Terms such as structural defect, waterproofing failure, concrete spalling, fire safety defect or major water ingress naturally attract attention. A serious body corporate defects identified is only the beginning of the story.
A defect may already have been thoroughly investigated, funded and scheduled for rectification. Another may have been discussed for years without the cause, cost or pathway forward being established.
The important question is therefore not simply:
Is there a serious defect?
It is: What do the records show has happened since the defect was identified?
A serious body corporate defect should be considered in context
- when the issue was first identified;
- what investigations have been undertaken;
- whether the cause and extent have been established;
- what rectification work has been recommended;
- whether quotations or scopes of work have been obtained;
- what decisions the body corporate has made;
- how the proposed works will be funded;
- whether another party may be involved in rectification or recovery; and
- whether the matter has progressed, stalled or been completed.
What is actually known about the problem?
- a problem being reported and
- the problem being understood.
Is there a pathway to rectification?
- further technical investigations;
- preparation of a scope of works;
- obtaining quotations or tenders;
- selection of a contractor;
- approval of proposed works;
- funding arrangements;
- commencement of works; or
- inspection or testing following completion.
What will the works cost?
- the scope on which it was based;
- when it was prepared;
- whether further investigations remain outstanding; and
- whether funding for the proposed works has been addressed.
Are recovery options being pursued?
Some defects involve a builder, developer, contractor, insurer or another party.
The records may refer to a warranty claim, QBCC process, insurance claim, legal advice or other attempts to recover the cost of rectification.
The existence of a possible recovery process should not be confused with a confirmed outcome.
There can be a considerable difference between:
- a potential claim being discussed;
- a claim having been commenced; and
- money or rectification actually being received.
Where recovery is referred to, later records may provide useful information about how that process has progressed.
If no later outcome is available, it may be that its not been recorded or remains unresolved.
Progress over time can be important
One of the clearest pictures often emerges from looking at the same issue across several years.
For example, the records might show:
problem identified → engineering investigation → scope prepared → quotations obtained → works approved → rectification completed
That tells a very different story from:
problem identified → report obtained → quotation obtained → decision deferred → further report → new quotation → matter remains outstanding
Neither sequence by itself tells a buyer what decision to make.
It does, however, provide important context about the current position of the defect and the body’s corporate response to it.
This is also why delays can matter.
As time passes, the condition of a building may change, quotations may become outdated and new expenditure may arise. The records may also show why progress has been delayed—for example because further investigation was required, responsibility was disputed or funding needed to be arranged.
The chronology provides context.
Questions to consider when a serious defect appears in the records
- What exactly has been identified?
- Has the cause and extent been investigated?
- Are further investigations required?
- What rectification work has been proposed?
- Has a scope of works been prepared?
- What cost information is available?
- How is the work proposed to be funded?
- Do the records refer to recovery from another party?
- What decisions has the body corporate made?
- What has actually happened since the problem was first identified?
- What remains unresolved or is not sighted in records inspected?
Records are evidence, not conclusions
Body corporate records record what has been documented.
They do not necessarily contain every conversation, event or action that has occurred.
A report may be referred to but not supplied. Work may have been completed without later minutes recording the outcome. A claim may be managed by another party with limited information retained in the body’s corporate records.
For that reason, an absence of information should be described carefully.
There is an important difference between saying:
“The body corporate has not arranged funding.”
and:
“Funding arrangements were not sighted in records inspected.”
The second statement describes what the records establish without assuming what may have occurred outside them.
Records may not provide the complete picture, but they give us a place to begin.
Look for the whole thread
A serious defect is rarely just a maintenance issue.
Depending on what happens next, it may also connect with financial resources, insurance, decision-making, disputes and the body’s corporate future maintenance obligations.
That is one of the reasons we use the Body Corporate Blueprint when looking at body corporate records.
The aim is not simply to identify isolated problems.
It is to understand how information contained across the records connects, what has happened over time and what matters remain unresolved.
This article provides general information only. It is not legal, financial, engineering or building advice. The circumstances of every body corporate are different. Obtain advice from an appropriately qualified professional where necessary.