Channel as the mgmt company

Once he secured the contract, Manzoor Khan’s behaviour changed. He was not longer so quiet and polite. At the board meetings, he dominated the conversation and treated the directors as if they were his subordinates. That caused a bit of resentment.

Khan insisted on getting the property management company's signature on the cheques. He argued that it was protection for both the PMC and the board to add this additional layer of security. The board agreed to it

Channel provided the directors excellent monthly financial reports at their monthly meetings that showed the previous month's financial actuals and a year-to-date report compared to the budget.

One of the directors told me in an interview that with Channel managing the property, the board started receiving e-mails from Pawan Gupta, the property manager, each saying that he uncovered a defect that required $50,000 to $75,000 to repair. These e-mails soon became a flood. Most problems that was brought to the board’s attention were expensive ones.

Underground garage flooding
On 12 February 2009, just as Channel’s contract was coming to a close, Toronto had a heavy snowfall. The building’s membrane was faulty so there was a lot of water leaking into the underground garage and some water leaked into a common element room in the basement.

A contractor was hired to pug some holes, pump out the water and to use air dryers to dry out the carpeting in a room in the basement.

Less than 24 hours after the work was done, Pawan Gupta e-mailed the president stating that he had cut a cheque for $12,000 to pay for the work that he needed signed. It was unusual to write a cheque so quickly as cheques were normally signed at the end of the month.

The costs for the work seemed excessive so the directors phoned the contractor directly and asked for a meeting. A manager from the management company that was taking over the contract came along when they talked to the contractor and Pawan Gupta.

The directors said that the bill was far too high and that it had to be reduced. If need be, the directors said they would go to small claims court and the contractor can tell the judge that he pays his workers $90 an hour. (The board members knew how many men worked on the job and for how many hours.)

The contractor and Pawan Gupta left the room to talk privately. When they came back, the contractor said he would take $9,000. The board said no and offered $7,000. The contractor agreed to the lower figure.

The board thought it troubling that Pawan seemed to be working for the contractor rather than for them.

(This information came from an interview with an owner and ex-director at MTCC #706.)

top  contents  chapter  previous  next