Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Perhaps they haven’t changed it because its presence ‘on the books’ still works to discourage those pet owners who do not want the aggravation of challenging it. This type of passive bulling is not uncommon in our strata world.
- This reply was modified 4 months, 2 weeks ago by .
Re “Implied Easements”. I think we have a similar arrangement in Queensland, called “Statutory Easements” which arise under our Land Titles Act and the BCCM legn. Very invasive and preemptory, and often encourages the Committees to feel they can do anything they like. There may be a requirement of ‘reasonable’ notice being given to an owner before the service provider comes onto your property or exclusive use area, but failure to do so does not prohibit the access and installation…so guess what happens, no notice.
Greetings again from Queensland. Had a similar but different situation at our Sunshine Coast complex on the banks of the Maroochy River. We have a large ‘common property’ boatshed on the premises, intended to securely house the 15+ kayaks belonging to owners/occupiers. (We’d also built racks on the outside wall – under CCTV – to accommodate the kayaks brought by the holiday makers at peak times.) None of the vessels in the boatshed were marked to identify the owners and their respective lots. More owners bought kayaks, we ran out of ‘rack’ space in the shed, and about 4+ kayaks ended up being stored on the floor – and had to be shifted every time someone wanted to access a kayak. When we did a stock take of who owned what, we discovered that our resident holiday-letting manager had given a number of his regulars permission to permanently store their kayaks in the boat shed – all bubble wrapped and up on the storage racks – between their annual holidays. The manager has been there since 2006, has a 25-year contract which gets topped-up every year, and has developed a sense of entitlement to do what he pleases. One of the many downsides of that QLD cancer called Long-Term Management Rights.
Ross
Jimmy…thanks again from the Unit Owners Association of Queensland (UOAQ) for sharing the Trafalgar Towers story with your readers. There are two matters of concern to the UOAQ about the latest adverse ruling against the Tower body corporate:
1: There was no mention by the 2021 Adjudicator of the earlier adverse ruling in 2016, on pretty much the same issue. In 2016, the body corporate was told to remove the condition that the cat or dog had to be carried up the emergency stairs in a wire cage…but it was also suggested they look closely at the remainder of their anti-pet by-law. Obviously they didn’t look too closely because they stuck with the conditions that the pets could not access the lifts and had to use the stairs. Hence the 2021 ruling. This would have been a perfect opportunity for the 2021 Adjudicator to unleash on a body corporate for persisting with an obviously invalid by-law to the detriment of the owners.
2. This is another example where the BCCM legislation should permit some form of ‘costs’ being awarded against egregious RESPONDENTS who cause the problem in the first place. Current law only allows costs against APPLICANTS for this type of behaviour. The UOAQ does not favour a standard ‘costs’ regime where “winner takes all… loser pays”. This would not be appropriate in a ‘peoples’ court’ where all parties are entitled to have their say on matters of genuine doubt, without risk of automatic penalties for getting it wrong. But if there is serious fault on the part of one party to a dispute, some type of sanction against the loser should be available, regardless of whether you are the applicant or the respondent.
Ross Anderson UOAQ Executive
Greetings
I am from QLD and authored the UOAQ article re CCTV which JimmyT published in FlatChat. (Thank you, Jimmy!) It has generated a lot of interest up here in the Sunshine State and I hope it leads to more unit owners giving some thought to the question of CCTV cameras on common property, especially when the cameras are positioned to capture images of people in communal areas like the pool, gym, spa etc. I’d guess that historically, there has been little application of our collective brainpower to this question, and as suggested in my article, the very fact the cameras are tucked away out of sight also means they are also out of mind.
My particular interest here is the level of transparency and disclosure appropriate to the CCTV installations, ie should there be signage about their presence, OR should the signs also advise that all owners may view the footage subject to paying a nominal statutory fee and also obtain snapshots at a mere cost of 65 cents each.
Interestingly, I attended a webinar today about the QLD right of access to body corporate records, with particular focus on CCTV. The webinar was hosted by a senior strata lawyer Frank Higginson of Hynes Legal and by Chris Irons the former Body Corporate Commissioner. When asked whether the signage should also reference the owners’ right to view/copy the footage, they both replied that while there may not be any legal requirement to do so, it should be observed as a Best Practice. I found it quite heartening that at least two leaders in our QLD strata world think this way and are prepared to put their views out there in public.
I realise that full disclosure may alarm some people, particularly the holiday rental managers, but perhaps this is the best way to test how genuine their support is for the cameras in the first. Personally, I would have doubts about the integrity of anyone who champions the installations but then goes quiet about telling people about the full implications of the footage.
Many thanks
JimmyT….. many thanks for providing a national profile to the obscenity that we call Management Rights in Queensland. I have rarely found anyone outside our strata world who can accept the logic of QLD’s ong-term management regime, especially when I tell them that our BCCM legislation specifically prohibits the body corporate from asking for any form of compensation from the caretaker when granting a 5-year top-up. Big bucks in their pockets, nothing in ours.
You are right to describe it as ‘legislative corruption’.
The good news is that more and more complexes are saying NO to these top-up requests, and many are already close to expiration of their current management contracts… and counting the days to freedom of choice.Dear Jimmy…I note your concern about the cowboy Body Corporate Managers (BCM) (as they are known in QLD).
We have the same problem north of the border.
Anyone can start up as a BCM in QLD, and the only control is caveat emptor. There is no regulatory oversight at all.
Am aware of at least two recent cases up here where the Commissioner’s Adjudicator absolutely bucketed the BCMs involved…but they are still practicing and without penalty.
The two cases are reported on Austlii.edu :
Springfields Gold Coast – [2015] QBCCMCmr 552 (23 November 2015) per Complete Body Corporate Services
Northcliffe [2016] QBCCMCmr 211 (11 May 2016) per Select Strata ManagementThe sooner the government introduces some oversight over our BCMs, the better it will be for all of us.
Ross Anderson
Vice-President/Secretary: Unit Owners Association of Queensland