4 On 20 August 2002, the Owners Corporation delivered to Yedway a letter of that date headed:
"Termination of Management Contract between The Owners - Strata Plan 62871 and Yedway Pty Limited/Mr & Mrs James Iveson."
5 The operative words of the letter, which followed some three pages of narrative, were:
"The Owners Corporation is therefore invoking clause 8.1(c) and (d) of the Agreement and terminating the Agreement. The effective date of termination is 14 days from the date of the letter (3 September 2002)."
6 Yedway contends that the giving of this notice of termination was not authorised by or consistent with the contract and was itself a breach of contract. Despite the notice of termination, the Owners Corporation did not actually terminate the contract. Rather, the contract continued in force and a mortgagee of Yedway's interest under the contract, relying on the giving of the notice of termination as an event of default under the mortgage, later appointed a receiver of that interest. The receiver later assigned the contract (with the Owners Corporation's consent) to a new property manager.
7 The first breach of contract alleged by Yedway is the giving of the notice of termination in circumstances in which, Yedway says, no occasion for termination had arisen.
8 A second and quite separate breach of contract by the Owners Corporation is alleged. It is an alleged breach of clause 9.1 consisting of unreasonable withholding of approval of a transfer of the plaintiff's interest in the contract to Mr and Mrs Betyounan.
9 It is necessary to trace certain matters of history and background. At the time of the events relevant to the dispute, Mr James Iveson and his wife were the effective owners of shares in Yedway. They or, more precisely, a company owned by them purchased the shares at an early point - before owners had begun to take up residence in the newly built apartments. As owners arrived and came into contact with one another in the context of owners corporation affairs, they became the inheritors, as it were, of a situation where Yedway, represented virtually solely by Mr Iveson, held the position of caretaker and manager under the pre-existing contract - a contract the terms of which were fixed and had been formulated without any input by apartment owners.
10 Differences between Yedway and the Owners Corporation emerged in 2000. They resulted in earlier proceedings brought by Yedway against the Owners Corporation ("the 2001 proceedings"). By a statement of claim dated 9 May 2001, Yedway (together with Mr Iveson, Mrs Iveson and their company that had acquired the shares in Yedway) claimed against the Owners Corporation a declaration that the Owners Corporation was estopped from denying the enforceability of the contract and certain by-laws of the Owners Corporation, an order that the contract and the by-laws were valid and subsisting and an order that the Owners Corporation specifically perform the contract.
11 Yedway alleged in the 2001 proceedings that certain members of the executive committee of the Owners Corporation had, in December 2000, informed Mr Iveson that they did not consider the contract to be legally enforceable. Thereafter and despite several requests (made at times when Yedway was negotiating with a prospective purchaser of the management rights under the contract), the Owners Corporation did not confirm the enforceability of the contract or the entitlement of Yedway to sell the management rights to a third party. The prospective purchasers withdrew. The Owners Corporation then stated that it considered that the relevant by-laws were of no force or effect and that there was doubt as to the enforceability of the contract. The Owners Corporation sought to negotiate a new contract but Yedway declined the invitation and commenced the 2001 proceedings.
12 Those proceedings were settled in February 2002. The Owners Corporation consented to the making of a declaration that it was estopped from denying the enforceability of the contract.
13 Ms Grace and Mr Cooper, among others, had been active within the Owners Corporation in relation to the 2001 proceedings. After the settlement, the executive committee of the Owners Corporation took the view that, in the interests of a "new start" with Yedway and Mr Iveson, a unit owner not previously actively involved in the relationship should become the Owners Corporation representative for the purposes of communication with Yedway. The unit owner chosen was Mr Dolan. He wrote to Mr Iveson on 25 March 2002 to inform him of the appointment.
14 Mr Dolan's letter concluded:
"As a first step I would like to meet with you to establish some formal and contingency communication protocols. I can be contacted on the following numbers […]."
15 Mr Iveson replied by handwritten note dated the following date, 26 March 2002, indicating his availability "most days during the week during normal business hours" and inviting Mr Dolan to contact him by telephone. Mr Dolan's response of the same day was as follows:
"Thank you for your note.
I am working particularly long hours these days and unfortunately have little scope to modify current work demands. In view of this it is not possible for me to accommodate the hours you have suggested, at least for the foreseeable future.
With some effort I can be available to meet at 1800 one afternoon per week. I suggest that we meet on the same day each week (say Wednesday), this would make it far easier for me to schedule consistently for 1800.
Of course I am also available to meet early mornings (say 0630) most rights after 2000 or on weekends.
I see concise regular meetings as the key to building a productive communication link between the Owners Corporation and the building management/caretaker.
Accordingly I am keen to commence a genuine dialogue with you and suggest that we meet this Thursday afternoon in the manager/caretaker's office at 1800.
I have a very busy schedule tomorrow but can be contacted on my mobile 0407 XXX XXX (m)."
16 On 27 March 2002, Mr Iveson wrote to Mr Dolan as follows:
"Thank you for your communication of 26th March, 2002.
I am working particularly long hours these days and unfortunately have very little scope to modify current work demands. In view of this it is not possible for me to accommodate the hours you have suggested, at least for the foreseeable future.
I will be available to meet with you on a regular basis as per written notices between the hours of 9am to 5pm Monday to Friday and any subsequent appointment on this basis. My preferred time would be on a Wednesday between the hours of 12pm and 5pm.
Accordingly I am also keen to commence a genuine dialogue with you or alternatively a representative from the Owners Corporation who can communicate with my representative or me during normal business hours. I suggest that these meetings take place in the Buildings Managers Office at an agreed time within the boundaries as outlined above.
I am at present balancing many issues and trying to cope with a very busy schedule for the foreseeable future but I can be contacted on my mobile 0413 XXX XXX."
17 Mr Dolan wrote to Mr Iveson as follows on the same day:
"I am disappointed by your response (ref yedman5) to my last note and do not understand your inflexible position on meeting times.
As I explained in my note it is extremely difficult for me to attend any weekday meetings at Dockside between 0900 and 1700. With significant effort I could arrange to meet on a nominated weekday at 1800. I could meet earlier in the city, if that suits you better.
Please understand that I am trying to build a communications structure that will direct the majority of the building issues through one forum and consequently facilitate speedy resolutions. This would surely be of benefit to Dockside proprietors, residents and the building manager/caretaker.
In view of this, I don't understand why you cannot make yourself available to meet at a time earlier than 0900 or later than 1700. I would welcome a detailed explanation on this point to help me appreciate your position.
As a fallback I can propose an alternative communication model, at least until we can work through our current impasse on meeting times.
Firstly, I suggest that we advance the written communication link already in place. For example, I would provide you with a weekly report covering issues requiring the building manager's/caretaker's attention, action, consideration or feedback and you would provide me with a weekly report addressing the matter raised and conveying any further information that the owners corporation requires.
Secondly, we can meet prior to each Owners Corporation and Executive Committee meeting to discuss the more complex building related matters and to prepare a joint verbal report to the committee. If you can advise me what you regard as "reasonable notice" in relation to these meetings I will ensure that you are notified appropriately.
I am hoping the above will meet with your approval, as I am keen to develop a cooperative and productive relationship between the Owners Corporation and the manager/caretaker in order to move forward on the many challenging matters currently before us.
I will be in Nowra all day tomorrow but will be back around 2000 if you wish to discuss any of the above, or as always you can contact me on my mobile phone 0407 XXX XXX."
18 Mr Iveson's reply of 28 March 2002 was as follows:
"Thank you for your communication of 27th March, 2002.
As outlined in my communication of 26th March, 2002 (ref: markdolan1) I will be available to attend meetings with you or a representative of the owners corporation during normal business hours Monday to Friday and preferably on a Wednesday between 12 and 5pm. I have already explained the reasons for this and I am not giving you or anyone else a detailed explanation. Are we back at school Mark?
Would you please indicate to me if we are contravening any part of our Management and Caretaking Agreement with SP 62871 and if we are would you please indicate this to me and I will pass this information on to our solicitors.
I welcome any written communication from you on a regular basis regarding the management and caretaking of 'Dockside Balmain' and I will be happy to respond to this communication accordingly.
I hope my company Yedway has a long and happy business relationship with Dockside Balmain and also with you as the communications employee."
19 In a letter of 29 March 2002, Mr Dolan sought to pursue the matter of meeting times, indicating a willingness "to absorb a limited financial loss to vary my working arrangements to meet with you at Dockside at 1800 on one day each week". There is no reply in evidence.
20 Hopes of an harmonious "new start" were thus not realised. No common ground was found on a time for regular meetings, but a system of written communication was established.
21 On 3 April 2002, Mr Dolan wrote to Mr Iveson raising some fourteen matters under headings "Building", "Gardening", "Cleaning", "Pool", "Accounts", "Security" and "Other". Mr Iveson replied on the same day commenting on each item. His letter concluded:
"I am still available to meet with you or another appointee at the times I have outlined in my previous correspondence. Alternatively I am quite comfortable in communicating with the O.C. messenger via written communication.
Should you or another representative wish to arrange a meeting with me during Normal Business hours please do not hesitate to contact me on my office phone or mobile."
22 Another matter taken up in Mr Dolan's letter of 3 April 2002 was a letter Mr Iveson had sent to Mancorp Real Estate and copied to Mr Dolan with a note, "Mark, I will explain this further for more specific details if and when you want me to". Mr Iveson said in the letter that he did not intend to communicate with Mr Robert Mann or any employees of Mancorp Real Estate about the "Dockside" building and that all further correspondence must be "via the Executive Committee of this building". Mancorp managed for owners certain of the rented units in the building. Mr Dolan complained that it was not open to Mr Iveson "to arbitrarily decide who he will not deal with" and to "assign work to the Owners Corporation". Mr Iveson replied on the same day saying simply that his refusal to eeal with Mancorp stood.
23 Mr Dolan wrote to Mr Iveson on 6 April 2002 commenting on some of the matters in Mr Iveson's letter and raising some new matters. Mr Dolan had had no reply by 12 April 2001 and wrote again on that day. He also raised some further matters. Mr Iveson sent back a copy of the letter of 12 April 2002 to which he had added brief handwritten replies on all but one of those further matters. The exception was Mr Dolan's request:
"Can you advise the committee what 'relevant laws' Dockside Apartments must comply with and how regularly compliance is monitored."
24 This was to become a matter of contention.
25 Another contentious matter surfaced separately but at the same time. In a note of 16 April 2002 addressed to the executive committee, Mr Iveson said that he would be unable to monitor the movement of furniture through the common area on 20 April 2002 and asked that someone else be appointed for that day. Mr Iveson added that "this by-law and its implications" needed discussion between "us and the committee".
26 Mr Dolan replied on the same day:
"From your note today (16 April) I am unclear as to why a Yedway representative will not be available to supervise the movement of Mr Anderson's furniture and goods through the common areas of the building.
I would also point out that there is no certainty in the Ray White letter that Mr Anderson will be moving in on 20 April. As I understand it Mr Anderson has been asked to advise you directly in this regard.
It is the committee's view that Yedway is contracted to discharge certain duties that are considered desirable or necessary for the operation of the strata scheme. It is immaterial to the owners corporation which Yedway representative actually peforms the required duties.
Indeed the committee expects that contingency arrangements will be activated when you cannot personally meet Yedway's building management/caretaking obligations.
I agree that we should meet to discuss building administration matters. As I have stated in previous notes I can meet with you anytime outside my working day. There will also be an opportunity to discuss any relevant matters at the next executive committee meeting (yet to be determined).
In view of the above the committee recognises that the advice from Ray White is consistent with the building managers/caretakers role. I therefore return the letter to you for appropriate action by Yedway."
27 Three days later, Mr Dolan sent a follow-up letter in relation to the matters raised by him on 6 and 12 April 2002. He asked for "a reasonable response to the outstanding matters within seven days of this advice". He added a request about a malfunctioning light.
28 Mr Iveson replied on 22 April 2002 and dealt with the several outstanding questions. His response, however, was not satisfactory to Mr Dolan who said, in a reply of the same date:
"In order to make this process work for both the executive committee and Yedway could you please focus your answers and comments on the questions being asked. There are several examples in today's note where a response has been provided but the question remains unanswered."
29 After referring to a particular matter concerning the pool, Mr Dolan said:
"As a consequence of this sort of imprecision I now find myself needing to ask further questions about the answers you have provided to my earlier questions. There are also a number of statements in your note that require rebuttal."
30 There followed two pages of narrative and questioning. In relation to the matter of "relevant laws", Mr Dolan said:
"I am confused by your response to my question (note 12 April) 'Can you advise the committee what relevant laws Dockside Apartments must comply with and how regulatory compliance is monitored".
I don't see any reference to any 'laws' in your answer and have a real problem reconciling lift, garage, pest and carpet maintenance with the question. Can you please advise the committee on the original question?"
31 The matter of monitoring movements of furniture came to the fore on 23 April 2002 when the Owners Corporation received a letter from Ray White Balmain, a real estate agency which managed a number of apartments in Dockside. After referring to past difficulties, the letter said:
"Last week, our office received a phone call from the Caretaker/Manager requesting all future movements are to take place on either Thursdays or Fridays.
I must strongly object to this 'new' requirement if indeed it is one. From the outset, I see no legal requirement restricting any Lot Holder or occupier to such times. Indeed, the By-law pertaining to 'movements' through the common area only require 'sufficient notice' to be given. There is no definition of the word 'sufficient'. In a complex as large as Dockside, it is conceivable 'movements' could easily occur every day and they would not necessarily be restricted to people moving in or out of the development. Deliveries companies often say 'We can deliver either "am" or "pm" but we can't give you an exact time'. This being the accepted case within the community, 'sufficient notice' can effectively be less than three hours. Certainly not 'Thursday or Friday'."
32 This letter from Ray White Balmain was signed "Paul Cooper, Principal". This is the Paul Cooper who was a member of the executive committee.
33 Mr Iveson wrote to Mr Dolan on 29 April. In relation to the "relevant laws" question, he said:
"All laws for Fire Safety, Work Place Health and Safety, Health Legislation and Local Authority by-laws are adhered to and monitored constantly. These include:
Smoke Detectors
CO Exhaust Fan
Drains
Garbage Areas
Fire fighting equipment
Fire escape doors
Relevant fire escape door signs
Trip hazards and any other safety hazards
Notice Board
Lift Phones-Schindler Contract
Common area signage
Pool fencing and locks on gates"
34 Mr Iveson did not address directly the question of movement of furniture, saying that he would reply "in due course".
35 Mr Dolan wrote to Mr Iveson on 30 April 2002. The letter reads in part as follows:
"c) Your advice on the legal compliance still falls short of an explanation that the committee can reasonably assess its legal liabilities and exposures. Can you please provide a comprehensive advice that identifies and explains the key sections of the various acts, that effect the building.
. . .
e) In relation to the complaint from Ray White Balmain, the letter was an attachment to an email transmitted to me. The document was authenticated by phone and a copy passed onto you for response, in line with the principals [sic] of natural justice. The material issue here is, are the circumstances outlined in the letter of complaint accurate or not? Similarly, if the situation has been accurately presented do you have a rationale for your position? Your urgent advice is sought on this issue alone to assist the committee in forming an opinion and providing a timely response to Ray White."
36 Mr Dolan telephoned Mr Iveson on 1 May 2002 to arrange a meeting. Mr Iveson said that he "had to do some things" before he could determine a date to meet and would get back to Mr Dolan within two days.
37 Mr Dolan wrote to Mr Iveson on 6 May 2002 informing him that an executive committee meeting was to be held on Saturday 11 May 2002 at 4.30pm. Mr Dolan also raised again the question of when he and Mr Iveson could meet.
38 The minutes of the meeting of the executive committee held on 11 May 2002 record the following:
"The Caretaker/Manager presented a report but advised, in writing, he would not give any interpretation or expansion of terms with his contractual agreement. As the Owners Corporation's appointee, Mark Dolan asked what he meant by this statement. The committee identified communication between the Caretaker/Manager and the Owners Corporation was clearly not in the spirit of co-operation. The Caretaker/Manager advised he would not meet with the appointee unless such times are between 8am and 5pm Monday to Friday. Mark Dolan indicated he had offered to meet anytime outside his working hours including before and after work (after 1800 hours) and any time on the weekend. The Caretaker/Manager advised he would only meet with the appointee outside 8-5pm, once a quarter. The committee expressed their disappointment over the stance the Caretaker/Manager was taking. The Caretaker/Manager was asked what hours he worked to which he answered 'as per the contract'.
To be fair, Mark Dolan advised that his reading of the contract (which the committee endorsed), stipulated the Caretaker/Manager was required to meet with the Owner's Corporation appointee reasonably, but fails to specify such times are confined to 8-5pm Monday to Friday. Indeed, the only time specification defined in the contract is that of monitoring security. The committee offered to allow the Caretaker/Manager to start work later on the days a meeting was called. The Caretaker/Manager rejected this proposal. The Caretaker/Manager advised the meeting that 'I don't like this bloke' and 'I don't work for him'. As Chairperson, Tony Perri repeatedly called the Caretaker/Manager to order."
39 Mr Dolan wrote to Mr Iveson on 28 May 2002 saying, among other things, that his many attempts to arrange a quarterly meeting during the week commencing 26 May 2002 "have been ignored".
40 On 28 May 2002, Mr Dolan sent Mr Iveson a letter of seven pages. This appears to have been a substitute for an intended face-to-face discussion on a number of matters arising out of Mr Iveson's report to the executive committee meeting. It dealt with 26 numbered items before turning to "Security Measures" and then "Other Issues". These included a renewal of the request of 30 April 2002 for advice on legal compliance and the fixing of a quarterly meeting date. Two matters were then raised under a heading "New Business".
41 The following day, 29 May 2002, Mr Dolan followed up with some particular questioning about fire safety inspection by Sydney Fire Protection - in particular, why individual apartments needed to be inspected and what would happen if someone was not home to give access or refused to do so. Mr Iveson's reply on 31 May 2002 on the first matter was uninformative. On the second, he said that Sydney Fire Protection "has the law on its side and may take appropriate actions ie a fine may be sought for and imposed to the O/C or the occupants". Mr Dolan wrote on 5 June 2002 asking for "more expansive explanation" of the latter matter ("ie, where is the legal power for this?").
42 The various matters covered in Mr Dolan's long letter of 28 May 2002 were taken up in Mr Iveson's reply of 11 June 2002. Mr Dolan responded on the same day with "some rebuttal/comment" running to two and a half pages.
43 On 7 June 2002, three committee members (Mr Dolan, Mr Perri and Mr Cooper), accompanied by Mr Iveson, inspected certain parts of the building, paying attention in particular to stairwells and floors. Mr Dolan's evidence is that dirt was removed easily from surfaces, with Mr Cooper removing a line of dirt from one floortile with a wet finger. There was also evidence (including by video taken on a subsequence occasion, 25 August 2002) of one half of a tile being noticeably cleaner than the other after an application of "Jiff" cleaning agent. Mr Iveson said, at the time, that dirty tiles had been sealed over by the builders and that the "Jiff" result involved removal of the sealant and then removal of the dirt beneath.
44 On 13 June 2002, Mr Dolan used his domestic steam mop on one of the landings and produced what he described as a "significantly cleaner result". Two days later he invited Mr Iveson to look at what he had done but Mr Iveson declined the invitation. Mr Dolan said that the executive committee regarded Mr Iveson's cleaning as unsatisfactory. Mr Dolan wrote to Mr Iveson on the same day saying that he had found Mr Iveson's behaviour "unreasonable and offensive".
45 On 20 June 2002, Mr Dolan wrote Mr Iveson a letter part only of which has been put into evidence. It refers to two matters as being of "great concern to the committee". The first is the matter of legal compliance. Mr Dolan referred to clause 3.2(ii) of the management agreement and said:
"This is the sixth time I have asked for a comprehensive advice from Yedway so that the executive committee can assess its exposures, obligations and budgetary impact."
46 The second matter mentioned by Mr Dolan was "the crucial fire safety matters raised in my letter of 5 June". He pointed out that this was that third reminder on that issue. A reply within fourteen days was requested.
47 Other content of Mr Dolan's letter of 20 June 2002 may be inferred from his next letter, dated 15 July 2002:
"James,
It has now been twenty days since I last wrote to you.
In that last note (20 June) I asked you on behalf of the Executive Committee to provide answers to some key questions within fourteen days.
You have chosen to ignore that request now leaving the Owners Corporation with no choice but to seek remedies from within the building caretaking/management contract.
I now advise you of a dispute between the Owners Corporation and Yedway Pty Ltd.
What is in dispute?
An amount of $11,4878 being the approximate cost of a three-year contract with Sydney Fire Protection.
The position of the Owners Corporation
The Owners Corporation believes that Yedway has acted negligently in relation to the appointment of Sydney Fire Protection as a contractor, resulting in financial damage to the Owners Corporation. The Owners Corporation believes this because:
Yedway failed to advise the Owners Corporation competently in relation to fire safety regulatory compliance, in accordance with building caretaking/management contract;
Yedway failed to advise the Owners Corporation competently in relation to fire safety regulatory compliance, in spite of several written requests for such advice;
Yedway failed to advise the executive committee that the appointment of 'service contractors Sydney Fire Protection' had been at the cost of the Owners Corporation;
Yedway in spite of opportunity, failed to advise Bright and Duggan that in accordance with building caretaking/management contract, Yedway 'must notify all occupations of the lots of fire safety requirements and carry out for the owners corporation mandatory inspection of fire safety equipment '.
The Owners Corporation believes that as a result of the negligence of Yedway in this matter that a contract has been entered into with Sydney Fire Protection without the knowledge of the Owners Corporation, this contract being for services for which Yedway has directly been appointed (and paid) to deliver.
What should be done to rectify the situation?
The Owners Corporation believes that Yedway must either:
Accept all responsibilities for (including costs) the three year contract with Sydney Fire Protection; or
Reduce the remuneration within the building caretaking/management contract by the yearly amount to be paid to Sydney Fire Protection.
(sgd)
Mark Dolan
for
Owners Corporation
Dockside Balmain
15 July, 2002."
48 By the time this letter of 15 July 2002 was sent, there had already been correspondence between Yedway's solicitors (Gordon & Johnstone) and the solicitors for the Owners Corporation (MacMahon Associates). This had related to the proposed sale of the property management rights by Yedway to Mr and Mrs Betyounan. Mr Iveson, upon receipt of Mr Dolan's letter of 15 July 2002, sent a copy of it to Gordon & Johnstone. That firm wrote to MacMahon Associates on 22 July 2002 asking whether they were acting for the Owners Corporation in relation to the matter. MacMahon Associates replied the next day saying, "We consider it appropriate that your client should respond to the letter in accordance with the Agreement".
49 Gordon & Johnstone nevertheless wrote again to MacMahon Associates, apparently on instructions, disputing the claims in Mr Dolan's letter of 15 July 2002. This caused Mr Dolan to write to Mr Iveson saying that a dispute had been notified in accordance with the contract, that the owners Corporation would deal with the dispute in the manner provided for in the contract and that if any further contact was made on Yedway's behalf with the Owners Corporation's solicitors, the costs would be passed on to Yedway.
50 Mr Iveson wrote to "Executive Committee Chairperson" on 1 August 2002 saying:
"Please be advised that any correspondence addressed to us whether it be personal or a contractual matter and directed from the Executive Committee, Owners Corporation or any representative of same of the above Strata Plan be directed to our lawyers at the following address.
Attention: Mr Mark Tierney
Gordon and Johnstone Lawyers
Level 3, 55 Market Street
Sydney 2000
Telephone : 02 9264 1906. Facsimile: 02 9264 8005 DX 199 Sydney
If you have any queries, please contact Mr Mark Tierney of that office."
51 Mr Dolan responded on 6 August 2002:
"James,
The committee finds your most recent demand for all correspondence from the Executive Committee, Owners Corporation or any of its office bearers 'whether it be personal or a contractual matter' to be directed to Gordon & Johnstone, to be unreasonable.
You have provided no reasons for introducing this final barrier to the genuine attempts by the Owners Corporation to communicate with Yedway, nor have you indicated by what process matters incorporated in such correspondence would be actioned if forwarded to Gordon & Johnstone.
The Owners Corporation wonders how Yedway can possibly pretend that this latest piece of obstructive behaviour is in the best interests of the owners of lots.
In any case I am appointed under the contract to communicate with the building manager and will therefore be forwarding correspondence to Yedway. Feel free to pass this correspondence to Gordon & Johnstone if you wish.
Notice to Perform Duties
You will recall that some time back the Executive Committee advised you (both verbally and in writing) that your cleaning was unsatisfactory.
As you have in the past indicated that you have no cleaning schedule or plan, the Executive Committee has decided to form a cleaning sub committee to assist you in targeting those areas of the building that do not meet a reasonable standard of cleanliness.
As a first step the cleaning sub committee recently examined all internal tiled floor surfaces throughout the common area of building. Cleaning tests were conducted in strategic areas revealing significant levels of dirt and grime adhered to tiles throughout the building. Some areas were assessed as worse than others, however all the areas identified below were assessed as unsatisfactory.
As a result the Executive Committee has asked me to advise you that the standard of cleaning of tiled floor surfaces in the following common areas is unsatisfactory:
Pool change rooms/toilets:
Tower A1 - basement tiles (adjacent to lifts);
Tower A-2 - access stairs from basement to foyer, foyer, all stairs to floor 3, all landings;
Tower B1 - access stairs from basement to foyer, foyer, all stairs to floor 3, all landings;
Tower B2 - access stairs from basement to foyer, foyer, all stairs to floor 3, all landings;
Tower C1 - basement tiles (adjacent to lifts);
Tower C2 - access stairs from basement to foyer, foyer, all stairs to floor 3, all landings;
Tower D1 - access stairs from basement to foyer, foyer, all stairs to floor 3, all landings; and
Tower D2 - basement tiles (adjacent to lifts).
The Executive Committee is happy to provide a member (with reasonable notice and at a suitable time) to assist Yedway in understanding what the committee regards as an acceptable and reasonable standard of cleaning.
Similarly if Yedway requires any specialised equipment to carry out the required duties, the Executive Committee is more than happy to receive a submission. It is worth noting that the Executive Committee has in the past offered to purchase a steam cleaner for this very purpose.
Accordingly the Executive Committee expects that Yedway will take action to clean the areas identified to a reasonable standard with fourteen days of this advice.
The cleaning sub committee will over the next few weeks also be examining other elements of the common areas for cleaning performance, particularly carpets, walls and windows, as these are areas where Yedway has also previously been advised of underperformance.
Mark Dolan
Communication Appointee
For
Owners Corporation
Dockside Balmain