I did a search the other day that contained this item regarding a body corporate dispute:
Tabled correspondence from the Caretaker complaining of by-law breaches by unit x (The Secretary)… There have been altercations between The Secretary and the Caretaker including physical and verbal violence.
The committee discussed the matter (The Secretary was absent) and felt the dispute appears to be localised between the Caretaker and the Secretary…. Resolved to monitor the situation.
To me that sequence is troubling.
What’s happened is that the Secretary, who lives onsite, had done something which breached the by-laws.
The Caretaker then approached the Secretary to rectify the issue, as he is required to do under the terms of his contract, and was verbally abused for his trouble.
He’s then responded by getting aggressive with the Secretary, who’s responded in kind, or vice versa. However it happened the confrontation has escalated.
The Caretaker has been sufficiently upset by all this to put something in writing to the Committee, which will then be reported to all the lot owners via the minutes.
The Committee, having received the complaint, discussed the matter between themselves and decided to leave the two combatants to just deal with it.
A symptom of a deeper problem?
This is a ringing lots of little bells and whistles.
There are three points in particular that stand out to me:
- The Secretary seems to think he’s above the by-laws, and
- The Caretaker is trying to do the job, but, arguably, not succeeding well, and, most importantly
- The Committee doesn’t back either the Secretary or the Caretaker and has in fact completely failed to take any action or stand whatsoever.
Body corporates are effectively little countries with the Committee acting as the government by making decisions and administering funds, the police by enforcing by-laws and the courts by adjudicating decisions. There is of course “right of appeal” for adjudication via the actual court system.
The body corporates minutes play the role of the media; the intent being to keep all the lot owners (citizens) informed of what’s happening. The minutes are the tool the Committee uses to communicate with the lot owners.
The Committee are the community leaders and their response to situations will set the tone for how things are handled within the scheme.
In this case their response has been to take no action.
Which from the perspective of the lot owners would be like two politicians having a punch up in parliament and everyone else simply shrugging their shoulders and ignoring them.
Keeping the peace
One thing all body corporates have in common is they’re enclosed spaces where lots of people live and share amenities. With higher density inevitably comes greater chance of disputes.
And the best way to control body corporate disputes is to have clear, enforced rules that everyone must live by. It’s the same underpinning of any democracy; the rule of law, meaning no one is above the law.
Hence it’s problematic when a committee member feels the by-laws don’t apply to them. At best it creates resentment within the scheme and at worse it can be a first step along the road to some serious corruption.
OK, that sounds overly dramatic, and the reality is that these sort of actions come up for all sorts of reasons, most of which are motivated by simple lack of understanding.
Which makes it even more important that the Committee take a stand. They are shaping the foundation of acceptable behaviour around the scheme. By ignoring it they’re tacitly approving both the breaching of by-laws and the aggressiveness of the response.
A more effective response
I’m not suggesting that the Committee should verbally attack the Secretary here, or the Caretaker for that matter, particularly not in the minutes for all the lot owners to see. That sort of behaviour will likely inflame the matter even further.
It is however appropriate for the Committee to note that all by-laws must be followed.
It is appropriate for the Committee to reconfirm that the Caretaker is expected to police the by-laws.
It is appropriate for the Committee to condemn any violence, both physical and verbal, without making a determination of who is at fault.
It is appropriate for the Committee to discuss matters with the Secretary and the Caretaker at some stage in the future, or otherwise indicate that the matter is serious and needs to be resolved quickly.
In this way they signal that the Committee is in charge, that by-laws need to be followed and that all lot owners are equal. They also set solid boundaries regarding acceptable behaviour.
Is this really a problem?
In reality this is a small matter that may or may not have any relevance to the future operation and living in this body corporate.
In the context of a Strata Report it was one issue to be read in conjunction with many others to help the lot owner orientate themselves to the scheme and decide whether or not it’s for them.
What I really wanted to demonstrate here is how small seemingly isolated body corporate dispute has wider implications for the scheme, particularly in terms of leadership. Strong, even-handed leadership makes a lot of difference.