Popi act and how it can influence future Sectional title meetings

[tawdry]

Hello
Say i am an owner in a sectional title Scheme.There are 15 units of which 5 have resident owners the rest have tenants. .
Now say recently we have decided we want to vote in a new chairperson and trustees but we are all only owners without a trustee among us.

When we request a list of names for owners and unit(s) they own as well as there contact details from the managing agent we are denied on the basis of the POPI act and privacy laws.
However I am told should I be a trustee or chairperson I would be entitled then to this list .

This seems insanely unbalanced If i wanted to call for a special general meeting ,for instance, with the intent of removing the chairperson from office and electing a new one who resides at the building.
I have only details for 5 of the actual 15 unit owners those who are staying on site yet the chairperson and trustees have access to all 15 and can rally support from a far greater amount of people and at the same time I would have absolutely no way to make any approach to these same people
Am I not now at a rather sizable disadvantage.

Imo either Chairperson,trustees and owners should have access to these details or none should and only the managing director should be privy to it.

Thoughts?

Thank you.


Sorry perhaps I wasn't clear.What I mean is that a currently sitting chair/trustees would have access to all 15 owners of the scheme. But an owner who wishes to depose them would only have a way to contact 5 of these owners.A Maximum potential vote of 15 vs a maximum potential vote of 5 how does that seem fair?????.

IMO only the managing agent should have that personal information and any who wish to address these persons could send the query to the agents who would then forward it on to the relevant person/persons.

Think of it as a court case .
You the prosecution suddenly find yourself confronted by a witness for the defence that you have no knowledge of .You are also not allowed to cross examine this witness or plead your case to said witness.

Hope that clears this up

 

[WAslayer]

The managing agent would have to honour the request for a general meeting and can send notices to the owners..

 

[Kosmik]

Chairperson, trustees ( depending on role ) and managing agent should have knowledge. Individual owners... I don't think that would be legal.

If you want to call a meeting, you submit the request to the managing agent or chair, it is their job to disseminate and schedule the meeting, they are legally obliged to do so and can be held responsible if not done.

 

[swakop_toe]

The managing agent should/would send the notification out on behalf of you.

That is their job and mandate.

 

[Mimen]

Give the manager company a call and ask.

 

[tawdry]

Sorry perhaps I wasn't clear.What I mean is that a currently sitting chair/trustees would have access to all 15 owners of the scheme. But an owner who wishes to depose them would only have a way to contact 5 of these owners.An Maximun opotential vote of 15 vs a maximum potential vote of 5 how does that seem fair?????.

IMO only the managing agent should have that personal information and any who wish to address these persons could send the query to the agents who would then forward it on to the relevant person/persons.

Think of it as a court case .
You the prosecution suddenly find yourself confronted by a witness for the defence that you have no knowledge of .You are also not allowed to cross examine this witness or plead your case to said witness.

Hope that clears this up

 

[swakop_toe]

Then door-to-door printed flyer/notice is your only other option.

 

[WAslayer]

Sorry perhaps I wasn't clear.What I mean is that a currently sitting chair/trustees would have access to all 15 owners of the scheme. But an owner who wishes to depose them would only have a way to contact 5 of these owners.An Maximun opotential vote of 15 vs a maximum potential vote of 5 how does that seem fair?????.

IMO only the managing agent should have that personal information and any who wish to address these persons could send the query to the agents who would then forward it on to the relevant person/persons.

Think of it as a court case .
You the prosecution suddenly find yourself confronted by a witness for the defence that you have no knowledge of .You are also not allowed to cross examine this witness or plead your case to said witness.

Hope that clears this up

Uhm yes, that's exactly what everyone has been saying..

You contact the managing agent, who will contact all the owners to schedule the special meeting to depose and elect a new board...

 

[tawdry]

Uhm yes, that's exactly what everyone has been saying..

You contact the managing agent, who will contact all the owners to schedule the special meeting to depose and elect a new board...

Uhm no.My point is the chairperson can, unlike me, contact these people before the meeting (having there names and contact details) say whatever she likes (his a mass murderer as an extreme example) get proxies from them and I would have never had the opportunity to make my case(she /he could be the real mass murderer) (you cannot convince a proxy of anything its a piece of paper).How is this so hard to understand?.If i have no way to plead my case to someone for the chairpersons removal but she/he has absolute access to them. its not an even playing field.

 

[tawdry]

Then door-to-door printed flyer/notice is your only other option.

Not sure what you mean. The people don't live in the building they might be on the moon for all I know.

 

[WAslayer]

Uhm no.My point is the chairperson can, unlike me, contact these people before the meeting (having there names and contact details) say whatever she likes (his a mass murderer as an extreme example) get proxies from them and I would have never had the opportunity to make my case(she /he could be the real mass murderer) (you cannot convince a proxy of anything its a piece of paper).How is this so hard to understand?.If i have no way to plead my case to someone for the chairpersons removal but she/he has absolute access to them. its absurdly unbalanced.

You also have the CSOS for this.. this is not rocket science...

 

[Kosmik]

Uhm no.My point is the chairperson can, unlike me, contact these people before the meeting (having there names and contact details) say whatever she likes (his a mass murderer as an extreme example) get proxies from them and I would have never had the opportunity to make my case(she /he could be the real mass murderer) (you cannot convince a proxy of anything its a piece of paper).How is this so hard to understand?.If i have no way to plead my case to someone for the chairpersons removal but she/he has absolute access to them. its absurdly unbalanced.

No offense but you are sounding a bit unbalanced here? Do the route we suggested, all meetings must be minuted and recorded and if you disagree with what's said or done, take the minutes to the ombudsman or a legal route. Be aware, what you are suggesting they do and if you plan the same, you could be up for lible if no proof.

 

[tawdry]

The managing agent should/would send the notification out on behalf of you.

That is their job and mandate.

It would actu

No offense but you are sounding a bit unbalanced here? Do the route we suggested, all meetings must be minuted and recorded and if you disagree with what's said or done, take the minutes to the ombudsman or a legal route. Be aware, what you are suggesting they do and if you plan the same, you could be up for lible if no proof.

Offense taken

 

[tawdry]

You also have the CSOS for this.. this is not rocket science...

What does the Csos have to do with the popi laws?The chairman isn't doing anything wrong.The way the laws are been applied is whats wrong.

 

[WAslayer]

What does the Csos have to do with the popi laws?The chairman isn't doing anything wrong.The way the laws are been applied is whats wrong.

The way are explaining everything in this thread, is the only wrong that's happening here..

 

[swakop_toe]

Perhaps I missed this fact.
And, yes, it gets complicated then.
I see your dilemma.
And if the current tenants work via letting agents, canvassing them for the owners contact details becomes even more difficult.

 

[tawdry]

The way are explaining everything in this thread, is the only wrong that's happening here..

Well someone at least finally got it just above this reply.Maybe ask him to explain it to you.

 

[tawdry]

Perhaps I missed this fact.
And, yes, it gets complicated then.
I see your dilemma.
And if the current tenants work via letting agents, canvassing them for the owners contact details becomes even more difficult.

At last.Thank you I was sure everyone would see the flaw in this law from the get go and was getting so frustrated by all the misunderstandings I really thought I had made it clear enough.I have a AGM coming up and was getting worried about how I was going to explain it clearer than I have on here.

 

[IzZzy]

Check your Sectional Title Scheme and the Sectional Title Act - AFAIK a minimum number of owners can request that a meeting be held

 

[quovadis]

Uhm no.My point is the chairperson can, unlike me, contact these people before the meeting (having there names and contact details) say whatever she likes (his a mass murderer as an extreme example) get proxies from them and I would have never had the opportunity to make my case(she /he could be the real mass murderer) (you cannot convince a proxy of anything its a piece of paper).How is this so hard to understand?.If i have no way to plead my case to someone for the chairpersons removal but she/he has absolute access to them. its not an even playing field.

You're going in circles with these threads. Read the Sectional Title act - all you need to know is there. You do not need access to the list of 18 owners. You live in the estate, go introduce yourself but to call an SGM you only need 4.5 of your 18 owners - so that's 5 owners to sign a letter stating you would like the trustees to call an SGM based on whatever reason you and the other 4 decide - the trustees are then by law required to notify all 18 owners of an SGM to be held and details on what will be discussed with reasonable notice in advance. As long as the SGM has a quorum you can state your case and call for a vote. According to the sectional title management act no person is allowed to hold more than 2 proxies.