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

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

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 am also aware that the committee and thus the body corporate has been made aware of this direction , that was made in 2016, when I raised a dispute in 2028. 

It is disturbing that the direction states that: 

“Bodies caproate are encouraged to establish internal resolution procedures to assist resolving dispute within the scheme

yet the committee the committee has not place on the agenda of any AGM since 2018 motions to approved the internal dispute process by ordinary resolution.

Equally disturbing is that fact that request for internal resolution present to the committee have been declined, by individuals of the committee before resolution were passed at the 29^th November 2022 committee meeting.

Consequently, I request that the resolve by vote outside committee meeting to have at least one committee member meet with me in an informal meeting to seek medication to resolve the dispute and the committee can  enact action by way of a  further vote outside of committee meeting and at the next General Meeting. 

I believe that the committee would not be acting reasonably in making a decision to refuse such a request , and would be in contravention of section 100(5) of the BCCM Act. 

Additionally, I believe that any committee member who were to vote for against a resolution to meet with me to facilitate internal dispute resolution, would be acting contrary to section 4 of the code of conduct contained in schedule 1A of the BCCM Act. As such any such committee member would be contravention of section 101B(2) of the BCCM Act and should be subject the action under 101B(3) of the BCCM Act.

I also believe that is a requirement of any other committee member under section  4 of the code of conduct contained in schedule 1A of the BCCM Act, to initiate action under section 37 of the BCCM (accommodation module) regulations if they become aware of a committee member contravening the code of conduct.

The history of this dispute is:

In 2020 I sent to the body corporate representative, as the caretaker,  to allow information to be passed to the committee. 

At no time was I as a lot owner communicating with the body corporate and my communication was never to the secretary of the committee. 

I had a reasonable expectation that, due to the confidential information of the document concerning my husbands mental  health deterioration, that the information should remain private and was only given to support my claim that my husband was not going to be involved in the operation of the caretaker. 

My husband’s illness, had been related to events in his life and were acutely reactivated by events that occurred on the 3^rd of December 2020 and soon after.

On that day my husband alleges that he was assaulted by Ora Whaanga when he presented to act as the nominee of the caretaker at the committee meeting.

My husband, and later myself were excluded from a meeting of the committee that we were nominees of by virtue of the legislation. 

I will mention that individual use a clause in out caretaking contract that applied to attending for meeting with the body corporate wot discuss the actions of the caretaker. That clause gave authority, reasonably, to the body corporate, that the caretaker had to attend such a meeting. It did not apply to the legislative role as a non-voting member on the committee.

My  husband made a statement to the police about the incident and wanted to arise a dispute with the commissioner.

Soon after I was received from the individual  that  held the communication out to be from the committee, but I subsequently became aware that the committee made no decision by resolution. The request was for myself to remove my husband as the nominee of the company. I took legal advice and the position was that I was note required to take that action.

I persuaded my  not to taking further  action with the police or the commission,  in my desire to have harmony with the committee.

I asked my husband to remove himself from any role with the caretaker. Than decided that the only way to fully appease the committee member was of my husband also physically removed himself from my life for a period of time.

I took that decision due to (1) my limited experience at the time in the caretaker role, (2)  my aversion to  conflict and (3) a desire to appease individuals on the committee. 

I then asked my husband  to make a statutory declaration of his assertion to He did such and it was very hones. He gave the statement to me and it was my and his expectation that it would remain private and not be made public. It was only disclosed an individual to provide a “proof” to appease those members of the committee that would not take my word for my husband’s removal from any role with the caretaker.

I made the difficult  decisions I did  based on that It was asserted to me that my husband was a disruptive force. 

However, I now see that, though I was told at the time, but choose not to believe, that my husband was only trying to  identified to other behaviours  of individuals. Those individuals were  contravening  the code of conduct and not acting n the best interest of the body corporate. 

I have since seen the vitriolic action of those individuals towards other members of the body corporate. Those action were done when the member of the body corporate challenged the behaviour of those individuals. I have witnessed the behaviour continue and cause problems for the body corporate.

 I had hope that rationality and informal request to comply with the Act and Regulation and to abide with the code of conduct would have been enough to change the behaviour of people. Alas I was mistaken.

I now know that husband’s actions were justified. I am now sadly realise that my actions. I see now that I was as much responsible for my husband’s health issues as were those of the members of the committee . I now deeply regret my action at the time, that this has contributed to my own health issues.

Over time my husband has done a lot to recover. He has faced other challenges but has got thought hem. He has assisted me with guidance and support as needed

As the situation on the committee has worsened and it has affected my own health even more. This lead to me have had to call on his assistance when my request for an informal meeting with the committee were initially agreed to then withdrawn and not followed up.

My husband planned to attend the committee meeting on the 29^th May 2023 as the representative of the caretaker. 

On the day, the body corporate manager contacted me and informed me that the committee had the document that I expected was to be kept private. 

I was devastated, made even worse by the incorrect information given to me by the body corporate manager. 

My husband had to attend and I appointed another person a nominee to assist my husband if the stress got too much for him.

I ask my husband to make another statutory declaration that has was capable to act as the nominee, ne complied.

To attempt to have a civil interaction at the meeting. My husband gave a polite printed message to each committee member, before the meeting, so not as have the document as a body corporate record. That document asked for understanding of what bullying was and to respect his recovering health issues in discussion. 

The message was disrespected in the meeting.

I have been told from people present at the Ora Whaanga, as chairperson had no understanding of reasonable meeting procedure and openly belittled my husband and attacked his character and ability. I have heard the audio of the meeting I was deeply disturbed at what transpired. Even more so in the comment made by “Jayson” from Archer’s. The comments by Ora Whaanga,  would not have been made by reasonable people that unless they sought to cause harm to another person.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Ora Whaanga, sought to table the document that my husband gave to individual not the committee as a part of the body corporate record. Such an action is against the code of conduct as it it not fair or honest.

Then on the Wednesday, I as caretaker, I received  communication from the body corporate manager,  making a request for the statutory declaration to be part of the body corporate records. I note on the audio of the meeting Lynne Smith is openly aggressive and bullying to my husband and this is not the first time as he complained about her behaviour in 2020 and we had to bring it to the attention of the committee.

Lynne Smith only person who can instruct 

The actions of the Lynne Smith are unreasonable as it is not in accordance with the caretakers agreement and she had no authority from a resolution of the committee to instruct us to do any action.

 

The dispute that I have is:

1. The body corporate has placed into the body corporate records a document that were presented to individual committee members to prove assertion made by me as a lot owner with regard my husband  Les Blackstock in  December 2020.   

That document was never sent as communication to the body corporate and was never record as correspondence at any subsequent committee meeting. 

I had a reasonable expectation, due to  the  sensitive nature of the document, that the document  would be viewed and then either destroyed or returned to myself. 

It is a contravention of point 2(1) of the code of conduct of the voting member who instructed the body corporate manager to place the document in the body corporate records.

 It is a contravention of point 2(1) of the code of conduct of the body corporate manager to place the document in the body corporate records.

• The chairperson after concluding the committee meeting on the 29^th May 2023,  tabled a document, handed by Les Blackstock to individual committee member before the committee meeting started,  and instructed the body corporate manager to be included in the body corporate records . 

The action of the chairperson was not accordance with the section 220(1) of the BCCM (accommodation module) Regulations 2020. 

The document was not correspondence with the body corporate and was not discussed  or tabled at the meeting, and it thus not a  document that is a rerecord that must be kept by the body corporate.

• The body corporate has not complied with section 46, 47 and 49  of the BCCM (accommodation module) Regulation 2020 in relation to the notice and agenda of the committee meeting of the 29^th May 2023 and the meeting of the committee on the 29^th May 2023 should be void for irregularity.

• Various motions made by the committee at the meeting in the  29^th May 2023 were made in contravention to section 100(5) of the BCCM Act and those resolutions should be at all times void.

• The behaviour of the chairperson at the meeting was in contradiction of the code of conduct in relation to section 1, 2(1) and 3.

Either the body corporate manager or a committee member, release that document to Ora Whaanga in her capacity as chairperson, that should have been recognised as not related to the body corporates functions under section 94 or the BCCM Act

Ora Whaanga used that document to make a derogatory statement to my husband in the committee meeting of 29^th May 2023, that were universally received as being inappropriate and were made only with the aimed of  causing harm to my husband.

• The behaviour of the treasurer at the meeting was in contradiction of the code of conduct in relation to section 1, 2(1) and 3.

The actions I seek to resolve this dispute are that the committee resolve, by way of VOCM under section 60 of the BCCM Regulations, to

1. Place section 37 notice on the agenda of the next committee meeting as my communication has shown details sufficient to identify the breach of provision 2 of the code of conduct for Lynne Smith and Ora Whaanga,

• Place section 142 notice on the agenda of the next committee meeting as my communication has shown details sufficient to identify the breach of provision 2 of the code of conduct for Archer’s.

• Resolve to remove from the body corporate record the documents:
  • Statutory declaration Les Blackstock
  • Information on Bullying tender in the meeting on the 29^th May 2023 by Ora Whaanga.

• Resolve to remove Lynne Smith as the body corporate representative to the caretaker.