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