續, 富多來二期的法團
上一篇網誌, 到底係件乜嘢事??
呢一單事件, 係好多法團都好興玩的事-官司, 所以值得大家當係一個實例來研究下.
富多來二期溶溶爛爛, 人所共知, 係兩年前, 屋苑業主用選票, 將舊一屆的主席趕走.
舊主席要落台喎, 當然玩晒嘢, 又唔肯交收文件, 又唔肯交收瑣匙, 而夥同一班業主, 係每次常委會攪局, 這些, 大家都估得到.
新一屆法團, 見到法團會址的電腦殘殘舊舊, 又同法團購買的電腦單據上的型號不同, 即係有人取走了法團所購買的電腦, 同時取得屋苑所有業主的資料, 當然報警啦, 合情合理.
事件拉拉扯扯達七個月, 最後, 舊主席將法團電腦送返法團.
事情完未?? 未完.
舊主席話, 點解法團要係會議中討論佢"涉嫌偷取電腦"喎, 於是, 向法團入稟, 向法團, (即係全體業主)訴訟, 告大家"誹謗"佢.
呢件事, 加上佢不斷煊染, 話個管委會處理不當, 累及所有業主, 新主席亦不堪壓力而辭職.
舊主席順利借呢單案件, 從新進入成為委員.
精彩的事來了, 由於佢成為委員, 於是佢亦不斷向管委會施壓, 要求管委會代表法團同佢本人協商和解, 要求法團向佢本人賠償八萬五千元... (加上之前法團所用的律師費), 總共花費十五萬多.
而案件呢?? 哈哈, 只係入稟, 都未開始進入審訊. (係預審時, 法官已經直斥話件案件係無謂.)
換句話講, 成功利用司法程序, 佢一毫子都唔駛出, 由全體業主埋單. 佢就係睇準所有業主怕事, 怕煩, 凶下班業主, 要打官司就可能天文數字, 邊個仲出到聲??
舉行業主大會來做議決, 佢手執的授權票, (約千四份), 係全體出席投票的份數中(約2400份), 佔了超過半數通過和解方案, 一單必須的官司, 結果都係由所有業主找數.
鬍鬚仔係度同大家講, 一個鍾意郁下就玩官司的管委會, 你一定要留意. 亦真心要睇下大家去打官司的理據係邊. 只要今次你妥協, 就會不斷咁觸發以後佢繼續用同一招逼你就範.
試問, 一個舊屋苑, 到底你有幾多個十五萬可以去玩呢個遊戲?? 大家交管理費, 都係想用在屋苑, 維修或者改業設施, 但不斷用來打官司身上, 到底係為咗乜??
既然已經完左, 十五萬換回和平, 係咪值得?? 我唔知, 但以我知, 呢個管委會已經馬上再安排咗幾單官司繼續, 包括同舊的管理公司打, 又話要向前屆管委會追討責任.
每個屋苑發生衝突, 離唔開兩招, 官司同抹黑. 呢個屋苑, 就係玩官司玩到出神入化. 如果你有朋友係呢個屋苑的業主, 緊記叫佢地關心下屋苑, 否則, 多多錢都唔夠你花.
願上帝賜給這個屋苑的業主智慧, 讓他們用理智去阻止呢場連串的官司.
Usually, in older or less expensive building estates, these issues will arise more because the individual owners in majority lack the professional skills and determination to understand and tackle the procedural challenges.
回覆刪除This is directly a result of exploiting the weak in this situation, using the same economic/financial theory known as "signalling", where the party with more information in their hand exploit it for their own advantage.
In this above case, the same said resigned chairperson could have easily launched a civil suit against this former chair. Whats more, they could have filed an injunction with the police during the course of the proceeding to ban her from participating from the committee.
Unfortunately, that was not done and moreover, the situation got reversed with the re-entry.
But in this case, it is clear that something was missing, i.e. the balance sheet stating the asset of the IC. The management company should manage the asset and the asset records should be kept, whether it is taken out of the office, estate etc...
If there were records perpetuating that the said computer was taken out by this former chair, then there would had been proof that asset of the IC was not handed over as per the prescribed procedure.
What would then follow is a proper procedure to reclaim the asset, so instead of claiming theft, a civil case could be bought that the former chair never returned the asset or has kept the asset.
A small tribunal case can then be bought forward to try and retrieve the said asset or the equivalent value. Much cheaper then all of the above fiasco, and most of all, there would be no claims and counterclaims game, since small claims does not require any solicitors.
This is a reason why all IC really need to have all financial documentation in place, especially an asset inventory list that matches the balance sheet and a P&L (I&E) statement that matches the balance sheet.