Recent reporting in The Age has raised questions about PICA Group’s engagement with government and our position on insurance commissions.
We want to be clear about where we stand.
Some of the coverage has framed this issue in a way that we do not think fully reflects the broader context or complexity of the strata sector. It is an area with strong, differing views, and it is important that they are presented in balance.
We provided the following response to the journalist:
PICA Group participated in the Victorian strata review through the public submission process. We continue to support industry discussion and debate on the long-term viability of the sector. As part of this, we have engaged with governments across multiple states to highlight the importance of consumer choice, particularly as it relates to insurance commissions. We have also proactively shared our perspective with a range of media outlets.
Our experience in New South Wales shows that when we offer both commission-based and fee for service options for strata insurance services, 86 per cent of renewing or new schemes across our portfolio choose an arrangement where commission applies, rather than paying a separate fee for the work associated with insurance. We are concerned that removing this choice may leave consumers worse off.
There was no secret lobbying. We have been open and public about our concerns regarding proposed changes to insurance commissions and the potential impact on both consumers and the broader strata sector.
While we engaged in good faith, not all of this response was reflected in the coverage.
We support open discussion about how the strata sector should evolve, including how insurance is structured and paid for. At the centre of that discussion should be the impact on owners.
We recognise there are differing views on this issue. That is why balanced, informed discussion matters, and it’s important that complex issues are not selectively represented or reduced to simplified or attention-grabbing narratives.
We remain committed to contributing to that conversation in a practical and transparent way.
We are providing a response to some of the inaccurate information that is being circulated by the media relating to a strata plan previously managed by Mason and Brophy. We want to take this opportunity to clarify our feedback.
We had several questions from an ABC reporter in August 2024 about a strata scheme and its costs. We conducted an investigation, but given that we have not managed the scheme since 2020 and the people in question left the business some years ago, we were unable to locate the specific details sought. ABC did not share their material with us.
We responded with:
‘Unfortunately, we are not able to find correspondence regarding your first point. If you have anything related to this point and are comfortable sharing it, we will endeavour to explore it further.The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) addressed the other points in August 2020. NCAT removed Mason and Brophy and the strata manager from those proceedings. You are able to request the tribunal documents directly from NCAT if you wish to assess further. Mason and Brophy haven’t managed this scheme since late 2020.
This case is an example of where it’s not uncommon for a strata manager to find themselves in challenging positions between a committee and individual owners.
Sometimes, when owners don’t fully understand the responsibilities of a strata manager, they can hold them accountable for the discord between the committee and owners.’
The journalist sent another email, and we responded with:
‘Based on our internal investigation and the historical data available to us, we stand by the information we provided.
We consider this matter closed.’
The first point referred to above by the ABC, related to an alleged charge of $907 to the owners corporation in 2019 for the building’s elevator services; the building does not have an elevator.
We informed the ABC at the time that we were unable to find any evidence of this charge. We requested more information to enable us to investigate further; however, we did not receive a reply.
In the 2019 financial accounts, we found payments totalling $907 related to various fire protection works; however, nothing relating to an elevator.
The statement regarding Mason and Brophy referenced in the ABC article on 9 September was factually inaccurate.
The correct findings are as follows:
In an application submitted to NCAT in 2020 by the owner in question, we were requested to repay funds relating to a work health and safety (WH&S) report paid in the 2019 financial statements and costs related to the Community Health & Safety subscription.
The claims were unsubstantiated, and we had instructions from other strata committee members to accept the 2019 financials and confirm that a refund was not relevant.
The matter was resolved through NCAT without penalty and with no action required around refund of monies to the owners corporation.
A penalty notice was later issued in February 2022 and paid regarding a separate matter for an administrative error involving the execution of a management agreement. This issue differs from the matter above concerning invoice payment.
We refer to the photograph referenced in the article of a WH&S report dated 2015, which was allegedly produced in response to a query surrounding the charge for a WH&S report in 2019.
Reviewing this further, we confirm that a WH&S report was received and paid for in 2015.
Investigating the 2019 financial statements, there appears to have been an allocation error. The monthly disbursement charges payable under the agency agreement, totalling $945, were mistakenly assigned to the general ledger code relating to a WH&S report. This misallocation likely caused the confusion.
If you have any media enquiries please complete our form:
“*” indicates required fields
"*" indicates required fields
