Regarding the technology, the first problem is internal. Decisions via private email mean no shared record, no visibility, and no audit trail. When a committee member leaves, that history goes with them.
The second problem is external. Owners have no clear, consistent way to reach the committee. That creates frustration and a feeling of being shut out.
What you’re really looking for is a shared, structured communication layer, something that sits between private inboxes and the formal strata record. For me, the answer here is a purpose-built strata communications platform.
Three things to look for: does it create a clear audit trail, can multiple people access it without it living in one person’s inbox, and does it give owners a professional and consistent way to make contact.
Loop in your BCM on the compliance piece, but the conversation about the communication infrastructure is worth having now.
Leya Wall | Town Square Leya.Wall@townsquare.au
Unauthorised legal costs and unfinancial status in a small body corporate.
Our body corporate has racked up unauthorised legal costs. Owners can’t vote because they’ve refused to pay. What options do we have?
We have four owners, one treasurer and one secretary. Special levies for a legal matter far exceeded our lawyers’ original estimate, and further legal work had been carried out without authorisation. We sent a formal letter requesting copies of the invoices, but none were provided, and the timeline has expired.
Another owner and I refused to pay the unauthorised amounts, citing lack of authority and an exceeded brief. The treasurer has since advised that this means we cannot vote.
• Do we need to approach the lawyers directly for copies of the invoices, and will this incur additional costs?
• What options do we have regarding exceeding authority? Would a vote of no confidence at an EGM be appropriate?
The other owner and I together hold the majority of the poll vote. I have proposed moving to professional body corporate management, but have had no response. The treasurer lives off-site. Where do we go from here?
Being prevented from voting complicates your options, but there are still steps you can take.
We couldn’t comment on whether an approach to the lawyer is appropriate. You might like to make enquiries of the Queensland Law Society in the first instance to see what you might be entitled to request, as an owner in this situation.
Beyond that, the issue is now whether you are considered financial and whether you do indeed owe a body corporate debt. It’s something that has been discussed, often, by adjudicators. Determining what is or isn’t a body corporate debt is not always straightforward. Complicating matters is that if there is a dispute about a debt, then typically that matter cannot be determined by the Commissioner’s Office
You mention a vote of no confidence. There’s no such thing as that under strata legislation. You might be referring to the possibility of removing a committee member or members from their role. That requires an ordinary resolution at a general meeting, which, it seems, will be unhelpful to you, as you will be prevented from voting at such a forum anyway.
Regarding body corporate management, you can obtain quotes from a body corporate management firm and have them considered at a general meeting. Again, though, see our comments above about voting at a general meeting.
It’s not clear whether a formal decision has been taken on your financial status, or whether it is simply a piece of advice from the treasurer. If it’s the latter, we’d suggest initiating a further conversation once you’ve spoken to the agencies noted above to try to clarify. If it’s the former, that is, a meeting was held, and your financial status was declared at the start, then you may need to pursue formal dispute resolution proceedings.
You could pay the disputed amount to improve your financial position, then dispute it thereafter. That’s risky, though: once you pay money, there’s no guarantee you’ll get it back, even if it seems clear you should. You can also opt to seek your own legal advice in this matter.
It seems your community titles scheme is experiencing some issues at present. Our experience tells us that the smaller the scheme, the more problematic things can become. Perhaps once you get through this specific set of circumstances, and assuming tensions remain, a form of mediation or alternative dispute resolution might be useful moving forward. You’re going to need to deal with each other again, so it might be good to try to work out some consensus, no matter how uneasy it is.
This is general information only and not legal advice.
Chris Irons | Strata Solve chris@stratasolve.com.au
READ MORE HERE
Solve helps you protect the value of your strata asset, without the need for timeconsuming, expensive and stressful legal proceedings.
Director and Founder of Strata Solve Chris Irons (pictured with the late Ernest, Strata Solve mascot) has an unrivaled strata perspective. As Queensland’s former Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management, Chris has seen it all in strata Now under the Strata Solve banner, Chris emphasizes communication, mediation , strategic advice and straight - talking , relying on his experience as an accredited mediator to empower owners, committees, managers, caretakers and tenants and help them get the outcome they want
Book a free, initial consultation now to find out how we can work with you to resolve your strata issue. And BRAND NEW from Strata Solve, our ‘Strata-As-You-Go’ (SAYG) service: on-demand telephone advice from an expert to help you, when you need it. Visit https://strataasyougo.com.au/ to learn more.
How do we get the body corporate to approve ventilation ducting in a heritage-listed building?
Our heritage-listed apartment has a serious ventilation problem. The body corporate won’t approve ducting through the common wall. How hard can we push for approval when we’re the ones paying?
Our apartment is in a heritage-listed building that has been retrofitted, with split-system air conditioning connected to the garage below. The apartment has only one window, on a busy, traffic-heavy street. Testing shows excessive CO2 levels and low oxygen levels unless windows are open wide most of the day, which creates significant noise and pollution. We’re not allowed to keep the front door to the atrium open, and we can’t keep windows open in wet weather due to water ingress into the apartments below. The result is severely inadequate ventilation.
We’ve requested permission to run ventilation through the front wall of the building, which was refused due to heritage features. We’re not allowed to mount anything in the window, frame, or front wall. How much leverage do we have to push for ducting through a common wall up to the roof to bring in fresh air? We would pay. We prefer not to sell, but we will if we can’t resolve this. Engineers and architects have inspected, and this appears to be the only viable solution.
Build an evidence-based case through a structured process. The stronger the package you put to owners, the harder it becomes for the body corporate to reasonably refuse.
As the saying goes, ‘knowledge is power’. Knowledge is data, plus understanding.
Step 1: collect objective, impartial data, of sufficient quality to be used as evidence in Court (if required) for all the relevant factors; i.e. indoor air quality, including with respect to oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, diesel particulates and other particulates (and the list goes on, consult an environmental scientist for the best criteria to gather evidence in respect of).
Step 2: compare that data against the relevant building, environmental, and other standards required for residential premises, and receive an expert’s opinion on whether there is a problem, its nature, size, and seriousness, and what is, objectively, required to solve it.
Step 3: engage an engineer, architect, or other suitable expert (e.g., HVAC) to propose practicable solutions, the pros and cons, and the likely costs of each.
Step 4: engage a lawyer to advise on the legal constraints and the pros and cons of each option. That would also likely include comparing the solutions against the relevant heritage constraints.
Step 5: get a quote for the works for the most practicable option.
Step 6: using the ‘package’ prepared by your lawyer, put the proposed solution to the relevant vote, whether at the committee or general meeting level, to seek the approval/s required to implement the solution. Such approvals are usually:
1. an approval to put the ‘works’ in place for the solution (for example, the ducting to the roof and the fans, etc., on the roof) and
2. an approval to keep such ‘works’ in place (for example, a licence, lease, or grant of exclusive use over the affected area/s of common property). See the example of a proposed lift for a disabled resident in Jansea [2015] QBCCMCmr 302.
With respect to ‘keeping the works in place’, it may well be that the statutory easement for utility infrastructure, in favour of lots, and against the common property, is already available to you. As for the former issue of approval to put the works in place, improvements to the common property over $3,000 in value typically require approval by ordinary resolution at a general meeting.
Why do all the earlier ‘Steps’? Because when it comes to the vote, the ‘package’ given to owners contains all the information and documentation to set up the position that only an unreasonable body corporate would refuse to vote in favour of the improvement.
However, beware. As I write this answer, the law has recently been clarified by the Court of Appeal.
Disputes about the exercise of statutory easement rights are disputes that the Commissioner’s Adjudicators can determine. Disputes about whether those easement rights exist, are properly questions for a Court; see Hing v Holland [2026] QCA 87.
Helping the strata community
navigate their building concerns
BUILDING CONSULTANCY
• Defect reports and forensic engineering
• Scope of works
• Dilapidation and risk surveys
• Dispute mediation and expert witness
• Contrator procurement and cost validation
• Construction management
• Capital works funds / maintenance plans
• Digital capability
• Façade assessments
REPAIR SOLUTIONS
• Emergency make safe
• Fire water damage restoration
• Leak detection
• Contamination response
• Building repairs
• Cost validation services
• Digital capability
Do I have to pay body corporate levies while a levy dispute is being resolved?
Our body corporate manager issued a levy notice before the AGM that wasn’t part of their appointment, and my overpayment was never returned. Where do we stand?
A body corporate manager (BCM) was appointed as administrator for our community titles scheme and directed to hold an AGM. Before that AGM, the BCM issued a levy notice that wasn’t part of their appointment. The BCM is now claiming I’m in arrears from before the AGM was even held, but I’ve never received a valid invoice.
I’ve also discovered that I’m in credit due to paying an earlier levy twice. I asked for the overpayment to be returned before the AGM, but this hasn’t happened. Where do I stand?
The obligation to pay levies likely still stands regardless of the procedural irregularity. Pursuing this alone is unlikely to be the most effective approach.
There is too much in the background here that I would need to review before I could form an intelligent view, but having said that:
1. there are costs with running any body corporate; and
2. clearly something is payable; and
3. you would think every owner is in the same boat unless the BCM has issued selective levies (which I think is unlikely).
Picking fights over technical matters like this won’t avoid the obligation to pay. It is also going to rack up additional costs, payable by someone.
I would either get together with a group of aggrieved owners to understand what has happened and be part of a collective, or pay and end the fight. Ultimately, it will all balance out over the next 6-12 months, including the overpayment.
Frank Higginson | Redchip Strata Law FrankH@redchip.com.au
Does the body corporate have to install a common antenna for the MATV system?
Our building has a built-in MATV system, but no antenna feeding it. The committee says it’s each owner’s problem to fix. Who is responsible for installing and maintaining the common antenna?
Our unit complex of 6 units has builtin infrastructure for free-to-air TV signal distribution, with TV signal sockets in every unit. I believe this is called an MATV system. Currently, there is no antenna supplying a signal to these. When I raised this, the body corporate manager and committee advised that it is each lot owner’s responsibility and cost to install an antenna on the roof.
Since the signal distribution system is common property and requires only one common antenna, why is each owner required to install an antenna on their roof? I feel this creates unnecessary risk and complications, including:
• potential waterproofing issues;
• roof penetrations;
• inconsistent installation standards; and
• unnecessary visual clutter on the roof structure.
Can the body corporate manager and committee refuse to install a common aerial outright when the building was designed to have one? What actions can I take if the committee is acting unreasonably?
Where a MATV system exists as common property, the body corporate is generally responsible for maintaining it, including the common antenna that feeds the system.
Generally, an MATV (Master Antenna Television) system is designed to distribute a free-to-air signal from a single common antenna through shared cabling to each unit’s wall outlet. Where that infrastructure already exists in the walls and is common property, the body corporate would typically be responsible for maintaining it in working order, and a single common antenna is what the system is built to accept.
The committee’s suggested approach, requiring each owner to install their own antenna on the roof, is not how MATV is designed to work. I agree with the risks and complications you outline above. For a six-unit building, a single master antenna and head-
end is usually a straightforward and relatively low-cost option.
If the antenna was previously working and is now not working, then that is definitely a maintenance burden that falls on the building as a whole, not anyone individually.
We cannot outline any specific further steps you may take. However, we suggest you engage in a detailed discussion about this and ask for any reasons why it’s not considered shared property maintenance. For antenna installation and MATV systems, we recommend engaging a qualified antenna installer with experience in multi-unit buildings.
Jason Burgess | Install My Antenna jason@nulifetv.com.au
READ MORE HERE
The Smarter Way to Manage your Building
Everything your building needs - centralised, easy to manage and built to save you time.
MiMOR is a cloud-based platform that has transformed the way strata buildings operate. Turn any building digital regardless of age or size and bring all communication and operations into one central platform.
MiMOR can integrate with existing systems for a smooth transition process.
EVERYTHING IN ONE HUB
• Digital File Storage
• Building Information
• Payment Systems
• Moving Booking System
• Email & SMS Notifications
• Digital Fobs & Remotes
• Parcel Management
• Short Stay Access
• Facilities Booking System
• Defects Management
• Digital Key Safes
• Issues Manager
• Electric Bollards
• AI Assistant & Receptionist
• Arrears Management
• Maintenance, Quoting & Voting
• Marketplace
• Trades Sign in/out
• Cleaning & Task Checklist
• Asset Management
Can a body corporate resolve that lot owners are responsible for the maintenance of the boundary fence?
Our courtyards are common property, but the committee has resolved that boundary fences between units are our responsibility to maintain. Can they do that?
We live in a townhouse complex of 52 homes. Each unit has a fenced courtyard between the garage and the house, with a dividing fence between neighbouring homes. The courtyards are common property with no exclusive use, even though they are fully fenced and not accessible to other residents.
The committee resolved that courtyard boundary fences, where exclusive use has not been granted, and no exclusive use by-law assigns maintenance obligations, are deemed improvements to common property for the benefit of the adjoining lot. Under section 187 of the Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2020 (the Regulation), the benefiting lot owner or owners are responsible for maintaining such improvements in good condition, unless excused by the body corporate.
Can the committee do this? This resolution came only after committee members’ fences had already been replaced, and the older ones were deteriorating. Since the body corporate built the fence on land it owns on both sides, and owners are not permitted to make improvements to the courtyard, the body corporate should be responsible.
Generally, the body corporate is responsible for maintaining fences on common property, unless a lot owner installed the fence.
If the fence is situated between two common property courtyards (which are not exclusive use areas), the body corporate will be responsible for maintaining the fence.
However, if a lot owner installed the fence, the lot owner is responsible for its maintenance unless excused by the body corporate, pursuant to section 187 of the Regulation. This obligation will apply to a lot owner, even where a former owner of their lot installed the fence.
Holly Oddo | Mahoneys hoddo@mahoneys.com.au
Experts in Body Corporate Law and Disputes
Is a caretaker required to submit an incident report for a false alarm fire event?
The committee has asked me to complete an incident report for a false alarm fire event I wasn’t present for. Am I required to do this?
The committee for the building I manage have requested I complete an incident report for a false alarm fire event. I was not onsite when the alarm went off. The Queensland Fire Service (QFS) attended and classified it as a false alarm.
Am I required to do an incident report?
Whether a caretaker is required to complete an incident report depends on the terms of their caretaking agreement and the scope of any directions the committee is entitled to give under it.
Whether you have an obligation to prepare an incident report will depend on the duties contained in your caretaking agreement. If there is no express obligation to do so, the obligation may still arise in circumstances where the committee can provide directions to you under the agreement provided the direction is in furtherance of a related or indirect duty on the issue.
The only way to confirm this obligation would be to review the terms of the agreement and provide considered advice.
Todd Garsden | Mahoneys tgarsden@mahoneys.com.au
Documentation Compliance
How do you know if your fire safety documentation is compliant?
The Problem: Discrepancies & Data Loss
Discrepancies can range from simple mismatches between input dates and the date of inspection to tasks that should be recorded being overlooked in online portals, leading to incomplete documentation.
Losing access to your data is even more serious This can happen when technicians change company or in cases of insolvency or company acquisition. Even disputes with service providers can escalate to the point of your access to their system being revoked. All result in lost access to vital records
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.
The Solution: A fire safety audit
As part of our fire safety audit, we review your building’s documentation and can identify any areas that are non-compliant.
If you don’t have one, we also recommend installing a document box on your property. Hard copies are the simplest way to protect your data and ensure that fire safety plans and system maintenance records are up to date.
In the unfortunate event of a fire, readily accessible documentation detailing evacuation plans, emergency contacts and equipment locations can drastically reduce response time, safeguarding both occupants and property. This not only minimises confusion during critical moments but also aids in maintaining fire safety systems through regular inspections and maintenance.
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
Can an owner withdraw a motion submitted for a body corporate general meeting?
If an owner has submitted a motion for a general meeting, can they withdraw it before it’s voted on?
Yes, an owner can withdraw a motion submitted for a general meeting, and they should make the withdrawal in writing.
Yes. The legislation is silent as to whether an owner can withdraw a motion they have submitted for consideration at a general meeting. However, it has been consistently held by Adjudicators in the Office of the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management that the statutory right of a person to submit a motion inherently includes the right to withdraw the motion before it is voted on at the relevant general meeting.
In practice, this is a relatively common occurrence. It has been determined that, just as a motion must be submitted in writing, it should also be withdrawn in writing. If an owner withdraws a motion before the meeting notice is issued, the motion would be omitted from the relevant notice. Alternatively, if the motion is withdrawn after the meeting notice is issued, the chair should announce to the meeting that the motion has been withdrawn and move on to the next motion on the agenda.
Alanna Law | Mathews Hunt Legal alanna.law@mathewshuntlegal.com.au
COULD YOU BE SAVING WITH SURE INSUR ANCE?
Many insurers rely on broad assumptions. Sure’s residential strata insurance team goes further. We take a closer look at your property to see if you can save.
WE CONSIDER:
Your building’s history
Supporting documents to assess exposure to risks such as JCU Resilience Reports
The way your property is maintained and managed
Sure sounds fair to us. KEY FEATURES:
OR
Category Category Category Category Category
INFORMATION
Education and resources for the strata community
Lookupstrata
Australia’s #1 Strata Title Information Site. https://www.lookupstrata.com.au/ administration@lookupstrata.com.au
