Very bad experience with a property managers

One thing I found from the hearing was that the company uses different entities for management of their offices. So their St Marys office is under different company than their Central Coast office, although all is owned and run by the same team, reporting to the licensee in charge of St Marys office. We had some claims against them in relation to their past management of Taree property, and it couldn't proceed in last Monday's hearing because of this difference in entity. The Tribunal suggested that we pursue them via separate claim - should we wish to, which I will lodge very soon.
Old litigation trick that one. Always keep em guessing. Thanks for the post- it is nice to hear the other side of the spruiker coin.

He's busy posting videos cruising around in his new Bentley

Well Dave- Dazz would refer to this as the Tall Poppy syndrome. You're just jealous because you've got no dissatisfied customers or a Bentley. Tell you what -come to my workshop (very reasonably priced and I'll give you discounted membership to the platinum achievers trapezoid (sounds better than circle)) where I guarantee I can give you at least one of the two: that is a Bentley or dissatisfied customers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cu@thetop,

Old litigation trick that one. Always keep em guessing.

Wouldn't that just be a basic business arrangement to limit liability?

The reason I ask is that I am currently looking at re structuring my own company and have been advised by my accountant to do exactly the same thing......:confused:


Ciao

Nor
 
Cu@thetop,



Wouldn't that just be a basic business arrangement to limit liability?

The reason I ask is that I am currently looking at re structuring my own company and have been advised by my accountant to do exactly the same thing......:confused:


Ciao

Nor

Yup. Not just liability but for flexibility, eg imagine if you wanted to bring in an equity partner on just 1 office but everything was in the 1 big entity, would be a mess.

Also getting loans etc would be a nightmare if it was all in the 1 entity, imagine the paperwork
 
Cu@thetop,



Wouldn't that just be a basic business arrangement to limit liability?

The reason I ask is that I am currently looking at re structuring my own company and have been advised by my accountant to do exactly the same thing......:confused:


Ciao

Nor

There's nothing sinister about it and allows you to cut loose the errant entity endangering economic equilibrium. Your accountant is most likely right if you are in a business with a risk profile. Compartmentalize the risk with the added bonus of flexibility - you can sell parts off. Downside= accountant's fees and compliance costs.
 
The ethical thing to do would be to invest some money into reviewing all his business practices, contacting people not happy with the service to apologise and work to address each issue and to make decisions about what businesses to let go to properly focus on his core business (based on the learnings from his review)
 
Useless games?.

We were away on a holiday last week when I received a phone call from the company. It's someone I never had contact with previously, said he's the branch manager in Qld and is now the operation manager of all branches. He said he's calling to ask for my feedback to improve the business. I thought that's an interesting change and told him to call me again when we're home.

When we got home though, I found out that they still didn't send the property file to my new PM for Orange as promised (to us and DFT), nor that they paid the order from NCAT! So I wrote the guy an email saying that I changed my mind, wouldn't want to have any discussion with them as I didn't see any good intention behind it. I told him about the failure to deliver file and compensation as per NCAT order. He promptly promised me he'd have them all sorted out straight away, would be personally arrange for the money transfer, send all files by email EOB and mail that day, send me tracking numbers of package and even promised to call my local PM to confirm that all are ok. He also said he'd settle the compensation I'm seeking for Taree property (for which we'd have a hearing next week).

The guy told me that he understood if I wouldn't want to provide any input for the company and that's ok, but he'd like to have a discussion with me on how they could better compensate me. I told him I wasn't interested in negotiating anything with them ever again - even for better compensation. If the company is paying for the compensation I'm seeking for Taree property and save me time attending the hearing, then I take it as a positive gesture to try ending the matter in a good way. If not, I'm happy to take whatever NCAT decides next week. He said that's ok too, he'd arrange for the payment transfer soon. He said that the company just wanted to settle the matter and move on too.

A bit later on, I received an email from him saying that the company is happy to offer compensation yada-yada-yada with the condition of non-disclosure and closing this thread in SS. Turns out that's what it's all about! The hyena doesn't change it's spots after all.

This was 2 days ago, and today I checked with my local PM in Orange just to be sure. As expected, no file documents received via email or mail, no phone call. I didn't receive any package tracking number and no payment transferred for the previous NCAT order. All these were just another game with intention of getting this thread closed in SS :eek:

Luckily I was pretty skeptical from the start, so had started the enforcement process for the NCAT order as soon as I'm back and continue documents preparation for the hearing. I guess the latest trail of emails with all the different offers and promises, followed by enforcement registration in local court for non-payment, will now be part of the hearing documents - which Tribunal Members may find interesting.

I don't understand though how the company thinks they could get away with not adhering to the NCAT order, as it's enforceable by court. Enforcement means sheriff with Writ and/or Garnishee documents showing up at their office. Why would any business wants that scene in front of their staff? Or is it because they think I'd have problem registering to local court while overseas? Thankfully, there is an online registration recently introduced, so this won't be an issue anymore.

Aside from all these minor irritations in the last week, I'm glad that I won't have to deal with them again after this upcoming hearing next week. I'm not discounting a possibility of another unpaid order from this upcoming hearing, but at least any enforcement will be done via court and sheriff, and I won't have to personally deal with anyone from that company anymore.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The ethical thing to do would be to invest some money into reviewing all his business practices, contacting people not happy with the service to apologise and work to address each issue and to make decisions about what businesses to let go to properly focus on his core business (based on the learnings from his review)


I completely agree with you. Facing the problem head-on and solve it will be much more effective that playing all these games.
 
Hi kristaje

Sorry to read about your experience! It is so disappointing when businesses don't do the right thing by their clients; and to what extent such people can go. Makes me question such business' integrity.

They should pay up when they haven't delivered on what you hired them to do.
 
Last edited:
disgusting, just another little guy who promises to be different and how he is not one of the bad guys, and does exactly what he promised what not to do,

as far as I can see, I put him in the same bag as Henry Kaye

disappointed, ive lost total respect for him

i would be willing to donate $1000 to a charity if he came on here to explain/defend himself, but I think my $1000 is as safe as bricks
 
Bit of a strange way to do business........:confused:

Can only wonder when the big guns will be pulled to shut this down......considering it'll be right up the top of any search.


Ciao

Nor
 
I know that I said earlier that you were being a bit too lenient with them, but I'll have to take that back now. Good on you for standing your ground and telling them to bugger off!

I'll certainty make sure that I tell would be investors about staying away from this company.

I know that some people might say in his defence that this wasn't him but one of his companies run by someone else, but I think that he's implicated or if he's not, he's incompetent.

Hope this thread is publically indexed by Google.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you have a judgment or court order why not just issue the company with a statutory demand? They will have 21 days to pay or contest it - don't think they would have grounds to contest if there is a court order. You can then wind the company up (as they are presumed to be insolvent)- appoint an administrator who will change locks on office doors, and take control of bank accounts etc

There is a minimum debt needed but it is low - about $2500 i thiink.
 
You can then wind the company up (as they are presumed to be insolvent)- appoint an administrator who will change locks on office doors, and take control of bank accounts etc

There is a minimum debt needed but it is low - about $2500 i thiink.

Thanks for that Terry,just like putting ice cold water on a white hot bbq plate..
 
A bit later on, I received an email from him saying that the company is happy to offer compensation yada-yada-yada with the condition of non-disclosure and closing this thread in SS. Turns out that's what it's all about! The hyena doesn't change it's spots after all.


I don't understand though how the company thinks they could get away with not adhering to the NCAT order, as it's enforceable by court. Enforcement means sheriff with Writ and/or Garnishee documents showing up at their office. Why would any business wants that scene in front of their staff? Or is it because they think I'd have problem registering to local court while overseas? Thankfully, there is an online registration recently introduced, so this won't be an issue anymore.
Best thread ever. Thanks for the update. If the order is against them as a company why not issue a statutory demand if you are above the threshold (over 2k I think). Let the appeal period run on your original judgement first though. As part of enforcement proceedings- here in Qld anyway you can force a company director to attend court with company records and answer questions . If he doesn't show the Bailiff arrests him!
Unless there is a suppression order you can post court documents online. Just sayin'.

Wow. I thought it couldn't get any worse and it just slid right past terrible onto godawful spectacular train crash

But worse yet the train wreck keeps showing up on page 1 google searches.

Not a problem-Sanj has expressed an opinion based on comments which I suspect have some truth to them. Not really defamatory IMHO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And to think, all this mess and bad publicity and compensation could have been avoided if the man in charge had taken an interest at the start, got on the phone to the company office involved and said "Oi, sort this out today".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And to think, all this mess and bad publicity and compensation could have been avoided if the man in charge had taken an interest at the start, got on the phone to the the company office involved and said "Oi, sort this out today".

To be fair that would mean less time for posing in new cars and showing off the latest in boganic menswear.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top