Minister Peter Lawlor announced some months ago that he would be changing the legislation so that "millionaire penthouse owners" would no longer be able to exploit a loophole to have their Body Corporate Levies slashed at the expense of smaller unit owners.
Whilst we continue to await for the changes to the legislation to be put forward, QCAT continue to rule on applications to equalise levies. The latest ruling for Palm Springs Residences determined in favour of the applicant to reduce the levies in penthouses on higher floors and increase the levies for those on lower floors.
One has to wonder whether Peter Lawlor was premature in making his announcement. Although he continues to assert that the legislation will be changed there is no guarantee that this will actually happen and his announcement may have had the affect of falsely raising the hopes of residents who face significant rises in their levies.
The fact is that if he doesnt do something soon it may be too late and he could be sitting in opposition.
______________________________________________________________________________
The opinions expressed in this blog are personal and not intended in to be advice in any way. I have spent many years participating on a number of different Body Corporate Committees. I am a dealer in Vintage Movie Memorabilia specialising in original movie posters and movie art. http://www.moviemem.com/I also present a radio programme on Jazz Radio 94.1fm Monday - Friday afternoons on the Gold Coast.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
QCAT highly critical of Body Corporate Manager SSKB
QCAT recently ruled on an application to equalise the levies at Palm Springs Residences. The determination was given in favour of the applicant. Part of the determination was highly critical of the SSKB representative/consultant who acted on behalf of the BC.
"It is difficult to ascertain how he can assert, in any meaningful way, that he is not aware of any possible or perceived conflict of interest".
"It is of concern that Mr Walsh's final conclusion in his report of 22 September 2009 (exhibit 3) is identical to the terms of the defence filed by the Respondent".
"The adoption of the practice of body corporate managers purporting to act both as "experts" and "representatives" in the same case is not one which should be encouraged."
"These sections of his report are common to all such reports emanating from SSKB".
Hardly a glowing endorsement for SSKB - Stewart Silver King and Burns. Hopefully they will take the free advice from QCAT and reconsider their future involvement in these matters.
"It is difficult to ascertain how he can assert, in any meaningful way, that he is not aware of any possible or perceived conflict of interest".
"It is of concern that Mr Walsh's final conclusion in his report of 22 September 2009 (exhibit 3) is identical to the terms of the defence filed by the Respondent".
"The adoption of the practice of body corporate managers purporting to act both as "experts" and "representatives" in the same case is not one which should be encouraged."
"These sections of his report are common to all such reports emanating from SSKB".
Hardly a glowing endorsement for SSKB - Stewart Silver King and Burns. Hopefully they will take the free advice from QCAT and reconsider their future involvement in these matters.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Body Corporate Levy Equalisation Farce
On February 19th Peter Lawlor announced changes in the legislation so that "millionaire penthouse owners" would no longer be able to exploit a loophole to have their Body Corporate Levies slashed at the expense of smaller unit owners.
In recent years there have been a number of applications for equalisation of levies in Bodies Corporate based on the premise that the levies go towards the maintenance of the common property. As every owner has an equal share of common property the theory was that every owner should pay the same amount irrespective of the value of the unit.
The original calculation of levies set by the Developer is often based on the size of the unit and the floor level ie the units on higher floors usually pay higher levies.
I interviewed Peter Lawlor on my radio programme on Jazz Radio 94.1fm shortly after he made the announcement. He argues that owners should be able to rely on the levies that were set by the Developer and an owner of a penthouse should pay more than an owner of small ground floor apartments.
There are obviously good arguments on both sides but there are currently applications to equalise the levies before QCAT formerly CCT that have been left in the "too hard basket" for more than a year.
Since Peter Lawlor's announcement, QCAT has not communicated the progress of at least one application, presumably waiting for the legislation to go through. This is a farsical situation. One applicant has argued that a court can not and should not hold off making a legal decision because the legislation "might" change. He argues that the current law applies and that a ruling should be made on that basis.
Of course, others argue that it would be ridiculous for QCAT to rule on the current law only to have their ruling overturned months later when the legislation changes.
Either way, QCAT should communicate the current status to all owners who are embroiled in these expensive and ongoing applications.
_____________________________________
The opinions expressed in this blog are personal and not intended in to be advice in any way. I have spent many years participating on a number of different Body Corporate Committees. I am a dealer in Vintage Movie Memorabilia specialising in original movie posters and movie art. http://www.moviemem.com/I also present a radio programme on Jazz Radio 94.1fm Monday - Friday afternoons on the Gold Coast.
In recent years there have been a number of applications for equalisation of levies in Bodies Corporate based on the premise that the levies go towards the maintenance of the common property. As every owner has an equal share of common property the theory was that every owner should pay the same amount irrespective of the value of the unit.
The original calculation of levies set by the Developer is often based on the size of the unit and the floor level ie the units on higher floors usually pay higher levies.
I interviewed Peter Lawlor on my radio programme on Jazz Radio 94.1fm shortly after he made the announcement. He argues that owners should be able to rely on the levies that were set by the Developer and an owner of a penthouse should pay more than an owner of small ground floor apartments.
There are obviously good arguments on both sides but there are currently applications to equalise the levies before QCAT formerly CCT that have been left in the "too hard basket" for more than a year.
Since Peter Lawlor's announcement, QCAT has not communicated the progress of at least one application, presumably waiting for the legislation to go through. This is a farsical situation. One applicant has argued that a court can not and should not hold off making a legal decision because the legislation "might" change. He argues that the current law applies and that a ruling should be made on that basis.
Of course, others argue that it would be ridiculous for QCAT to rule on the current law only to have their ruling overturned months later when the legislation changes.
Either way, QCAT should communicate the current status to all owners who are embroiled in these expensive and ongoing applications.
_____________________________________
The opinions expressed in this blog are personal and not intended in to be advice in any way. I have spent many years participating on a number of different Body Corporate Committees. I am a dealer in Vintage Movie Memorabilia specialising in original movie posters and movie art. http://www.moviemem.com/I also present a radio programme on Jazz Radio 94.1fm Monday - Friday afternoons on the Gold Coast.
High Rise Horror
There have been a number of reports about owners in High Rise apartments in Surfers Paradise complaining about schoolies, rugby and football groups and Indie holiday makers ruining their lifestyle as permanent residents.
Claims of unruly behaviour that is not policed are common. By Laws are routinely ignored by short term holiday makers and the Body Corporate is often powerless to deal these issues as the tenants have often left the building before any action can be taken.
Last night, Channel Nine's A Current Affair featured a story on Concord Apartments in Surfers Paradise. This only supports the claims that permanent residents and short term holiday makers do not mix.
http://video.au.msn.com/watch/video/high-rise-squalor/xrxm9u2
and
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/australian-news/7040189/legal-stoush-brews-over-schoolies-ban-bid/xxx
_____________________________________
The opinions expressed in this blog are personal and not intended in to be advice in any way. I have spent many years participating on a number of different Body Corporate Committees. I am a dealer in Vintage Movie Memorabilia specialising in original movie posters and movie art. http://www.moviemem.com/I also present a radio programme on Jazz Radio 94.1fm Monday - Friday afternoons on the Gold Coast.
Claims of unruly behaviour that is not policed are common. By Laws are routinely ignored by short term holiday makers and the Body Corporate is often powerless to deal these issues as the tenants have often left the building before any action can be taken.
Last night, Channel Nine's A Current Affair featured a story on Concord Apartments in Surfers Paradise. This only supports the claims that permanent residents and short term holiday makers do not mix.
http://video.au.msn.com/watch/video/high-rise-squalor/xrxm9u2
and
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/australian-news/7040189/legal-stoush-brews-over-schoolies-ban-bid/xxx
_____________________________________
The opinions expressed in this blog are personal and not intended in to be advice in any way. I have spent many years participating on a number of different Body Corporate Committees. I am a dealer in Vintage Movie Memorabilia specialising in original movie posters and movie art. http://www.moviemem.com/I also present a radio programme on Jazz Radio 94.1fm Monday - Friday afternoons on the Gold Coast.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Body Corporate "Specialists"
There are a number of solicitors who claim to be specialists in Body Corporate law. There are times when a Body Corporate has no option but to obtain a legal opinion, but you do need to be very careful about who you chose in providing the advice. There have been claims of overcharging, flawed legal advice, loss of important documents, etc and these are just the tip of the iceberg.
If you do need to use a solicitor you should ask as many questions as possible:
1. Ask your Body Corporate Manager if they have had experience with the solicitor and if they are able to provide any feedback. In recent years there has been an increase in the number of Body Corporates who have engaged solicitors and your Body Corporate Manager should be able to help you in making a decision as to who is best to use.
2. Ask the solicitor for references. If the solicitor claims to specialise in Body Corporate Law they should be able to give you contact points for previous clients so that you can get some feedback. If you want details of specific cases there is no reason why you should not ask the solictor to provide you with details of committee members at the time or the Body Corporate Manager who was involved.
3. Caretakers may be able to provide some feedback on their experiences with solicitors.
4. Speak to more than one solicitor before making a commitment.
5. Clarify as much as possible in regards to costs and terms and conditions with the solicitor prior to making a commitment.
When you do engage a solictor make sure that all committee members fully understand the costs agreement and ensure that all costs are fully authorised within the Commitee spending limit.
The term "Body Corporate Specialist" is not an official term with any specific qualification. It simply means that the solicitor concentrates on Body Corporate issues. The term does not necesarily mean that the solicitor has more expertise than any other solicitor.
It is always best to do as much homework as possible before entering into an agreement with a solicitor.
If you have already engaged a solicitor you can always consider getting a second opinion if needed and if you are not happy with the work that has been provided or the charges that have been made you should advise the solictor of this in writing and take further action if the BC sees fit.
Bear in mind that legal costs in relation to Body Corporate issues can be very costly and time consuming. It is generally best to try everything possible to resolve these issues through negotiation and mediation or through the Commissioner before getting involved in a costly legal battle.
_____________________________________
The opinions expressed in this blog are personal and not intended in to be advice in any way. I have spent many years participating on a number of different Body Corporate Committees. I am a dealer in Vintage Movie Memorabilia specialising in original movie posters and movie art. http://www.moviemem.com/I also present a radio programme on Jazz Radio 94.1fm Monday - Friday afternoons on the Gold Coast.
If you do need to use a solicitor you should ask as many questions as possible:
1. Ask your Body Corporate Manager if they have had experience with the solicitor and if they are able to provide any feedback. In recent years there has been an increase in the number of Body Corporates who have engaged solicitors and your Body Corporate Manager should be able to help you in making a decision as to who is best to use.
2. Ask the solicitor for references. If the solicitor claims to specialise in Body Corporate Law they should be able to give you contact points for previous clients so that you can get some feedback. If you want details of specific cases there is no reason why you should not ask the solictor to provide you with details of committee members at the time or the Body Corporate Manager who was involved.
3. Caretakers may be able to provide some feedback on their experiences with solicitors.
4. Speak to more than one solicitor before making a commitment.
5. Clarify as much as possible in regards to costs and terms and conditions with the solicitor prior to making a commitment.
When you do engage a solictor make sure that all committee members fully understand the costs agreement and ensure that all costs are fully authorised within the Commitee spending limit.
The term "Body Corporate Specialist" is not an official term with any specific qualification. It simply means that the solicitor concentrates on Body Corporate issues. The term does not necesarily mean that the solicitor has more expertise than any other solicitor.
It is always best to do as much homework as possible before entering into an agreement with a solicitor.
If you have already engaged a solicitor you can always consider getting a second opinion if needed and if you are not happy with the work that has been provided or the charges that have been made you should advise the solictor of this in writing and take further action if the BC sees fit.
Bear in mind that legal costs in relation to Body Corporate issues can be very costly and time consuming. It is generally best to try everything possible to resolve these issues through negotiation and mediation or through the Commissioner before getting involved in a costly legal battle.
_____________________________________
The opinions expressed in this blog are personal and not intended in to be advice in any way. I have spent many years participating on a number of different Body Corporate Committees. I am a dealer in Vintage Movie Memorabilia specialising in original movie posters and movie art. http://www.moviemem.com/I also present a radio programme on Jazz Radio 94.1fm Monday - Friday afternoons on the Gold Coast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
