. There have been instances of individuals, hiding behind anonymity and spreading false accusation and slurs on my reputation. People who are owner investors, have been actively encouragement by onsite owners, who are not investors and want me to not make my opinions known, to remove lots from the rental pool that I mange, simply to hurt me financially. Such an action is illogical and only vindictive because as I have gone to personal extreme lengths to provide a better value high quality as the caretaker and adjusted the contract to provide may extra service to the body corporate at no increase in fee and even sacrificed the CPI adjustment to help the body corporate.

I would like to make an attempt to resolve the dispute by internal dispute resolution in accordance with section 238(1((b) of the of the BCCM Act 1997.

I believe that the committee has power to participate in such internal dispute resolution under section 100(1) of the BCCM Act 1997, as such a decision does not require a resolution of the body corporate.  

I am aware of practice direction 23 of the Office of the commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management, that states:

“The obligation to attempt internal dispute resolution is consistent with the legislative responsibility for self- management as an essential aspect of living in a community titles scheme.”

I have forwarded copies of this dispute to all committee members individually to:

1.    Ensure that executive members of the committee share the information in a timely manner and allow individual members to make their own decision on 

a.    what is a reasonable action and meets there own responsibilities under the code of conduct for voting members of the committee https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1997-028#sch.1A

b.    the requirements of the body corporate to decide to issue notices and remove committee members, under section 37 of the BCCM (accommodation module) Regulations https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/asmade/sl-2020-0229#sec.37

c.     the requirements of the body corporate to decide to issue notices to the body corporate manager, under section 142 of the BCCM (accommodation module) Regulations

https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/asmade/sl-2020-0229#sec.142

d.    the possibility that is committee members do not act in good faith and without negligence that they can lose the protection from liability that they have under legislation https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1997-028#sec.101A

e.     that committee members only have limited protection from defamation under the legislation https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1997-028#sec.111A

I respectfully advice the committee that I have closely reviewed my own code of conduct. I have formed the belief that, I cannot be assured, by recent events that there is: 

–       a transparency of my information to the committee, though the body corporate representative, being made available to the body corporate, or 

–       that my input to committee meetings is being accurately distributed to the body corporate via minutes,

I will request that the committee members, communicate with me before the committee meeting on the 29th May 2023, and I also will take the lead on this to try to get a resolution.

From any such communication the committee, or at least a majority of voting members, can act reasonable at the committee meeting on the 29th May 2023 to resolve this dispute and other disputes before the committee.

To clarify, my dispute is 

1.    the conduct of members of the committee who have executed functions for the committee that are not done in accordance with the Regulations to the BCCM Act, thus being actions that are a breach of  their code of conduct and 

2.    in making some decisions,  the committee members have acted in accordance with their code of conduct, particularly, not acting in best interest of the body corporate.

3.    that the committee has made decision in which they have not acting reasonable, and 

This dispute can be resolved by the committee taking the appropriate actions in the next committee meeting.

The argument that the committee, or the body corporate, cannot act to resolve on a dispute that is before the commission is without basis. Simply put, if the committee, or the body corporate, could resolve a dispute by acting, why would it not do such. Would not doing such be acting reasonably? I say “no”, and challenge any person to present arguments from the Act or Regulations or from decision of the adjudicators from the commission that prove otherwise.

The particulars of the dispute are:

A.   I sent to Lynne Smith, the body corporate representative, an email of the 28th March 2023 at 10:15am informing that of hazards that the body corporate faced due to the actions of the committee in the committee meeting of the 20^th February 2023. 

I note that, in that email, I said:

“If the committee does not act reasonably, I will have to raise a dispute and if not resolved by internal resolution, make an application and submission to the commissioner, that will result in all lot owners being informed.”, 

and

“I would be happy to meet with the committee informally to discuss any of the above at a mutually convenient time.”

I had a response from the body corporate representative on the 4th April 2023 offering a meeting on the  11th April 2023. This was followed the next day  notifying that  such a meeting was “deferred”. 

I am aware that in emails on the 13th April and 9th May 2023 the body corporate representative requested a list of issues that I had with the 20th February committee meeting. Respectfully, I feel that request was not appropriate as I was trying to not have documentation produced to allow the committee to make reasonable decision without a paper trail. That would be to the benefit of the committee. The idea of a ”list” of issues then makes any meeting a formal occurrence. 

I waited patiently and no such meeting, that I was given an undertaking on the 4th April would occur and was “deferred” has happened to date.

I find such behaviour by the body corporate representative, Lynne Smith, to be not fair and honest. If you say that there will be an informal meeting then have one. Such informal meetings are common with the committee members. I would propose to you that having such a meeting was a serious effort to not have a dispute, and would have been very much in the best interest of the body corporate, especially with the other unresolved dispute. 

I propose that  the behaviour demonstrated is a contradiction of sections 2(1), 3 of the code of conduct for voting committee members in schedule 1A of Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997

B.    On the 15th April 2023 at 9:31am I sent the body corporate manager an email, asking that  the secretary, Danielle Jones, motions be put on the agenda of the next committee meeting. I cc’d the body corporate representative, Lynne Smith, in that email.

My email was not acknowledged by the body corporate manager, nor the secretary of the committee.

I find this behaviour, on behalf of the body corporate representative, to be a contradiction of sections 1, 2(1), 3, 4 and 5 of the code of conduct for voting committee members in schedule 1A of Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997

As a lot owner, I was sent the agenda of the next committee meeting by the body corporate manager on the  16th May 2023 at 11:13am.

This dispute, is that motions, sent on the 15th April 2023 are not on the agenda and my communication was not listed in the correspondence that is not in accordance with section 49 of the BCCM (accommodation module) Regulations 2020. 

I find this behaviour of the secretary, who under section 46 calls the committee meetings, and under section 47 gives notice when calling and under section 49 creates that agenda, to be a contradiction of sections 2(1), 3 and 4 of the code of conduct for voting committee members under schedule 1A of Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997.

I find that advising the body corporate manager to publishing the agenda,  without my motions,  which is the requirement of the nominee to the body corporate manager, Lynne Smith, from the committee meeting ion the 8th December 2021, to be behaviour of the  contradiction of sections 1, 2(1), 3, and 4 of the code of conduct for voting committee members in schedule 1A of Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997.

I find the publishing the agenda without my motions on the agenda, when they were aware that I had raised such motions, to be behaviour of the body corporate representative, that is a contradiction of sections 1, 2(1), 3, 4 and 5 of the code of conduct for voting committee members in schedule 1A of Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997.

I note that the body corporate manager sent an email to the owner of tot 1 titled “RE: Somerset Gardens, CTS 25221, Motions for next committee meeting from caretaker”. I note the following:

1. there was no motion in the committee meeting of the 20^th February 2023 of the committee issuing any correspondence to the owner of lot 1, not for Lynne Smith to give instruction to the  body corporate manager,  to send an email to a lot owner.
2. There has not been notice given of a motion under section 60 of the committee issuing any correspondence to the owner of lot 1, not for Lynne Smith to give instruction to the  body corporate manager,  to send an email to a lot owner

The body corporate manager, Lynne Smith and whoever compose the correspondence has breach the code of conduct in these actions.

The alleged response from the committee demonstrates:

• a naïve misunderstanding  of the role of a non-voting member of the committee,  
  • the requirements of the Act and Regulations,
  • the judgements made by adjudicators
  • what is in the best interest of the body corporate, when independent legal opinions have been tabled to the committee and they will not act on that.

The alleged response has been given to other parties to make comments and have it available to the body corporate

The resolution I seek to this dispute is that the committee pass motions that the nominee will submit to the committee of  29th May 2023.  Those motions should have been placed on the agenda by the secretary,  however can legitimately be presented by a committee member (which the caretake is a non-voting member of the committee) under section 49(2) of the Regulations to the BCCM Act that reads:

“However, the committee may also consider other issues raised at the meeting”

The motions I will present will:

1.    resolve the problems that exist because of individual committee members acting in way that are not compliant with the regulations to the BCCM Act,

2.    resolve the disputes that have arising because of those actions,

3.    put into practice, logical and transparent practice that wil ensure that the body corporate have faith in members of the committee to behave in accordance with the Act and Regulations to the Act and in the best interest of the body corporate in the future

The motions will see the committee as transparent and inclusive and not restrictive of information and making decision that are not in the best interest of the body corporate.

These motions will:

1.    resolve the outstanding disputes of the committee and body corporate, 

2.    fix past mistakes,

3.    Put in place procedure for the committee, now and in the future, for better function and support from a body corporate. 

If committee members read the motions before the meeting and follow their code of conducts,  is no reason why committee should not act reasonably and the motions could not be dealt with quickly. 

The passage if the motions would remove some of the general business, so a procedural motion can be presented to the committee to deal with the motions at the start of the meeting.

I will personally send a link to each committee member with the details of the motions over the weekend.

I note that  if the committee will not resolve this dispute then I have the right to take this dispute to the commissioner and seek arbitration or adjudication. This would be done in the best interest of the body corporate. If I have to take that action, I give notice that I am also in dispute with regard the legitimacy or the calling and notice of agenda give to the committee meeting of the 29^th May 2023 and reserve the right to seek interim order to have the meeting declared invalid.

Also, I would like to make all committee members aware that any lot owner has the right under section 76,  to present motions for consideration at the next general meeting at any time.

For committee member I will point out that,

–        there is no limit to the number of motions a lot owner may submit to the body corporate, as opposed to section 50 of the Regulations that limit motions that can be put to the committee,

–       For each motion the submitter can present an accompanying 300 word explanatory note,

–       If the committee choose to submit it’s own  explanatory note, it must pass the wording at a meeting (which can be challenged as not being a reasonable decision), such a not has to be in a separate schedule to the submitter explanatory note and what the committee says in the note has no protection for the committee from defamation action, 

–       From the experience of the 2022 AGM, I believe that any motions submitted by lot owners presented under section 76, will be presented in such a manner that they will meet the requirements of section 88(1)(a) of the BCCM (accommodation module) Regulations, so that they cannot reasonably be ruled out of order,

–       That being the case any efforts by the chairperson, to ruled any section 76 motions of order under that section 88, would require legal advice to do so. 

–       If the chair was to seek to get such legal advice, the committee would require a motion passed before obtaining any such advice, any such motion would reasonably require a costing of such legal advice. 

–       Any action by an individual committee member to spend the  body corporate’s money on legal advice without any such motions by the committee would be considered an action that is not in good faith and was negligent and it is expected that any provision of protection under section 101A from liability would be removed

I propose that the committee would be better served, in the best interest of the body corporate and acting reasonable act of to decide these motions now before a general meeting (section 100(5)). I say this as it is more cost effective 

I will now list the topic groups of the motions that I will present to the meeting, 

There will be those among the committee that may think to complaint that there are too many motions or they are too wordy. I share your concerns., but there is not other way that I can see a resolution.

I respectfully suggest that these motions would not all need to be addressed if things had been different in the past. 

The committee is only in this situation due to the behaviour of individuals. If that behaviour had  been in accordance with the Act and Regulations these motions would not be needed. If individuals and the committee as group had been given accurate advice and when given that advice had taken heeded it and acted on that advice, these motions would not be needed.

I ask each committee member to consider if those same individuals are the individuals suggesting that the motions I submit not be addressed or be voted against those motions. 

You do not have to perpetuated the problem.

Please be aware that burying one’s head in the sand and hope that people will stop an action due to apathy or be worn down will only make things worse.

The committee could have dealt with the dispute from the 26^th October AGM easily with internal dispute resolution, on numerous occasions.  The minutes reflect that the decision to nothing was made even before the motion was put to the committee. That meant that it was the action taken was from individual not the committee. 

Were those individual acting to protect themselves not in the best interest to the body corporate?  Rational committee members should be asking themselves that question.