Although every building is uniquely individual there are a number of body corporate problems that come up over and over. This article is about some of those recurring issues.
Be aware these are in no particular order and they have different levels of severity. Some of them are annoying, some are just painful and others have the potential to be serious issues requiring expensive remedies. I should also note this is not a scientific study of any sort, just my observation from reading thousands of body corporate records.
In no particular order, the most common body corporate problems are ….
Parking
Body corporates are all about limited space, which, in the world of multiple vehicles per household spells trouble. Problems with parking, particularly in visitor spaces are very common.
Noise
When a lot of people live in close proximity to each other things are going to get loud. Loud parties are just the tip of the ice berg. There’s loud arguments, loud make ups, loud children and loud pets. Then there might be loud machinery or traffic. Noise, particularly in a city, is actually difficult to control.
BBQ and Swimming Pools
Consideration is vital when resources are shared, and well, for some people, that’s a bit of a stretch. Loud, obnoxious behaviour and stupidity are subjects that often come up around pools and to hear it told no one ever cleans BBQ’s.
Pets
Lots of people like pets. Some people though really, really don’t. Leaving aside the complex legalities of the issues, is it really fair to move into a complex with a pet when the majority of lot owners have indicated they do not want animals? Food for thought. Conflict regarding pets, particularly pets without approval happens regularly.
Children
Kids like to bend the rules, usually because they don’t yet know, or even care for that matter, what the rules are to begin with. In an environment where rules are important it can cause quite a lot of friction. Children are like pets in their ability to be polarising in a community.
Invitees
Problems with invitees usually come up in the same sentence as “party”, but people acting rudely towards residents certainly isn’t limited to gatherings. Everyone is expected to observe by-laws and some people react badly to rules. Lot owners are responsible for the actions of their visitors, and that includes tenants.
Smoking
It’s becoming more and more common for body corporates to pass by-laws banning smoking on common property. Which is a problem for smokers who might be renting or just don’t want to smoke inside their units. The most common issue is complaints re smoking on balconies, usually from those upwind.
Building Defects
Nearly all buildings have some sort of issues from a sliding door that won’t run smoothly up to foundations that don’t actually support the building. Body corporates are no different. The most common defect is water ingress.
Management Problems
The committee, selected from lot owners, runs the body corporate, with paid help in some cases. Lot owners are usually not professionals and they’re thrust into a complex environment to sink or swim. Communication issues and competency issues do arise.
Levies in Arrears
There’s this persistent myth that the body corporate will manage if lot owners don’t pay their levies. It’s not true; if enough owners get behind it can seriously impact liquidity. Not covering your share of costs doesn’t do much to foster well-being in the community either.
Insufficient Sinking Funds
The idea of a sinking fund is to collect a little each year from every owner who ever owns in the body corporate so funds are available to meet capital requirements later. If the sinking funds are insufficient the onus falls on the existing lot owners when funds are required.
Arguments Over Approvals
Body corporate’s control the way they look. It’s part of their “curb appeal”. Changes, even beneficial changes like installing an air conditioner or solar panels may be refused because they impact on that external look. Arguments ensue …
Major Problems with Commercial Tennants
Shops and restaurants are usually kept separate from residential areas for very good reasons. They have different needs. Residential wants quiet and relaxing whereas a shop or restaurants are about getting out and about. Conflict can arise regarding noise, traffic and even smells. There are different infrastructure needs as well like grease traps and external lighting that may also lead to conflict.
Obnoxiously Complaining Owners
I tell everyone that they should complain if they feel things are not right or they’re being disadvantaged. This is because there is no external “policing” of body corporates. That said, complaints should be made with a healthy dose of humbleness and respect for others. Some people forget that part.
Meeting Procedural Issues
Body corporates are closed environments and, within the constraints of legislation, they can pretty much do what they like. The legislation is the key, and as most lawyers will tell you legislation can be interpreted many ways. Complaints about particular motions at general meeting make up the bulk of complaints adjudicated by the Office Commission Body Corporate in Queensland. Mostly they come down to one owner or another saying “you can’t do that!”
These are some of the most commonly occurring issues in body corporates. Schemes are as diverse as people though so anything can happen.
Do you have another example? Leave a comment and let me know your issue.
photo credit: Stuck in Customs via photopin cc
Unless stated otherwise all the information on this website relates to Queensland legislation.
My unit flooded due to a leak in the water pipes. The body corporate got a plumber out to fix the leak and I replaced the carpet under the body corporate insurance. While laying the carpet the carpet layers punctured a water pipe. The body corporate called a plumber who fixed the pipe. The body corporate now say I am responsible for the plumber’s $700 bill. Is this correct?
Hi Leonie
I think the person responsible for the cost of fixing the ruptured pipe is the carpet layers. Since you engaged the carpet layers then yes, you are responsible for the bill. The body corporate does not have any relationship with the carper layers. You do though as you engaged them. Seek restitution from the carpet layers.
please help my wall wich is beetween my unit and the next has damage my body crp guy said its my problem but everyone else said the body corp has to fix it there is alot of funds in the acct can someone please help chris
Hi Chris
The body corporate is not responsible for maintaining your lot. Or your neighbours lot for that matter.
Boundaries of lots are measured in the centre of walls, floors, ceilings and doors. If the wall is between you and your neighbour then the two of you are responsible for maintaining. If the damage is on your side then its your responsibility, if its through the whole wall then both are responsible.
Bearing in mind I have no knowledge of the particulars of your scheme, your plan or the damage itself to me it seems your body corporate representative is correct, the matter is yours to resolve.
What is the definition of “change of use” that is installing something new, such carports vs. upgrading something such as piping/plumbing? I understand that under the standard plan a change of use requires a unanimous vote by all owners, which includes abstentions, all must vote, that even one abstention or negative vote, defeats the motion. What is the regulation regarding expenditures which need to be approved by an AGM or EGM by a simple majority vote? What expenditures can be approved by a majority committee vote? What expenditures can be approved by the executive (chairman)? and or BC strata management?
Hi Alan
I think the unanimous motion you’re talking about is change of use of common property. An abstention does not override a resolution without dissent and owners are under no obligation to vote on a resolution without dissent. Any NO votes will defeat the motion.
Refer to the Office Commissioner Body Corporate website re expenditures by which sort of resolution. Also review your schemes own minutes to see what the restricted issues, committee and major spending levels are.
The body corporate manager does not make decisions.
Committee decisions should be made by the committee as a whole and will be limited by both the committee spending limit and the restricted issues of the committee. Both are set by the scheme within parameters.
Hi Lisa, Can an owner prevent the BC gardener from taking his tools of trade through a unit? The Committee has issued S163 letter with ten days notice of entry. The Lot owner will let the gardener in but not his tools. The only access to the BC garden is via the owner’s Unit. What does the Committee do now?
Hi Ray
This is a tricky one. The main key here is reasonableness. Is the body corporate being reasonable accessing the garden via the lot? Is the lot owner being reasonable denying access? I’d say it will depend on the tools and what damage they might do.
In all likelihood the lot owner is being bloody minded and an order would be granted that access be given, for the tools as well. But that isn’t going to get the tradesman in the door and able to do his job within ten days. Adjudication takes time and you can never tell which set of facts is going to be persuasive to an Adjudicator.
I’d suggest that negotiation is going to be important here. Keep trying to reason with the lot owner. Is there another way to get the tools in, like chucking over a wall? What can you do that will reassure them that there won’t be any damage?
Thanks Lisa,
There are four (4) Lots which have BC gardens and the only access to the gardens is via the front entrance doors. Three Owners have no problems with allowing access under S163 & allow the gardener to take his tools through. The BC tried to give exclusive use of the BC gardens to the four owners concerned. The owner refusing access voted against the motion at the AGM and he vote was lost 1 against 15 in favor. Cant negotiate with her as she refuses to speak with Committee and goes directly to BC Manager. Going to have to refer to Conciliation. Thank you for your assistance. Much appreciated.
Hi Ray
You can seek an order that the motion granting exclusive use, presumably resolution without dissent, be deemed passed notwithstanding the one lot owner voted NO. You can seek an order on the basis that the objection was unreasonable.
Granting the area as exclusive use is the best way to deal with the situation.
I have noticed every year I have been a body corporate member at my current address that we have paid an auditor to audit our accounts.I noticed that we paid somebody to do our tax but the amount of tax paid is not mentioned.Neither is our tax return mentioned.Is our body corporate committing tax fraud and can I legally refuse to be a member
Hi Malcolm
Bodies corporate must do a tax return because they’re a legal entity like you or me. They don’t tend to pay much in the way of tax because they don’t earn income as such. Body corporate contributions are allocation of costs rather than income. The only true income will be interest on savings.
The only way to no longer be a member of the body corporate is to sell your lot or remove it from the body corporate. It is possible to do that, its called excising a lot, but only in certain conditions. The lot cannot be connected to other lots, it must be able to be a freestanding building in it’s own right, and must be on land large enough to meet council requirements. I’ve only seen it happen once in my 12 year career.
Selling is your best bet if you no longer want to be part of the body corporate.
Hello,
Can my Body corp. committee rule that interest can be charged on ” Late payment ” of body corp. annual fees ?
Is there any special arrangements or provisions that must be taken before this rule can apply ?
James A. Ladd.
Hi James
The body corporate owners need to resolve by ordinary resolution at general meeting that interest be chargeable on outstanding contributions. This can be done at any time, and it can be reversed or changed at any time. For most new schemes its done at the first EGM. It only needs to be done once and is then binding on all owners until amended or rescinded.
To know if your scheme has passed a motion you’d need to go back through minutes of general meeting.
Once passed then interest can be charged at the rate resolved.
Hi Lisa
Fantastic thread! Thank you.
I am in a dispute over a duplex and common property and have learned a lot about strata over the last 4 years— ah , unfortunately? I am left beating my head against the wall – or at least led on a merry go round. Not so merry!
And I regret not having been knowledgable before purchase of my standard scheme unit ,a duplex surrounded by common land . I should not have purchased,and would not if I knew what I know now, and recieved poor legal advice at the time.
I did not realize at time of purchase that the other owner had built all over common land , no exclusive use , no survey , limited minutes to justify massive expensive building works. Hell they did not even have building approval but the council gave it to them despite it being built on common land and without my approval.
4 years later ,we are still in dispute, – unit 2 maintains and rents out their unit while I am stuck, unable to renovate or sell whilst in dispute. To go back on what they unfortunately created , is extraordinarily difficult and financially devastating. The body corporate manager has sided with the other owner which has also created delay,poor advice and heartache.
What has been surprising is that despite bylaws,standard scheme regulations and procedures, going through conciliation and adjudication on 4 separate occasions the dispute remains the same , with little progress.
Decisions made by the BCCM simply add expense to an already expensive process and solve nothing . The reason dispute arose is that the 2 owners cannot agree on division of the property. One owner, me , expected to take less land than I am entitle to or paid for- to resolve the dispute. Would you ever agree to be expected to take 15 square meters of prime inner city land , of a tiny property, for resolutions sake? I bought the property for the land! It would appear to me that despite the rules and laws , they just don’t seem to matter to adjudicators or conciliators? The matter has now escalated to the QCAT – my costs out of pocket $30000 excluding loss by not being able to fully recognize the value of my property. A matter that might easily have been resolved by the BCCM- the other owner has never been made fully aware of the truly precarious position the are in but greedily reap the reward for rent etc and boast that they are in front.
The point I am trying to make here is that the BCCM, take a superficial lax overview, are not is willing to take much action – they want people to resolve their own BC and title discrepancies. However , they are the next level of authority that are appealed to because the owners cannot agree. QCAT also advise that you are best ,financially ,to reach agreement by ourselves- Again ,we would not have got to courts if we could self resolve .
Body corporate laws are complex and resolutions are not always fair or simple.
My Question finally:-Are bylaws and property title adhered to or are they not worth the paper they are printed on because this has been my experience!
Hi Rachel
If that’s been your experience then that’s your experience. Nothing can change that.
I think one of the most common misconceptions about body corporate legislation is that there is a clear decision of who’s right and who’s wrong and, having made it, everything is resolved. In some cases you may be able to pinpoint right and wrong, but a lot of times that’s a “so what” outcome. If a person cuts down a tree and later legal decision determines they didn’t have a right to cut down the tree, the tree is still gone.
That’s very true of adjudication. If the question being disputed is “did they have a right to cut down the tree?” and the answer is “No”. What then? If your application didn’t include a request to have some sort of reparation then the court is not going to add it afterwards. Its a bit like going to an Oracle – ask you question and you’ll get the answer. Not a solution. An answer. It will still be up to you to resolve the dispute with your neighbour.
Courts are not a level of authority. That sounds like complaining to Mum “they’re not being fair”. They’re not your mother and they cannot intervene in that respect. Legislation does not require people to be fair. It requires them to work within a framework. When they don’t, which happens a lot, they provide a forum to seek redress. They come with a specific set of barriers (expertise, which translates for most people to money) and is often terribly unsatisfactory. That’s they point: they’re not deciding who’s right or wrong, they’re applying the law. Many’s a case that’s been decided because of technical readings of clauses that have little to do with the actual situation.
The people who really profit from legal action are Solicitors. It is always far more productive to negotiate a settlement with your fellow owner. That appears to be a message you’re receiving. Unfortunately, its not what you want to hear.
I live on an acreage Body corp. There are 7 lot owners who have access by 2 common property driveways – 5 on one access driveway and 2 on the other access driveway.
One of the 5 lot owners has accessed his lot by the common property driveway of the 2 lot owners that has no direct access to his house but this driveway does abut his lot. He has installed a bore and setup a solar panel array to rub the submersible pump. This a bit of an eyesore and was not approved by the committee.
The owner said it was his land and he can do whatever he wants with it.
One of the bylaws state:
No improvements previously erected or existing on or attached to other land may be erected or placed on a lot without the written consent of the committee or body corporate.
Where do the 2 lot owners stand in regard to this work that has been done, is a fait accompli or can we have it removed.
Regards
Hi Shane
This is unfortunate, particularly as the committee don’t agree.
Yes there is a possibility of having the structures removed if they’re in breach of by-laws. You’d have to go through the dispute resolution process and seek conciliation and then Adjudication.
Its more likely, however, that if the matter is raised with the owner he will simply submit an application. If the committee don’t approve it, he could then seek an order it will be deemed approved.
It’s anyone’s guess how an Adjudicator will decide. It will depend on how much hassle it would be for the owner to remove and how much of an eyesore and issue its creating. The body corporate is required to be reasonable and you could argue that many ways.
I think its a better idea to negotiate a solution if you can. Is there some way the owner can screen the area?
I’d consider issuing the by-law breach at least, despite the disagreement of the other committee member. The committee is required to enforce the by-laws, there’s no option here. From there though maybe a solution can be negotiated for all concerned without the need for legal intervention.
Who pays for termite damage? Three townhouses have been found to have termites. Damage has occurred to timber window surrounds inside the townhouses & in the timber frame within the walls. There is the cost of internal & external inspection, then treatment as per damage, then building repairs & finally external protection for future. Who pays for these costs? Owners or body corp. The building is timber framed & classed. It has been inspected externally annually.
Hi Di
With termites, as with everything else, the body corporate pays for common property and the lot owner is responsible for the lot.
You can find out more about termites and bodies corporate here and here.
Builder has built a complex. The complex has been established in such a way that there is an onsite manager (contractor), body corporate management (contractor with administration responsibilities) and obviously body corporate committee. Body corporate management administrates the complex in such a way that nothing is clear, minutes from the meetings are prepared in such a way that not everything from the meetings is in the minutes, when you ask about something usually you are getting no answer or an answer that you have to engage a lawyer at your cost to actually fight for information. Onsite manager has changed straight after the warranty expired, current onsite manage became on online manager and employed an assistant who lives in the complex. Grass in common areas is burnt, threes over grew causing problems to the properties. The properties will require underpinning shortly. Body corporate management said “the onsite manager has such quality of service, if you want more you need to pay”. Body corporate committee President has a contract with Onsite Manager to maintain and keep leased the President property. Therefore, there is a conflict of interest for the President to chase up the Onsite Manager to actually perform. The Body Corporate committee secretary is in great relationship wit the President. Also due to very poor communication with the Owners (most of the Owners) are investors who don’t know what is going on, the complex is losing it’s value and the properties are much cheaper that when we actually purchased them.
I am wondering if there is any body that is actually controlling such scenarios. For example Customer right body or something like that. There must be something where you could actually go and describe your concerns. On the top of it, looking at people problems with body corporate, surely the law should be amended to secure the Owners. Why isn’t it in the interest to do so? We also don’t hear too much about corruption in body corporate while some of the relationships can be questionable. Does it mean no institution is interested in chasing down the problem?
Hi Anonymous
Yes, you’re quite correct. No institution is interested in chasing down problems in bodies corporate. It is essentially a private matter between owners.
That said, there is great acknowledgement within the BCCM Act that management might not go so smoothly. A comprehensive framework is provided within which the body corporate and its various contractors must act. That said, the framework exists for owners to manage their issues together.
One of the greatest myths of bodies corporate is because there is a body corporate you don’t need to get involved. That only happens when you have a solid committee in place and good communication with owners. Majority rules, but if no one speaks up, as often happens, then the committee and managers are left to do as they please. In that situation you best hope that the committee has everyone’s benefit in mind.
You must communicate your dissatisfaction as a starting point of addressing issues. Talk to your committee. Discuss your concerns. It is likely that you will need to learn about the processes etc to be able to argue convincingly for your position. Consider joining the committee and getting involved. Its the owners working together who make change.
Our Treasurer produced an invoice at the end of an informal meeting the committee had recently for the sum of $3850 for some extra admin work that she had offered to do – she did not mention that she expected payment. We were in shock and argued about this but in the end signed the form she presented under duress. She was going to submit the invoice for a vote at the AGM which is coming up soon but changed her mind and just authorised it and paid herself bypassing our Strata Managers. Everyone in the committee has now resigned but a couple of us have realised that we must renominate to keep an eye on things and ensure that this doesn’t happen again. From looking at the legislation I think the paper we signed is invalid as the Treasurer cannot authorise payment except in amounts up to $50 for a committee member and only up to $300 per annum for such things as travel and such invoice must be accompanied by an explanatory statement of how this amount was arrived at. Her invoice showed no details whatsoever. Legislation states it should have gone to a vote at the AGM not an informal meeting such as we had. Our Strata manager was against this payment and is now trying to get her to refund the money before a motion is presented at the AGM to get the money back. Has anyone else experienced something like this happening? We have no committee at present but our AGM is in about 5 weeks when we can renominate and try to sort out this mess. We are all novices regarding Body Corporate management but are learning quickly that we have to inform ourselves. I also think a motion must be presented that anything over a certain amount must have two signatories for the bank to allow payment. What else can we do and what are your thoughts on all this.
Hi Jenny
This is not a common occurrence at all.
The committee may certainly authorise additional payments for works, assuming the works are within the committee spending limit and a quote was presented. From what you’re saying no quote was presented and the works may have been outside of the committee spending limit. Two quotes if the amount is beyond the major spending limit of the scheme.
Hopefully passing the motion at AGM will get the monies refunded but I suspect you’ll need to seek legal advice and maybe undertake conciliation.
Nominating for committee is great idea. I’d also go through the financial statements and see if there are payments you don’t know anything about. To make sure you know exactly what’s going on.
Hi Lisa.
I’m having a problem with my body corporate, it’s regarding a common area door that is continually left open in the middle of winter , which is directly opposite my unit wall which is my bedroom wall. I am finding in my own hoame that even with heating and draft proofing my home I am very very cold and am having to wear a coat to bed to keep me warm. I also have a chronic illness and auto immune disorder which I believe was caused by a full wall in my loungeroom covered in mould , the result of upstairs leaking balcony. That has since been remedied . We had the wall replaced and body corp had it fixed by their insurance.
My problem is that they will not keep the door closed and it is causing me great discomfort and exacerbating my illness, to the point it is life threatening.
I spoke with a neighbour today who abused me and told me that I was causing all this cigarette smell in the common area because I smoke in my apartment. I informed him that I have never smoked in my apartment and on the odd occasions that I may have a social cigarette with a friend that it has always been outside only on my lot which is a great distance to any common building areas.
So how do I get my body corporate to seriously consider what they are doing regarding open doors in the midst of winter as to being hazardous and a breach of health and safety.
My heating bills are horrendous. A previous owner was also having to wear long puffa jackets in her apartment to keep warm ehist her heating was on also
Hi Diana
You need to be clear about what you want. Formulate a motion to be submitted to the committee. I suggest something along the lines of “I move that the common property door (be super specific about location) be kept closed at all times. Then create an explanatory note to the committee about why and what you’re hoping to achieve. Submit all of that in writing to be voted on by your committee.
This is a dispute. To get help with disputes you must first try to self-resolve the situation. Hence the submission of the motion.
If the committee vote YES, problem solved. If committee vote NO, then see what their reasons are for the vote. Everyone is required to act reasonably in a body corporate so potentially they have a reasonable reason for having it open. If it is reasonable, see if you can negotiate a solution where you both get what you want.
If they vote NO and give no reason, or you think the reason is unreasonable, then contact the Office Commissioner Body Corporate about raising a dispute. You can start with conciliation which is discussion with a mediator. If that fails, try seeking an Adjudicators Order the door be kept closed.
I think you misunderstood me – this was not for works of any kind. The Treasurer has been paid personally for doing a bit of extra work digging up info on our Caretakers. She authorised the payment to HERSELF. Is this against legislation which states that a committee member may ONLY be paid up to $50 for documented travel and up to $300 in any one year? There also has to be a detailed statement of how the remuneration is made up. My understanding is that this can only be approved at a General Meeting not an informal meeting such as we had therefore making that motion invalid. What I am asking is can we overturn this informal motion and ask her to refund the money?
Hi Jenny
Yes, absolutely.
Once the motion is passed take steps to enforce the motion. If she doesn’t pay back the amount you will need to seek Conciliation or Adjudication.
Thank you Lisa. I just wanted to be sure about that. Another member of the committee felt it was too much trouble to try and get the money back and suggested we let her keep the money and the owners just split the cost. I do not agree with this at all, it is a matter of principle and we must send a clear message that this will not be tolerated. We signed her motion under duress at this informal meeting after arguing against it and I am glad to hear that it is invalid.
Are there regulations regarding the maintenance of the common/shared swimming pool? We have over 100 units but do not believe the maintenance manager is caring about the water quality of the pool. We want to know if there are regulations advising If testing is regularly required?
Hi Ross
There sure are. The local council controls it. They can drop in at any time, test the pool water and issue a defect notice if its not up to scratch.
The regulations are more “it has to be like this” than “do it this many times”.
Bring this matter up with the committee. They can direct the Caretaker to test the water. Or, if you’re on the committee, discuss with the Caretaker. If they’re not responding well you could always try calling the local council and see if you can get them to test. It may be fine but without testing who knows.
Thank you Lisa,
Very much appreciated
Ross
Our building has a carpark at ground level and multi storey flats directly on top of the carpark. The flat above our carpark drilled holes in the ceiling of our parking space and extended hot and cold water pipes from their bathroom across the ceiling of our parking space. They did this without body corporate approval. Our car is now exposed to the potential of dripping or exploding hot or cold water. Do we have any avenue of redress.
Hi Kerry
The body corporate committee needs to address this. You can make a complaint to your body corporate and see what comes of it.
The committee should at least demand that approval be sought. If it does grant approval, which depending on the issues would be unreasonable not to, then the terms of the approval should clearly note that the owner will be responsible for any damage caused, including any damage from drilling holes in the ceiling of basement.
hi l don’t now much about the bodycorp in my complex and l should now more because l am a owner some times when l go to the boby corparete meeting they don’t make sence and they talk a lot of bs who or where can l get more iformation on the body corp and the sing fund because l seem to pay bodycorp and u have nothing to show for it
Hi Lee
Unfortunately the place to get more information is your own schemes records. You should be sent minutes of meeting after each meeting.
Not sure what you can do if you think they’re not talking sense. Probably the best avenue will be to discuss with committee and body corporate management.
Hi Lee
I am part of a 7 lot Standard Regulation Module in Ferny Hills, Brisbane
Our body corporate comprises a 2 gate entry 7 acreage lot property with about 1000 meters of combined common property bitumen road, lights and 2 security gate access.
One our our lot owner neighbors wanted to improve the lights which had not been working for years.
At a community BBQ a couple of years ago they showed some printed copies of a web page with some pictures of sample lights as we were about to leave. I think general comments were they looked OK and interesting, especially as 7 individual light posts cost $225 each and light bollards cost $30 each. We thought that it would be a simple job to just replace the existing broken lights with new ones and fix any associated electrical connections.
From that point on two of the lot owners seemed to take that as an approval to go ahead with the improvement.
We saw no quotes to do the job and there was no formal committee meeting to discuss the details of the proposal. One of the two lot owners is a landscaper who was doing the earthworks etc and employed an electrical company he used in his business.
Since the job has been done we still do not have any working light system except for 3 bunker lights on 1 entry gate that are lit all night long.
We do not have any working lights on our side.
The main concern that I have is that this project has ballooned out to over $11000 from an initial cost of parts being $1575.
I feel the community was duped by these 2 lot owners who have left us in a precarious financial situation where we are no better off than before they started this mess.
Our roads are a much higher and very much more costly priority and our funds should be accumulating to address the maintenance of these roads which is looming on the horizon.
Do we have any redress in this matter and are there any avenues for the body corporate community to get any compensation. I believe this has been gross financial mismanagement of the communities funds.
Thank you for assistance.
Shane McGovern
Hi Shane
Oh dear. That seems a fairly challenging situation.
You probably don’t want to hear this but I suggest you get some legal advice. The body corporate has insurance for Office Bearers Liability. Potentially you could make a claim on insurance, however, before you can make the claim you will need to have a case. Hence the Solicitor. They can tell you if the committee members have breached rules of conduct/process etc that might allow the claim.
Lee
Should we be talking any solicitor or to a specialist in body corporate matters.
Where should we look to find a qualified person?
Hi Shane
You can find strata professionals on the LookupStrata or SmartStrata websites. Both have directories.
We have a unit in a block of four. Three of the units have fences, ours does not. Is it reasonable to want to build a fence the same as the others.
One owner has two lots and is saying we can not build one. If it goes to a meeting and he votes no and ( with two votes ) and myself and the other vote yes what happens with a stalemate?
Hi Amanda
The body corporate is required to be reasonable in its decisions. What counts as reasonable? Its a good question and will depend reasons for making that decision.
If the general meeting goes ahead and the other owner votes NO then you can seek Adjudication that the obstruction was unreasonable and the motion should be deemed passed. When you go to Adjudication you put forward your arguments and the other side puts forward theirs and then an Adjudicator decides.
Just an addendum: disallowing a fence for one unit when others already have a fence strikes me as unreasonable. It would depend on what their reason is for making that decision.
Hi, at the village I live in had by-laws stating NO PETS. Some new people moved in and were given the new jobs that came up in vacancy as Treasurer, Secretary, Chairman, all 3 are new here, within the last couple of years. They wanted to change the by-laws to let pets in here and that is what hey did without asking everybodies vote on the matter, as most do not want pets here. Now I have next door a barking, howling staffordshire bulldog and adjoining my property another dog, that’s 2 dogs straight away, right next to me! These dogs are left alone when their owners go out everyday and howl till they come home. It was never this way before the change in the by-laws.
This is not fair as I have been here 10 years without any drama or complaint, living in harmony in my retirement and now this has caused me great distress and anxiety.
Is there anywhere I can take my complaints or anything I can do, please help me.
regards Steve
Hi Steve
If you’re in Queensland then NO PET policies are no allowed under legislation. The body corporate does not have the right to stop an owner from keeping a pet on their lot, only from keeping a pet off the common property. Maybe if someone challenged the by-law the body corporate was ordered to change the policy. That’s one example I can think of where the by-law is changed without owners voting.
You do not need to put up with the noisy dogs. Any pet request granted should be made with conditions, one of them being that they don’t disturb the other owners. Make a written complaint to your committee about the dogs. They should then issue a breach notice to the lot owner regarding the matter. The idea being yes you may have a pet, subject to conditions, but if those conditions are breached then permission may be withdrawn. It is a long drawn out process with the first step being complaints received from other lot owners.
You also have the right to contact the council there are laws regarding dogs barking and any dog that becomes a nuisance E.g barking for more than 8 minutes between 7 am and 10 pm or more than 3minutes from 10 pm to 7am
We have 15 units stand alone residences each with clearly defined boundaries . One new resident put a heating furnace on common property without prior permission from the committee. We believe this was deliberate counting on no action being taken to remedy a ” fait accompli” How do we stop him from making a long term claim on the scrap of land surrounding the heater?There is no general desire to have the existing heater removed but don’t want something else which might be noisy or insightly put in its place at a later date.
Hi Helene
There are a couple of ways you could deal with this. By far the simplest method is to have them make an application for and grant approval subject to conditions. Not that it would make much difference for this owner who ignores them anyway.
Alternatively, and probably the neatest solution would be to seek to have it removed.
You could also make an exclusive use grant to the lot owner for the area, also subject to conditions on use. It would take a resolution without dissent passed at general meeting to do this and then would require registering a new CMS.
Hi Lisa, We are five townhouses and our lights on the Body Corporate Common area driveway go out at night at 10pm. The whole complex is in complete darkness. I feel this could be a safety hazard and if anyone coming onto the complex had an accident, we as owners could be considered negligent and our insurance company may not pay out for public liability. I am wondering if there are any laws in Queensland , that lights should be on overnight for safety from someone having an accident in the dark. I see other complexes nearby who have lights on until day break. With thanks for any information on this. Doris
Hi Doris
I’m not aware of any legislation regarding lighting, other than safety legislation of course.
If you’re concerned maybe bring the matter to the attention of the committee or other owners. Changing the light timing is not a big deal, though it would need to be agreed first. An electrician can change the setting easily enough.
Hi we purchased a unit at the end of last year for the first time. and have just seen reference in body corporate minutes that a Work place Health and safely inspection was conducted. Is this a legal requirement for a residential complex and does these cost come out of our sinking fund?
Richard
Hi Richard
A Safety Report is not compulsory. It is a tool for managing liability so is helpful to ensure hazards are addressed. The body corporate is responsible for any issues that arise due to safety, if its designated a Workplace, which it will be if there are contractors engaged onsite.
It should be paid from administrative funds.
Hi Lisa, this is a very interesting thread, thank you!
I recently bought a townhouse in a complex of 4 units. 3 of the units (mine included) were built around 16yrs ago. The other unit is an old queenslander built about 100yrs ago, this was the original house that got moved to make space for the newer 3 townhouses.
The older house always has maintenance issues and often seems to consume the sinking fund. There are currently 2 open motions, 1 requesting to change the old unit deck joists which have been deemed unsafe by an engineer, the second one requesting significant roof repairs due to a leak. I am new to all of this but it seems unfair to constantly have to subsidise the old unit, and this is likely to get worse over time.
Should the deck and the roof issues really be a matter for the body corporate to pay for? Is there anything that can be done when one of the properties consistently spends the sinking fund and is a lot older than the other ones? Any resources you recommend to read about this matter? Thank you so much!
Hi Gia
Well that is an interesting setup. I’ve only seen it once before and that was with a highrise in Brisbane. The original older building at the front had ongoing issues. It was eventually resolved by excising the lot from the body corporate.
Presumably your body corporate is setup as a Building Format Plan which is why all owners are paying for works to what is essentially a free standing building. I suggest you, or more likely, your body corporate should seek legal advice about this. There is a “rule of thumb” in body corporate legislation that anything that relates to one lot, and can be clearly defined as for the benefit of that lot, should be the responsibility of that lot owner. However, this is technical stuff, and there are many, many different scenarios that could apply from the setup of your plan to various regulations. It would be beneficial to get a legal opinion on the matter.
Sorry I couldn’t be more help.
Hi Lisa, thank you so much for your reply. What do you mean by excising the lot of the body corp? Also, who would you recommend for legal advice in this matter in Brisbane? Thanks again 🙂
Hi Gia
Excising the lot means cutting it out of the body corporate. For that lot owners that means no more levies. For the balance of owners it means higher proportion of levies, as one lot is removed, but hopefully overall lower levies as they no longer need to take care of the old lot.
Have a look on the lookupstrata.com.au services directory for Solicitors who specialise in strata.
Thansk Lisa, I will look through the directory
Hi Lisa!
I’m in a 28 storey 121 lot (Standard Module) apartment on the Gold Coast. The building is 45 years old and in several owners’ opinions, has been left to deteriorate badly by the current committee, who have been in power for 6 years.
Some examples are…
– Concrete cancer was identified by the council back in 2014 and the committee were told they had to rectify it. Nothing was done. And it is now 2020 and still nothing has been done.
– The balcony balustrades are original from 45 years ago and many are deemed as unsafe. They were ready to be replaced in 2014 and 121 nice new ballustrades were quoted on, approved at the AGM, ordered, constructed, lot owners levied to contribute to the $1 million cost…and then the current committee got in, and reversed the decision, cancelled the order, the small business who had made all the ballustrades went bankrupt because they couldn’t use the custom-made ballustrades anywhere else and the chairperson refused to pay him. The levies were refunded to the lot owners and now we still have old, unsafe ballustrades that are “inspected” 4 times a year and makeshift repairs carried out.
– The roof is dilapidated, very unsafe, various large old building materials are kept up there, and it has been leaking for over 2 years. Every time it rains, water penetrates the membrane and comes through the plaster ceiling and runs down walls of the penthouse. The ceiling in 3 areas is peeling and discoloured grey. 2 walls are also peeling, grey and have areas of exposed concrete that is dark. 2 other walls have stains behind the wallpaper, and 2 other areas of the ceiling are bubbling.
The committee have delayed multiple times doing anything about this, and have obtained 9 engineers reports, carried out multiple inspections, tested the roof while it was dry and sunny and said they could not find a leak, the committee chairperson has acknowledged that the wall felt wet one time it was raining back in June this year, and yet still nothing is done. The penthouse is beautiful but looks quite damaged by these chronic and repeated leaks.
The committee and the penthouse owner went to conciliation and at the hearing, the committee were told they had to fix the roof, as to continue their inaction would be negligent. Both parties signed an agreement to have the roof fixed by 16 October. Funnily enough, it is now 31 October and nothing has been done.
– We keep changing insurance companies, as most of them will not insure the building due to the maintenance issues.
– We currently have a total of 8 lawsuits issued against the building from residents and visitors who have been injured on the property, all due to the lack of maintenance.
– The extensive grounds look terrible as they have not been properly maintained for so long. There is no irrigation system and most plants are dead.
– The indoor pool has 2 showers, toilets and a sauna. The showers are disgusting! There is mould throughout and the shower heads are so rusted and loose, they appear to be falling off. The sauna walls are literally covered in engraved graffiti.
– We have a terrible problem with crime in the building. The police are here literally every 2nd day, for repeated drug issues, violent home invasions (drug addicts trying to get upstairs to their dealers), constant common property damage to the glass foyer doors, frequent fire brigade attendances due to drunken or drugged people breaking the fire alarm devices on certain levels, cars being stolen from the underground carpark, mail theft, and things thrown from balconies such as cigarette butts, phones and even a big screen TV, which almost hit someone! It was thrown from level 25 by visitors who once again, were behaving terribly. (only 3 by-law breaches were issued during all of this over the past year).
– The security cameras finally upgraded (after 3 years of complaints) do not work half the time, and more often than not, when footage is requested by the police or a resident who has been the victim of crime, that footage cannot be found, or the relevant cameras were found to not be working.
– Anyone can access any and all parts of the grounds and the building from the street as there are no gates, no fences inside the grounds, and anyone can enter the building if someone else goes in or out, and once inside, they can access the lifts whenever anyone else comes in or out, and then they can access every single level as there is no lift fob security for each level and also no cameras in the lift (there is supposed to be…)
– By-law breach notices are very rarely given despite many reports and complaints about breaches by residents and visitors. One by-laws is that all front doors must be strata fire doors, and kept closed. Firstly, many of the 121 doors are completely different from each other, and all are definitely NOT strata regulation fire doors. Also, the treasurer on the committee keeps her door open most of the day, everyday. Obviously no breach notices have ever been issued.
– The committee are not transparent, refuse to acknowledge or correct any errors, make constant excuses for their inaction, shout at owners and intimidate those who do not agree with them, as well as excessively (daily) gossiping about certain owners (one in particular) who are not happy with them, badmouthing them, and even sticking up written defamatory letters in the foyer of the building for all to see, not naming the people (mostly the person mentioned above), but specifying their unit numbers, which everyone knows. They have done this for the last 4 years. The most targeted person is also the one who owns the penthouse they refuse to fix the common property roof over.
– The fire stair landings on many levels are full of stored junk. Nothing is done about it despite complaints.
– The AGM we just had was fraught with errors. First, the body corporate managers apparently “misfiled” the motions submitted at the end of June from the owner of the penthouse, despite the fact I personally delivered them to the office along with my own motions (which were not “misfiled”). Nobody was aware of a problem until the AGM agenda was issued and we noticed those motions were absent, and yet her committee nomination (for herself) paper was there.
After being questioned twice, the BC managers found the motions and had to then issue a second agenda (70 pages at 65 cents per page), at their own expense, with the motions now included. This took over a week, and in the meantime, some owners had already voted.
By now, the originally set date for the AGM was invalid as it was only 8 days after the office sent out the revised agenda. There needs to be 21 days notice. So the second agenda, with the incorrect original meeting date and voting papers with the old AGM date on them, was incorrect.
So, a THIRD agenda then had to be issued, advising the rescheduled date, almost a month after the initial date. People were getting very confused by now, and more had voted on the second set of voting papers, still with the wrong date of them.
The third set of voting papers were supposed to be a different colour to differentiate them from the 2 incorrect previous ones, but this did not happen and instead, the new meeting date was placed at the bottom of every voting paper.
– At the AGM, the scrutineer who volunteered was unsure and unhappy about the validity of some of the votes. The committee and the returning officer both told her to sign, that they were valid, and that they did not have time to argue as the meeting started 27 minutes late (they commenced with 3 minutes to spare before it would be called off if a quorum had not been confirmed or announced).
The only other owner who was nominated and not already on the committee, “somehow” the BC manager office could not locate his voting papers that he and his wife had submitted in person at the office the week prior. They had to rush to fill out more voting forms on the spot.
A secret ballot committee vote re-count was requested by one nominee and the scrutineer. Both asked at the end of the AGM but the returning officer was already packing up, said it was too late, and an appointment would have to be made. This appointment occurred 9 days following, as the returning officer was unavailable until then.
I also attended the re-count, and identified 12 votes out of 43 that had been cast on either the first or second incorrect voting papers. As all lot owners were instructed to vote only on the correct third papers, I considered these to be invalid votes.
The returning officer was extremely defensive, impatient, hostile, intimidating and aggressive. She flatly told me the votes were all valid and she “didn’t care” which voting paper or agenda they were from. She said the only opinion that mattered here was hers.
Had those 12 votes been ruled invalid, one particular unpleasant committee member would have been off the committee (he shouts at people in meetings, shouted at the Adjudicator at the hearing about the roof repairs, and often falls asleep at meetings), and the owner of the penthouse would have been voted on.
The committee receives $900,000 a year in fees from all lot owners. There is $1.6 million in the sinking fund. They put a further $400,000 into the sinking fund this last year.
So…after this novel of babble, do you think we have any kind of hope of removing the committee for this kind of behaviour? Or do we at least have a chance of having the AGM ruled out of order, or at the very least those 12 votes being ruled as invalid? Was the returning officer incorrect and unprofessional?
Hi Stefani
I am pretty sure I know which building you’re talking about. I was returning officer when the motions regarding balustrading were conducted. I have to say it remains one of the worst experiences of my working life. This is an enormously contentious building and as a result it seems to be crumbling around you.
The way out of this situation is for committee to take control and start rectifying the issues. Since committee is currently controlled by those who actively stopping that from happening new blood is needed.
Its going to be a series of battles to get things changed. I suggest making the committee appointment, or AGM in general the first battle. There is enough about the meeting that you’ve said that might be able to be challenged. Seek an Adjudicators Order that the 14 votes be invalidated due to incorrect voting papers. I’ve no idea if its an issue or not: its not something that comes up on a regular basis. The returning office is correct that she makes the call on the day, however whether that call was the correct one to make is a different matter altogether. That is something for an Adjudicator to decide.
I suggest discussing with the Office Commissioner Body Corporate.
Ideally speaking changing one person on the committee might start a change for the better. Even if that new person only gets his own roof fixed its one less item that needs to be addressed. And once things start to get better hopefully you can get on a roll.
Hi Lisa
I am the owner of a unit in a building which consists of 8 units. When I purchased the unit, 4 of the other units had no tenants. As the units became leased we have had issues with power tripping at the main breaker of the building. Some of the new tenants are using a lot of electricity. The building is old and needs to be upgraded. I raised the issue at the AGM last year but body corporate are procrastinators…so too are the tenants that don’t want to spend money. The body corporate don’t return emails or returns calls regarding all of this. I have raised concerns that this is now a potential fire issue. Is there anyone that I can contact to make them listen? I am in QLD, Australa
HI Daniel
If you consider your building a fire hazard you could talk to Queensland Fire and Rescue Service. They are government body policing fire safety requirements and they have the power to force the body corporate to comply.
That might be opening a can of worms though. Alternatively ask a contractor to review and provide quotes for repair and a report stating what the problem is. Submit to general meeting with a motion to repair allowing all owners to vote on the motion.
Hi Lisa,
I had NBN connected to my apartment and I suddenly receive a letter from body Corp about not following the correct procedure setting it up and that I will be responsible for all expenses to set it up their way. However, they never sent any prior information relating to the correct procedures when they installed the NBN line in the complex.
What are my options? Obviously I would have followed correct procedures if they told me. The NBN line was installed in the building at least 5 months before I had it connected to my unit.
Thanks,
Audrey
Hi Lisa,
I had NBN connected to my aparment and I suddenly receive a letter from body Corp about not following the correct procedure setting it up and that I will be responsible for all expenses to set it up their way. However, they never sent any prior information relating to the correct procedures when they installed the NBN line in the complex.
What are my options? Obviously I would have followed correct procedures if they told me. The NBN line was installed in the building at least 5 months before I had it connected to my unit.
Thanks,
Audrey
Hi Audrey
There is most likely a by-law noting you cannot make any changes to the unit without prior consent of the committee. The fact the by-law exists is notification to owners. You have a responsibility to educate yourself on the rules and regulations that apply to your scheme. It doesn’t necessarily mean the by-laws are enforceable but that’s a whole other story.
The problem with apartments is that sometimes there are fire safety installations throughout the building. I don’t know specifically about your building but in some circumstances installing something like the NBN will require drilling through walls and that could disrupt the passive fire safety installations. That’s a serious problem and risk for both rectification costs, fines, and fire. That doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t do it, just that there needs to be thought given to how any penetrations are sealed afterwards to ensure the fire safety is not compromised. Its one of the reasons that you need to seek approval first before making changes.
I don’t know what the issue is with your body corporate. I’d suggest now that its complete you can only do what’s required. It may be a simple as making an application, which you should do. Whether there are any additional costs will depend on how knowledgeable your contractor was. They may have already done anything required.
Hi,
The Body corporate in a unit that we are at needs to repairs to units on multi story levels. Unfortunately the work is going to take 3 or 4 weeks, and the scaffolding that needs to be errected across 2 unit holders that are unrelated. Both unit holders are refusing to give up their car spaces. Without the scaffolding the repair work cannot proceed. The work is urgent repairs to balconies that have water damage and deemed Common Areas and are the body corporates responsibility to rectify. What recourse does the BC have and how can the 2 unit holders be compelled ?
Hi,
The Body corporate in a unit that we are at, needs to have repairs completed to balconies on a multi story block. Unfortunately the work is going to take 3 or 4 weeks, and the scaffolding that needs to be errected across 2 unit holders car parking spaces that are not any of the units to which the repairs are being undertaken. Both of those unit holders are refusing to give up their car spaces. Unfortunately without the scaffolding the repair work cannot proceed. The work is urgent repairs to balconies that have water damage and are deemed to be Common Areas and it is the body corporates responsibility to rectify. What recourse does the Body Corporate have in order to compell the 2 unit holders to give up their spots (with reasonable compensation of course)?
Hi John
I can’t say I’m sorry, this is a question for a Solicitor.
You might try Lookupstrata.com.au. You can submit a question there and they will ask a Solicitor to comment on it for you.
Hi, i bought a unit in a 12 unit building (3 floors) in Victoria . The building is 2 yrs old and very nice. But after a few months of moving in, the owners were all issued a special levy for plumbing services. Apparently there was plumbing issues in the building. As 11 of the 12 units were 1st time home owners, we all paid the levy with no fuss. 6 months after, the emergency phone on the elevator stopped working so again, there was a special levy issued . We then asked the Body Corp manager as to why we are being billed for these problems when we can chase the builder because the building is only 2 years old, it still under warranty. Adding more, 5 of the owners also added that they have moulds in their apartment & wAter leaks that one of them moved out until the mould issue is resolved. Our Body corp manager said that it is not his problem. If we have problem in our own unit & wants to chase the builder, it is our problem. He has nothing to do with it. Similarly, if we have problem with the elevator, we just have to fix it. He seemed to be dictating us what to do rather than helping us to resolve the issues.
Desperately in need of your thoughts on this. Thanks.
Shirley
Hi Shirley
It doesn’t sound very helpful at all. The strata manager is right that the body corporate cannot act for owners regarding building defects inside the lot. However, if there is water entry and its coming from common property, such as a roof or window leak, that’s a different matter. The cause of the mould then becomes important.
Im not sure how things work in Victoria but warranties, other than structural, expire after 12 months. Structural warranties carry on for longer however. In QLD we’re recently had a legislation change that requires all new buildings consider getting an independent assessment of common property for construction defects in second year. Maybe its worth getting someone to inspect your building to see if there are issues that should be fixed under warranty. Its also a good way of getting clear that matters are owner responsibility.
I would suggest you discuss with your committee. If there is no committee I suggest they discuss with other owners about forming a committee forthwith and start looking into these issues.
Hi
I am an owner-occupier in a complex of about 55 units. We only have 4 visitor carparks, of which one is permanently occupied by rubbish bins. What are the legal requirements for visitor carparks in a complex of this size?
We have a two hour time limit on using these carparks but the onsite manager issued a warning notice on a visitor who had only been parked there for 15mins!!!
Hi Lisa
Number of visitor car parks are dictated by the local Council as part of the Development Application for the development and are different based on location and size of the development. They are definitely meant to be used as visitor car parking, not anything else.
The body corporate is required to enforce the by-laws regarding parking. Refer to your scheme’s CMS for details of by-laws. So the Caretaker is doing the right thing even if he is a bit over enthusiastic.
Hello with 4 people in a committe and 1 has an interest in using a small piece of common property for an airconditioner that impacts the use of a pathway are 2 yes votes required to pass the motion or 3? Is there legislation requiring that more than 2 yes votes are required when 1 of the 4 has a personal interest for their airconditioner.
HI Nicole
Legislation requires the committee member who has an interest not vote on the matter.
Hi, we have a top floor unit and we want to develop the roof space. Recently a By Law was passed to allow us exclusive use:
“The owner or occupier of lot x identified in the plan annexed hereto and forming part of this special by-law is conferred the right of exclusive use of the ceiling cavity directly above lot x for storage space, personal use, and enjoyment, with the right to occupy this ceiling cavity, subject to the following conditions:
(a)The owner or occupier of lot x must permit access to the ceiling cavity for the purpose of maintenance and utility; and
(b)The owner or occupier of lot x is responsible for the maintenance of the state of the upkeep of the ceiling cavity directly above lot x only.
1.2Access to the ceiling cavity will be via a fixed or retractable staircase or ladder situated within lot x.”
Unfortunately two members of the committee won’t approve any plans that alter the roof line, even although the roof is not visible from the street. They want us to pay money into a fund before they will approve. Do we need the body corporate to approve our plans before they go to council or is this By Law enough for us to proceed? Does the Body Corporate need to act reasonably in giving reasons for their decision? Thanks!
Hi Rachele
You will need the approval of the body corporate before you can proceed with any works. You should be able to submit plans to Council however without approval of the body corporate it may be a waste of money.
Yes the committee must act reasonably in their decisions. Actually all parties must act reasonably. Ask them to reconsider and what their reasons are for rejected the application.
Discuss this matter with the Office Commissioner Body Corporate. You must try to self resolve the issue first, which is the point of asking committee to reconsider. At that point, depending on their reasoning, you may have a dispute that can be referred for conciliation or adjudication.
Our body corporate will not have the smoke alarms repaired in the common areas of the communal parking garages and so they go off loudly all the time. Hence you never know if there is a fire concern or not .
Good day
Our trustees at a recent body corporate meeting decided to close off a back entrance to the complex which opens on to the adjacent school parking lot citing security concerns, there was no discussion/voting by the rest of the sectional title owners, it is a significant inconvenience for those Kids using this entrance, are the trustees allowed to make this decision without consulting/ discussing either rest of the sectional title owners
Hi Naeem
I don’t know what a sectional tile owner is so cannot comment on the power of the trustees. If it was a body corporate the matter would need to be a special resolution at general meeting.
Our Body Corp Committee seems to run fake meetings. Recently I found that I was included in a list of individuals in attendance at the General Meeting and that I apparently voted in favour of certain motions. In fact I did not attend the GM at all and was specifically having dinner with friends. The meeting did occur and I am not sure why my name and vote was included. It seems that a number of other residents were included, but I have not surveyed them yet in case there may be some legal issue. This procedure certainly has the appearance of being unethical and illegal. What do I do (from Qld)
Hi Andrew
You, and other owners, would be marked as “present” if you submitted a voting paper. It should be noted on the minutes whether you were there in person or by voting paper.
If you, or another co-owner, did not personally submit a voting paper, contact your strata manager and explain that you did not send in the vote. If the motions are open motions they should be able to withdraw the voting for your lot.
The Body Corp has advised us that one of our remote-control rolling doors will be disconnecting because we have only one car park area and we shouldn’t have two, we paid for extra remote control (previously approved by them) just to have easy access to our car park, but Body Corp mentioned that it represents now a risk after people has been broken into some store cages of other owners, and also using the visitor’s car park.
The body Corp also disconnected all the rolling door emergency buttons so no one can use them without the remote control which it represents a high risk in case of emergency for any person so what can we do about this situation?
Hi Carlos
Hmmm … that seems quite the reversal. This is a dispute. I suggest you submit a motion to your committee to have the doors reconnected. They are likely to vote NO, but hopefully they give you some reasons. All owners and committee are expected to act “reasonably”. If they have a reasonable reason for their disconnection then likely there is little you can do.
If they don’t however, I would consider seeking conciliation. That is where both parties sit down with a third party and discuss your dispute and try and hash out a solution. If that doesn’t work you can escalate to seeking an Adjudicators Order.
Contact Office Commissioner Body Corporate to discuss conciliation. You must try and self-resolve the issue first hence the motion to committee.