Defining common property boundaries in a body corporate is essential in working out who is responsible for what.
As a general rule of thumb: common property = body corporate responsibility, lot = lot owner responsibility.
Bodies corporate are forbidden from spending joint funds on works that benefit a lot and for lot owners there is no sense in paying for something you don’t need to. Knowing where your responsibility starts and ends is as simple as knowing where your boundaries are.
The key to common property boundaries, with some exceptions which I’ll discuss below, is where the boundaries between lot and common property lie.
Standard Format Plan and Building Format Plan is shorthand for common property boundaries
In Queensland strata schemes are categorised into Standard Format Plan (SFP) and Building Format Plan (BFP).
The original Building Unit & Group Titles Act (BUGTA) had two separate types of schemes. Building Unit Plans, or vertical developments and Group Title Plans or horizontal developments.
When legislation changed in 1997 BUP became BFP and GTP became SFP.
It sounds confusing but it isn’t really.
All vertical developments, be they 2 floors of 100, are Building Format Plan and the boundaries are measured from the centre of the doors, floors, walls and ceilings. So for instance your front door: half is considered your lot and half common property.
Boundaries in a Standard Format Plan are measured from pegs in the ground exactly the same as for a house lot. The only difference is the unit is located within a common property precinct rather than a street.
Things get confused because horizontal developments can be either BFP or SFP and the plan itself tells you which applies.
The difference between BFP and SFP
All this discussion of vertical vs horizontal is challenging. Let’s look at a simple example.
A common duplex arrangement of two lots joint only at a shared wall in the garage.
This is a common duplex arrangement. The two properties are joint only at their garage.
This sort of property can be registered as either a standard format plan or a building format plan.
If a BFP then common property could look like this:
A duplex registered as a BFP contains two individual lots surrounded by common property.
The area around each lot is common property. The lots are the buildings themselves only. The boundary would be measured half way through the doors, floors, ceilings and walls.
If a sinkhole developed in the garden of lot 1 in this example it would be body corporate responsibility to resolve.
If a SFP common property could look like this:
A duplex registered as a SFP contains two large lots and a small amount of common property.
The boundaries are measured by pegs in the ground and the lot includes the building and all its surrounding land just like a freestanding home. The difference is the two lots share some common property.
If a sinkhole developed in garden of lot 1 in this example it would be up to lot 1 to resolve.
The main difference between SFP and BFP is less common property, more lot. Less common property means less administration and lower levies.
Joint lots and joint infrastructure
A lot of common property, particularly in these SFP examples, is invisible, such as plumbing and electrics. How then do you decide who is responsible for what?
Common property, other than chunks of land, is defined as something that serves two or more lots, and it can be located in one lot but still serve multiple lots.
So for instance, if the main sewer line for both lots ran through the garden of lot 2 then it would be body corporate responsibility to maintain notwithstanding the infrastructure is contained within a lot. It benefits both parties.
Another good example is the roof.
In example above of SFP Duplex any leaks in the roof would be in one property or the other, hence the responsibility of that owner. By contrast the guttering is one complete system that services both lots hence body corporate responsibility.
Infrastructure on common property that is lot owner responsibility
Just because some part of the infrastructure is located in common property doesn’t automatically make it body corporate responsibility either.
Infrastructure on common property that services only one lot is the responsibility of that lot owner.
Common property switchboard is like a power board. The body corporate is responsible for maintaining in good condition and getting electricity to it however each lot is individually responsible their connection
Imagine a scheme’s switchboard and main’s power supply could be represented as a power board. That board itself would be on common property, as would the leads servicing each lot.
The body corporate is responsible for making sure the power board is live.
Each lot is responsible for maintaining the connection from the power board to their own lot, even though the connection is on common property.
Common property allocated as exclusive use
In our BFP duplex example above the yards of the individual lots would likely be allocated to the respective lots as exclusive use.
Individual lot owners are responsible for the maintenance of exclusive use areas.
That begs a bunch of other questions. What is maintenance? What is structural? How far are lot owners expected to go to maintain the area?
Answering is going to be dependent on the circumstance of each case and will be dependent on a lot of different factors, not least of which is going to be how your particular scheme decides to treat things.
If this is your situation, and you object to the decision made, seek legal advice or contact Office Commissioner Body Corporate.
Conclusion
One of the most common disputes in bodies corporate is who pays for what and a lot of owners are caught out being charged for things they don’t expect.
The overriding principle of body corporate legislation is fairness. Everyone pays their own way, except to the degree that the cost should be shared with other owners.
This is complex stuff and mistakes happen all the time. You must protect your own rights because no one else is going to. The best way to do that is to get clear on what is your responsibility and what is not.
SFP and BFP get tossed around a lot. Don’t get distracted by the terms. What’s being talked about is the lot and common property boundaries.
And remember, regardless of the type of plan your scheme is, there is only one legislation. The BCCM Act 1997 applies to all schemes registered with a Community Management Statement (CMS).
Unless stated otherwise all the information on this website relates to Queensland legislation.
I recently had a situation where our strata raised a special urgent levy where all owners had to pay $3000 to repair the rooves of some of the units. The issue is that there are four new units at the back (three attached to each other, one separate) and then there are 8 old units at the front in lots of four (four attached to each other). All units are at ground level. It was the 8 old units that required the new rooves, none of the four newer units at the back, which are not at all attached to the older units, required new rooves. We all had to pay. Is this common practice?
Hi Charmaine
The setup you’re describing with newer and older units in differing blocks is not at all usual. A lot will depend on the way the scheme is set up. Most likely it’s been set as a BFP and owners are to share costs like the roof.
Your first task will be to find out. Maybe call your manager and ask about it. Ask why you had to contribute when it wasn’t your roof. The most likely answer will be because BFP.
Then it might be worth speaking to the Office of Commissioner BC about this. Its an unusual configuration and there might be something they can help with.
Whatever you do you need to do it quick because there is a statute of limitations on being able to complain.
hi Lisa, I read all of your blogs with much interest and thank you for same – you should start an advocacy service for owners as it is desperately needed out here!! I am fairly new to CMS and have found the depth of misinformation among longstanding committee and even strata managers exhausting and frustrating! I do try to stand up for my rights – for example the committee decided to change the fence colour and material and pay for two separate lot owners fences and will not respond to my questions about this and now it’s been well over a year and they aer continuing to approve new fences in the different colour and material and still wont respond to questions about it, saying it’s too late – but why is it?! If they have done this wrong then they should fix it and give the rightful vote to owners. I cant lodge a BCCM Form1 because it’s not a by-law issue, I can’t formally oppose the decision because it is >$200 in value and there are no actual minutes with the decision recorded. I have signed up for the committee which is due to happen next week but I don’t like my chances of hearing from them even in that case. I have sent letters, emails, researched high and low and feel completely at a loss. I wish I had known about your service before I bought in to here as I am sure it would have shown up such issues. Strata searches are big in NSW but I hadnt heard of them here in QLD – I didnt even know we had them until I was desperately searching for answers!
Hi Don’t give up, read the legislation it is not impossible to understand and it is free to download. Our Committee has been the same by just completely ignoring my attempt to have them fix subsidence in our property.After 7 months no emails have been replied to by the Secretary.
It has been a hard slog, but I have finally got a conciliation meeting with the Commissioner. hopefully to resolve issue. I have now been elected onto the committee by a lot of unhappy community members, and will attempt to sort out the old and stubborn committee members. they should not be allowed to get away with this, they are supposed to be looking after the community.
Hi Alan
Congratulations on making it onto the committee and well done you for taking on the job.
And I agree totally about the legislation. Its complex but you can get your head around it. Usually you’re only looking at the one issue or group of issues.
Hi Lisa I live in a duplex and the front units owners put in a aircon near the corner of there property. It’s sticks out but is under there roof line. It’s down my driveway and my car is higher than the aircon. People reversing out of my unit could easily hit it. I have the group title plan and have done the measurements of it and by that the wall is the wall not the roof line. My question is is the roof line the start of common area or is it the wall? I am under the 1997 standard body corporate by laws and it’s a ( gtp 1192) thanks Steve
Hi Stephen
In a group title plan the boundaries of the lot are shown on the plan and are usually pegs in the ground. Its unlikely to be the house structure itself.
Refer to the plan. If you have measurements you should be able to work out where the boundaries are. Otherwise your might need a surveyor.
Hi H
Thank you so much, I’m glad you find it useful.
Congratulations on being voted onto the committee. Often committee members find their way on to deal with issues they’re experiencing. You’re right about the misinformation out there and many committees are acting on it to the detriment of lot owners. Its challenging because you’re forced into a position of having to confront the issue to protect your rights. It instantly puts everyone’s back up but it was them that created the situation in the first place! So frustrating.
With the fence it’s likely that nothing will be done. If approval was granted and more than one person has made the change then generally speaking its an accepted change. Adjudicators are unlikely to order it changed again now. They’re reluctant to force issues unless it will make a big difference.
Thank you for taking a stab at committee. I’m sure your fellow owners will appreciate it.
Lisa,
Thanks for this post on strata formats and committee spending. Also, thanks for the ongoing opportunity you give to us strata dwellers to share our (sometimes painful) experiences.
Elected committees, loaded with like-minded people usually do not appreciate a diversity of views. This is demonstrated (in a small way) when they refuse to engage with alternative views that are put to them. “There is always strength in numbers” (Mark Shields).
The philosopher Joseph Schumpeter had an interesting theory of democracy. He believed that due to ignorance and superficiality, people are manipulated by the representatives they elect. In his view, while voting by the people may appear to legitimise representatives, and keep them accountable, the policy program is very much generated by the committee and not the people. In his view, the participatory role for individuals is severely limited.
With regards to spending money, Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman, suggested that there are four ways of spending money:
1) Spend your own money on yourself. (economise and seek highest value)
2) Spend your own money on somebody else. (economise and don’t seek highest value)
3) Spend somebody else’s money on yourself. (don’t economise but seek highest value)
4) Spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. (don’t economise and don’t seek highest value)
Lisa,
I am a lot owner in a Community Title Scheme in Palm Cove Qld where there is 129 BC Residential Lots.
The Body Corporate Committee approved a motion at a Committee meeting to spend almost $50,000 on a few of the private lots of owner’s new replacement blinds
(Only 15 of the 129 Lots have roller blind sun shades.) As our Body Corporate funds were being used by the Committee for private Lot repairs and replacements, an Adjudicators Order was applied for by me, a concerned lot owner, through the Commissioner’s office of the BCCM.
The ruling by the Adjudicator passed on the 17th November 2016 was that none of the blinds are installed on common property . Four of the recipients of the blinds that were only installed after the adjudicators order, are current committee members including the Chairperson. Since the Order was made, the Committee have only recently approved on the 23 February 2017 to finalise a payment of almost $50,000 to the installer for these private Lot Owner Blinds . Completely ignoring the Order and proceeding to use our BC funds for property that is not installed on common property.
Please, can anyone tell me and our other concerned Lot owners where do we go from here?
Is it that Orders made by the Adjudicator carry no weight at all and can be ignored?
Hi Barbara
Adjudicators Orders are enforceable through the magistrates court.
What is ordered? If the order simply says that the blinds are not common property then they have not breached the order. They’ve breached legislation using joint funds on private property, but not the order. If there was no order made about the money then seek an order the money be repaid by the lots with blinds installed.
If the order says the body corporate must not pay for the blinds, and the committee has since paid for the blinds, then an order from the magistrates court might help. They may also issue a fine.
Its all going to come back to what order was made and how it was worded.
Hi Lisa, Thank you for your response. The Adjudicators Order clearly states that the Blinds are not installed on the common property, and are an owner responsibility to maintain.
Well after the order was passed down late January 2017 and the committee approved a motion to pay for the blinds 23 February 2017 of around $50,000 out of our BC funds for now installed within the boundaries of each of the private Lots.
The Adjudicators Orders made: 17 November 2016 as follow:
I hereby order and declare that the blinds installed on the balconies of Lots 1207,1208,1209,1307,1308,1309,1407,1408,1409,5201,5202,5301,5302,5401,5402 are installed inside the boundaries of the respective Lots and it is the responsibility of the owners of the respective Lots to maintain the blinds on their lots in good condition
I further order that the application otherwise is dismissed
Signed , I. Rosemann, Adjudicator
Can I ask you where do we go from here?
Hi Barbara
What was the order about? If the order was simply that the installation is not on common property then they are not ignoring the order.
If the order was that the committee must not proceed then they are ignoring the order.
The difference suggests your next step. If the order was simply not on common property then you can seek an order to have the funds repaid by lot owners concerned.
Otherwise to enforce an order you need to make an application in the Magistrates Court.
Can’t thank you enough Lisa! I am clear in my mind and am proceeding with an order to have the funds repaid by the owners of the blinds.
The BC committee was proceeding with the payment of the blinds from joint funds because; in the descriptive notes that follow the actual signed order he stated that the BC committee possibly acted in good faith. They use this note to justify the spending to owners in the minutes claimed that it was a warning:” it’s okay this time but not in the future.” This was also the advice given to lot owns by BC Manager in emails. Thank you so much again.
Lisa – I’d appreciate your advice. A small complex of four units on a BUP in 1978. Three units are upstairs, and one is on ground level. Also on ground level are exclusive use car spaces. Three are open; one is enclosed. Over the years, all the units have either completely or partially enclosed balcony space to increase the living space inside the each unit. The ground floor unit balcony is enclosed with a sliding door as well as the side of the connecting exclusive use enclosed car space. It is managed under the small scheme. An area of common property adjacent to the ground level unit has constantly caused unreasonable disruption to the peaceful enjoyment of life within the units above. So years back a garden was planted within this area. This garden is also to provide screening from a public walkway beside this common area. However, with this garden being repeatedly trampled, a fence was installed that still allowed access to the ground floor unit via the two sliding doors. These are additional to another two doors. Due to a series of incidents within this common area with the fence constantly being removed the BC voted at an AGM to totally landscape this common property area with gates at either end for maintenance and no direct access to / from the ground floor unit. The motion was passed. But ground floor has objected.
Hi Willy
Its sounds like the area is common property and as such the body corporate is responsible for taking care of it.
I understand that you have been using the area as exclusive use however, if I understand correctly, its not actually been officially allocated as exclusive use. You could submit a motion that makes the area exclusive use for your lot. It would need to be passed by resolution without dissent at a general meeting and then a new Community Management Statement recorded. The area would then be for your use but also your responsibility to maintain.
Otherwise the area is common property and the scheme and they simply need to care for it, not make sure you have access.
Can you assist once again please? On an internal entry door (fire rates) to a Lot from the common property on a multi level building, who owns the door locks whether key of card swipe?
Hi Barbara
Interesting question and unfortunately not easily answered. There are lots of mitigating factors here including the makeup of the system, legislation and by-laws.
If the key system is a master key system then it is common property and up the body corporate to maintain.
Owners are not required to be part of the master key system, depending on their by-laws and even then maybe not. From this adjudicators order
In that order the lot owner had changed the key and the body corporate ordered them to be changed back. The Adjudicator found the owner had the right to take care of their property and the rights of the body corporate to access the lot as stated in the act and / or the scheme by-laws (act will override the by-laws) is secondary to the owners right to secure their property.
If the locks are changed and they’re not part of a master key system then they are lot owner responsibility. If the body corporate has to access the property they can do so by engaging a locksmith and charging that cost to the owner. But, fair warning, if you do enter, make sure your right of entry is within the bounds of legislation or the body corporate will be responsible for paying for entry charges.
We bought a Unit in a block of 4 units 25 years ago (Unit no. 1). A unit owner, who purchased his unit some10 years before us (Unit no. 4), is now claiming that we are in his garage. The garages are separate from the unit complex and we took over ownership of the garage that the seller of our unit occupied. Now some 25 years later, this owner is claiming our garage. He does not live on site but rents his unit. The building plan shows the garages numbered opposite to the ownership. (i.e. the garages are numbered 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 on the plan but ownership is 4 , 3 , 2 , 1 ) This means that everyone is in the wrong garage. Can you help us and can you give us some advice ?
Hi Anne
This is a difficult one. The registered plan says one thing and what’s being done is different. I’m not sure how much the “we’ve always done it this way” argument is going to work for you, and at the same time I think your neighbour is being unreasonable. Owners and committees in bodies corporate are required to act reasonably.
Discuss with the neighbour and, if you can, find out why he wants to swap. Is there a problem with his garage? Is there a way you can negotiate a solution?
If not, seek some advice from Office Commissioner Body Corporate. If the owner seeks to force the issue I suggest your best way of fighting is to seek an Adjudicator’s Order that the owner is being unreasonable. But, beware, the Adjudicator will have to follow legal guidelines. Make sure you discuss your chances of being heard first.
Alternatively you can simply switch garage.
Hi Anne
We purchased a duplex last year and specifically asked our Conveyancer to check that we had ‘sole use’ of the backyard. They came back saying yes and we proceeded with the purchase. We have since found out it is ‘common ground’ even though it has been fenced off. We were going to build in the backyard but this was shelved, once it was brought to our attention.
We are now selling as this situation doesn’t suit us. We were told by a Surveyor we could approach the front duplex and ‘buy’ the backyard. Is this possible? We have many interested buyers, but they also don’t want have a property where they too won’t have ‘sole use’ of the backyard.
Our current neighbour is 91, and doesn’t use the backyard.
Hi Maryanne
Do you mean the area is allocated as exclusive use? If yes then it is for exactly as it says, exclusive use, despite remaining “common area”. In a body corporate you cannot assume that you can build on an exclusive use area, though if your neighbour agrees, there’s no reason why you can’t.
If the area isn’t allocated as exclusive use things are more problematic. You can take actions to have the exclusive use allocated and registered, though of course this is more expensive.
Hi there,
I have bought a unit in a strata management complex, my unit is seperated from the main section of units which there ones are 2 levels high with of 4 groups of 4 indervigual units to a group.
My one ground level single unit with one running parallel with mine and seperated with a core filled block wall which goes from the ground slab to the top apex of each gable face.
Neither of our 2 units r actually attached to one another in any way.
The complex was built in the mid 80’s but I’m just wondering if you man no what tittle my unit would come under, as I’ve heard of different category can apply for units how there situated than if so does that change the common property bylaws if there separate definitions to which it is classed as.
Sorry if this is confusing , I am not sure to explain it wit the correct wording. Thank u for taking the time to read this
Hi Lezz
You need to check the plan for your lots to ascertain whether registered as Building Format Plan or Standard Format Plan. Your strata manager may be able to help you here.
The type of plan doesn’t change the common property or by-laws but is a shorthand for where to look for boundaries.
In a Building Format Plan boundaries between common property and lot, or lot and other lot, fall midway between walls, floors, ceilings and doors. In a Standard Format Plan they’re measured by pegs in the ground, meaning the yard is included as part of the lot and the whole of the building is contained within the lot and is therefore lot owner responsibility.
Hi Lisa,
I Live in Victoria and have a bicycle parked in a common area in my apartment complex. Are there any set rules about using a common area to store a bicycle? One owner has complained and wants our best he removed. It is about a meter away from his front door but against the railing. But does not block access to and from entering/ exiting his apartment. Likely he is being dominating as he has in the past.
many owners have things such as bikes stored in common areas. Is there any way all lot owners can vote to have bylaws in place that allow things such as bicycles to be stored in common areas as long as it is non-obtrusive?
Hi Preethi
Yes, owner can vote to change the by-laws. Its unlikely they will be able to change the by-laws to store things on common property though, as fire and safety legislation requires that these areas be kept clear of items as they are escape routes. By-laws can be made but if they conflict with other legislation they are invalid.
Hi Lisa
I live in Qld. I have a ground floor unit with a patio (no sliding door). From my main sliding door, I go onto that patio, I have two wall (L&R)
Therefore I am under the top floor balcony. We are both within the block.
As I step out of my patio, it leads onto a common area.
On my patio area, I now have bubbles forming and paint peeling on tlhe ceiling.
This started about a year after a cyclone and have suggested B/Corp to contact our Insurance.
Is that for BodyCorp to fix? I have sent them photos and haven’t had any response.
There are a lot of things that needs fixing in the common area, including two rusted staircase, which I also forwarded photos to B/Corp.
Does something like this need to be voted upon?
Can you please help?
Josie
Hi Josie
It sounds very much like the balcony on the lot above you is leaking into your balcony ceiling. You should have a contractor come and look at it and give you an idea of the problem. If it is coming from above then the matter will need to be discussed with that lot owner and committee. If the issue is tiling on balcony above, the lot owner is responsible. If the issue is waterproofing membrane the body corporate will be responsible, generally speaking of course. Each case is decided on its own merits.
Do you know if there is a committee elected? What you’re saying about lack of maintenance and lack of response are indicators of owner/committee apathy. There may not be anyone making any decisions for the body corporate. Look into it and, if there isn’t, consider nominating for committee yourself. It might be the best way to get something done.
Hi Lisa
Thank you so much. This has been a great help.
Best Regards
Josie
Hi Lisa
I have a common property balcony and stairway at the rear of my unit.A
However an existing By- law grants exclusive use of the balcony and stairway for the owner of this (my) unit.
There are two points of entry to the balcony.One via the excusive use stairway and another from a common property corridor.
I have had items stolen from the balcony and (as the area is unsecured) and people entering without permission.Q: Can i secure the exclusive use balcony and stairway by installing gates between the balcony and common property?
The body corporate argue that egress to the balcony is a means of fire escape from a common area and should remain accessible from common property.
I argue that it is an excusive use area that I keep outdoor furniture and possessions on.And i can i stall gates to prevent theft and trespass.
Thanks
Marky
Hi Marcus
Check the terms of your exclusive use grant. If the area is a fire escape area, and the body corporate should be able to produce an evacuation plan that shows that, then I would think that it should be codified in the exclusive use grant. If it is, there is nothing more you can do: fire safety trumps pretty much everything as its controlled by fire safety legislation and the body corporate must comply.
If the fire exit is only from your lot you could ask them to demonstrate how securing the area would impede that exit. Presumably if its your gate you have egress any time. Ideally there’s a way you can get a solution that suits you both.
Thanks for the reply Lisa.
The Exclusive Use By Law was registered circa 1975 so at that time no mention is made of fire escape routes from the building
Question 1.
Can the Body Corporate decide retrospectivly that egress through an existing exclusive use area can be designated as a fire escape .
route.Who is the authority to determine fire escape routes from a building?
2.Can I secure the balcony area with a gate that is egress compliant with fire regulation?,ie the gate could be used by anyone during a fire emergency to use the exclusive use balcony as a means of escape.
Thanks
Marky
HI Marcus
Buildings and common property evolve all the time, along with legislation for various matters. So yes, it is absolutely possible that a new escape route may be defined for a building.
Fire escape routes are usually determined by fire safety professionals engaged for the process or Queensland Fire and Rescue Services.
Your query regarding the gate and fire regulations needs to be posed to a fire safety professional. Maybe have a discussion next time they’re on site to check doors or other systems.
Hi Lisa
The windows are being replaced in my building which is being paid for from the Sinking Fund. Except for the doors and windows that open on to balconies, these are being replaced at owners cost.
The unit owners of the ground floor unit are claiming that as they do not have a balcony all their doors and windows open onto Common space and should therefore be paid for from the Sinking Fund.
On the Building Units Plan their boundary is the walls and windows. However the area in front of their unit is paved and has low fences, clearly for their exclusive use.
A special levy has been proposed that each unit owner pays close to $2000 to pay for the windows and doors of the ground floor unit.
Hi Mel
Given the value of the special levy I would request that the committee seek legal advice on the matter, if they haven’t already. If they have, ask for a copy. Much will depend on the boundaries. In most of the other lots the balcony will be part of the lot. If the area is exclusive use I think there is precedent for still making the cost owner responsibility, but that should be checked out by a legal professional.
Hi Lisa
I live in a block of 20 townhouses, best described as a long common driveway down the middle and townhouses either side. However, at the front there are four facing the street front, one of which (the one we own) has its own driveway, separate from the other 19. We therefore maintain our own driveway and front space as required but we also contribute to corporate fees for the upkeep of the common driveway, lighting and gardens that we never use. Is there anything we can do to reduce our portion of fees, as the upkeep of such a large area is quite expensive.
HI Ed
Check the contribution lot entitlements of the scheme. It could be that your proportion of the costs is already varied from other lots so you pay less. If its not, and the CMS doesn’t give any clues as to why not, then potentially you could make amendments that way. First you would need to quantify how much of the budget goes to driveway maintenance before you can opt out of that cost.
Bear in mind, changing contribution lot entitlements for a scheme would require a resolution without dissent which is challenging to get at the best of times. The motion not passing doesn’t necessarily mean that the matter is closed because you could seek some form of legal action. Courts such as QCAT may order an amendment to the lot entitlements, however, this would be a court case and would involve legal fees and there is no guarantee of success. If you chose to go this route you’d be best to seek legal advice.
Hi Lisa
I live in a complex of 15 units with my unit on the 2nd floor. Recently I had a water leak from a cold water pipe servicing my unit. This pipe was up in the ceiling and was jammed in between the concrete slab of the floor above me and the wood timber frame in the ceiling cavity. Because of its placement over time friction caused the damage to the pipe with the movement of the building (plumbers comments). My Body Corporate Manager says this is owners responsibility, however if that is the case does that mean I am also responsible for the drainage pipes of the unit above me if there is a leak from these pipes as well (pipes are visible)? You mentioned that the boundary is the middle of the floor and the middle of the ceiling, so would that not mean the cold water pipe is on common property in my case?
Hi Vivien
That’s a complex question. Yes the boundary is midway between floor however its between you and the lot above so not common property. That said the slab between the lots s common property and the body corporate is required to maintain.
I don’t think this is so much a question of the pipe being in your lot so much as it is the pipe only services your lot. Even if on common property if it only serves one lot it is the lot owner responsibility.
The drainage pipes then will be a question of do they service more than one lot. If yes then they are common property.
Hi Lisa
I own a stand-alone unit in a complex which is managed by a Body Corporate. I have no common walls and pay council rates for my individual lot. My lot is separated from a lot comprising a duplex by a timber dividing fence and there is also a stand-alone old house (which was the original house on the property before it was subdivided) at the back Our Strata Insurance has just jumped from $3651 a year to $15001 a year. I have requested I only pay my part of the insurance for the common property and liability as I have contacted my ‘Home Contents’ insurer and they have confirmed as my unit is a stand-alone building within the complex it can be insured separately. The Body Corporate have advised I still have to pay my section of the Insurance premium and as my unit is the most expensive I have to pay 30% of the premium. On the ‘Exclusive Use Areas’ plan I have been given by the Body Corporate the Format is Building. I am wondering if this is correct as I have no common walls, floors or ceiling with any other structure. Any advice would be appreciated.
Hi Carolyn
I’m not an expert on insurance so I cannot answer this question. You’d need to discuss with an insurance broker. Maybe get the body corporate contact and discuss with them.
Its my understanding that if a scheme is a Building Format Plan legislation requires the lots be insured together. That said what you’re describing should have been better setup as a Standard Format Plan. Perhaps some form of change would be beneficial for both you and the standalone house.
I am an owner of a BFP duplex. I have seen conflicting guidance on whether the roof, outside wall and ceiling space are common property or not. The duplex is a usual lowset building joined by a shared garage wall. My lot is the front unit to the road. My question relates to the power board being on what I believe is on my front wall and the cables to the back unit going through what I believe is my ceiling space. What are your thoughts please.
Hi Errol
You need to refer to your plan. In a BFP usually the boundaries are midway walls, floors, ceilings and doors. However, if the wall, floor, ceiling or door opens onto a part of the lot or an exclusive use area it will be owner responsibility.
What you’re describing is unusual but not unheard of. Potentially there is common property infrastructure on your lot. Or even infrastructure that relates to another lot. I’m not sure what you’re trying to ascertain here. Again I’d refer to your scheme plans and by-laws to see if there is any clarity to be obtained.
Hi Lisa ,
I am a lot owner of a SFP Duplex , adjoined by garage only and the common area being the driveway. I keep my unit tidy, maintained and pest free. My neighbours unfortunately don’t care much for their unit ,and never do pest inspections and the tenants complain about mould and damp etc.
I am wanting to do a full renovation on my lot, maybe another level or potentially a knock down and rebuild. Is this feasible to do and how much of my side of the common area can I change? The common area is our road facing frontage.
Thanks in advance for your time .
Paul
Hi Paul
You’d need to refer to your by-laws to enforce the neighbour cleaning up their unit, or at least the grounds. There is likely a by-law that states the units must be in a neat and tidy condition or something to that effect.
Negotiation with the neighbour is the best tool you have. Otherwise to enforce the by-laws you might need to resort to conciliation or Adjudication, ie legal action, via Office Commissioner Body Corporate to try and force the issue.
Regarding the redevelopment … you’d need to speak with a Solicitor and/or a Surveyor about that to determine what you can achieve in the space you have. Again, refer to you by-laws, because the same by-law stopping them from making a mess is also likely to stop you from drastically changing exterior.
Hi Lisa
We live in a complex of 8 double storey townhouses with two triple storey townhouses at the front of the block. Our townhouse is on the end. The “gardens” of the two triple storey townhouses are common area. The side wall of our house is actually the boundary wall for the common area (their garden).
Common area is small. One of these triple storey houses has just been bought by a new owner and is running it as a AirBNB with no permission from us. She now proposes to install a $40,000 pool in this “garden”. We are all owner/occupiers and are against this proposal. She has missed the cut off date for taking this to the AGM, but she approached the Corp.Body office who are putting it on the Agenda! She has not provided any plans of the pool, where it will be positioned, where pool pumps will be, overflow of water, no indication of sewer line. She never even indicated the size of the pool until I researched it on the pool company website. 4.5 m x 3.5 m, Depth 1.65 m. A small excavator has to go down the side of their property to access the area and excavate the land. Water for the pool is going to be drawn from the standpipe. Who is going to pay for that water? Especially considering the pool is on common area.
We are concerned of the excavation, how close the pool will be to our unit and what damage it may do to the structure and footings of our house. The owner of the adjoining triple storey unit is extremely concerned too.
We have also said that a pool in the back will encourage noise and disturbance for all residents in the complex. Her reply was that she “MAY” move up here at the end of the year, so that is no concern! Please could you advise our Committee/owners.
Hi Sandra
If the motion is on the agenda for the AGM vote NO. Tell other committee members to vote NO as well.
If the motion passes anyway then immediately seek an interim Adjudicators Order that the motion be declared invalid as it was not submitted in accordance with the act. You should discuss with the Office Commissioner Body Corporate (department responsible for body corporate disputes) now so you can get organised if you have to seek Adjudication or conciliation.
You will need to have tried to self-resolve first, which would be the case if you voted NO on the motion but it passed anyway.
Thank you Lisa for your assistance. I will get onto this straight away. Our AGM is coming up in late March.
Hello Lisa,
I’m looking to purchase a property that is classed as a duplex as it is one of two dwellings that sits on land with one title. The dwellings are not connected and only share a common fence line as free standing homes would, however they do share a common sewer line on an easement. Does a body corporate still apply in this case, and if so should it be registered as an SFP. Alternatively, can both owners come to a legal agreement whereby both parties are responsible for their own free-standing properties.
Hi Kristopher
If you are buying one half of a duplex then yes there is a body corporate. The body corporate, which is really just the two owners, may not appear active but it is certainly there.
You would need to look at the plans for the body corporate to determine if registered as SFP or BFP. Ideally it is a SFP but there are often anomalies in the way things are registered.
Even if registered as a BFP it will depend on the boundaries of the lots and common property and any exclusive use allocation as to who is responsible for what. So for instance, if classed as a BFP but the entire structure is surrounded by exclusive use, then the owners are responsible for all maintenance of the building, despite it being registered as a BFP.
BFP/SFP is really just a shorthand for where you would expect boundaries to be but in all cases refer to the actual plans.
I should also add… you may make whatever agreement with the other owner you both want. However, you should get that agreement in writing to pass onto any future owners the other side and be aware just because you’ve made the agreement it will not be enforceable if it is in contradiction to the Act.
Hello Lisa
Please help me understand The meaning of BEP and SEP. What do these abbreviations mean?
Where would i find it on my contract of buying a duplex and back in 2006 would it of been called something different ?
There is a body corporate but not an active one. It was signed of under special conditions with clauses 7.4(2)(e) and 7.4(5)(b)
I need to know if the two properties area around them are common ground or separate areas and i cant find that information anywhere
Hi Jason
BFP stands for Building Format Plan. SFP stands for Standard Format Plan. You find out which your scheme is by looking at the survey plan for the body corporate. It is written on that.
The survey plan is what you want to look at as BFP and SFP are shorthand for where boundaries between common property and the lot is. The owner is responsible for everything within the lot and the body corporate is responsible for all common property. The boundaries will be shown on the survey plan.
If you don’t have a copy you can purchase online from Department of Natural Resources and Mines if you’re in QLD.
Hello Lisa
Please help me understand The meaning of BEP and SEP. What do these abbreviations mean?
Where would i find it on my contract of buying a duplex and back in 2006 would it of been called something different ?
There is a body corporate but not an active one. It was signed of under special conditions with clauses 7.4(2)(e) and 7.4(5)(b)
I need to know if the two properties area around them are common ground or separate areas and i cant find that information anywhere
Hi Jason
If you have a copy of the roll report for the lot (which may be in the disclosure) it will say whether BFP or SFP at top.
If the plan number is a Building Unit Plan (BUP) … is a BFP. If it is a Group Title Plan (GTP) then its SFP. Otherwise, if it is a Survey Plan (SP) then yes, the plan is the only place it will be noted. You can purchase a copy of the plan online at DNRM.
Hello Lisa,
I have all the legal documents, but i have no plan. Will this be in the documents or will it state it on the plan’s only?
I have tried googling the clauses with no luck.
Any help would be appreciated.
Hi Lisa
I own one of two duplex units in a specified two-lot scheme module in Qld. We are a BFP. I have 2 questions relating to a water pipe repair.
1. Recently a leak was detected in a water pipe that runs to the back unit (I own the front unit). The water pipe runs straight from their meter at the front of my property, directly to their unit. I have a separate water meter with my pipes running from my meter directly to my unit. The leaking water pipe that runs to the back unit is buried underneath the driveway that goes solely to the back unit. While the driveway is common property, if the water pipe only services the back unit, is the water pipe considered common property because it runs under the driveway? The owner of the rear unit was advised that because it is located under the driveway, which is common property, the repair to the water pipe, costs to dig up the driveway and repair the driveway afterwards, are all the responsibility of the body corporate, not the rear unit owner. Is this correct? I’ve read that utilities that service only one unit are the responsibility of that lot owner, not the body corporate, but it seems by running it under common property (the driveway), the pipe also becomes common property. Is this correct?
2. After using remote sensing equipment to try and locate the leak under the driveway, they had difficulty in locating the exact point in the pipe where the leak was occurring. So the plumber was going to have to dig up large chunks of the driveway to find the leak location. The plumber offered a more cost effective solution. Instead of digging up the driveway, the plumber disconnected the pipe to the rear unit at their water meter, then asked if they could run a new pipe from their meter, through my exclusive use area to their back unit, as this would only require digging up lawn and garden beds rather than huge chunks of concrete. I agreed to them doing this, but now I’m wondering who would be responsible for any damage that might happen to that pipe section that runs through my exclusive use courtyard lawn and garden? They tried to bury the pipe as deep as they could, but being located in garden beds, there will always be a risk that a garden fork might penetrate the pipe and cause another leak. Is it possible to amend the CMS to specify who is responsible for repairs to the section of pipe that now runs through my exclusive use area? While I approved the pipe running through there, we need to clarify if I am now responsible for any damage to that section of pipe that runs solely to the rear unit, but runs through my exclusive use area.
Much appreciated.