Disaster

1).The ref, number that can be referred to is CSOS1822/GP/18 - submitted Sept. 2018; Conciliation with defendants absent - in Feb. 2019; hearing Sept. 2019; final arguments Oct. 2019; Ruling - June 2020 !!!!

(2)Evidence as was led and submitted were then totally mixed up in ruling with names,dates and evidence of parties were all mixed up and construed. The application requested relief for e.g. unsigned financials; document requests to be made available; no conduct rules & - but were just ignored, overlooked & dismissed with only roof repairs that started causing damage to inside unit was ruled on by arbitrator. She would not allow me to submit documents at hearing yet - 2 months after the hearing - she requested documents from defendants without advising me.

(3). A new application for dispute was submitted beginning July 2020 - payment was requested and Case Ref. CSOS 000800/GP/20 was provided BUT to date now 19 Sept. damages at that point was asked for. Major damage occurred to my personal goods and inside unit when the ceiling in my bedroom eventually collapsed during the wait on hearing of case 18822/GP/18. This was discussed at the eventual hearing of above case when Ms. Bulo the arbitrator advised that ruling on claim for damages could at that stage not be made as relief to be paid for damages was not in application of the case on hand - only maintenance to roof.

(4). On same date as above (2) a separate dispute/application was also submitted for personal damages suffered due to lack of maintenance of BC. A case ref. was received - CSOS 000801/GP/20. Not getting any request for payment or notice for this matter, I requested why this matter was not addressed and pointed out merits of new application.
I then received a 'closure letter' that this matter was not accepted as it had been ruled on in case 18822/GP/18.

(5) Fact is that no relief for resultant damages were asked for or submitted in case 18822/GP/18. Proof were submitted detailing the start of damages

(5) Application/relief sought for payment of damages had not been app**** for in case 18822/GP/18 and has not been ruled on YET. I have objected and pointed out factual merits of old case and new application for damages - Told to appeal - cannot appeal a matter that was not ruled on! My attorney then addressed this issue and still waiting on response from CSOS.

(6) MORE - I requested info from CSOS on registration of our scheme - I received notice from CSOS that the scheme in fact is not registered with CSOS, annual returns have not been submitted over past 3-4 years; no conduct rules registered. I notified our trustees of this violation. An employee of the managing agent cc'd me in on a letter he sent to CSOS disputing CSOS records of registration and submitted some CSOS registration number for the scheme.

(7) I asked CSOS to provide me with clarification on this dispute - but have received no response.

NOW ASKING ME WHY I SHOULD BE DISSATISFIED IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT!.
With the delays, then when proper attention is not paid to evidence, and submitted documents, statements as recorded at hearing is not bothered with resulting in a ad hog construed ruling, violations of the law etc. is totally unacceptable. Cases are clearly not assessed properly., CSOS directives are app**** in ad hog manner only to be referred to in rulings and or dismissals as by choice - but ignored in applications, registrations and factual details.
BASED ON ABOVE - WHY AM I COMPELLED TO PAY A CSOS LEVY;
WHY SHOULD CSOS RULING BE RECOGNISED SAME AS COURT RULING WHEN CONDUCT AT HEARINGS ARE ALLOWED TO BE MORE A SLANDEROUS TEA PARTY THAN A HEARING THAT IS NOT TOLERATED IN A COURT OF LAW! ????? Unacceptable!

Re previous response to CSOS - chapter (3) to read as follows:

(3). A new application for dispute for ******** levy was submitted beginning July 2020 - payment was requested and Case Ref. CSOS 000800/GP/20 was provided BUT to date now 19 Sept.2020 parties concerned have not been notified of case or date set for conciliation.

1).The ref, number that can be referred to is CSOS1822/GP/18 - submitted Sept. 2018; Conciliation with defendants absent - in Feb. 2019; hearing Sept. 2019; final arguments Oct. 2019; Ruling - June 2020 !!!!

(2)Evidence as was led and submitted were then totally mixed up in ruling with names, dates and evidence of parties mixed up and construed. The application requested relief for e.g. unsigned financials; document requests to be made available; no conduct rules & - but were just ignored, overlooked & dismissed with only roof repairs that started causing damage to inside unit was ruled on by arbitrator. She would not allow me to submit documents at hearing yet - 2 months after the hearing - she requested documents from defendants without advising me. (3). I submitted a new application for ******* levy dispute with CSOS beginning July 2020 - payment was requested and Case Ref. CSOS 000800/GP/20 was provided BUT to date now 19 Sept. 2020 none of the parties have been notified of this application. (4). On same date as above (2) a separate dispute/application was also submitted for personal damages suffered due to lack of maintenance of BC. A case ref. was received - CSOS 000801/GP/20. I got no response or acknowledgement on this separate matter. I requested why this matter was not acknowledged by CSOS and pointed out merits of new application.
I then received a 'closure letter' that this matter was not accepted as it had been ruled on in case 18822/GP/18.

(5) Fact is that no relief for resultant damages were asked for or submitted in case 18822/GP/18. Proof were submitted detailing the start of damages (6) The resultant major damage occurred to my personal goods and inside my unit when the ceiling in my bedroom eventually collapsed during the 2 year wait on hearing of case 18822/GP/18. This was discussed at the eventual hearing of above case when the Arbitrator advised that ruling on claim for damages could at that stage not be made as relief to be paid for damages was not in application and not asked for thus only case on hand that refers to maintenance/repairs to roof.
(7) Application/relief sought for payment of damages had not been app**** for in case 18822/GP/18 and has not been ruled on. I have objected and pointed out factual merits of old case and new application for damages. I’m told that I can appeal – I fail to see how I can appeal on a matter that was not asked to be ruled on and thus then not ruled on! My attorney has again addressed this issue with CSOS but still waiting on response from CSOS. (8) FURTHER - I requested info from CSOS on registration of our scheme - I received notice from CSOS that the scheme in fact is not registered with CSOS, annual returns have not been submitted over past 3-4 years; no conduct rules registered. I notified our trustees of this violation. An employee of the managing agent cc'd me in on a letter he sent to CSOS disputing CSOS records of registration and submitted some CSOS registration number for the scheme.

(9) I asked CSOS to provide me with clarification on this dispute - but have received no response.

NOW ASKING ME WHY I SHOULD BE DISSATISFIED IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT!.
With the delays, when proper attention is not paid to evidence and submitted documents, statements as recorded at hearing is not bothered with resulting in a ad hog construed ruling, Violations of the law and STMA is overlooked and heard on face value. Cases are clearly not assessed properly., CSOS directives are referred to by CSOS to suit and serve as an excuse for not dealing with matters properly. However CSOS Directives are not app**** to in applications, registrations and factual details.
BASED ON ABOVE - WHY AM I COMPELLED TO PAY A CSOS LEVY; WHY SHOULD CSOS RULING BE RECOGNISED SAME AS COURT RULING WHEN CONDUCT AT HEARINGS ARE ALLOWED TO BE MORE A SLANDEROUS TEA PARTY THAN A HEARING THAT IS NOT TOLERATED IN A COURT OF LAW! ????? Unacceptable!

I am still waiting for Csos 'to get back to me' If at all - hoping to be by 2023! As the simple process of their rule 43 takes to comply with now still waiting 3 months since application. Total disregard for the so-called CSOS 'directives' and micky mouse operation.

Good day, I to date have not received any response in my gmail.

Re previous posting - addressed to CSOS-
The following are unanswered queries and questions to your responding incomplete and incorrect statements in your email received on 7th October 2020.
By example :
“A car ***** is charged with theft but on date of hearing the plaintiff was not in court and could not give evidence. Charges against the ***** was dismissed.
Same car thieve then again *****s the car from same person, who again brings a charge of theft against the *****– plaintiff presents evidence in court. Would the court rule that seeing as a previous case of theft was dismissed, new theft charges won’t be ruled on as a previous case of theft was dismissed against the ***** – no matter that he stole again, the matter is dismissed!” Would be seen as a total farce!
If this is how CSOS arbitrators deal with and view Sectional Title Act violation complaints to just outrightly dismiss complaints – would show disdain for the Law and violation of a person’s rights to a fair hearing, and a arbitrators abuse of power!
1. The case you refer to was brought in 2017 when I was unable to represent myself due to unforeseen circumstances but was heard in my absence and matters were not resolved.  Similar issues were submitted in September 2018 - case 1822/GP/181 for reason that violations to the STA continued and relief was sought. Conciliation was not attended by respondents. The matter was acknowledged and referred for arbitration;
2. Proof of violations were submitted and addressed at the hearing i.e. request for documents denied; irregular meetings; unsigned financials, trustees reports and minutes unsigned and not made available for which relief was sought. These matters were however not addressed or ruled on by the arbitrator in the ruling.
 At the hearing – Sept. 2019 - a signed POA was handed to the arbitrator.
 The Body Corporate was not represented. Persons present were not assigned to represent the BC. I objected yet their testimonies were acknowledged;
 I was sworn in yet neither one of the other parties were sworn in – yet their testimonies are acknowledged;
 Testimonies were completed and another date was to be set for delivery of closing arguments; that took place a month later- October 2019.
3. The meeting was not postponed for reasons as stated in your response but merely for delivery of closing arguments.
 Mr. Roland Kleiner ( seems to be the only name recognised) was not a trustee at the time of the hearing. His appointment as trustee was made after the hearing and whilst awaiting date for closing arguments;
 There was absolutely no request made at the hearing for further or other documentation to be delivered re roof repairs. The only request made was for proof and explanation from managing agent on irregularities in the financials presented by me that was queried by arbitrator and ask managing agent to explain/rectify and to present – this was not followed up on at closing argument hearing and also not mentioned in ruling.
 At conclusion of final hearing, the arbitrator informed all parties present that ruling would be delivered within 14 days. Proofed to again be unreliable!
 I had no knowledge and was not advised on and of any additional documentation that was subsequently requested and delivered to the arbitrator, used as excuse for late ruling.
4. I am fully aware that issues that developed during the time whilst awaiting eventual hearing, that was brought up at the hearing, could and would not be ruled on. The fact that the app**** for relief as was sought in application, was not even addressed in ruling with no basis or explanation given for dismissals.
5. The ad hog ruling was made 8 months after the hearing, 2 years after application, 18 months after conciliation hearing when - only ruling made was for roof to be repaired – which had been done 2 months after the hearing; 8 months before ruling. Violation matters concerning management as mentioned in 2 above, was not addressed and just overlooked and ignored.
The fact that similar previous complaints were lodged with CSOS, does not justify for the dismissal of ongoing serious violations when merits of issues with new evidence presented, are not even considered by arbitrator and ruling is based on respondents argument that similar issues were previously heard and dismissed. Total disregard shown the STM Act and CSOS directives.
6. “Appeal” – easy way out for CSOS who is suppose to provide an affordable proper ‘lawful arbitration’ as set out by directives. After a 2 year wait on a matter to be finalised to discover that relief sought was not properly addressed, proper protocol was not followed and CSOS supposed directives are not adhered to by CSOS and arbitrator.
To be told I could’ve appealed the ruling – seems to be a regular pretext. In order to Appeal CSOS non compliant hearings and rulings come at high costs – High Court application, senior council fees – when not affordable. Too bad! CSOS arbitrators are suppose to conduct a proper, fair and lawful hearing with rulings based on evidence before them. Total waste of time and distrust in CSOS.
UNACCEPTABLE!
Further, the other (2) CSOS issues noted in my posted complaint - see attached, has not been addressed. It will be interesting to see how these issues and violations are to be handled by CSOS.
I would appreciate getting feedback on those matters.
Added :
The following has never been addressed by CSOS- queried by me without any actions or response - only to state that currently since 2016 - there are as yet no penalties in place!!!!! -when the scheme and MA is allowed to continue to be in violation of all laws-
* scheme not registered with CSOS;
* financials; budgets, minutes; reports for 2016, 2017,2018, not signed;
*annual returns not submitted to CSOS;
*Conduct rules not submitted to CSOS for approval;
*Manager of MA agency practising without Fidelity certificate.

In total - CSOS are giving managing agents and trustees free reign to ignore and disregard ALL rules and laws! Whilst we have to pay CSOS levy!