Page 1

The ofďŹ cial newsletter of Unit Owners Association QLD

AUGUST MARCH2012 2011

Premium has gone up from

15,237.69 to $37,139.18 $

Residential Strata Title Insurance FNQ Letters to the Editor help@uoaq.org.au

($21,901.49 increase) See Page 4 for more

Become a Member Today Click to Join now www.uoaq.org.au

EST. 1978


UOAQ - Become a Member Today! From the Editor www.uoaq.org.au Unit Owners Assocation QLD 6th Floor. 333 Adelaide St, Brisbane Q 4000 E help@uoaq.org.au P 3220 0959 uoaq.org.au

Brisbane

P 3220 0959 or www.uoaq.org.au and request to communicate to a particular person Sue Ekert, Bob Boundy, Elle Young, Paul Cassels. Published by Unit Owners Association QLD Editor Paul Cassels

Gold Coast

Wayne Stevens, Greg Carroll, Roger Dearing

Art Direction

Dan Hancock - P 3162 8823 E hi@danhancock.com.au

Web Development

John Connole - P 0439 879 740 E john@stickybeakmedia.com.au

Sponsors

We appreciate the support of our sponsors to help us do the work we do. To become a sponsor of UOAQ, please contact Paul Cassels on 3220 0959

CTS Management Suite 35, Level 6. “Northpoint” 231 North Quay Brisbane QLD 4000 Telephone 07 3211 4445 Fax 07 3211 4410 Mobile 0419 741 066 Email coralie.mott@ctsm.com.au www.ctsm.com.au

Paul Cassels

A Cry for HELP Residential Strata Title Insurance FNQ – Letters to the Editor help@ uoaq.org.au I have received a quotation to renew the Residential Strata Title Insurance coverage for the unit complex in which I live in Cairns. This premium has gone up from $15,237.69 to $37,139.18 ($21,901.49 increase) which is being offered through SUU and underwritten by CGU Insurance. Our existing strata insurer, QUS has declined to renew our insurance program for the coming year. This is

due to the insurer, Calliden having withdrawn from issuing property insurance in Northern Australia. This withdrawal by a major strata insurer is extremely disappointing and disconcerting as there is now only one insurer offering a full residential strata insurance package in Northern Australia being Strata Unit Underwriters (SUU) for property valued at greater than $5 million. Based on this quotation , and talk around Cairns in general, it would seem that little progress is being made to address this issue and stop the skyrocketing premiums. There have been no major or significant natural weather disasters in the last 12 months, and as such there is no justification with this increase. When will the politicians start to listen in QLD. Please write to all State members and beat the drum for our North Queensland unit owners.

SIGN UP TODAY. uoaq.org.au

Hartley’s Body Corporate Management

yourstratamanagement.com.au

Coralie Mott

(BA Dip Ed, Cert IV in BCM)

Director and Body Corporate Manager

Quality Building Management Pty Ltd.

COMMUNITY LIVING SOLUTIONS

Strata Inspections and Reporting

Reducing Costs & Increasing Value for Unit Owners

yourstratamanagement.com.au

ORIENTATED { WEBRESULTS DESIGN & MARKETING }

Unit Owners Association QLD

www.stickybeakmedia.com.au

PROUD SUPPORTER OF UOAQ

Help for Members

Members of the UOAQ are welcome to contact committee members of the association for any help on any body corporate matter.

Disclaimer

Articles contributed to this newsletter are published as a service to members and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of this Association. To contact the committee of the UOAQ for assistance with a body corporate matter please e-mail help@uoaq.org.au

2

UnitNews August 2012

Branding and Identity

danhancock.com.au uoaq.org.au


Written by: Faizal Kamarudin, PhD Student, Law and Justice Research Centre, QUT.

Quick News

Beyond dispute resolution: Preserving neighbour relations and optimising community Well-being Rapid urbanisation, increases in population and limited land for development are among the factors that are changing neighbourhood patterns around the world today. Due to socioeconomic factors, low density traditional homes with spacious backyards have now been replaced with high density multistorey residential buildings. The dynamic growth of this new type of neighbourhood has developed a new dimension in social aspects of society as well. Unlike the traditional neighbourhood where houses are separated with clear physical boundaries such as fences and foot paths, people living in community titles neighbourhoods are surrounded by others living above and below and on the sides, within the same building. Close proximity living in community titles neighbourhood requires residents to encounter, engage, adjust and accommodate themselves to the presence, habits and practices of their neighbours and coresidents. In order to regulate the conduct and behaviour of strata residents, statutory by-laws are created. A key problem arising in this context, relates to the fact that proprietors in the strata neighbourhood are living in a highly regulated environment. Differences can arise, for example out of minor misunderstandings on usage of public facilities, breaches of the by-laws or due to certain behaviours that disturb the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of other neighbours. For the community titles system to be successful, it requires empowered and actively engaged community members practising mutual trust, mutual respect, shared values, shared responsibilities and liabilities, emotional equity and reciprocity. A strong community must also have the ability to resolve issues effectively and amicably, honour its members generously, create investment opportunities in the community and organise activities that strengthen the spiritual bond among members of the community. Neighbourhood disputes have been identified as a threat to peaceful and harmonious community titles schemes. Community titles neighbourhood disputes can be described as mundane in nature because such conflict may involve neighbour quarrels over petty matters. Disputes in community titles schemes are often based on emotional issues such as pets, odours, noise, use of common facilities and human relations. Emotional issues often impinge on the argument about individual rights and the community rights. For example, individual rights to have pets need to be balanced with the rights of other members to fully enjoy their dwellings peacefully without the presence of pets. Similarly, someone who wants to enjoy listening to their favourite music in private should ensure that the sound of the music does not become a nuisance to other neighbours. One’s own favourite music may not be that of others. Prolonged and unresolved neighbourhood disputes may destruct the sense of community and threaten neighbour relations. While a successful community titles neighbourhood needs members with a sense of community, disputes can have negative effects on many aspects of that sense of community such as the sense of belonging and identification, mutual trust, camaraderie, civility, mutual respect and unity. These different aspects of the sense of community can be considered as the key determinant of community titles neighbourhood functioning and presumably success. In Queensland for example, community titles disputes are governed by the Office of the Commissioner `Management Act 1997 (Qld) (BCCMA). BCCMA has introduced various dispute resolution approaches such as conciliation, mediation and

uoaq.org.au

adjudication, and the Office of the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management reported that 75% of the conciliation process ended up with agreement while 89% of conciliation process did not proceed to adjudication. These figures according to the Office of the Commissioner evidenced the success of conciliation as a preferred solution for community titles disputes in Queensland. While faster, cheaper and simpler processes are commonly linked to efficiency, effective resolution connotes something that is broader than “settlement of disputes.” The quality of the outcome, its sustainability and its relevance in supporting and promoting the basic principles of good neighbourhood and self management in the community titles scheme are also important. Dispute resolution processes in community titles’ schemes in Queensland should further move towards processes directed at preserving and repairing neighbour relations that are being damaged by disputes. These processes should improve communication among the community titles community, promote a sense of community and encourage positive relations and attitudes among neighbours. It is submitted that dispute resolution processes in the community titles’ schemes in Queensland, and other jurisdictions in Australia should embrace dispute resolution approaches that not only achieve efficiency and effectiveness, but most importantly, considers the stressful nature of community titles disputes, and places primary emphasis on the mental health and well-being of the disputing parties. The outcome should also be to preserve neighbour relations and optimise communities’ well-being.

Management Rights | Levy Collection | Dispute Resolution Community Management Statements | Review of By-laws Establishment of Schemes | Construction Defects Lot Entitlement Disputes | Exclusive Use Conveyancing

BODY CORPORATE MATTERS? ENGAGE THE BODY CORPORATE LAWYERS

T: 07 3393 0433

F: 07 3393 0533

mail@herdlaw.com.au www.herdlaw.com.au

August 2012 UnitNews

3


Quick News

A Cry for HELP Residential Strata Title Insurance FNQ – Letters to the Editor help@uoaq.org.au

Holiday letting another nail in the coffin Many investors have been finding that the return from holiday letting their apartments does not match the return that they would achieve from long term rentals. Whilst there are times when the returns for holiday rentals are high eg Christmas and holiday periods, the net return over a full year is often a disappointment to owners. Fees and charges associated with holiday letting are high and the upcoming hike in electricity charges will be the final straw for many investors. Owners who use holiday letting pay for all electricity charges. However, if they rent their apartments out with a long term lease, the tenants pay for the electricity. Electricity providers are writing to owners advising of the increases in charges. One such provider clearly blames “the impact of the Federal Government’s carbon price” as one of the factors influencing the increases. Astute owners will be doing their sums and many will be making the decision to take their units out of the holiday pool, and rent them out on a long term basis. This will be a huge blow to Caretakers who rely on holiday lettings in Body Corporate Communities. This came from a Blog post www.bodycorporatenews.com please feel free to comment on these Blogs great site for unit owners thank you, John

I have received a quotation to renew the Residential Strata Title Insurance coverage for the unit complex I live in in Cairns. This premium has gone up from $15,237.69 to $37,139.18 ($21,901.49 increase) which is being offered through SUU and underwritten by CGU Insurance. Our existing strata insurer, QUS has declined to renew our insurance program for the coming year. This is due to the insurer, Calliden having withdrawn from issuing property insurance in Northern Australia. This withdrawal by a major strata insurer is extremely disappointing and disconcerting as there is now only one insurer offering a full residential strata insurance package in Northern Australia being Strata Unit Underwriters (SUU) for property valued at greater than $5 million. Based on this quotation and talk around Cairns in general, it would seem that little progress is being made to address this issue and stop the skyrocketing premiums. There have been no major or significant natural weather disasters in the last 12 months, and as such there is no justification with this increase. When will the Politian’s start to listen in QLD. Please write to all State members and beat the drum for our North Queensland unit owners.

BRISBANE - GOLD COAST - REDCLIFFE Continued from Last Issue Working with owners to create happy, healthy and harmonious communities.

CLICK HERE For a Quote Today

enquiries@capitolbca.com.au 4

UnitNews August 2012

www.capitolbca.com.au

CLICK HERE To learn about us

1300 55 10 19 uoaq.org.au


Quick News

Written by: M.Teys

Supreme Court Ruling Leaves Some Unit Owners Without Rights On Friday 29 June 2012, the NSW Supreme Court ruled in the Star of the Sea case that developers and builders have no common law duty of care to unit owners for defective workmanship where statutory home owner warranties apply. There are very strict, and comparatively tight time frames in which owners’ corporations and bodies corporate must commence statutory warranty claims. In some states and territories this is as short as six months from the date of practical completion. As the case concerns common law rights, it applies in all states and territories with home owner warranty schemes. Strata managers and executive committees should take the following action immediately: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Determine if your building defects are structural or non-structural; Determine if your building defects are caused by defective design or defective workmanship; Determine your scheme’s date of practical completion and when the defects were first noticed or noticeable; Determine if a proper home owner warranty claim has been made; Determine if a proper home owner warranty claim has been made within the time limits set by state and territory legislation.

Hartley’s Body Corporate Management ‘Looking after all your Body Corporate Needs’

Only a lawyer with expertise in strata titled building defect matters can answer these questions. This is outside of the expertise of both strata managers and building experts. Strata managers and executive committees who do not take legal advice on these matters may be personally liable for negligence. This is very serious and requires your immediate attention.

ASBESTOS SAMPLING ARTICLE 2 Part Series from Unit News June - Will Continue next month

Everything Covered? For Professional, Friendly assistance and quotes call

1300 880 466

■ Financial Management ■ Agendas & Meetings ■ Administration of your Scheme ■ Maintenance ■ Dispute Resolution ■ Compliance

Sinking Fund Forecast Insurance Valuation Builders Warranty Condition Assessments Safety Risk Reports Asbestos Reports Fire Safety Reports And much more

inspections@qbma.com.au www.qbm.com.au QBSA ACT Licence No. 109408a0

Quality Building Management Pty Ltd.

Strata Inspections and Reporting

uoaq.org.au

August 2012 UnitNews

5


Feature Story

Body Corporate responsibilities in relation to the Disability Discrimination Act Commissioner Innes recently received a request for his opinion on the responsibilities of a Body Corporate of a Class 2 building (apartment block) in relation to the DDA. The reply has been posted here for the information of other people and organisations interested. Thank you for your letter in which you seek my view on a number of matters relating to the rights of people with a disability living in residential premises controlled by a Body Corporate (generally a Class 2 building). I am happy to provide you with my views but must stress that these views are my own, are not to be relied upon as legal advice and do not bind the Commission as a whole in decisions which might be made in particular matters including in relation to complaints. There are a number of relevant aspects of potential application of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (DDA) which I would like to comment on.

Access to premises Section 23 of the DDA states: (1) It is unlawful for a person to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person’s disability or a disability of any of that other person’s associates: (a) by refusing to allow the other person access to, or the use of, any premises that the public or a section of the public is entitled or allowed to enter or use (whether for payment or not); or (b) in the terms or conditions on which the first mentioned person is prepared to allow the other person access to, or the use of, any such premises; or (c) in relation to the provision of means of access to such premises; or (d) by refusing to allow the other person the use of any facilities in such premises that the public or a section of the public is entitled or allowed to use (whether for payment or not); or (e) in the terms or conditions on which the first mentioned person is prepared to allow the other person the use of any such facilities; or (f) by requiring the other person to leave such premises or cease to use such facilities. (2) This section does not render it unlawful to discriminate against a person on the ground of the person’s disability in relation to the provision of access to premises if: (a) he premises are so designed or constructed as to be inaccessible to a person with a disability; and (b) any alteration to the premises to provide such access would impose unjustifiable hardship on the person who would have to provide that access. This section may apply in situations where one or more units within the block are available to the public on short term lease such as holiday lets or serviced apartments. In this situation if a person with a disability could not access the unit or common facilities available to all those residing in the block, such as a BBQ area, gym or the entrance area, a complaint of discrimination could be made. There are a growing number of units in Class 2 buildings available as short term 6

UnitNews August 2012

rental properties those responsible, whether it is the owner or Body Corporate, faces a liability for complaint if access is not provided

Accommodation Section 25 of the DDA states: (1) It is unlawful for a person, whether as principal or agent, to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person’s disability or a disability of any of that other person’s associates: (a) by refusing the other person’s application for accommodation; or (b) in the terms or conditions on which the accommodation is offered to the other person; or (c) by deferring the other person’s application for accommodation or according to the other person a lower order of precedence in any list of applicants for that accommodation. (2) It is unlawful for a person, whether as principal or agent, to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person’s disability or a disability of any of the other person’s associates: (a) by denying the other person access, or limiting the other person’s access, to any benefit associated with accommodation occupied by the other person; or (b) by evicting the other person from accommodation occupied by the other person; or (c) by subjecting the other person to any other detriment in relation to accommodation occupied by the other person; or (d) by refusing to permit the other person to make reasonable alterations to accommodation occupied by that person if: (i) that person has undertaken to restore the accommodation to its condition before alteration on leaving the accommodation; and (ii) in all the circumstances it is likely that the person will perform the undertaking; and (iii) in all the circumstances, the action required to restore the accommodation to its condition before alteration is reasonably practicable; and (iv) the alteration does not involve alteration of the premises of ny other occupier; and • the alteration is at that other person’s own expense. (3) This section does not apply to or in respect of: (a) the provision of accommodation in premises if: (i) the person who provides or proposes to provide the accommodation or a near relative of that person resides, and intends to continue to reside on those premises; and (ii) the accommodation provided in those premises is for no more than 3 persons other than a person referred to in subparagraph (a)(i) or near relatives of such a person; or (b) the accommodation is provided by a charitable or other voluntary body solely for persons who have a particular isability and the person discriminated against does not have that particular disability; or (c) the provision of accommodation in premises where special services or facilities would be required by the person with

uoaq.org.au


Feature Story

a disability and the provision of such special services or facilities would impose unjustifiable hardship on the person providing or proposing to provide the accommodation whether as principal or agent.

While in the main section 25 relates to the direct relationship between landlords and tenants there is a situation in which I believe a Body Corporate may have some liability. Part 2 (d) states that it is unlawful to refuse to permit someone to make alterations to their accommodation to allow for access so long as a number of conditions can be met (parts 2 (d) (i)(ii)(iii)(iv) and (v)). Under this part if the landlord was willing to allow a tenant (at their own expense) to undertake necessary work, but the Body Corporate refused to allow the landlord to give permission or refused to allow the work to proceed a complaint of discrimination might be made against the Body Corporate under section 122 of the DDA which states: 122 Liability of persons involved in unlawful acts A person who causes, instructs, induces, aids or permits another person to do an act that is unlawful under Division 1, 2 or 3 of Part 2 is, for the purposes of this Act, taken also to have done the act. There are of course situations in which proposed alterations might cause the owner an unjustifiable hardship or conflict with other regulations or laws such as the Building Code of Australia (BCA) or OH&S requirements. For example, it is my understanding that under the BCA, for safety reasons, a stairway has to be wide enough to have a minimum clearance beside a deployed platform lift to allow other pedestrians to pass by. However, a Body Corporate subject to a complaint would have to justify their refusal by showing exactly how the BCA or OH&S requirements are in conflict with the proposed alterations. I do not believe that the absence of a Body Corporate by-law or the need to apply for development approval would justify refusal. These issues could be addressed by taking appropriate action to change the by-laws or make a development application. While section 25 (2) refers to ‘accommodation occupied by that person’ which some might interpret as referring to the inside of the unit occupied by that person my view is that a reasonable interpretation of that part would include the common areas including the path of travel from the entrance to that persons unit. It would of course be up to the Federal Court to interpret the application of sections 25 and 122 in such a circumstance, but I am of the view that it may be possible to pursue such a claim.

Clubs and incorporated associations Section 27 Clubs and incorporated associations is another part of the DDA where I believe there is clear liability for complaints against a Body Corporate refusing to provide access to the common areas used by an owner/occupier. Section 27 states: (1) It is unlawful for a club or incorporated association, the committee of management of a club or a member of the committee of management of a club or incorporated association to discriminate against a person who is not a member of the club or association on the ground of the person’s disability or a disability of any of that person’s associates: (a) by refusing or failing to accept the person’s application for membership; or (b) in the terms or conditions on which the club or association is prepared to admit the person to membership. (2) It is unlawful for a club or incorporated association,

uoaq.org.au

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (3) (4)

the committee of management of a club or a member of the committee of management of a club or incorporated association to discriminate against a person who is a member of the club or association on the ground of the member’s disability or a disability of any of the member’s associates: in the terms or conditions of membership that are afforded to the member; or by refusing or failing to accept the member’s application for a particular class or type of membership; or by denying the member access, or limiting the member’s access to any benefit provided by the club or association; or by depriving the member of membership or varying the terms of membership; or by subjecting the member to any other detriment. Paragraph (2)(c) does not render unlawful discrimination where, because of the person’s disability, the person requires the benefit to be provided in a special manner and the benefit cannot without unjustifiable hardship be so provided by the club or incorporated association. Neither subsection (1) nor (2) renders it unlawful to discriminate against a person on the ground of the person’s disability if membership (however described) of the club or incorporated association is restricted only to persons who have a particular disability and the first mentioned person does not have that disability.

Assuming a Body Corporate is covered by the definition of ‘club or incorporated association’ I believe it would be possible for a person with a disability to pursue a complaint of discrimination against the Body Corporate if it acted in a way that denied the member access to the benefits provided in common to other members. So for example, if Body Corporate members enjoyed benefits such as access to a BBQ area or a swimming pool, but one member, because of their disability, could not get up the steps to enjoy those benefits that member could use this section to pursue a complaint of discrimination. My view is that this same principle can be applied to the situation where a member of the Body Corporate required access through the entrance to the block of units to the front door of their unit. If such a complaint were successful the Body Corporate may have responsibility to pay for the access and not the individual member. Alternatively the individual member might wish to make a contribution or pay for the alterations themselves. Of course the Body Corporate might well have access to a defence of unjustifiable hardship, particularly if providing access required structural changes or conflicted with other laws, but again it would be for a court to make that determination.

Goods, services and facilities Finally, section 24 states: (1) It is unlawful for a person who, whether for payment or not, provides goods or services, or makes facilities available, to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person’s disability or a disability of any of that other person’s associates: (a) by refusing to provide the other person with those goods or services or to make those facilities available to the other person; or (b) in the terms or conditions on which the first mentioned person provides the other person with those goods or services or makes those facilities available to the other person; or

August 2012 UnitNews

7


Feature Story (c) (2)

Body Corporate responsibilities in relation to the Disability Discrimination Act

in the manner in which the first mentioned person provides the other person with those goods or services or makes those facilities available to the other person. This section does not render it unlawful to discriminate against a person on the ground of the person’s disability if the provision of the goods or services, or making facilities available, would impose unjustifiable hardship on the person who provides the goods or services or makes the facilities available.

There are two ways this section might be used by a complainant. First if the accommodation in question were a service delivered by a Government or non-government organisation and a person eligible for the accommodation had a disability and could not access the service or facility. Secondly, this section might also be used in situations where a Body Corporate or Strata Management body discriminated in the way in which it made a decision in relation to an issue that affects a person with a disability such as the provision of access. While not a complaint under the DDA, the decision of the Queensland Tribunal in C v A is most relevant to this broader question of Body Corporate responsibilities towards its members.This case involved a woman who lives in an apartment block (Class 2 building) and who because of a disability was not able to independently move around the common areas because the doors were too heavy for her to open. The Tribunal found that the Body Corporate had a responsibility to ensure accessible paths of travel for its member. The Body Corporate was ordered to install automatic doors and pay the complainant $25,000 in compensation.

Summary So in summary, a Body Corporate may find itself subject to a

complaint of discrimination in a number of circumstances including: • where one or more units within the block were available to the public for short term rent and access to the unit and common facilities was not available • where it refused to allow an owner to allow a tenant to make alterations at their own expense (subject to certain conditions), or • where it failed to ensure that all its members could enjoy all the benefits of membership, including access to common areas. I have been advocating for this issue to be addressed through the yet to be finalised Access to Premises Standard. My view is that the Premises Standard should include a requirement that all new Class 2 buildings (apartments and units) should be constructed in a way that allows for accessible paths of travel though the entrance to the front doors of the units on that entry level, to the front door of units on other levels where a lift is provided and to at least one of each area or facilities used in common by the residents of the apartment block. This would result in a number of benefits. First developers and any Body Corporate could be sure they were addressing their potential liability, and secondly there would be a progressive improvement in sustainable housing stock to better meet the needs of people with a disability and our ageing population. The issues raised by your questions will be of interest to others so I intend to publish this reply as an open letter on our website. Yours sincerely Graeme Innes AM Human Rights Commissioner & Disability Discrimination Commissioner - 15 September 2008

“Performance Based” Management Solutions Our Professional Body Corporate Management Service includes:

CTS Management

- Performance Based Management Fees - Maximising Returns on Surplus Funds with Cash Flow Management - Formulating Cost Effective Budgets - Conducting Efficient Meetings - Management of Insurance Quotations & Claims - Extensive Industry Knowledge & Experience - Transparency & Accountability For All Owners

Contact our office for an Obligation Free Proposal 8

UnitNews August 2012

Suite 35, Level 6, "Northpoint", 231 North Quay Brisbane Qld 4000 Phone 07 3211 4445 Fax 07 3211 4410 Email info@ctsm.com.au

www.ctsm.com.au Proud Member of:

uoaq.org.au

Unit News Online - UOAQ AUGUST  

The official magazine of Unit Owners Association Queensland

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you