Strata managers

[brcanuck]

We have *removed* as our strata managers.

They were not doing the job so strata council decided they wanted to terminate their contract but co.name removed. decided they wanted a 74% vote of the owners for them to resign before the end of the contract period so strata council called an SGM.

The strata manager stood up and listed all of the reason why they weren't doing the job, so after a questionable vote 74% of the owners voted to dump them, they refuse to resign because it wasn't 75%.

We now have a strata management company that 74% of the owners and all of the strata council do not want.

Any suggestions ?

[fluffy]

I'm guessing there is something in your contract with the management company that specifies a 75% majority is needed to terminate? Sounds to me like getting out and lobbying for the votes needed would be cheaper than lawyering up and fighting a contract case. Are the 26% that didn't vote in favour of terminating the contract solid in their position ?

[the truth]

can you not call another sgm ???

[twobits]

We have *removed* as our strata managers.

They were not doing the job so strata council decided they wanted to terminate their contract but co.name removed. decided they wanted a 74% vote of the owners for them to resign before the end of the contract period so strata council called an SGM.

The strata manager stood up and listed all of the reason why they weren't doing the job, so after a questionable vote 74% of the owners voted to dump them, they refuse to resign because it wasn't 75%.

We now have a strata management company that 74% of the owners and all of the strata council do not want.

Any suggestions ?

Your post is not making any sense but I am thinking it is just unintentional wording by you. 75% is the threshold for a bylaw change....not 74%. 50% plus 1 is the threshold for a rule change. You need to read your Strata disclosure statement of bylaws and rules to find out if you are facing a rule change or bylaw change.
Elected Strata Councils have the authority to enter into contracts with a value of over 5k without AGM or SGM meetings if they are for ongoing labour or service contracts. That is spelled out in the Condominium Strata Act. I find it very difficult to believe that the 75% rule of bylaw change, as mandated by Provincial Legislation, is applicable here. The only possible caveat I have to that is that the actual contract between the Strata and the management company specifies that a 75% vote is required to terminate the contract before its expiry date. You need to request a copy of the contract between your Strata and the management company and read it carefully. As an owner, you have every right to request the copy of any contract your Strata Council has entered into. It might even be worth of few of you bucking up a few hun to get a lawyer experienced in Strata laws to look at it. There should be escape clauses for non performance that your council should be able to exercise without a 75% mandate. If not, you have to question the competency of your council for signing such an agreement......likely without legal counsel.

[LANDM]

Have you done the following?

"Complaints about a Strata Manager or Strata Management Company by the Strata Council

If a strata council has a concern about the strata management services being provided, the strata council should consider the following:

Discuss the concern with the strata manager.
If the matter cannot be resolved between the strata council and the strata manager, discuss the concern with the managing broker of the strata management company.
If appropriate, if certain matters or concerns are not addressed in a timely fashion, the strata council may wish to consult with the owners.
If no resolution is achieved by taking the previous steps and the strata council considers its concerns about the services being provided by the strata manager and/or the strata management company are serious, the strata council may submit a complaint to the Council. It is recommended that a strata council member contact a Council compliance officer prior to filing the complaint to confirm whether the issues fall within the Council’s jurisdiction.
Should the matter fall within the Council’s jurisdiction, in most cases the Council will require the complaint to be submitted by the strata council accompanied by a copy of the minutes of the strata council meeting where this course of action was approved.

The complaint should be in writing, signed by an authorized representative of the strata council and accompanied by the Council’s complaint form and any relevant supporting documentation. The complaint form is available from the Council’s website or from the Council’s office by calling 604-683-9664 or toll-free in BC at 1-877-683-9664. A brochure regarding the Council’s Complaint and Discipline Procedures is also available on the website.

The Council does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate contract matters or to enforce the SPA. The Council’s jurisdiction is limited to the strata management company’s and/or strata manager’s compliance with RESA and the Council Rules. A strata corporation or strata council wishing to formally resolve contractual matters may pursue a civil remedy through legal proceedings."

If so, and there is no resolution, the rules governing how to cancel are under the Strata Property Act as follows:

"Cancellation of strata management contracts
39 (1) A contract entered into by or on behalf of the strata corporation for the provision of strata management services to the strata corporation may be cancelled, without liability or penalty, despite any provision of the contract to the contrary,

(a) by the strata corporation on 2 months' notice if the cancellation is first approved by a resolution passed by a 3/4 vote at an annual or special general meeting, or
(b) by the other party to the contract on 2 months' notice.
(2) The strata corporation does not need any prior approval to cancel the contract in accordance with its terms or to refuse to renew the contract when it expires."

It is pretty straightforward. There are pieces of the puzzle that are missing in your description.

[LANDM]

Your post is not making any sense but I am thinking it is just unintentional wording by you. 75% is the threshold for a bylaw change....not 74%. 50% plus 1 is the threshold for a rule change. You need to read your Strata disclosure statement of bylaws and rules to find out if you are facing a rule change or bylaw change.
Elected Strata Councils have the authority to enter into contracts with a value of over 5k without AGM or SGM meetings if they are for ongoing labour or service contracts. That is spelled out in the Condominium Strata Act. I find it very difficult to believe that the 75% rule of bylaw change, as mandated by Provincial Legislation, is applicable here. The only possible caveat I have to that is that the actual contract between the Strata and the management company specifies that a 75% vote is required to terminate the contract before its expiry date. You need to request a copy of the contract between your Strata and the management company and read it carefully. As an owner, you have every right to request the copy of any contract your Strata Council has entered into. It might even be worth of few of you bucking up a few hun to get a lawyer experienced in Strata laws to look at it. There should be escape clauses for non performance that your council should be able to exercise without a 75% mandate. If not, you have to question the competency of your council for signing such an agreement......likely without legal counsel.

There is no "condominium strata act" and much of the info you have given is incorrect. I do agree with the part about reading the contract though. It will direct any non performance and termination clauses.

[twobits]

There is no "condominium strata act" and much of the info you have given is incorrect. I do agree with the part about reading the contract though. It will direct any non performance and termination clauses.

Forgive me. It was called that or something close to that previously. I wasn't going to google it for them. What is the newest Provincial Legislation titled? It is essentially the same legislation with a new name.
They still need to read the damn contract. Bottom line is non performance does not require a 75% threshold. It is breach of contract plain and simple. And if I were on that council, all apparently of like mind, I would say to the management company, "Pound salt, you are fired for non performance. And if you choose to sue for breach of contract, we will respond in kind looking for damages and costs." And with 74% of the owners willing to support a claim of non compliance, there is not a thinking judge in the Province that would support this "management company".
You can cite the appropriate channels thru the "Council", but my experience is take the bull by the horns, call BS when it is deserved, and let the cards fall where they may. With a 74% vote against the management company, they would just let the matter go away rather than get the bad press.

[JayByrd]

If I'm not totally out to lunch, it's called the Strata Property Act and it can be found here:

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/ ... g/98043_00

The section in I believe is in question is Part 3, Division 3, section 39, which I'll paste here:

Cancellation of strata management contracts
39 (1) A contract entered into by or on behalf of the strata corporation for the provision of strata management services to the strata corporation may be cancelled, without liability or penalty, despite any provision of the contract to the contrary,

(a) by the strata corporation on 2 months' notice if the cancellation is first approved by a resolution passed by a 3/4 vote at an annual or special general meeting, or
(b) by the other party to the contract on 2 months' notice.
(2) The strata corporation does not need any prior approval to cancel the contract in accordance with its terms or to refuse to renew the contract when it expires.

[mrmagoo]

Call a special meeting and hold another vote. It should be relatively easy to gain an additional vote if you send out information in advance.

[the truth]

yup that should about do it

[LANDM]

Forgive me. It was called that or something close to that previously. I wasn't going to google it for them. What is the newest Provincial Legislation titled? It is essentially the same legislation with a new name.
They still need to read the damn contract. Bottom line is non performance does not require a 75% threshold. It is breach of contract plain and simple. And if I were on that council, all apparently of like mind, I would say to the management company, "Pound salt, you are fired for non performance. And if you choose to sue for breach of contract, we will respond in kind looking for damages and costs." And with 74% of the owners willing to support a claim of non compliance, there is not a thinking judge in the Province that would support this "management company".
You can cite the appropriate channels thru the "Council", but my experience is take the bull by the horns, call BS when it is deserved, and let the cards fall where they may. With a 74% vote against the management company, they would just let the matter go away rather than get the bad press.

Actually, 74% is different from 75% when legislated rules say 75%. I cited the strata property act section that clearly applies (which someone repeated) and it isn't a general advisory.....it is firm regulation. As for non performance of a contract, none of us can say that happened because none of us, including the OP has seen the contract.
Even so, the rules apply and they are clear. "Pounding salt" is fine, but it isn't a legal course of action. As for a judge supporting one or the other, a judge will clearly come down on the side of the law and clear provisions in the Act to deal specifically with this situation. It is totally non ambiguous so saying a judge would ignore that is folly.
Please realize that I am not saying I don't have sympathy for the OP's situation, but they need to follow the procedures. Clearly, you have not sat on a strata council with the "I would say this" type of reaction. It would merely elicit an answer that would follow the letter of the law and draw things out.

What the OP needs to do is read the contract, determine what the issues are, speak with the property managers managing broker, and if need be, solicit the necessary votes and call another SGM.

[twobits]

Clearly, you have not sat on a strata council with the "I would say this" type of reaction. It would merely elicit an answer that would follow the letter of the law and draw things out.

Sorry but I have. And that would include periods of transition when I was the majority owner of units in Strata Complexes I built until sales removed my involvement. Granted it has been a few years since, but I know all about the regulations and also know that the remedies and procedures are often more of an impediment and frustration for owners than anything else. Call me a bully if you like, but I am long enough in tooth to know that sometimes one just has to take the bull by the horns and stand up for themself and reject the hoops that someone says you must jump thru. A benign and personal form of civil disobedience if you will.
An analogy to this....... I am also well versed in the Residential Tenancy Act and the "hoops" it presents. Years ago I used to play the game. All that ever did was cost me money and give me grief. The RTA stipulates all of the proper procedures of notice, service, days required, appeals yada yada yada. What I eventually learned is that there are savvy folks out there, maybe even property management companies, that know these rules and procedures and essentially milk them and hide behind them as a way to frustrate the other party into just going away cuz it ain't worth the grief.
Now, having said that, I do have respect for both Legislative Acts......but only as far as to their intent in protecting the honest public. So for tenants now that go more than 30 days into arrears, and they are not single moms that are being screwed by a dead beat dad or other similar sad circumstance, I cut off the power and change the locks......both illegal actions according to the RTA. What that does is force the losers out and also forces them to actually take action against me using the tools that the Legislation provided them. The key thing here is that now they actually have to fill out copious amounts of paperwork and spend some actual time and maybe some coin instead of just threatening me with the rules and hiding behind them. In the end, even these losers realise that they are the ones that are in the moral wrong and don't bother.
The Property Management firm the OP refers to is also in the moral wrong here when 74% want them gone instead of the prescribed 75%. I say fire their damn *bleep* and make them think about what it will cost to explain to a judge why they are not in breach when 74% say they are. They will walk away if they are smart.

[LANDM]

Deflecting with RTA issues is meaningless here......we are both long in the tooth in both of these issues. My point is that "bullying" based on 74% vs 75% won't work. I agree that the strata management should walk away but it appears there is more to this than the OP is saying. Your status as builder and majority owner has little to do with this situation because, in that situation, you *could* bully your way through.
Since you are likening it to RTA issues, (and since you referred to property management rather than strata management it appears your history is more in the RTA arena) I would find a comparable situation to where you are the landlord and are *not* on the side of the RTA....you won't win. If you say you can bully your way through on this, you are living in the past. I am very well aware of how things worked decades ago and how they work now. What you are describing is not going to work if you think the equivalent to "firing them" allows any type of resolution.....they will tell YOU to pound sand. And they will be in the right.

But yes, they are, ultimately, in a no win position and should walk away without infuriating the strata owners further.

[twobits]

Land M. Your handle speaks volumes. It seems I have hit a nerve in your revenue stream.

The problem with most Stratas, except the very large ones, is a lack of knowledgeable and experienced owners to take on the thankless task of stepping up to be a councillor. They are more often than not reluctant volunteers to satisfy the Provincial mandate for number of councillors to resident population. They are ill equipped to deal with the running of the business of the Strata Corp. That leaves them open to questionable management companies with, let's be honest here, a very low threshold of qualification. And let's be very honest here.......there are a lot of companies with one person that is qualified and a staff or one, two or three, that are minimum wage earners answering the phone and calling plumbers et al without any investigation as to a possible simple solution. This kind of management drives up management fee's and by default strata fee's.
What that accomplishes for the strata owners is reduced equity value for their real estate investment because any purchaser looking for financing is facing a Bank that wants to know what the costs of ownership are going to be. Taxes, utilities, and Strata fees.Those strata fee's will be a serious component of a person's ability to afford the mortgage when they become 2 or 3 hun a month.
The smartest thing stratas could do is provide at least some modest remuneration for council positions.....along with appropriate directors insurance, to give some incentive for some owners to give a chit and manage their own affairs than paying a per household management fee. The end result would be lower strata costs and increased value in their own equity because of lower overhead costs.
But that strikes at the very core of your revenue model and you would hate people like myself to be on the council of any property you managed.

[LANDM]

Land M. Your handle speaks volumes. It seems I have hit a nerve in your revenue stream.

The problem with most Stratas, except the very large ones, is a lack of knowledgeable and experienced owners to take on the thankless task of stepping up to be a councillor. They are more often than not reluctant volunteers to satisfy the Provincial mandate for number of councillors to resident population. They are ill equipped to deal with the running of the business of the Strata Corp. That leaves them open to questionable management companies with, let's be honest here, a very low threshold of qualification. And let's be very honest here.......there are a lot of companies with one person that is qualified and a staff or one, two or three, that are minimum wage earners answering the phone and calling plumbers et al without any investigation as to a possible simple solution. This kind of management drives up management fee's and by default strata fee's.
What that accomplishes for the strata owners is reduced equity value for their real estate investment because any purchaser looking for financing is facing a Bank that wants to know what the costs of ownership are going to be. Taxes, utilities, and Strata fees.Those strata fee's will be a serious component of a person's ability to afford the mortgage when they become 2 or 3 hun a month.
The smartest thing stratas could do is provide at least some modest remuneration for council positions.....along with appropriate directors insurance, to give some incentive for some owners to give a chit and manage their own affairs than paying a per household management fee. The end result would be lower strata costs and increased value in their own equity because of lower overhead costs.
But that strikes at the very core of your revenue model and you would hate people like myself to be on the council of any property you managed.

Wrongo....I am not a strata manager, nor have I played one on tv. What anyone does with their strata would have no impact on my "revenue model". However, I don't like to see wrong information put out there by people who don't know what they are talking about for people who don't know what they are talking about. That kind of turns it into the blind leading the blind.
How about telling me where I am wrong instead of trying to guess what I do.....I guarantee you will fail and it is irrelevant anyways.
Back to your comments above....I don't disagree with much of it, other than the sheer idiocy of the first and last statements.
However, you have done nothing in your earlier posts to help the OP by giving incorrect information and information that will not assist him.
You are partially correct though.....I would hate to have you on council on any strata I owned. Suggesting that a judge would side with you when they clearly couldn't and suggesting strata take your He-Man-Big-Ego route when it would merely result in a great big eff-you by whomever you are dealing with would put others investments in clear jeopardy.

But, as always, thanks for trying.