It has been reported that on 1st January 2012, new regulations came in to force requiring all pre 2004 Bodies Corporate buildings to comply with new Asbestos regulations or risk heavy fines and/or prison terms.
Apparently, the regulations require Bodies Corporate to have an Asbestos Inspection and report completed. If any Asbestos is found in the building, a register needs to be completed and the BC should ensure follow up reports are completed every twelve months.
The reason this is being done is presumably because Bodies Corporate Buildings are considered a work place and any health hazards would need to be disclosed to anyone working on the property.
Many will be asking why "pre 2004". Surely Asbestos was phased out long before then? Well, Amosite and Chrysotile (white asbestos) was used up until 2003 so that is why the new regulations have been introduced.
The interesting thing about this is that a previous regulation was in place for buildings built prior to 1990 but it seems to have been largely ignored. Many Bodies Corporate have no idea or knowledge of the legislation and inspections have not been made despite the fact that Asbestos has been present in many buildings.
You have to wonder whether disclosure statements picked this up and whether there may be the possibility of legal action down the track based on the fact that Bodies Corporate have failed to have the reports and inspections carried out.
Body Corporate Committees rely on their Body Corporate Managers to update them on their requirements. At the moment, some BC Managers are advising their clients that they should have the report done and inspection completed asap. Others are not. Those BC Communities without BC Managers are unlikely to be aware of the new regulations.
There is currently some debate about whether the regulations have actually come into force despite the published date 1st Jan 2012.
You should seek advice in relation to the new regulations from your Body Corporate Manager.
______________________________________________
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.
Showing posts with label Australia BCCM Body Corporate Development Government High Rise Queensland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Australia BCCM Body Corporate Development Government High Rise Queensland. Show all posts
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Sunday, October 23, 2011
The View Tax has to go
It is no wonder that Unit prices on the Gold Coast have taken a dive. Increased fees and charges have contributed to a significant devaluation of many investment properties. Add to that the fact that many investors have had to absorb a dramatic decrease in rental income as competition increases and rents drop.
The Gold Coast City Council came up with a new way to fleece unit owners in 2006 by increasing rates for owners above the 4th floor. This has been referred to as a VIEW TAX which just about sums up what the increases are all about.
There is no logical reason why the rates should be higher for someone who has a unit on the 4th Floor as opposed to the third floor. The increase in rates is indefensible and who can blame anyone for thinking that it was simply a callous and deceitful way to raise additional revenue.
It gets worse for owners on higher floors. The higher you go the more you pay. The end result is that Unit prices plummet. Prospective buyers take a look at the fees and charges, do a simple equation and work out that many Units on the Gold Coast are a poor investment with little possibility of a decent return on their investment.
We have Council elections in 2012 and whoever runs for Council should think very seriously about removing the draconian View Tax.
The Gold Coast City Council came up with a new way to fleece unit owners in 2006 by increasing rates for owners above the 4th floor. This has been referred to as a VIEW TAX which just about sums up what the increases are all about.
There is no logical reason why the rates should be higher for someone who has a unit on the 4th Floor as opposed to the third floor. The increase in rates is indefensible and who can blame anyone for thinking that it was simply a callous and deceitful way to raise additional revenue.
It gets worse for owners on higher floors. The higher you go the more you pay. The end result is that Unit prices plummet. Prospective buyers take a look at the fees and charges, do a simple equation and work out that many Units on the Gold Coast are a poor investment with little possibility of a decent return on their investment.
We have Council elections in 2012 and whoever runs for Council should think very seriously about removing the draconian View Tax.
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.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Caretaker Termination - The Palm Springs decision
On July 3rd Specialist Adjudicator Kiernan Dorney handed down a ruling that is likely to send shock waves to Caretakers throughout Queensland.
The Body Corporate for Palm Springs Residences voted at an EGM in 2007 to terminate the Caretaking agreement. The Caretakers lodged application numbers 0135-2007 & 0309-2007 to the Commissioner in an attempt to rule the termination invalid. Specialist Adjudicator, Gary Bugden ruled in favour of the Caretakers. However, his decision was appealed by the Body Corporate for Palm Springs.
Judge McGill referred the matter back to the Commissioner to be re heard and Kiernan Dorney Q.C, the Specialist Adjudicator, dismissed the Application on Friday 3rd July 2009. Mr Dorney's orders were accompanied by 42 pages of "reasons for final decision in specalist adjudication".
The entire process has taken more than two years to reach its current stage.
One of my impressions of the decision was that Mr Dorney's ruling reinforced the Yedway findings that Caretakers are obligated to maintain reasonable communication with elected Committee representatives.
Another aspect of the ruling that I found interesting was that it appears that the Caretakers were deemed to have a responsibility for the general maintenance of unit entry doors and frames. Palm Springs Residences is a unit complex on the beach comprising owner/residents, long term tenants and holiday rentals. The door frames had begun to show signs of rust which was probably caused by a buildup of salt residue. Regular maintenance and cleaning of the frames is likely to prevent rusting.
The problem is that the Caretakers would need to regularly enter owners' units to gain access to clean the door frames. They would not be able to rely on owners to clean the frames themselves because of the potential liability in the event of rusting. The logistics of arranging to enter individual owners units on a regular basis would be difficult to organise and probably impractical. Some owners would be likely to find this an unwelcome intrusion, particularly in the case where owners did not have a good relationship with the Caretaker.
As always, the decision is subject to possible appeal.
------------------------------------------------------------
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.
The Body Corporate for Palm Springs Residences voted at an EGM in 2007 to terminate the Caretaking agreement. The Caretakers lodged application numbers 0135-2007 & 0309-2007 to the Commissioner in an attempt to rule the termination invalid. Specialist Adjudicator, Gary Bugden ruled in favour of the Caretakers. However, his decision was appealed by the Body Corporate for Palm Springs.
Judge McGill referred the matter back to the Commissioner to be re heard and Kiernan Dorney Q.C, the Specialist Adjudicator, dismissed the Application on Friday 3rd July 2009. Mr Dorney's orders were accompanied by 42 pages of "reasons for final decision in specalist adjudication".
The entire process has taken more than two years to reach its current stage.
One of my impressions of the decision was that Mr Dorney's ruling reinforced the Yedway findings that Caretakers are obligated to maintain reasonable communication with elected Committee representatives.
Another aspect of the ruling that I found interesting was that it appears that the Caretakers were deemed to have a responsibility for the general maintenance of unit entry doors and frames. Palm Springs Residences is a unit complex on the beach comprising owner/residents, long term tenants and holiday rentals. The door frames had begun to show signs of rust which was probably caused by a buildup of salt residue. Regular maintenance and cleaning of the frames is likely to prevent rusting.
The problem is that the Caretakers would need to regularly enter owners' units to gain access to clean the door frames. They would not be able to rely on owners to clean the frames themselves because of the potential liability in the event of rusting. The logistics of arranging to enter individual owners units on a regular basis would be difficult to organise and probably impractical. Some owners would be likely to find this an unwelcome intrusion, particularly in the case where owners did not have a good relationship with the Caretaker.
As always, the decision is subject to possible appeal.
------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
To Pay or not to Pay ....
One of the basic fundamentals of Community living is that the owners usually control and manage the Body Corporate. They do this through an elected committee who make decisions on expenditure and policy. The problem with all of this is that many owners who buy into Body Corporate communities never have even the remotest intention of ever contributing in any way, let alone serve as committee members.
The bottom line is that a great many owners expect someone else to do the work - in fact, anyone but themselves.
Some owners have reasons why they cannot nominate for the committee. These reasons can include the fact that they are elderly, live interstate or overseas, have work committments, etc etc. The reality is that everyone can come up with a reason why they should not nominate.
It could be argued that owners actually have a responsibility to serve as a committee member at some point during their ownership of the property - if not a legal responsibility there is certainly a moral responsibility.
Body Corporate Committees are finding that they have an increasingly higher workload as the various regulations become more complex. The workload can be extroadinarily high for a voluntary position, particularly if the committee members take their role seriously.
Of course there are some Bodies Corporate Committees who do very little. I know of one that has not had a committee meeting at all in the last year and will probably just wait for the AGM to resolve anything. They are really a committee in name only. However, these committees can often lead a Body Corporate into a potential minefield where important issues like insurance coverage, fire regulations and other requirements can be neglected to the point where the Body Corporate and the Committee can be exposed to liability.
The position of committee member is voluntary and often unpaid. Many long serving committee members are now saying that they are sick and tired of representing other owners who have no intention of ever making a contribution. It is a little ironic that some of the owners who will never nominate as committee members often have the gall to criticize those who do serve on the committee.
Three of the properties I am involved with are certain to have problems forming a committee at the upcoming AGM. At one unit complex, no one is prepared to nominate as Chairman. If a Chairman is not elected an EGM will need to be called to try and coerce, cajole or coax someone into nominating.
Of course the position of Chairman always carries an additional responsibility because the Chairman should be familiar with the Act and his/her repsonsibilities. In fact the Act actually requires that committee members are familiar with the regulations and lack of knowledge is not seen as an excuse. The end result is that this discourages owners even more from nominating as Chairman. Why expose yourself to the potential aggravation when there is no reward and little thanks. It is far easier to pass the buck to someone else.
The end result is that more and more committee members are deciding that they will not serve unless they are paid. The Act allows for remuneration either for expenses or a set payment. Owners must declare that they will be seeking remuneration at the time written nominations are submitted and owners either approve or reject the payment.
I have received payment at one Body Corporate. A number of owners said that they were happy to pay to save having to be involved themselves. However, other Bodies Corporate look at anyone seeking payment with shock and horror as if work as a Committee member should be a noble deed on a purely voluntary basis. There is a strange sort of moral stigma associated with anyone seeking payment.
I have been told that there are some Bodies Corporate where committee members are paid what amounts to a significant wage. As long as the amount is approved at an AGM then the payments are in order but, of course, there are some Bodies Corporate where very few vote at the AGM. Apathy rules and payments to committee members are often passed without the majority of owners reading the agenda let alone voting.
If Committee members are paid, there is always the possibility that there may be some additional scrutiny of their performance, particularly when one committee member is paid and another is not.
However, many Bodies Corporate are having to face the fact that if they do not pay Committee members they will not have a Committee. They have to weigh up the overall cost of payments to Committee members against payments to an adminstrator.
The end result, either way, is that Body Corporate levies will rise. I believe that it is inevitable that more and more committee members will seek payment as the role becomes more time consuming and complex.
Body Corporate committees are not charities set up to look after the interests of those who cannot or will not contribute.
My view is that anyone who nominates as a Committee member has a right to seek whatever remuneration he or she sees fit and those owners who make no contribution should be thankful that someone is prepared to take on the role.
------------------------------------------------------------
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.
The bottom line is that a great many owners expect someone else to do the work - in fact, anyone but themselves.
Some owners have reasons why they cannot nominate for the committee. These reasons can include the fact that they are elderly, live interstate or overseas, have work committments, etc etc. The reality is that everyone can come up with a reason why they should not nominate.
It could be argued that owners actually have a responsibility to serve as a committee member at some point during their ownership of the property - if not a legal responsibility there is certainly a moral responsibility.
Body Corporate Committees are finding that they have an increasingly higher workload as the various regulations become more complex. The workload can be extroadinarily high for a voluntary position, particularly if the committee members take their role seriously.
Of course there are some Bodies Corporate Committees who do very little. I know of one that has not had a committee meeting at all in the last year and will probably just wait for the AGM to resolve anything. They are really a committee in name only. However, these committees can often lead a Body Corporate into a potential minefield where important issues like insurance coverage, fire regulations and other requirements can be neglected to the point where the Body Corporate and the Committee can be exposed to liability.
The position of committee member is voluntary and often unpaid. Many long serving committee members are now saying that they are sick and tired of representing other owners who have no intention of ever making a contribution. It is a little ironic that some of the owners who will never nominate as committee members often have the gall to criticize those who do serve on the committee.
Three of the properties I am involved with are certain to have problems forming a committee at the upcoming AGM. At one unit complex, no one is prepared to nominate as Chairman. If a Chairman is not elected an EGM will need to be called to try and coerce, cajole or coax someone into nominating.
Of course the position of Chairman always carries an additional responsibility because the Chairman should be familiar with the Act and his/her repsonsibilities. In fact the Act actually requires that committee members are familiar with the regulations and lack of knowledge is not seen as an excuse. The end result is that this discourages owners even more from nominating as Chairman. Why expose yourself to the potential aggravation when there is no reward and little thanks. It is far easier to pass the buck to someone else.
The end result is that more and more committee members are deciding that they will not serve unless they are paid. The Act allows for remuneration either for expenses or a set payment. Owners must declare that they will be seeking remuneration at the time written nominations are submitted and owners either approve or reject the payment.
I have received payment at one Body Corporate. A number of owners said that they were happy to pay to save having to be involved themselves. However, other Bodies Corporate look at anyone seeking payment with shock and horror as if work as a Committee member should be a noble deed on a purely voluntary basis. There is a strange sort of moral stigma associated with anyone seeking payment.
I have been told that there are some Bodies Corporate where committee members are paid what amounts to a significant wage. As long as the amount is approved at an AGM then the payments are in order but, of course, there are some Bodies Corporate where very few vote at the AGM. Apathy rules and payments to committee members are often passed without the majority of owners reading the agenda let alone voting.
If Committee members are paid, there is always the possibility that there may be some additional scrutiny of their performance, particularly when one committee member is paid and another is not.
However, many Bodies Corporate are having to face the fact that if they do not pay Committee members they will not have a Committee. They have to weigh up the overall cost of payments to Committee members against payments to an adminstrator.
The end result, either way, is that Body Corporate levies will rise. I believe that it is inevitable that more and more committee members will seek payment as the role becomes more time consuming and complex.
Body Corporate committees are not charities set up to look after the interests of those who cannot or will not contribute.
My view is that anyone who nominates as a Committee member has a right to seek whatever remuneration he or she sees fit and those owners who make no contribution should be thankful that someone is prepared to take on the role.
------------------------------------------------------------
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.
New Fire Regulations for Bodies Corporate
From 1st July 2009 Bodies Corporate will be required to comply with new Fire Regulations depending on the classification of their building.
I believe that many Bodies Corporate have no idea of what their requirements are and many will not even be aware that new regulations exist.
There has been considerable concern about many buildings in Qld which are classified as Class 2 buildings but operate as Class 3. Fire regulations for Class 3 buildings are generally more stringent and, consequently, more costly. The problem is that the interpretations of the classifications can be blurred and enforcement of the regulations is less than it should be with various authorities preferring to pass the buck.
There have already been some tragic incidents in buildings which have had less than adequate fire systems in place.
It is time that the goverment actually enforced the regulations before another tragedy occurs. Unfortunately, I doubt that this will happen because there are clearly many buildings that do not comply and many others that prefer to bend the rules or interpretation of their building classification.
If you are a member of a Body Corporate committee you should contact http://www.dip.qld.gov.au/for more details.
--------------------------------------------------------
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.
I believe that many Bodies Corporate have no idea of what their requirements are and many will not even be aware that new regulations exist.
There has been considerable concern about many buildings in Qld which are classified as Class 2 buildings but operate as Class 3. Fire regulations for Class 3 buildings are generally more stringent and, consequently, more costly. The problem is that the interpretations of the classifications can be blurred and enforcement of the regulations is less than it should be with various authorities preferring to pass the buck.
There have already been some tragic incidents in buildings which have had less than adequate fire systems in place.
It is time that the goverment actually enforced the regulations before another tragedy occurs. Unfortunately, I doubt that this will happen because there are clearly many buildings that do not comply and many others that prefer to bend the rules or interpretation of their building classification.
If you are a member of a Body Corporate committee you should contact http://www.dip.qld.gov.au/for more details.
--------------------------------------------------------
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.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Caretaking and Letting Agreement terminated.....
On 15th April 2009 the CCT ordered that a Caretaking and Letting Agreement had been vaildly terminated. The ruling makes interesting reading, particularly regarding the behaviour of the Caretaker.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/qld/QCCTBCCM/2009/14.html?query=MAXINE%20SEATON
--------------------------------------------------------
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.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/qld/QCCTBCCM/2009/14.html?query=MAXINE%20SEATON
--------------------------------------------------------
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.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
All Levies are equal but some are more equal than others......
I can't help but think of the words of George Orwell when the subject of equalisation of levies is raised. This refers to the view that all unit owners should pay the same or a similar amount in levies irrespective of the type of apartment that they live in.
Traditionally, and with no relation to logic, owners have paid levies that can be variously dependent on the size of their unit, the number of bedrooms or the floor of their apartment.
It is possible that the owner of a penthouse could easily be paying double the levies of an owner on a lower floor, despite the fact that the levies for both owners are supposedly set in place simply to contribute to maintenance and upkeep of the common property.
Generally speaking, the higher the floor and the greater the size of the unit, the higher the levies.
Some owners felt this "system" was unfair and a series of disputes have been lodged in recent years. The theory was that levies were based on the maintenance of the common property and had no relation to the size of the units or the number of bedrooms. If you owned the penthouse, you paid substantially higher levies than someone on the floor below but both owners were supposedly contributing to the common property so why should one owner pay more than antoher. Of course, the owners in the ground floor units argue that they have no use for the elevators so why should they have to pay for their maintenance.
There are some exceptions but rulings of Specialist Adjudicators have often favoured an equalistation of the levies, providing a good case is made.
Gary Bugden, a Specialist Adjudicator in one case, told me that he was reluctant to change the structure of levies unless presented with the report of an expert. These are easy enough to obtain. The report needs to jusify that all of the apartments should contribute equally to the Body Corporate irrespective of size.
This is not always an easy task. There are often variables that can mean one unit owner should, in fact, contribute more than another. An expert report can indicate that the contribution schedule needs to be changed but it is not necessarily a given that all reports will favour equal contributions.
The rulings of Adjudicators are supposedly based on an interpretation of Law and The Act.
A recent report indicated that State Tourism Minister Peter Lawlor has pledged to get rid of what he describes as 'unfair' body corporate laws. Good luck to him!
"It's completely unfair," he said, when referring to the equalisation of levies.
That's interesting. Is he saying that the judgements of the Specialist Adjudicators are wrong?
It is true that in some buildings the levy contributions have been challenged. Owners who purchased units on lower floors have found that they have had to pay significant increases while owners of penthouses have had their contributions slashed.
The reason for this is that the levy contributions in these complexes were often inequitable in the first place. Often, they were set by a Developer more through guesswork than any form of logic.
Frankly, I dont see that Mr Lawlor will have much success in changing the laws. The system needs to be based on logic not on the fact that some people would like to pay less than others simply because the market value of their apartments is lower.
Minister to act on unit laws
Regards to all
John
--------------------------------------------------------
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.
Traditionally, and with no relation to logic, owners have paid levies that can be variously dependent on the size of their unit, the number of bedrooms or the floor of their apartment.
It is possible that the owner of a penthouse could easily be paying double the levies of an owner on a lower floor, despite the fact that the levies for both owners are supposedly set in place simply to contribute to maintenance and upkeep of the common property.
Generally speaking, the higher the floor and the greater the size of the unit, the higher the levies.
Some owners felt this "system" was unfair and a series of disputes have been lodged in recent years. The theory was that levies were based on the maintenance of the common property and had no relation to the size of the units or the number of bedrooms. If you owned the penthouse, you paid substantially higher levies than someone on the floor below but both owners were supposedly contributing to the common property so why should one owner pay more than antoher. Of course, the owners in the ground floor units argue that they have no use for the elevators so why should they have to pay for their maintenance.
There are some exceptions but rulings of Specialist Adjudicators have often favoured an equalistation of the levies, providing a good case is made.
Gary Bugden, a Specialist Adjudicator in one case, told me that he was reluctant to change the structure of levies unless presented with the report of an expert. These are easy enough to obtain. The report needs to jusify that all of the apartments should contribute equally to the Body Corporate irrespective of size.
This is not always an easy task. There are often variables that can mean one unit owner should, in fact, contribute more than another. An expert report can indicate that the contribution schedule needs to be changed but it is not necessarily a given that all reports will favour equal contributions.
The rulings of Adjudicators are supposedly based on an interpretation of Law and The Act.
A recent report indicated that State Tourism Minister Peter Lawlor has pledged to get rid of what he describes as 'unfair' body corporate laws. Good luck to him!
"It's completely unfair," he said, when referring to the equalisation of levies.
That's interesting. Is he saying that the judgements of the Specialist Adjudicators are wrong?
It is true that in some buildings the levy contributions have been challenged. Owners who purchased units on lower floors have found that they have had to pay significant increases while owners of penthouses have had their contributions slashed.
The reason for this is that the levy contributions in these complexes were often inequitable in the first place. Often, they were set by a Developer more through guesswork than any form of logic.
Frankly, I dont see that Mr Lawlor will have much success in changing the laws. The system needs to be based on logic not on the fact that some people would like to pay less than others simply because the market value of their apartments is lower.
Minister to act on unit laws
Regards to all
John
--------------------------------------------------------
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.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Just sign on the dotted line…….
When Management Rights are purchased, the buyer usually enters into a contract referred to as a Caretaking and Letting agreement or something similar. In many cases the contract was originally drawn up by a Developer and passed on to the original Caretaker.
In an ideal world, the Body Corporate and the Caretaker will enter into a symbiotic relationship where both parties benefit from the terms and conditions of the contract. The Caretaker looks after the maintenance of the property for a fee and makes money from letting those apartments that are in the rental pool.
There are a number of variables that can affect this relationship that are too numerous, and probably too obvious, to mention here.
One of the basic fundamentals of these Contracts, or Agreements, is that they have a legally binding time frame ranging generally from 10 – 25 years depending on the Module of the CTS scheme and, to a certain extent, the whim of the Developer.
Many contracts in Queensland are now reaching their expiry dates. Bear in mind that Caretakers who own Management Rights consider that they have an asset that is usually worth a considerable amount of money. They naturally become concerned when they realise that the term of their contract is drawing closer to expiration.
If the contract is allowed to expire, the once valuable asset can become worthless. The obvious solution is to ask the Body Corporate to draw up a new contract with as long as possible time frames as they can get away with.
That is all fair and reasonable. There is nothing to stop the Caretakers from making a request to the Body Corporate.
The thing that I find amazing is that so many Bodies Corporate agree to a new contract with a lengthy time frame without getting anything in return.
Before you start to raise objections, I know that a Body Corporate cannot make a profit from a Caretaking and Letting agreement but the fact is that the Body Corporate has an asset. That asset is the ability to either accept or reject a new contract that could mean the difference between a Caretaker making a huge profit or losing their investment entirely.
So, if you cannot make money from allowing a new contract to be drawn up then why should the Body Corporate care whether a new contract is granted or not?
The fact is that the Body Corporate should be run like a business. Owners contribute levies towards the maintenance of the property. They are entitled to expect that their money is spent wisely.
Caretaking and Letting Agreements vary. There are usually aspects of the contract that a Body Corporate would not be comfortable with. Take one complex where there was no specific requirement for the Caretakers to keep the Office open during business hours.
The Body Corporate wanted the Caretakers to be more accessible to owners but the terms and conditions of the contract were always cited.
When Caretakers ask for a new contract to be provided to them they should expect that as an absolute minimum, the new contract will be revised to suit the Body Corporate. No revisions – no contract. If the Body Corporate wants the Office to be open from 9-5 on weekdays they can stipulate that in the contract. The Caretakers can either agree or have no contract.
There are some, including one fairly well known Gold Coast Solicitor, who seem to think that Bodies Corporate have some sort of moral responsibility to grant the Caretakers an entirely new contract, drawn up by their own solicitor, that will provide the Caretaker with a huge financial windfall. This view is not supported by common sense or even a modicum of business acumen. It is quite simply a deceitful ploy to profit through the apathy of owners.
Bodies Corporate are often governed by apathy. Many owners simply agree to a new contract without considering the implications or benefits that could be gained by negotiation.
I understand that there is a group who have initiated a “Say No” campaign to encourage owners not to agree to a new contract. Owners would certainly be well advised to "say no" until they have all carefully considered the implications of signing a new contract and probably debated the subject at a formal meeting of the Body Corporate.
They should be mindful of the fact that they have an enormous amount of bargaining power. The Caretaker stands to make a small fortune from the decision of the Body Corporate.
It is incumbent on the Body Corporate to ensure that, if a new contract is signed, the owners will benefit. Why anyone would glibly sign sign a contract without getting something in return is beyond me. Remember that the benefit to the Body Corporate does not have to be financial. It can be simply a contract that suits the Body Corporate.
Bear in mind that there are alternatives to having a live in Caretaker who controls the maintenance of the building for the term of the Contract.
I’m sure I don’t need to tell you that there a great many Bodies Corporate who are dissatisfied with the level of service provided by the Caretaker. They are often bound by the terms of the Contract and The Act and, consequently, they are powerless to take any action. However when a contract comes close to expiration there is no obligation whatsoever on the Body Corporate to extend the Contract.
There are some recent cases where the Body Corporate has voted to grant the Caretakers a new contract. I am aware of one case in particular where one vote decided the outcome. The Caretakers were then able to sell the Management Rights for a significant amount of money and the Body Corporate were saddled with a new 25 year contract that was actually drawn up by the Caretakers’ solicitor with conditions that were very generous indeed to the owners of the new contract.
I believe that owners in this building have a case to lodge a dispute with the CCT but that is up to them and it is, ultimately, another story.
Let me say that there are certainly cases where it may be beneficial to the Body Corporate to grant a new contract. I won’t go into the potential benefits as they should be fairly obvious to any one who has lived in a CTS scheme, but the Body Corporate should, at least, ensure that a new contract is drawn up by their own solicitor with conditions that suit the Body Corporate.
Once again, if the Caretakers do not like the conditions then don’t agree to the contract. There are alternatives. The fact is that the Caretakers may well agree to just about anything because they have too much to lose. This should be the basis of the Body Corporate’s position when negotiating a new contract – common sense business practice.
Best regards to you all
John
----------------------------------------------------------
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 an ideal world, the Body Corporate and the Caretaker will enter into a symbiotic relationship where both parties benefit from the terms and conditions of the contract. The Caretaker looks after the maintenance of the property for a fee and makes money from letting those apartments that are in the rental pool.
There are a number of variables that can affect this relationship that are too numerous, and probably too obvious, to mention here.
One of the basic fundamentals of these Contracts, or Agreements, is that they have a legally binding time frame ranging generally from 10 – 25 years depending on the Module of the CTS scheme and, to a certain extent, the whim of the Developer.
Many contracts in Queensland are now reaching their expiry dates. Bear in mind that Caretakers who own Management Rights consider that they have an asset that is usually worth a considerable amount of money. They naturally become concerned when they realise that the term of their contract is drawing closer to expiration.
If the contract is allowed to expire, the once valuable asset can become worthless. The obvious solution is to ask the Body Corporate to draw up a new contract with as long as possible time frames as they can get away with.
That is all fair and reasonable. There is nothing to stop the Caretakers from making a request to the Body Corporate.
The thing that I find amazing is that so many Bodies Corporate agree to a new contract with a lengthy time frame without getting anything in return.
Before you start to raise objections, I know that a Body Corporate cannot make a profit from a Caretaking and Letting agreement but the fact is that the Body Corporate has an asset. That asset is the ability to either accept or reject a new contract that could mean the difference between a Caretaker making a huge profit or losing their investment entirely.
So, if you cannot make money from allowing a new contract to be drawn up then why should the Body Corporate care whether a new contract is granted or not?
The fact is that the Body Corporate should be run like a business. Owners contribute levies towards the maintenance of the property. They are entitled to expect that their money is spent wisely.
Caretaking and Letting Agreements vary. There are usually aspects of the contract that a Body Corporate would not be comfortable with. Take one complex where there was no specific requirement for the Caretakers to keep the Office open during business hours.
The Body Corporate wanted the Caretakers to be more accessible to owners but the terms and conditions of the contract were always cited.
When Caretakers ask for a new contract to be provided to them they should expect that as an absolute minimum, the new contract will be revised to suit the Body Corporate. No revisions – no contract. If the Body Corporate wants the Office to be open from 9-5 on weekdays they can stipulate that in the contract. The Caretakers can either agree or have no contract.
There are some, including one fairly well known Gold Coast Solicitor, who seem to think that Bodies Corporate have some sort of moral responsibility to grant the Caretakers an entirely new contract, drawn up by their own solicitor, that will provide the Caretaker with a huge financial windfall. This view is not supported by common sense or even a modicum of business acumen. It is quite simply a deceitful ploy to profit through the apathy of owners.
Bodies Corporate are often governed by apathy. Many owners simply agree to a new contract without considering the implications or benefits that could be gained by negotiation.
I understand that there is a group who have initiated a “Say No” campaign to encourage owners not to agree to a new contract. Owners would certainly be well advised to "say no" until they have all carefully considered the implications of signing a new contract and probably debated the subject at a formal meeting of the Body Corporate.
They should be mindful of the fact that they have an enormous amount of bargaining power. The Caretaker stands to make a small fortune from the decision of the Body Corporate.
It is incumbent on the Body Corporate to ensure that, if a new contract is signed, the owners will benefit. Why anyone would glibly sign sign a contract without getting something in return is beyond me. Remember that the benefit to the Body Corporate does not have to be financial. It can be simply a contract that suits the Body Corporate.
Bear in mind that there are alternatives to having a live in Caretaker who controls the maintenance of the building for the term of the Contract.
I’m sure I don’t need to tell you that there a great many Bodies Corporate who are dissatisfied with the level of service provided by the Caretaker. They are often bound by the terms of the Contract and The Act and, consequently, they are powerless to take any action. However when a contract comes close to expiration there is no obligation whatsoever on the Body Corporate to extend the Contract.
There are some recent cases where the Body Corporate has voted to grant the Caretakers a new contract. I am aware of one case in particular where one vote decided the outcome. The Caretakers were then able to sell the Management Rights for a significant amount of money and the Body Corporate were saddled with a new 25 year contract that was actually drawn up by the Caretakers’ solicitor with conditions that were very generous indeed to the owners of the new contract.
I believe that owners in this building have a case to lodge a dispute with the CCT but that is up to them and it is, ultimately, another story.
Let me say that there are certainly cases where it may be beneficial to the Body Corporate to grant a new contract. I won’t go into the potential benefits as they should be fairly obvious to any one who has lived in a CTS scheme, but the Body Corporate should, at least, ensure that a new contract is drawn up by their own solicitor with conditions that suit the Body Corporate.
Once again, if the Caretakers do not like the conditions then don’t agree to the contract. There are alternatives. The fact is that the Caretakers may well agree to just about anything because they have too much to lose. This should be the basis of the Body Corporate’s position when negotiating a new contract – common sense business practice.
Best regards to you all
John
----------------------------------------------------------
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.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Another Body Corporate Farce
One of the requirements of living in a Community Titles Scheme is that all owners are required to contribute to the maintenance and management of the building that they live in. The responsibilities vary depending on the type of complex but, basically, all owners have to pay a contribution levy on a regular basis.
Occasionally, an owner will fall behind with their levies. There are times when the Body Corporate has no alternative but to take legal action to recover the outstanding debt. That is where things get complicated.
Up until recently, the Body Corporate would add any legal costs and charges to the outstanding amount. They would then have a number of enforcement options open to them.
On 11th Feb 2009, the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal handed down an adjudication on the treatment of recovery costs associated with the collection of outstanding levies. Whilst the decision may be a fair interpretation of the Act and Law, the end result is that there is now massive confusion as to how to go about recovering a debt.
Perhaps the key phrase in this order was that "such recovery costs are the subject of a judgement in a court of competant jurisdiction."
Legal advisors, Body Corporate Managers and Committees are scratching their collective heads about how to interpret the decision. One legal advisor has suggested that the only way to fairly claim back recovery costs is to lodge a Dispute. Guess what! This process is so complex that a lawyer needs to compile the dispute thus creating a further cost.
Of course that is only one lawyers opinion. The fact is that we are in unchartered waters. Who knows what an Adjudicator might rule. Lodging a Dispute can be time consuming and costly and there is never a guarantee of success. Other Body Corporate Managers and Lawyers have other ideas about how recovery costs should be claimed.
The bottom line is a long drawn out process that will inevitably take up the time of committee members who are unpaid and who dont need the aggravation.
An important part of the ruling is that Body Corporate Managers should separate recovery costs from outstanding levies. This means a separate ledger will need to be kept. Many Body Corporate Managers are unclear about how to calculate outstanding levies. One Body Corporate Manager has had to enlist the aid of a lawyer to actually calculate the amount owing and, surprise, surprise there is a dispute about that.
A Body Corporate Manager recently told me that she has at least 30 cases of unpaid levies at the present time. There may well be hundreds more cases.
Another Body Corporate Manager has said that the ruling now means that owners can get away with not paying their levies. This may well be true because if Committees are not prepared to spend their own time and energy in pursuing the outstanding levies and legal costs then the debt will remain unpaid.
Bear in mind that Committee members are not paid. Many will decide that it is just not worth their time in wading through the legal minefield to collect outstanding levies.
This is another example of a system that is out of control.
Regards
John
------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Occasionally, an owner will fall behind with their levies. There are times when the Body Corporate has no alternative but to take legal action to recover the outstanding debt. That is where things get complicated.
Up until recently, the Body Corporate would add any legal costs and charges to the outstanding amount. They would then have a number of enforcement options open to them.
On 11th Feb 2009, the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal handed down an adjudication on the treatment of recovery costs associated with the collection of outstanding levies. Whilst the decision may be a fair interpretation of the Act and Law, the end result is that there is now massive confusion as to how to go about recovering a debt.
Perhaps the key phrase in this order was that "such recovery costs are the subject of a judgement in a court of competant jurisdiction."
Legal advisors, Body Corporate Managers and Committees are scratching their collective heads about how to interpret the decision. One legal advisor has suggested that the only way to fairly claim back recovery costs is to lodge a Dispute. Guess what! This process is so complex that a lawyer needs to compile the dispute thus creating a further cost.
Of course that is only one lawyers opinion. The fact is that we are in unchartered waters. Who knows what an Adjudicator might rule. Lodging a Dispute can be time consuming and costly and there is never a guarantee of success. Other Body Corporate Managers and Lawyers have other ideas about how recovery costs should be claimed.
The bottom line is a long drawn out process that will inevitably take up the time of committee members who are unpaid and who dont need the aggravation.
An important part of the ruling is that Body Corporate Managers should separate recovery costs from outstanding levies. This means a separate ledger will need to be kept. Many Body Corporate Managers are unclear about how to calculate outstanding levies. One Body Corporate Manager has had to enlist the aid of a lawyer to actually calculate the amount owing and, surprise, surprise there is a dispute about that.
A Body Corporate Manager recently told me that she has at least 30 cases of unpaid levies at the present time. There may well be hundreds more cases.
Another Body Corporate Manager has said that the ruling now means that owners can get away with not paying their levies. This may well be true because if Committees are not prepared to spend their own time and energy in pursuing the outstanding levies and legal costs then the debt will remain unpaid.
Bear in mind that Committee members are not paid. Many will decide that it is just not worth their time in wading through the legal minefield to collect outstanding levies.
This is another example of a system that is out of control.
Regards
John
------------------------------------------------------------
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)
