Access denied: what can the body corporate do if entry is refused?
Page 4 | Tower Body Corporate
Can a body corporate refuse to act on smoke drift if they haven’t updated the by-laws?
Page 22 | Mahoneys
Can individual owners tow cars from visitor parking spaces?
Page 32 | Strata Solve
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, flip to the end of this magazine.
Meet the team
Nikki began building LookUpStrata back in 2012 and officially 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 specific 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
Jarad
Frank
Chris
Todd
Frank
Alanna
Access denied: what can the body corporate do if entry is refused?
How can the body corporate gain access to a unit for necessary work if the tenant ignores notices and the overseas owner is not assisting?
A unit needs work carried out, but the tenant is not responding to entry notices. The lot owner lives overseas and appears not to be notifying the tenant about the need for access. How can the body corporate gain entry to carry out the required work?
This doesn’t sound like an emergency, so you need to consider the notice requirements.
The body corporate has the authority to gain entry to a lot or an exclusive use area provided it has given the required notice.
However, if it is an emergency, an authorised person may enter a lot or exclusive use area at any time. There is no definition of what an emergency is, so you have to use your judgment here.
In this case, it doesn’t sound like an emergency, so you need to consider the notice requirements.
These state that notice must be given to either the owner of the lot or the occupier of the lot (the tenant) if the owner is not the occupier.
The notice must be given at least seven days before the entry, and the entry must be at a reasonable time.
Apart from this, the BCCM Act does not specify what information must be included, but it is recommended to advise:
• the name of the individual/s or the company authorised to enter the lot or exclusive use area
• the date and time they will be entering
• how long they will be remaining in the lot or exclusive use area
• the reason they are entering
• contact details, in case of questions or concerns.
After providing notice, the body corporate or the authorised person does not require the presence or consent of the owner or occupier to enter the lot or exclusive use area. If the owner or occupier attempts to prevent entry after you’ve provided due notice, it is considered an offence.
That’s the theory.
How these situations play out in real life is likely to be circumstantial. You may need to consider whether there is a history of the owner or tenant refusing access. Are there any particular reasons they may refuse access? Are there communication or cultural concerns? Perhaps someone in the unit is ill, or are you concerned that criminal activity may be occurring?
You need to consider whether it will be necessary to bring a locksmith or the police to gain access. Should you have a lawyer assist in drafting the notices or advising what to do if you are refused access? If you gain access, who should enter the lot – only the contractors or does anyone else need to go in? It’s worth considering all the options and planning for different scenarios in advance.
My general feeling is that it is fairly safe for the body corporate to provide an initial notice. If you show up and the tenant lets you in, great. However, if no one is there, it is probably best to walk away. At that stage, it is probably advisable to seek legal assistance. If you are going to enter a lot forcibly, you need to make sure you are doing so correctly. If the situation isn’t urgent, take the time to ensure you have followed every necessary procedure. Consider your exposure to any risk and take appropriate action accordingly.
William Marquand | Tower Body Corporate
willmarquand@towerbodycorporate.com.au
Do freestanding houses in a two-lot scheme need shared building insurance?
In a two-lot community titles scheme with freestanding houses, can each owner insure their own building instead of sharing a body corporate policy?
We have two freestanding houses on separate lots, divided by a covenant area (nature strip), and managed as a body corporate under a community titles scheme.
There are no shared buildings, only shared easement areas. Are we obliged to share building insurance for the individually owned houses?
The property is a building format plan, which does not seem applicable. Our current policy describes the property as one unit block, even though it consists of two separate houses. Does this leave the houses underinsured, making claims unenforceable? Can I arrange my own building insurance?
Legislation requires the body corporate to hold one policy insuring both dwellings under the scheme.
As the Community Titles Scheme is a specified two-lot scheme and is registered under a building format plan, the relevant insurance requirements are set out in section 49 of the Body Corporate and Community Management (Specified Two-lot Schemes Module) Regulation 2011.
Section 49 requires the body corporate to insure, for full replacement value, each building in which a lot is located, to the extent that the building is scheme land. This obligation applies even if the lots contain freestanding dwellings with no common walls.
This means:
• The body corporate must arrange a single policy of insurance that covers both dwellings.
• Lot owners cannot take out separate building insurance for their own dwellings, as this would not meet the requirements of s.49.
• The policy must provide for reinstatement as new and cover incidental costs such as debris removal and professional fees. It follows that while the physical layout of the properties might suggest individual insurance is more appropriate, the legislation requires the body corporate to hold one policy insuring both dwellings under the scheme. However, it is important that the policy accurately describes the properties and that the sums insured reflect the full replacement value of both houses.
Mention this offer when requesting a quote from us, and we will provide a discount off our standard fee for service of $250 (GST Inc) for buildings with 10-25 lots or $500 (GST Inc) for buildings with more than 25 lots for the first year you insure with Strata Insurance Solutions
To redeem this offer email a copy of your current policy schedule to Strata Insurance Solutions within 1 month of the publication of this magazine Your policy can expire any time in the next 12 months However we can only provide quotes 30 days prior to the expiry of your policyif your policy is not due now, we will schedule a quote at the appropriate time To ensure we apply this offer to our quotes, please specifically mention you would like to redeem the "LookUpStrata Special Offer"
Take the test todaysee how much you can save.
Can a body corporate ban the burning of incense?
Can a body corporate introduce a by-law restricting incense burning that affects other lots and common property?
Can body corporates in Queensland have a bylaw restricting incense burning when the strong smell enters other units and fills the common property hallway? Incense is known to be a health risk to others.
Depending on the nature and layout of lots, a by-law that prohibits the burning of incense products on outdoor areas of lots or exclusive use areas may certainly be valid and enforceable.
Yes, a by-law can restrict the burning of incense where it causes a nuisance or hazard.
Even without a by-law, where a nuisance or hazard is created, regard could also be had to section 167 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997, which provides that an occupier of a lot must not use, or permit the use of, their lot in such a way that causes a nuisance or hazard, or unreasonably interferes with the use or enjoyment of another lot or the common property.
The legislative amendments introduced on 1 May 2024 dealing with the use of smoking products on lots and the common property. It confirmed that a by-law may prohibit the use of smoking products in all areas of common property and outdoor areas of lots, as well as exclusive use areas (e.g., balconies, courtyards and patios). However, the provisions only deal with smoking products which are inhaled smoke which would be generated from incense or barbeques and the like.
Helping
That said, depending on the nature and layout of lots within the scheme, a by-law that prohibits the burning of incense products on outdoor areas of lots or exclusive use areas may certainly be valid and enforceable in much the same way as the restrictions on inhaled smoking products.
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
Committees need a different mindset for managing money
Handling other people’s money is a big responsibility, but there can be times when being too conservative can lead to long-term negative outcomes.
Body corporate committees are tasked with collecting levies from lot owners and then budgeting and spending that money in the upkeep and maintenance of common property.
It has become an accepted truth that a committee should treat that money the same way individuals would treat their own savings.
However, that mindset in dealing with collective funds to be allocated for the collective good may not always be the best approach
As lawyers, we're used to dealing with other people's money. Usually that sits in our trust account, and we won't act on it or do anything with it unless we receive specific instructions from our client
A body corporate general account, sinking fund or administrative fund isn't exactly the same as trust monies, but it's not far from it
But should a well-functioning body corporate treat that money the same way they treat their own?
In many instances, the answer is no.
How we as individuals deal with our own personal finances might not necessarily be the best approach for a building as a whole.
For example, maybe I don't like repairing gutters; I'm happy to let the water drip onto the ground.
But from a body corporate perspective, there's a statutory obligation to keep gutters in good repair and condition to make sure that they serve the purpose for which they were constructed
In that example, that's not treating the money like I would myself.
The same goes for investing funds.
That's why most body corporate bank accounts are usually lodged on long-term deposits, getting whatever the interest rate of the day might be.
They're not being taken to the casino and put on red or invested in the share market or put in ETFs or Bitcoin.
It's important for committees to step back and understand what it is they raise monies for and to make sure that they also then understand what their statutory obligations are with respect to the spending of it
The sinking fund has been raised for long-term capital repair and maintenance; it is there for tiling, for painting, for lift repairs
We sometimes see clients trying to cut levies or trying to create a bigger balance and not actually spend the money, but inevitably in ageing buildings this approach is going to lead to long-term consequences.
From a body corporate perspective, be careful managing the monies you've got and make sure that they're spent prudently and in accordance with the legislative obligations you've got as a committee
This is a mindset that can often be challenging for some cost-conscious members of a committee to adopt If there is disagreement or a need for a longterm plan as to how a committee should manage those funds, seeking specialist strata legal advice is a great first step
Frank Higginson, Partner Redchip Strata Law
How can bodies corporate confirm deadlock installations for insurance purposes?
How can a body corporate confirm which units have installed deadlocks when insurers request this information?
I am seeking insurance quotes for our small complex of 8 units. Insurers want to know if we have deadlocks fitted. The body corporate manager stated that, as deadlocks would have been considered ‘improvements’, any units with deadlocks should have been approved. How can I confirm whether each unit has them without having to door knock?
You could always approach your neighbours directly, however, there are other options.
Installed deadlocks may not necessarily be improvements, as they could have been part of the original construction. Start by examining your own door lock and make an informed guess about whether it was part of the original construction. If it looks original, all other units were likely fitted the same way, and you can respond to the insurer confirming that deadlocks have been fitted.
If there’s evidence that deadlocks weren’t original and were installed later by individual owners, technically, they should have been approved as improvements to common property. In most cases, if the scheme is registered as a building format plan, the entry doors are on the lot boundary and therefore form part of the common property. You can check the schemes community management statement registered with the QLD Titles Office to determine the regulation module that applies.
A record of any approved lot owner improvements to the common property should be kept in the body corporate records as a Register of Common Property Authorisations. You can read more on keeping body corporate records here: Records a body corporate must keep | Your rights, crime and the law.
If no records exist, the committee may consider writing to all owners to ask whether they have installed deadlocks. Where appropriate, the committee can grant retrospective approval and update the records accordingly. This will make it easier to respond to future insurance queries and clarify who is responsible for maintaining any improvements made by lot owners.
The Queensland Government has a good outline of the common property improvement approval process here: Improving common property and lots
Another consideration where retrospective approval is required for deadlocks is whether or not any fire regulations will be affected by the installations. This will depend upon the building classification. The approval should include conditions to satisfy any fire compliance requirements specific to the property, particularly if the door is a fire door. More can be read on fire compliance here: Building occupiers, owners, lessees and bodies corporate
And yes, you could always approach your neighbours directly if you prefer. This may even be a nice opportunity to introduce yourself if you haven’t already, and let them know you’re helping to organise the insurance renewal, which might be of interest to them.
Grant Mifsud | Archers grant.mifsud@abcm.com.au
Insurance & Risk Under the Microscope: Emerging Threats and How to Respond
Insurance is one of the fastest-moving challenges in strata today. Premiums are rising, underwriters are more cautious, and exclusions are widening. Building age, combustible cladding, lithium battery fire risks and climate -related weather damage are all driving insurers to demand more evidence of sound risk management.
For strata managers, this means moving from a reactive stance to a proactive one. Rather than waiting for issues to surface through claims or complaints, the priority should be prevention and preparedness. Routine inspections help identify hazards early, detailed documentation shows the scheme is meeting its duty of care, and independent reports safeguard owners’ assets while reducing the risk of claim delays
Where QIA Group helps: Our Safety Reports identify compliance and safety issues before they escalate into costly claims, while our Insurance Valuations ensure schemes maintain accurate cover and avoid the risks of underinsurance. Together, these reports give strata managers and committees the confidence to demonstrate due diligence and protect their communities.
Registers
Can a body corporate levy all owners for a service that only some agreed to and use?
Can a body corporate impose a special levy on owners for a service, such as an in-house phone system, even if some owners did not support or contract into it?
I am an owner in a 127-lot scheme in Noosa, which includes eight retail lots and the remainder residential. Five years ago, the committee removed the PABX system from the caretaker’s office and proposed an inhouse phone system as a replacement. The system was funded by a special levy applied to residential lots, with costs added to levy notices. The AGM motion stated the service would allow guests to make restaurant bookings from their units, and it passed.
Now, with the contract ending, the committee has chosen not to renew the service and has requested the return of all phones. At the time, I did not support the original motion and later submitted a motion to opt out. However, the committee advised owners to vote against it, and my motion failed. Does the committee have the authority to impose a special levy on owners for a service they did not contract into?
You could obtain advice as to whether the costs incurred by the body corporate were a proper expense (to be recovered from all owners) or should be recovered only from the users.
The committee cannot impose a special levy – this is a restricted issue. However, if the body corporate incurs an expense, it can only recover it from owners through levies charged in accordance with the relevant lot entitlements. However, when the body corporate provides a service to owners, it:
1. cannot force owners to accept the service; 2. must recover the costs from the users of the service.
The obligation to recover costs from the users of the service extends to capital or up-front installation costs. It may be worthwhile obtaining advice as to whether the costs incurred by the body corporate were a proper expense (to be recovered from all owners) or should be recovered only from the users.
Todd Garsden | Mahoneys tgarsden@mahoneys.com.au
Should strata residents regularly compare electricity providers to save money?
Can owners in a body corporate with a contracted energy provider explore switching to a different provider to save money?
Like everyone, we are feeling the pinch from the cost-of-living crisis and are reviewing all bills to identify potential savings. Even though we live in a body corporate with an energy provider, is it worth exploring a different provider, or is it too complicated because of our strata community?
Switching providers can involve paperwork and coordination, but it’s often simpler than you might think.
Yes, switching providers can involve paperwork and coordination, but it’s often simpler than you might think. Many electricity companies offer assistance and guidance throughout the switching process. Additionally, strata communities can leverage collective bargaining power to negotiate better rates and terms with providers, making the process smoother for all residents.
Should residents in a strata community with a stable electricity provider regularly compare rates with other providers?
In our strata community, our current electricity provider is stable and reliable. Should residents continue to conduct regular price comparisons with other providers to ensure they are getting the best deal?
It’s essential to regularly review your electricity options to ensure you’re getting the best value for your money.
While stability and reliability are crucial factors, they shouldn’t be the sole reasons for sticking with a particular provider. It’s essential to regularly review your electricity options to ensure you’re getting the best value for your money. Even if your current provider has been reliable in the past, there may be better offers available from other companies that could save you money in the long run.
Altogether Group
Altogether EV solutions.
Future-proofing developments with smart EV charging infrastructure.
As a leader in embedded energy infrastructure and EV charging solutions, Altogether partners with property developers, owners’ corporations, and strata managers to integrate scalable, costeffective, and future-ready EV infrastructure.
Our expertise ensures developments meet evolving sustainability standards while enhancing property value and resident appeal. find out more
EV charging enhances a building’s desirability, providing residents and tenants with a critical service while supporting longterm asset value.
Partner with Altogether for a Smarter EV Future.
As EV adoption accelerates — expected to reach 50% of new car sales by 2030 — proactive investment in EV infrastructure is essential for maintaining competitive and sustainable developments.
Contact us to learn how our solutions can benefit your community.
altogethergroup.com.au
What counts as ‘unfair influence’ by a building manager in committee elections?
Can a building manager influence owners’ votes at an AGM by endorsing a committee candidate or contractor quote?
We have an upcoming AGM, and I’ve selfnominated for chairperson of the committee. However, the on-site building manager has sent an email to many owners expressing support for re-electing the existing chairperson. They have also indicated support for a particular job quote over another. I’m concerned the building manager has created a bias towards one nominee and one contractor.
There’s no prohibition on owners advocating for a committee nominee or a quote of their choosing.
While you’ve not actually asked a question, we’ll focus on your concern about ‘bias’ and ‘influence’. It’s an issue that comes up a lot.
Firstly, remember that your onsite building manager (aka, management rights (MR) holder) may also be a lot owner. This means they have an interest in what items are considered and voted on at the AGM. They’ll also be able to vote at that AGM if they’re an owner.
Putting that to one side, and focusing only on the MR holder perspective, Queensland’s strata legislation changed in 2024 to introduce a new provision in the Code of Conduct for MR holders, as follows:
1. A body corporate manager or caretaking service contractor must not attempt to unfairly influence the outcome of an election for the body corporate committee.
‘Unfairly influence’ is not defined, and as far as we are aware, there are no published cases that consider the issue. So, it’s not possible to say what is and is not ‘unfair influence’. We’d also suggest that while the legislation prohibits ‘unfairly’ influencing, it doesn’t prohibit ‘fairly’ influencing.
Where does this leave you? There is nothing concrete, one way or the other, to say that what you’re encountering is or isn’t biased or unfair influence. If you feel strongly enough about it, you may wish to consider seeking legal advice regarding the provisions
discussed above. Otherwise, you could consider discussing the matter with the MR holder (assuming you’re comfortable doing so). Finally, a point to remember: there’s no prohibition on owners advocating for a committee nominee or a quote of their choosing. So maybe you might like to consider doing some lobbying of your own
This is general information only and not legal advice.
Chris Irons | Strata Solve chris@stratasolve.com.au
READ MORE HERE
Solve helps untangle and resolve strata issues, and in the process protect the value of your strata asset, without the need for time-consuming, 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 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, common-sense and effective communication are vital.
As an independent strata consultant, Chris provides services based of his experience as an accredited mediator and which are all about empowering owners, committees, managers, caretakers, tenants, not-for-profits and others, to protect their strata interests. Chris uses tailored solutions to help his clients: one size definitely does not fit all in strata. Book a f free, initial consultation now to find out how we can work with you to resolve your strata issue.
Can a body corporate refuse to act on smoke drift if they haven’t updated the by-laws?
What can an owner do if neighbours’ cigarette smoke drifts into their lot, but the body corporate refuses to act because it has not updated its by-laws?
My neighbours smoke cigarettes. The carcinogenic smoke drifts into my backyard and into my home. I emailed the body corporate, but they refused to act. They said that although legislation now confirms smoking is a nuisance and allows bodies corporate to register by-laws prohibiting smoking on common property and outdoor areas of lots, our scheme has not reviewed or registered new by-laws. They advised that this means they cannot issue a notice of by-law breach to the occupants for smoking in their exclusive use yard. Is this correct?
If there are existing by-laws that regulate causing nuisances or hazards, the
by-laws.
Even though the new legislation allows bylaws to prohibit smoking in certain areas, the committee is still obliged to enforce the current by-laws. In some instances, there will be existing by-laws that regulate nuisances or hazards being caused – which smoke drift will contravene. If this is the case, the lot owner can ask that the committee enforce these bylaws by issuing a form 1.
Alternatively, direct action against the smoker can be taken:
1. pursuant to section 167 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld); or
2. under the by-laws after a form 1 is
and the committee chooses not to take further action.
Todd Garsden | Mahoneys tgarsden@mahoneys.com.au
make sure they comply with
Special levies at first meetings: do developers have the power to enforce them?
Can lot owners refuse to pay a special levy introduced at the first meeting when the developer used a power of attorney clause to exercise their votes?
The power of attorney clause in our purchase contract states that, for the first year, the developer can exercise our voting rights. At the first meeting, a special levy for security fees was introduced to cover the remaining cost of the security company’s contract. The developer engaged this company during construction, and the security company owner is related to the developer.
Do lot owners have the grounds to refuse to pay this special levy for security?
This will depend on the terms of the power of attorney and several other issues. Legal advice is required.
This is all going to depend on the terms of the power of attorney itself and then representations made (or not made) about the likely expenses of the body corporate during the sales process and then in the disclosure documents themselves. There is no black and white answer to this one, but it is something that legal advice should be sought on.
Frank Higginson | Redchip Strata Law frank.higginson@hyneslegal.com.au
o c u m e n t a t i o n
Your legal shield in the event of a fire
For body corporates, a robust fire safety strategy extends far beyond functional equipment. Your most critical asset in the days after a fire is your documentation, as these records are your primary defence against liability
Many body corporates and managing agents rely on service provider invoices as ‘evidence’ that fire safety systems have been inspected and maintained. However, while these prove a transaction occurred, they do not provide the compliance detail required by law, including who completed the work, the installations serviced, their locations and the tasks performed They also fail to show if any defects were identified and, crucially, if they were rectified.
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.
True protection lies in maintaining detailed, hard-copy logs of all inspection, testing, maintenance and rectification works, including certificates of compliance, service reports and evidence that qualified technicians performed the work
These original documents must be stored securely onsite in a fire-rated document box to ensure they survive a blaze and are immediately accessible to investigators
Should a fire occur, this documentation proves all reasonable steps were taken to maintain equipment, significantly reducing the likelihood of the body corporate being found liable for negligence.
Don’t let incomplete paperwork be your weakest link. Invest in an independent audit to verify your records are complete and compliant, uncovering any gaps before regulators, insurers or emergencies do.
Stefan Bauer Fire Matters
READ MORE HERE
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.
Levy disputes and ownership changes: who keeps the refund?
If a lot owner sells during an adjudicator dispute about unlawful special levies, does any refund go to the former or current owner?
A lot in our body corporate raised an adjudicator dispute regarding special levies that were charged as one-time lump sum payments instead of spread payments. During the dispute, the lot was sold. To settle the sale, the owner paid the disputed levies
Does the original lot owner retain standing in the live dispute? If the adjudicator rules that some or all levies were unlawful and refunds must be issued, would the refund be paid to the current lot owner as a member of the body corporate, rather than to the departed owner who initiated the dispute?
Orders that provide that person who bore the expense of the unlawful contribution, is the person who gets the refund.
If a lot owner commences an Adjudication Application, but the lot owner sells their lot before the Application is finally determined, then the Application will continue, unaffected, unless the Commissioner substitutes a new person in, for the original lot owner Applicant; see section 239C of the BCCM Act.
The Commissioner may take that action where, for example, the relief sought in the Application is not personal to the original Applicant, such as where the Application seeks orders that the body corporate fix a leaking waterproofing membrane inside the Applicant’s Lot.
The Commissioner is unlikely to make such a substitution of Applicant, where the relief sought in the Application is personal, such as where the Application seeks reimbursement for funds expended by the lot owner Applicant, in rectifying damage within their lot caused by the body corporate’s failure to discharge its statutory duties; for example, to keep windows in good condition, by ensuring they did not leak.
If we assume that the original lot owner Applicant remains as the Applicant, and the dispute was about the validity of contributions (levies), then it is the original lot owner Applicant who would (and should) receive the benefit of the Adjudicator’s order that the improperly raised contributions be repaid.
Adjudicators do consider these matters, and not just the circumstances of the lot owner Applicant before them. Prudent Adjudicators in this situation would enquire as to how many other lots have changed ownership since the unlawful contributions (levies) were raised. They may then use their investigative powers further to obtain information to enable them to craft orders to achieve a just result. In summary, orders that provide that person who bore the expense of the unlawful contribution, is the person who gets the refund.
Michael Kleinschmidt | Bugden Allen michael.kleinschmidt@bagl.com.au
READ MORE HERE
What
should occupiers do if they are locked out of their strata lot?
Can the body corporate require a letting agent to provide access to a lot when an occupier has been locked out?
Can the body corporate compel a letting agent authorised by it under the legislation to provide access to a lot where an occupier, also known as a tenant, has been locked out?
The body corporate has no right to direct a letting agent it has authorised pursuant to the legislation to provide an occupier access to a lot.
A letting agent’s duties are limited to those contained in the relevant agreement/s with the body corporate and the relevant agreements with owners utilising their letting services. In the absence of a specific duty contained in the relevant agreement/s with
the body corporate, the body corporate has no right to direct a letting agent it has authorised pursuant to the legislation to provide an occupier access to a lot.
Additionally, if there is no agreement between the letting agent and the owner of that lot for the provision of letting services, the letting agent has no contractual obligation to provide an occupier access if they are locked out. The position reflects the reality that if the letting agent does not benefit from a tenancy, it should not have to provide services to the owner.
If an occupier finds themselves locked out, it is recommended that they contact the owner of the lot, or if the lot is rented and managed by a third party, the relevant external letting agent.
Alanna Hill | Mathews Hunt Legal alanna.hill@mathewshuntlegal.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
Can individual owners tow cars from visitor parking spaces?
Can an individual owner arrange to tow a resident’s vehicle from a visitor car space, or is towing only authorised by the body corporate committee?
If parking in the visitors’ spaces at your scheme, the committee needs to act upon this.
Here are the provisions about towing from section 163A of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997: 163A Towing motor vehicles from common property
1. Nothing in this Act prevents a body corporate for a community titles scheme from towing a motor vehicle from the common property for the scheme under another Act or otherwise according to law.
2. If a motor vehicle owned or operated by the owner or occupier of a lot included in the scheme and parked in contravention of a by-law for the scheme is towed by the body corporate, the body corporate is not required to comply with a requirement under chapter 3, part 5, division 4.
3. In this section — motor vehicle see the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, schedule 4.
You’ll note the above is framed as the body corporate, not an individual owner, doing the towing.
Given that, you might want to seek legal advice about whether an individual owner can (or should) tow a car. You might want to consider things such as what liability you might have for any damage to the vehicle or its contents during the towing, as well as how you know for sure someone is or isn’t a ‘resident’ or ‘visitor’ – neither ‘resident’ nor ‘visitor’ is defined under strata legislation.
If there are problems in your scheme with people parking in the visitors’ spaces, the committee needs to act upon this, especially if it is a contravention of the scheme by-laws. Moreover, visitor parking is a requirement of the local council, and non-compliant visitor parking may be a contravention of the development approval for the scheme.
This is general information only and (obviously) not legal advice.
Chris Irons | Strata Solve chris@stratasolve.com.au