[tiger_handheld]

Originally Posted by Eff-1

Personally, I think it's a conflict.

A strata council is supposed to represent the collective interests of all owners. They are not supposed to give preference to one owner over another.

The property management company is hired by the strata council to help them with managing the building and running the council. The property management company should be a neutral 3rd party.

For example, let's say the owner of the property management company is named Fred (just making it up).

Now for example the strata council has to make a decision that would impact a unit(s) owned by Fred. Fred, or Fred's employee, could give information to the council that could sway them one way or another, depending on Fred's personal preference.

If the council doesn't see this as a conflict, then I suspect there is some kind of deal going on. Say, the council agrees to give the property management contract to Fred's company. In return, Fred gives the council a discount on his contract. It's in Fred's best interest to give a discount because he can then play both sides (strata and owner) with respect to his 5 units. There's also lots of opportunity for Fred to do side-deals between contractors and the council, knowing he has special access to the council when it comes to hiring outside contractors and trades.

In my case "Fred" works really hard to obtain proxies from owners. He collects at least 40 proxies each AGM and distributes it to his friends on council. These "friends" basically listen and vote as Fred directs. It's difficult to remove Fred / His company. Someone tried and it had to go through a SGM , which they didn't hold. Fred would work 2x as hard since Fred gets advance notice there will be a special vote to remove Fred's company.