Strata has been the focus of media attention in the past.
FAIRGO - October 13, 2004
Subsequent to the programme that aired, Mr Michael Chapman-Smith lodged a complaint with the Broadcasting Standard Authority which ruled on 11 May 2005. Only one aspect of the complaint was upheld - as "the inaccuracy identified was insufficient to result in overall unfairness to the complainant" no order on the broadcaster was imposed/
Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989
Fair Go – item about complaints from spokespersons representing the Bodies Corporate of four residential complexes – all were dissatisfied with Strata Title Administration Limited and its director Michael Chapman-Smith – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair
Fair Go – item about complaints from spokespersons representing the Bodies Corporate of four residential complexes – all were dissatisfied with Strata Title Administration Limited and its director Michael Chapman-Smith – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair
Findings
Standard 4 (balance) – issue essentially one of fairness – not upheld
Standard 5 (accuracy) – inaccurate to state that Mr Chapman-Smith had agreed to an interview and then changed his mind – other statements not inaccurate – one aspect upheld
Standard 6 (fairness) – overall item was fair – not upheld
Standard 4 (balance) – issue essentially one of fairness – not upheld
Standard 5 (accuracy) – inaccurate to state that Mr Chapman-Smith had agreed to an interview and then changed his mind – other statements not inaccurate – one aspect upheld
Standard 6 (fairness) – overall item was fair – not upheld
Link to BSA Decision No:2004-214
WELLINGTON PROPERTY INVESTORS ASSOCIATION MAGAZINE 2004
by Christine Nikiel
Auckland property manager Strata Title Administration is embroiled in further legal wrangles over it's conduct as a body corporate secretary.
The firm, run by Michael Chapman Smith, defended itself in the High Court at Auckland against a group of 51 body corporate members from West Auckland apartment development, Tuscany Towers.
The complex case revolves around an argument over whether Strata was legally voted out as body corporate secretary.
According to Strata, owners knew the body corporate rules when they signed thier contract to buy property. But in his opening submission Hesketh Henry lawyer Rob Ferguson said Strata had set itself up so it was "entrenched" and "ran roughshod over the clear wishes of many of the registered proprietors."
Body corporate 183930 claims it was unhappy with Strata's performance as body corporate secretary and asked it to stand down.
Strata refused and continued to act as secretary, voting in a 2002/03 budget for the body corporate and issuing levies notices to owners, later threatening legal action if they were not paid.
The body corporate claims that when Strata refused to stand down it cited a change in the body corporate rules it registered on June 4, 1998.
Strata's rule change required a unanimous vote by body corporate owners but the body corporate claims that did not happen.
It did however unanimously vote that State be removed as secretary and the rule change be revoked.
In its statement of defence Strata said the rule change was legal, and the vote to remove it as secretary was not, because it was not a unanimous vote.
Justice Paterson reserved his decision but commented it the owners bought already knowing of Strata's "entrenchment" they could be bound to the contract. This is the second time this case has been heard. The first trial was aborted last August because the judge lived in an apartment where Strata was body corporate secretary and had a conflict of interest.
WELLINGTON PROPERTY INVESTORS ASSOCIATION MAGAZINE 2004
Quote:
Property Manager battles Body Corporateby Christine Nikiel
Auckland property manager Strata Title Administration is embroiled in further legal wrangles over it's conduct as a body corporate secretary.
The firm, run by Michael Chapman Smith, defended itself in the High Court at Auckland against a group of 51 body corporate members from West Auckland apartment development, Tuscany Towers.
The complex case revolves around an argument over whether Strata was legally voted out as body corporate secretary.
According to Strata, owners knew the body corporate rules when they signed thier contract to buy property. But in his opening submission Hesketh Henry lawyer Rob Ferguson said Strata had set itself up so it was "entrenched" and "ran roughshod over the clear wishes of many of the registered proprietors."
Body corporate 183930 claims it was unhappy with Strata's performance as body corporate secretary and asked it to stand down.
Strata refused and continued to act as secretary, voting in a 2002/03 budget for the body corporate and issuing levies notices to owners, later threatening legal action if they were not paid.
The body corporate claims that when Strata refused to stand down it cited a change in the body corporate rules it registered on June 4, 1998.
Strata's rule change required a unanimous vote by body corporate owners but the body corporate claims that did not happen.
It did however unanimously vote that State be removed as secretary and the rule change be revoked.
In its statement of defence Strata said the rule change was legal, and the vote to remove it as secretary was not, because it was not a unanimous vote.
Justice Paterson reserved his decision but commented it the owners bought already knowing of Strata's "entrenchment" they could be bound to the contract. This is the second time this case has been heard. The first trial was aborted last August because the judge lived in an apartment where Strata was body corporate secretary and had a conflict of interest.