ANGOR PROPERTY SPECIALISTS: UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE

On 28/10/2024, Angor Property specialists facilitated an AGM for Gleneagles Body Corporate. Angor is the Managing agent for Gleneagles Body corporate. The AGM commenced with the a Trustee of the Gleneagles Trustees claiming that the Trustees had declared that she (the Trustee) would chair the meeting. This Trustee was not the Chair of the Board. This unilateral appointment of someone other than the Chair of the Board is against the rules of meetings. I pointed this out. The would-be chair challenged my point and claimed I was "alleging" this. I pointed out I was reading it from the Prescribed Management Rules. A similar controversy occurred at an AGM 13/12/23, with the same Angor facilitator. At that earlier meeting the Angor representative insisted that the ******** appointment of a chair for the meeting was in fact lawful. The Angor representative was wrong. The facilitator on 13/12/24 also challenged the point I had made, despite her being incorrect on a point of law.

Now, about a year later, the Facilitator still did not correct the would-be chair's assertion, despite having been told a year earlier that the procedure was out of order. The would-be chair then had to concede, after a pause, that she was incorrect. In the Minutes of the AGM 18/11/24, Angor, who drew up the Minutes, state on the issue: "The owner's comments were noted." The Minutes need to be a full and fair reflection of what occurred at a meeting. Angor chose not to reflect in the Minutes that the would-be chair's position was against the rules, or that the Owner had reminded the Meeting that exactly the same contravention had occurred at the AGM of 13/12/23 where the same Angor facilitator was officiating.

Immediately prior to the election of a new board, with the old board standing for re-election, the Angor facilitator entered on a homily about how good the Trustees were. This, too, is out of order. No owner, nor the Chair of the meeting, requested - at the meeting - the Angor facilitator's opinions. This was not requested in the meeting. No Angor representative at an AGM is entitled to lobby for candidates for the Board of Trustees. Angor claims, inter alia, this illicit intervention was a "thank you." These words were not used. Additionally, the representative was a facilitator, not a participant. It is unacceptable for the Angor facilitator to behave in this way. Angor has, I am told, since complained to the Trustees about complaints leveled at its employee. It is noted that Angor is employed by the Building, and as such its representatives actions/inactions in relation to the Building's business are not immune to criticism.

For quite a while during the meeting, certain owners, and always the same owners, were removed from the meeting. They were then re-admitted, obviously having missed proceedings while excluded. The Angor facilitator did not know how to prevent this happening, though she was the Administrator of the meeting. It is not unreasonable to expect that the Administrator/Facilitator of an online meeting is fami**** with the operations of the platform.

The law requires that Minutes of AGMs are circulated not later than 7 days after the meeting. The Angor contract undertakes to do this if they are taking the minutes. The Minutes were not so distributed within the required 7 days. Thus Angor did not comply with the law or with its service contract.

A controversy arose about the time allocated for online voting for Trustees. The Angor representative claimed that "4 minutes" was an adequate time. Despite please for the voting to be re-opened, this did not happen, and the Angor representative was adamant that "4 minutes" constituted adequate time for people to consider the candidates and vote using an online portal a number found difficult to negotiate. Again, It is not for the facilitator from Angor to be expressing an opinion on voting times.

The (belated) Minutes indicate that the meeting was at a stage no longer quorate... yet item 21 on the agenda, after that, an item dealing with the domicilium of the Body Corporate is noted in the Minutes as "passed unanimously".

A motion to prevent the Trustees from imposing a NDA on Trustees was indeed debated, as indicated in the minutes. However, the Minutes seem to indicate that this Motion was not passed. If a motion is proposed, it needs to be voted on. The Minutes sent out by Angor - who took it upon itself via its representative to argue about various points of procedure - invariably in favour of the Trustees - do not indicate that a motion was proposed and not voted on, a procedure that is contrary to the Rules of meetings.

In addition to the domicilium vote when the meeting was said to be no longer quorate, the item General is recorded in the minutes as "None". People wished to introduce matters under general. The Rules of meetings dictate that if the business is not concluded the meeting is adjourned, not closed. Angor's representative did not point this out, but proceeded to close the meeting.

An SGM was held on 31/10/24. The same Angor employee was the facilitator at the meeting as at the AGM of 28/10/24.

A motion was moved to remove the chair after the chair had made what a number of owners regarded as derogatory remarks. The facilitator did not at that point indicate that the Chair is required to stand down while the motion is being discussed, and then voted on.

The Minutes of this meeting, prepared by Angor, record the Angor representative offering up various pieces of legal advice and declarations on points of order. The Angor representative claimed that it was ******** to record an AGM without the permission of all parties. This is offered at the meeting and in the Minutes as a statement of legal fact. Angor has been asked to produce sound evidence for this, but has, to date, not done so.

What the Chair said and what was found offensive is a matter of dispute. Requests have been made to Angor for the recording so that doubts can be laid to rest. Angor refuses to produce the recording. Angor claims it is their property and is for "minute taking purposes only." If there is a dispute, good faith would require that the recording be produced for purposes of verification. Additionally, Angor has failed to indicate how a recording of Body Corporate's business can become Angor's property. Moreover, the Chair insisted she would request a copy of the recording for purposes of intended litigation. Angor has not disclosed whether a copy has been made available to the Chair.

The Minutes compiled by Angor contain the following sentence: "CSOS required that there be a process of contravention in the Rules." Minutes must be a true and accurate reflection of what was said. This sentence is completely unintelligible. Angor writes in the Minutes: "When residents transgressed, there needed to be a mechanism in place in order to modulate." This sentence is unintelligible. (Presumably Angor meant to write "moderate." This could only be ascertained via listening to a recording).

The Minutes record that the Angor facilitator said that "ANGOR was not giving legal advice." This is directly contradicted by the facilitator having said that recording was ******** in the circumstances, a statement that is nothing if not "legal advice".

Minutes are meant to be a full and accurate account. Here it is clear that the minutes sent out by Angor have the Angor representative failing to give an accurate account of her own statements.

None of the above reflects any credit on Angor's performance at the General Meetings in question, or in the composition and circulation of the Minutes.