Gatekeeping information in the multi-owned property environment: Stymieing buyers’ rights to discover and decide

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which gatekeepers of information stymie due diligence investigations in the multi-owned property environment.

Design/methodology/approach

The study reviewed and analysed the relevant state legislative provisions providing statutory protections for (pre)purchasers of lots within the multi-owned property context. Further, an exploratory survey questionnaire was distributed to owners corporation (OC) managers in Victoria to gain knowledge and a greater understanding of the extent to which OC managers are gatekeepers of information.

Findings

The study emphasises how relevant state governments, OC managers and sellers of multi-owned properties (MOPs) are involved in gatekeeping activities. The governments have created a legislative framework that appears to offer “protections” to pre(purchasers), however, discretion and exemptions within the legislation can hinder the undertaking of due diligence investigations. OC managers are, generally, protective about the information in their custody and contribute to the gatekeeping environment by stymieing the dissemination of information.

Originality/value

To date, there has been a paucity of scholarly attention directed to understanding the barriers faced by purchasers when buying into the MOP environment. This paper contributes to the wider body of knowledge relating to purchasing decisions within the multi-owned property context. More specifically, gatekeeping theory is used in this context to highlight the barriers that stymie a buyer’s right to discover information and decide on their purchase. The findings of this study are relatable to other countries using a similar MOP structure as Australia.

Citation

Johnston, N.R. and Leshinsky, R. (2018), "Gatekeeping information in the multi-owned property environment: Stymieing buyers’ rights to discover and decide", Property Management, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 506-520. https://doi.org/10.1108/PM-04-2017-0025