Can we ask our strata manager to disclose any benefts received from the caretakers?
Page 6 | Strata Solve
Levy debt: How to deal with owners who play the system
Page 14 | Bugden Allen
Strata genie: Grant me a sinking fund!
Page 24 | Tower Body Corporate
About Us
LookUpStrata is Australia’s Top Property Blog Dedicated to Strata Living. The site has been providing reliable strata information to lot owners, strata managers and other strata professionals since 2013.
As well as publishing legislative articles to keep their audience up to date with changes to strata, this family owned business is known for their national Q&A service that provides useful responses to lot owners and members of the strata industry. They have created a national network of leading strata specialists across Australia who assist with 100s of the LookUpStrata audiences’ queries every month.
Strata information is distributed freely to their dedicated audience of readers via regular Webinars, Magazines and Newsletters. The LookUpStrata audience also has free access to The LookUpStrata Directory, showcasing 100s of strata service professionals from across Australia. To take a look at the LookUpStrata Directory, fip to the end of this magazine.
Meet the team
Nikki began building LookUpStrata back in 2012 and ofcially launched the company early 2013. With a background in Information Management, LookUpStrata has helped Nikki realise her mission of providing detailed, practical, and easy to understand strata information to all Australians.
Nikki shares her time between three companies, including Tower Body Corporate, a body corporate company in SEQ.
Nikki is also known for presenting regular strata webinars, where LookUpStrata hosts a strata expert to cover a specifc topic and respond to audience questions.
Liza came on board in early 2020 to bring structure to LookUpStrata. She has a passion for processes, growth and education. This quickly resulted in the creation of The Strata Magazine released monthly in New South Wales and Queensland, and bi-monthly in Western Australia and Victoria. As of 2021, LookUpStrata now produce 33 state based online magazines a year.
Among other daily tasks, Liza is involved in scheduling and liaising with upcoming webinar presenters, sourcing responses to audience questions and assisting strata service professionals who are interested in growing their business.
Liza Jovicic Sales and Content Manager
Bruce
Strata
Inactive chairperson: What can the committee do?
How can we address the absence of leadership from our chairperson and ensure efective committee operations?
Our chairperson has been delegating the role of chair to the body corporate manager for the past four years. The manager has to attend all meetings, while the chairperson’s involvement seems minimal. How can the committee address this situation to ensure efective leadership and meeting management?
If you’re not happy with the performance of the chair, you can nominate for the position at the next AGM.
If you are not happy with the performance of the chair, you can, of course, nominate for the position when the next AGM comes around. Or, if their performance in the role was causing sufcient issues for the body corporate, you could call a general meeting to have them removed.
For something less dramatic, you could raise the matter at the next committee meeting as a discussion point. This will indicate how the other committee members feel about the current processes. Maybe you could suggest a meeting without the body corporate manager or where the manager only takes a secretarial role. Managers don’t have to be at meetings. It is worth experimenting with to see if this suits your scheme.
However, regarding the chair deferring to the body corporate manager, I don’t see a problem. It’s an anachronism of Queensland’s legislation that the body corporate manager can’t just be appointed to chair meetings. After all, your manager should be trained in the legislation, have widespread knowledge of your scheme and would have attended (and chaired) hundreds if not thousands of similar meetings. Nine times out of ten, they are going to have better skills and capacity to help you run an organised and efcient meeting than a layperson, so why not just let them get on with it?
William Marquand | Tower Body Corporate willmarquand@towerbodycorporate.com.au
Can we ask our strata manager to disclose any bene
ts received from the caretakers?
Can the committee ask our strata manager to disclose any benefts and/or referrals they receive from the caretakers? We have concerns about a potential conficts of interest.
Our strata manager looks after multiple schemes for the same caretakers. Can the committee ask our strata manager for full disclosure of any benefts and/or referrals they receive from the owners of the management rights (caretakers)?
The committee feels the relationship may be compromising the strata manager’s objectivity. How can we address these concerns respectfully and constructively?
There are disclosure requirements mandated by law and ‘other’ disclosure requirements.
Yes, ask away. First, you might look at this excellent resource about disclosures from the Commissioner’s Ofce – it could address a few queries. Remember, there are disclosure requirements mandated by law, and then ‘other’ disclosure requirements: namely, things
that an entity is not legally obliged to tell you, although perhaps they really should, sometimes referred to as ‘the pub test‘.
Having said that, let me put on my old public servant hat for a moment. In the public sector, I was always taught that you never embark on an enquiry or ask a question you do not know the answer to. In your case, what happens if you get no response to your query, regardless of how politely you put it? Or you get an antagonistic response? Or a response that tells you only half the story? Or a completely fulsome response – what then? Is that of itself going to make things better all of a sudden?
To put it another way: perhaps consider if asking about ‘disclosure’ is what you need here, or do you need some other approach to cut through the challenges. Perhaps you need something like mediation, dispute resolution, negotiation or a good old-fashioned discussion.
This is general information only and not legal advice. And lest anyone think otherwise, I am not here to defend any one group or stakeholder. I’m here to ofer what I think is the optimal perspective.
Chris Irons | Strata Solve chris@stratasolve.com.au
Leading the way in strata funding
Lannock Strata Finance has been at the forefront of strata finance for twenty years, pioneering simple and flexible strata funding for strata communities.
As Australia’s leading strata lender, our flexible-use funding is designed exclusively to meet the needs of all strata communities, no matter how large or how small, including:
Building Remediation
Repairs and Maintenance
Upgrades to Common Property
Cladding Rectification
Experience the Lannock difference
Green and Sustainability Projects
Levies in Arrears
Litigation
Insurance Funding
Speak with your local Lannock expert about how we can tailor flexible funding to suit your specific needs.
1300 851 585 | lannock.com.au
Blame game has no winners
There’s an old saying about any project: If you don’t know who’s in charge, then no one is in charge.
In strata, where most projects involve multiple stakeholders, this is doubly so – and doubly risky
If a body corporate committee is not alert to the potential dangers of a poorly managed project if they’re asleep at the wheel then lot owners may face unexpected and unnecessary costs to remedy a problem that would not have occurred had the job been managed properly in the first place
Here’s a typical example of the type of situation that we often see as strata lawyers: a body corporate committee engages us, complaining that the resident manager has incurred unauthorised expenditure for a maintenance job Contractors have been engaged who don’t hold the right licences or skills to complete the job to a satisfactory standard The resident manager thought they were doing the right thing even though it was outside the scope of their expertise. They didn’t have the right training, but they were trying to be helpful
The contractors produce a shoddy job and it’s going to cost lot owners $100,000 to remedy the work
The resident manager says to the committee, ‘But you wanted the job done. You never said I was supposed to report back to you about every detail or do a due diligence on the contractor ’
Meanwhile, the body corporate manager has been paying the contractor’s bills as they appear in the accounting system, assuming everything is under control because they are ticked off in the approval process without anyone checking the quality of the work
There’s no formal paper trail to follow because all the instructions have been issued through WhatsApp or text message chats
The committee pays the remediation cost from the sinking fund without general meeting approval. The only way to recoup the money is now to strike a special levy That’s when the real finger pointing begins.
So, who’s at fault?
The committee, because they should have appointed and paid for a project manager to oversee the job from the outset?
The resident manager, because they have acted outside the scope of their expertise?
The contractors, because they have undertaken work they weren’t licensed to perform?
Or the body corporate manager, who just paid the loaded-up bills without checking them against the contract first?
It’s a mess; a chorus of ‘he said, she said’.
Ultimately, every stakeholder in an effective strata scheme has a part to play in good governance A triangle of management works very well when everyone knows who is doing what
The committee needs to actively manage any project affecting the common property of the scheme A resident manager needs to have clear lines of communication with the committee and be trained to a level to provide the services they are contracted to supply. A body corporate manager should keep an auditor’s eye on outgoings and ensure they accord with properly minuted decisions at general meetings
No one can afford to doze off at the wheel, especially when everyone assumes it’s someone else doing the driving
Frank Higginson
Body corporate delays and exorbitant repair bills
Should I be held responsible for repairs to the damaged ceiling below my unit when the BC initially accepted responsibility and delayed repairs?
A damaged ceiling in my Queensland investment unit triggered an insurance claim by the unit below. The initial repair quote was $2,000, allegedly due to membrane failure in my bathroom. The body corporate accepted responsibility but took six months to initiate repairs. When I asked about the delay, they said rectifcation was my responsibility. An independent inspection could not confrm membrane failure or moisture in the subfoor. The insurer’s fnal cost was $4,000, signifcantly higher than the initial quote. The lot owner below and the body corporate accepted a cash settlement of $1,500.
I received an invoice for $3,000, covering the shortfall and excess, even though the body corporate caused the majority of the delay.
Is it fair that I bear the fnancial burden given the body corporate’s initial acceptance of responsibility and the signifcant delay? Could obtaining a second quote have helped prevent this situation? Why was the repair cost exorbitant for a minor issue?
Request
a formal letter of demand from the body corporate or the owner below.
There seems to be some complexities involving the body corporate’s expectations and your responsibilities under the BCCM Act. The act does require property owners to keep their properties in good condition, and it seems the
body corporate is applying this to the damage caused by what was initially thought to be a membrane failure.
Given the circumstances and the fnancial discrepancies involved, it would be prudent to request a formal letter of demand from the body corporate or the owner below. This letter should clearly explain why they believe you are responsible for the costs. Once you have this, you could submit a claim under the Public Liability section of your landlord’s/ contents insurance, which generally covers legal liabilities for property damage. If you frmly believe the responsibility for these costs does not fall to you, you have the right to contest this. You can deny the responsibility, refuse to pay the excess, and potentially take the matter to the Body Corporate and Community Management (BCCM) commissioner for dispute resolution. Here is the link for more information on the dispute process: Disputes in a body corporate.
Lastly, regarding obtaining a second quote, while it is generally a sensible idea to secure multiple quotes to ensure repair costs are reasonable, neither the lot owner nor the body corporate are specifcally required to do so. This means you could still be liable for the costs incurred. I recommend asking the body corporate for an explanation regarding the shortfall in payment. It’s possible that the insurer initially agreed to cover the repairs at a certain cost, but due to delays, they may have reduced their liability to the amount it would have cost initially had the repairs been completed within a reasonable timeframe.
We know the Builders Warranty is six and a half years. Our building is relatively new. A few owners have experienced water leaks. Do we wait until the sixth year to obtain a defects assessment report, or should we identify and address potential issues now?
Owners must report issues when known to give the builder the best opportunity to resolve.
It is not recommended to wait 6 years to obtain a report for a number of reasons.
Firstly, if they are known, allowing defects to manifest can be seen as not making a reasonable efort to mitigate further damage and costs. Builders will certainly use this defence and insurers regularly can use this to reject claims.
Owners must report issues when known to give the builder the best opportunity to resolve them.
Also, defect issues can often take some time to resolve, often far more than 6 months. Therefore, it is considered high risk to leave it this long.
It is highly recommended that owners get an independent building inspection report at the following stages (where possible):
• 10 months after completion (before 12 months)
• 3 years after completion (reasonable time for defects to manifest)
• 5 years after completion (reasonable time for builder to demonstrate commitment to rectify before 6 years)
• Periodically up to 5 yearly intervals dependent on the condition of the building and the frequency of issues.
Bruce McKenzie | Sedgwick bruce.mckenzie@au.sedgwick.com
Levy debt: How to deal with owners who play the system
What are the laws or regulations for reminder letters and letters of demand when pursuing late levies? One of our owners is using the system to their advantage.
What are the laws or regulations for reminder letters and letters of demand when pursuing late levies? We issued three late payment notices, with interest accruing, and the fourth notice references debt collection.
One owner only pays on the letter of demand. We want to reduce time until payment. The next fees are due by the time four notices have been sent. On and on it goes. This owner does not pay the accruing interest. The late payment is applied to the oldest debt, resulting in a better-looking ledger for management and making the debt look current. In other words, they are using the system to their advantage.
The terms of the management agreement between the body corporate and its strata manager can often detail the arrears recovery process the body corporate has chosen to adopt.
In response to the query raised, the short answer is No.
• Regulation 162 of the Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2020 (“the Regulations”) details how contributions must be levied on an owner;
• Regulation 163 of the Regulations details the manner in which notice of a contribution payable must be given to a lot owner, namely, inter alia, at least 30 days before payment of the contribution is required; and
• Regulation 166 relates to the recovery of unpaid contributions, namely that if a contribution is not paid by the due date, the body corporate may recover it as a debt. This regulation also details how payments or part payments are to be apportioned.
Consideration should also be given to the terms of the management agreement between the body corporate and its strata manager, as it can often detail the arrears recovery process the body corporate has chosen to adopt for the strata manager to carry out on its behalf. Alternatively, the arrears recovery process may be determined by a body corporate at its annual general meeting, so a review of the minutes of the last AGM should also be conducted. The process may involve a three stage arrears process consisting of reminder notices, each with more severe wording, which is often followed by a legal letter of demand. Whilst not a statutory requirement, this form of arrears process is generally adopted for the purposes of being reasonable.
Naturally, the process can be shortened if the arrears recovery process, determined either at the AGM or set out in the management agreement, is amended.
Petra Lohmann | Bugden Allen petra@bagl.com.au
Who receives the fee when providing a body corporate information certi cate?
If a body corporate has a strata manager, and the manager provides the Certifcate, who receives the income?
Does legislation require a body corporate to charge a fee for a certifcate, or can they provide it gratis? If a body corporate has a strata manager, and the manager provides the Certifcate, who receives the income? The manager or the body corporate?
The fee goes to the body corporate as payment for the ‘service’ of providing the Certifcate.
I am going to assume you are referring here to a body corporate information certifcate as opposed to any other record or information. The requirements for this certifcate are provided for in Section 205(4) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 – reproduced below:
1. The body corporate must, within 7 days after receiving a written request from an interested person accompanied by the fee prescribed under the regulation module applying to the scheme, issue a certifcate (a body corporate information certifcate) in the approved form applying to the scheme giving fnancial and other information about the lot.
You will note above that the ‘body corporate’ must provide the Certifcate. Given this is a prescribed fee (i.e., a fee that the government sets), it would follow it is a fee that goes to the corporate body as payment for the ‘service’ of providing the Certifcate. That said, the agreement between the body corporate and the body corporate manager may provide for the manager to be reimbursed for their time in providing this service on behalf of the body corporate.
As for your query about ‘gratis’, well I suppose it is feasible that most things in life could be provided gratis. The question would always
be why it should be provided gratis. In this case, frstly, remember that the purpose of the Certifcate is to add clarity to a proposed purchase of a lot. A business transaction, in other words. Such things do not typically come for free. Secondly, if you are asking if there are provisions for discounts or gratis for hardship, then the answer is no. The legislative section above is worded so that if the prescribed fee isn’t provided, the Certifcate cannot be given. In other words, the fee is an inherent part of the request for the Certifcate.
This is general information only and not legal advice.
Chris Irons | Strata Solve chris@stratasolve.com.au
READ MORE HERE
Strata Solve helps people untangle and resolve their strata issues. Sounds simple when you put it like that, doesn’t it?
Director Chris Irons (pictured, with his strata-approved greyhound Ernest) has an unrivalled strata perspective. As Queensland’s former Body Corporate Commissioner, Chris has seen and heard virtually every strata situation and nuance. He knows that while legislation provides a framework, there are many ambiguities to navigate through and in which pragmatism, commonsense and effective communication are vital.
As an independent strata consultant, Chris provides services which are all about empowering owners, committees, managers, caretakers, and others, to protect their strata interests. With a high-profile media and online presence, and as an accredited mediator, Chris is also able to carefully ‘read the room’ and craft the right narratives in even the most complex strata situation. Strata Solve is not a law firm. Chris instead thinks of steps you can take before you embark on lengthy, costly, and stressful legal proceedings. Regardless of the client, all people in strata have one thing in common: their substantial investment in the strata scheme. Strata Solve prioritises that investment in each tailored solution we provide. Get in touch to find out more.
What are the legal implications, including access rights for owners, of an unauthorised car park, and how should we proceed to rectify the situation?
We’ve recently discovered that our 15-car parking bays were constructed without the local council’s necessary development approval (DA). Our insurance company refuses to cover the car park until we obtain the required approval. To mitigate potential risks, the committee has decided to close the car park until we can rectify this issue.
Has the committee taken the appropriate action by closing the car park? Are there any legal implications for residents regarding their access to the car park?
Unauthorised car park: Legal and practical implications
The body corporate may restrict access to common property areas in certain circumstances.
The body corporate may restrict access to common property areas if:
1. there is a compelling reason to do so, for example, security or health and safety reasons;
2. an ordinary resolution was passed at a general meeting to restrict access or a bylaw is inserted which restricts access.
In De Ville [2020] QBCCMCmr 361 it was found:
Arguably, a body corporate could resolve to limit occupiers’ access to common property that is not the subject of a grant of exclusive
use or a formal lease or licence. However, there would need to be a compelling reason for limiting access, for example, to restrict access to body corporate equipment in a secure storage area.
Otherwise, all occupiers are entitled to reasonable use of the common property for themselves and their invitees, subject only to the limitation that a person may not use common property in such a way as to interfere unreasonably with the rights of others to do likewise. That entitlement is not subject to a person having or revealing any need or purpose in accessing common property.
… I have concluded above that the restrictedaccess policy restricts or changes occupiers’ use and enjoyment of common property. I therefore consider that its implementation is a decision that changes the rights or privileges of an owner. It then follows that it was a decision on a restricted issue that the committee was not authorised to make.
Development approval conditions (DAC) imposed by local councils may (and often do) include stipulations as to the number of, and ability to restrict, car parks within a community titles scheme. There are signifcant fnancial penalties for a body corporate if it breaches a DAC.
In the present case:
1. assuming the car park is common property, the body corporate may restrict access to the car park if it is reasonable to do so (which may be the case in circumstances where the car park contravenes the DAC); and
2. the decision has been approved at a general meeting by ordinary resolution.
Liam Boudin | Mahoneys lboudin@mahoneys.com.au
Experts in Body Corporate Law and Disputes
has a dedicated team of lawyers with experience
management rights assignments and variations
common property subdivision and sales
general disputes and advice
community management statements
by law enforcement and by law
selling schemes to
caretaker performance issues
and levy recovery
Who can access the annual re safety report?
For a multi-storey apartment complex, should all lot owners be sent the annual fre inspection report?
Fire reports would usually be sent to the committee and building managers to review and approve any required works.
There is no requirement to send out the annual fre inspection report, and it’s not common practice across the industry to send this type of report out.
Fire reports would usually be sent to the committee and building managers to review and approve any required works. If the fndings were signifcant enough, the committee might consider sending the report to all owners so they had the required information. If the repairs were costly enough, a general meeting may be required to approve works, and owners would get a copy at that stage.
If you have a portal, reports of this nature would usually be made available there, and, if interested, owners could access them.
Equally, if you wrote to the body corporate and requested the report, I can’t see any problems with sending it out. Whatever the fndings in the report, it’s hard to think of a good reason why it wouldn’t be made available.
If you have asked for a copy of the report and it is not being provided for some reason, that could be a red fag. You may have to arrange a search of the records to access the report, but owners shouldn’t have to do these searches to get access to their information unless there are extenuating circumstances.
William Marquand | Tower Body Corporate willmarquand@towerbodycorporate.com.au
READ MORE HERE
Bu i ldi n g fi r e safe t y i n Q u e e n slan d
What are the consequences of non-compliance?
The Queensland Fire and Emergency Services (QFES) conducts regular building inspections to ensure legislated fire safety systems are maintained and routinely serviced. If deficiencies are identified, they issue appropriate notices and guidance to body corporates.
These notices include:
Compliance Notice: Issued if the body corporate needs to take actions to reduce fire risks or comply with specific directives It outlines applicable laws and requirements for their properties and details non-compliances so the body corporate understands why they are in breach, their remediation obligations
DON’T RISK IT!
If a retrospective investigation finds any aspect of your fire safety non-compliant, you risk voided insurance, hefty fines and even jail. That’s why it’s crucial to get an independent third-party consultant to audit your building.
and the actions required to achieve compliance. The body corporate has 28 days to take the necessary actions to achieve compliance before an enforcement notice is issued
Enforcement Notice: Issued when a body corporate fails to meet the Fire Safety Standard within the required timeframe.
Failure to meet fire safety standards or comply with these notices can result in fines and other penalties Body Corporates that fail to maintain fire-safe premises face fines of up to $250,000, while individuals can be fined up to $100,000
Ensuring your property adheres to fire safety regulations is crucial to avoid these severe penalties. An annual fire audit is the best way to avoid the risk of noncompliance during a random QFES inspection.
Stefan Bauer Fire Matters
Fire Matters provides an unbiased fire compliance assessment that could save you thousands. We also ensure your residents are fully trained in the event of a fire, giving you peace of mind when signing your occupier’s statement
Strata genie: grant me a sinking fund!
Does a sinking fund forecast have to be done every fve years, and does it have to be done professionally?
If a genie from a magic strata lamp granted me just one strata wish, it might be to make recommended sinking fund contributions obligatory.
The technical defnition for the requirement of maintaining an up to date sinking fund plan is that a body corporate needs to budget for major capital spending for the current fnancial year and the next nine years.
As most professional sinking fund plans are based on a 15-year projection, it has become a somewhat incorrect industry shorthand to say the plans are required to be renewed every fve years when these professional plans stop meeting the requirements of the legislation.
However, there is no requirement to have a professional plan, and there is nothing to stop a body corporate, say, drafting a new 10 year or 11 year plan itself every year or every other year to keep within the boundaries of the legislation.
People might question whether it is good for owners to draft their own plans. That’s up to the scheme to decide, and I can see an argument in favour of this for very small schemes. However, even if a scheme has a professional sinking fund plan, owners aren’t obliged to follow it, and many schemes, perhaps most, don’t. So you might say that if your scheme is not really intending to follow the recommendations of a professional sinking fund plan, there may not be much point in having a professional draft one up.
That said, my empirical observation is that schemes that have professional plans drafted and that follow at least the recommendations for raising funds tend to be much better maintained and happier schemes over the years. Yes, those owners may pay a bit more in levies on a quarter to quarter basis, but the environment of their complex tends to be better, rent yields and sales prices are higher and the owners are more satisfed.
If a genie from a magic strata lamp granted me just one strata wish it might be to make recommended sinking fund contributions obligatory.
See the BCCM website for more details on sinking funds: Sinking fund
William Marquand | Tower Body Corporate willmarquand@towerbodycorporate.com.au
The caretaker is contractually obligated to inspect sewage pipes. If a blockage occurs, are they liable?
If the caretaker is contractually obligated to inspect sewage pipes and a blockage occurs, causing $10,000 damage, can the body corporate claim remuneration for contractual negligence?
We recently had a sewage blockage in our complex. The sewage backup caused the fooding of a unit and over $10,000 in damages. Our strata insurance claim for building repairs was rejected because the cost was under the excess. Flooring replacement was not covered in the policy and the owner did not have content insurance. The body corporate is now obligated to pay for the building repairs and fooring replacement.
A clause in the caretaking agreement with our service contractor states they are contractually obligated to inspect sewage pipes regularly and notify the committee of any required problems or maintenance. The caretaker had not performed this task.
Can the body corporate claim remuneration for the building repairs and fooring replacement due to his contractual negligence?
Identify why the blockage occurred and then assess any rights to claim against third parties.
I very much suspect there is more to the agreement than just the obligation to inspect. There are usually carve outs for obligations that require a skilled trade or specialist equipment. If those are in the agreement, it comes down to whether the inspections required by the agreement could have avoided the damage you sufered or whether it was caused by something else.
Perhaps, even if an inspection was carried out the day before and someone fushed a nappy, could that have caused the blockage? I think the starting point is to identify why the blockage occurred and then assess from there any rights to claim against third parties.
Frank Higginson | Hynes Legal frank.higginson@hyneslegal.com.au
Since 2001, Seymour Consultants has applied professionalism, honesty and integrity to every project and built a reputation as a market leader in the Strata Industry.
With a background of over 25 years experience in Quantity Surveying, Construction and Development, you can be sure to benefit from our experience for your reporting and project based needs.
Call us today on 07 5573 4011 Email us on: info@seymourconsultants.com.au Visit our website: www.seymourconsultants.com.au
Our main objective is to work in partnership with you as we share a joint interest in the success of each and every project.
Specialising in:
• Fire Safety Auditing, Evacuation Planning & Training
• Pool Certification
• Facility Manager & Caretaker Recruitment
• Lot Entitlement Reporting
• Building Condition Reports
• Quantity Surveying
• Health & Safety
• Sinking Fund Forecasts
• Asbestos Auditing
• Insurance Valuations
• Caretaking Performance Reviews
• Caretaking Remuneration Reviews –Time & Motion Study
• Management Rights – Suitability Interview & Assessment
• Tax Depreciations
• Part Five Reporting
Best practice for managing strata maintenance & remedial repairs
It can often be challenging and sometimes confronting when faced with the day-to-day maintenance requirements or the need to tend to remedial repairs and/or capital works projects. Whether the matter to be resolved is large or small, there are many factors to consider ensuring both the symptoms and underlying cause/s are addressed to minimise the chance of reoccurrence or ongoing issues.
There are regulatory requirements in all Australian States and Territories requiring bodies corporate to maintain their built assets. If done correctly, this should result not just in the up keep of the building, but it’s longevity, performance, fnancial sustainability and, in most cases, appreciation in value.
Defne your objective and extent of work to be done. When it comes to building works of any nature, there are some core fundamentals or concepts that should be considered:
• Defne the objective and extent of works to be done. What do you want to achieve?
• Forensic investigations - identify all underlying issues. Only addressing symptoms will be more costly in the long run.
• Scope it right - a detailed specifcation outlines all works required.
• Obtain quotes based on the same scope of works (like for like).
• Do your research - engage reputable providers with the correct qualifcations and insurances.
• Ensure the extent of works and costs are balanced with the benefts.
• Check the warranty/guarantee of the works being provided.
• Cost verifcation – to ensure costs are fair and reasonable, experts such as quantity surveyors can assist.
• Ensure that the extent and cost of works is balanced with the benefts.
• Getting an expert’s assistance to manage providers will save you time and money.
• For larger projects, ensure the use of Australian Standard Contracts (e.g. AS 4000 series suite of contracts).
Whilst the above may seem simple, strata building works can be complex with multiple stakeholders and personalities to manage. Add environmental factors such as labor shortages, costs of materials and supply chain issues, realising your investment means careful planning right from the start.
IMPORTANT: Scope it once, scope it right. One of the biggest mistakes when obtaining a scope of works is many providers only describe the works to be done. A specifcation should show measurements/quantities allowing like for like quoting upon which owners are able to make informed decisions about who to engage.
FOUR KEY CRITICAL ITEMS
You need it to be All inclusive
You need it to Conform with the current statutory requirements
You need a Warranty or guarentee
You need it to ensure The extent and costs are balanced with the benefts
Leaning on an expert team
To navigate the complexities of remedial repairs efectively, owners should seek expert guidance from qualifed professionals including engineers, building consultants, and/or fre safety experts. Taking a siloed approach to repairs can lead to suboptimal outcomes and wasted resources.
To further assist with this process, there are some key actions owners can take when selecting a contractor to ensure that they have the right expert for the right job. Research the following:
• Business structure – ABN, ACN, directors, years in business
• Licencing and Qualifcations in the State or Territory (existing disciplinary action)
• Current Insurances (Liability, Professional Indemnity etc)
• Experience and references in similar projects
• Capability’s and staf
• Locality to project
• Current commitments
• Financial stability
• 3 x Tenders required minimum
• No conficts of interest (no association to body corporate/Strata Manager)
Download your Checklist for engaging contractors and suppliers HERE
Foreign Purchaser Surcharges Class
Action - Queensland
October 2024
JWS is investigating a class action against the State of Queensland seeking a refund of additional foreign acquirer duty (AFAD) and absentee owner land tax surcharge (LTS) paid to the State of Queensland by nationals of Finland, Germany, India, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, and Switzerland (Impacted Countries). This includes AFAD and LTS paid by natural persons, corporations and trusts.
This mirrors a class action commenced by JWS in the Federal Court of Australia against the State of Victoria. This case now also involves a separate proceeding in the High Court of Australia.
If successful, the class action may result in the refund of AFAD and LTS paid to Queensland by nationals of Impacted Countries.
BACKGROUND
In 2023, Revenue NSW determined that NSW foreign surcharge purchaser duty under the Duties Act 1997 (NSW) and the surcharge land tax under the Land Tax Act 1956 (NSW) were inconsistent with double tax agreements entered between Australia and the Impacted Countries.
As a result of this determination, Revenue NSW announced that persons from these jurisdictions would no longer be required to pay the foreign surcharges and may be entitled to a refund for duty and land tax paid from 1 January 2021.
The Queensland Government and other states and territories did not follow the lead of New South Wales and continued to charge AFAD and LTS. The class action attempts to address this by seeking refunds on behalf of all payees from the Impacted Countries.
IMPACTED COUNTRIES
WHAT IS AFAD?
AFAD is charged under the Duties Act 2001 (Qld) and imposes a surcharge payable by foreign persons, corporations and trusts in respect of acquisitions (direct and indirect) of residential land.
The surcharge is currently charged at a rate of 8% on the dutiable value of property. AFAD was previously charged at 7% for arrangements entered into between 1 July 2018 – 30 June 2024 and at 3% for arrangements entered into between 1 October 2016 – 30 June 2018.
WHAT IS LTS?
LTS is charged under the Land Tax Act 2010 (Qld) and imposes a surcharge on land tax payable by absentee persons, corporations and trusts.
LTS is currently charged at a rate of 3% for the 2024/25 land tax year. LTS was previously charged at 2% for the 2019/20 –2023/24 land tax years, and 1.5% for the 2017/18 – 2018/19 land tax years (only charged on individuals for those years, not on corporations and trusts).
HOW DO I GET INVOLVED?
If you, your corporation or trust has paid either or both AFAD or LTS and you are from one of the Impacted Countries, please register your interest in the class action at the following link: https://www.fpsclassaction.com.au/.
We are happy to consider your circumstances and advise you on whether you are covered by the class action.
KEY CONTACTS
ANNEMARIE WILMORE Partner, Tax
T +61 2 9392 7465 | M +61 404 466 334 E annemarie.wilmore@jws.com.au
KATHRYN BERTRAM Partner, Tax
T +61 3 8611 1351 | M +61 412 262 694 E kathryn.bertram@jws.com.au
Post-AGM agreement:
Are we required to sign?
Our body corporate manager is pressuring the committee into signing the agency agreement. Our AGM, six months ago, mentioned the appointment, but the agreement was never circulated. Are we required to sign?
Our body corporate manager is pressuring the committee into signing an agreement. Our AGM was held in September of last year, and the agreement has only been produced now. The below was itemised in the AGM, but the agreement was never circulated. What do we do?
The body corporate engages XXX as the body corporate.
Manager to provide administrative, fnancial and secretarial services with the terms being detailed.
In the Administration Agreement circulated with this agenda for a period of three (3) years, commencing on XXXX, for the secretarial fee of $214.00 plus GST per lot per annum, plus disbursements, and that any one (1) or two (2) members of the committee be authorised to execute the Administration Agreement under the common seal.
The regulation module includes specifc requirements for the engagement of a body corporate manager to be valid.
The regulation module includes a number of specifc requirements for the engagement of a body corporate manager to be valid. Relevantly, one of those is:
the material forwarded to members of the body corporate for the general meeting that considers the motion approving the engagement, authorisation or amendment includes … the terms of the engagement or authorisation
If the terms of the agreement the committee is being asked to sign match the information included in the agenda, the committee has an obligation to give efect to the resolutions passed by the body corporate, including signing the new agreement.
However, if the agreement does not match what was on the agenda, the committee would not be authorised to sign the new agreement.
Todd Garsden | Mahoneys tgarsden@mahoneys.com.au
The SCAQ Di erence
Your property is one of your biggest investments and it should be nurtured and managed so it increases in value. The value of your strata property depends on the e ectiveness of the body corporate and its management. SCAQ members have you covered.
Engaging a professional strata manager who is a member of SCAQ is the key to maximising the value of your property.
SCAQ members are:
• Accountable to industry Professional Standards
• Deliver trusted, expert guidance
• Protect your investment
• Increase your strata knowledge
• Save you money
• Minimise your risk
• Safeguard your fees.
Professional strata manager is not a term regulated or protected by Government. The only professional strata managers who are endorsed or accredited in any meaningful way are those who have been through the SCAQ accreditation and training.
My strata manager is with SCAQ, is yours?
The SCAQ Di erence
The SCAQ pathway for accreditation and ongoing professional development is recognised nationally and internationally. When you choose a professional strata manager you entrust them with your money and compliance with your obligations, it is important to have someone you know can be trusted.
SCAQ members, unlike other strata managers having rigorous external standards put upon them, and they are answerable to best practice standards across industry.
Members of SCAQ are required to:
• Undergoing Mandatory Training and Continuing Professional Development to maintain their membership with SCAQ
• Maintain professional indemnity insurance
• Meet ethical requirements and conform to a code of conduct overseen by a professional standards commi ee
Why use an accredited Strata Professional?
The SCAQ accreditation pathway is rigorous and industry leading. It is underpinned by a staged approach to work in the industry, with stages of accreditation taking years to achieve. This supervisory approach helps ensure appropriate mentoring by senior members of industry, as well as bringing participants up to speed on the latest theory and practice in the industry.
This pathway takes years to achieve full competence and certification in it should serve as peace of mind for lot owners that their asset is being managed with professional skill, care and years of experience.
erence
Skills of an SCAQ Member
SCAQ members learn a variety of skills throughout their education and in an ongoing fashion through classroom style as well as on the job training.
These include:
• Financial management
• Insurance advisory
• Building maintenance
• Contract management
• Dispute resolution
• Administration best practice
SCAQ members are the best in their field, with professional, educational and ethical obligations on them which are second to none in the industry. If your Strata Manager is not an SCAQ member, we encourage you to make the switch to ensure that your home is protected by the guarantee of quality that comes with SCAQ membership.