Gold Coast Council Rates rise again – Owners not happy.

Owners have expressed their disgust as Gold Coast Council rates rise yet again. Many are justifiably concerned that the continuing rate increases may force them out of their homes.

A council employee stated that owners should expect increases in their rates every six months with the clear implication that the increases were just a matter of course that everyone should just accept.
The latest rate notice includes a City Transport charge of $58.50. However, many owners are questioning exactly what benefits there are for them with the Transport charge.

Patricia of Mudgeeraba sent me an email after receiving the latest notice. She states "The City Transport charge is supposed to be for "improvements" to the transport system on the Gold Coast but bus services in Mudgeeraba have actually decreased and there certainly has not been any improvement. The light rail system might be of some benefit to those who live around the Surfers Paradise area but it is no use to those who will never use it."

Patricia went on to say "It also seems unfair that only rate payers have to pay for the so called improved transport. What about people who live on the Gold Coast who don't own property? They still use the light rail but they don't contribute anything".

Patricia is not alone in her concern about the Rate increase. Another owner in Palm Beach quoted his costs. "I pay $1250.00 approx. in council rates and when you add Body Corporate Levies and Water rates to the costs, it is getting to the stage where I would be better of being a renter rather than owning my property".

Better off renting than owning?? Well, you only need to do some basic arithmetic to work out that this is true in many cases. Surely the Gold Coast City Council does not want to encourage that scenario for owners.

There is no doubt that these are genuine concerns. Water Rates will soon be issued quarterly and the cynics amongst us are expecting continuing subtle increases that will supposedly have less impact than if the bills were issued half yearly.

Mayor Tom Tate has repeatedly said that the increases are small and they are seen as a contribution to improving services but he does not appear to understand that many owners cannot continue to absorb Council Rate increases. The fact is that many owners are considering leaving the Gold Coast altogether because of the constant increases.

Mayor Tate needs to consider that when taken on a cumulative basis, the increases are not small at all. In some cases, Gold Coast Council Rates have doubled in the last ten years.

Investors are also finding things tough. Rents do not cover the increases and, in some cases, rents have actually dropped because of the over supply of rental properties on the Gold Coast.

Like most Bureaucratic organisations, there is no doubt that the Gold Coast City Council could be a lot leaner but I wonder if Mayor Tate is making any attempts at all to cut costs and actually reduce Council and Water Rates.

Recent reports indicate that the current Council would be voted out if an election was held now. Well, one way that they could improve their position would be to make a committed attempt to reduce the costs of owning property on the Gold Coast.

What can you do about Gold Coast Council Rates rises?

If you live in a Body Corporate Community, I would encourage you to contact your Committee and urge them to write to the Gold Coast City Council on behalf of the Body Corporate requesting the Council to focus on reducing costs and Council and Water Rates.
If you are concerned about Gold Coast Council Rate rises send me an email.

Footnote:

I sent the following questions to the Gold Coast City Council for their comment but have yet to receive a response.

1. Why specifically, have the current Council Rates increased?
2. A Gold Coast Council employee advised that it was likely that there would be rises every six months. Is this correct?
3. Is there any possibility that Council Rates might decrease in the next six months?
4. Is the Mayor and Council aware that many owners of Units on the Gold Coast are being forced to consider leaving their homes because of rising Body Corporate fees and Council and Water Rates?
5. Is the Mayor and Council aware that investors are finding that rents are not sufficient to cover the increases in Council Rates and Body Corporate fees?

If the Gold Coast City Council does respond to any of the questions, I will publish their answers here.

Body Corporate owners angry at Gold Coast Council Rate increase

Unit Owners are up in arms about the recent Gold Coast Council Rate increase that puts many under financial pressure and ultimately contributes to lowering the value of their properties.

In recent years, there has been a steady increase in Gold Coast Council and Water Rates. The increases have coincidentally accompanied the decline in the value of homes in Body Corporate communities on the Gold Coast.

The situation was worsened when the Gold Coast Council Rates and Water Rates were separated and Allconnex was set up in 2010 specifically to handle water. This separation was a recipe for increases and property owners were shocked at the gradual increases in their water rates and Council Rates.

The bottom line for owners is that the value of their investments has declined and the decrease in value must surely have been affected by the Gold Coast Council Rate increase.

I took a sample of Council Rates and Water Rates from five properties and each one had significant increases in rates.

Some owners are now facing the frightening prospect of not being able to afford to live in their homes if the increases continue.

When you add the Body Corporate Levies to the Rates, the amount that Unit owners are paying just to live in their homes is getting out of hand.

Of the five properties in the sample, the cost of rates plus Body Corporate levies amounts to between $175.00 and $200.00 per week. Many other owners face much higher Body Corporate levies which push the overall cost up to $300.00 per week.

Many owners moved to Queensland to retire and they purchased units on the Gold Coast to live out their declining years. They understandably had no conception that increases in Rates and Levies could place their retirement dreams at risk.

Ralph, an elderly owner in Broadbeach, said "My combined Council and Water Rates have more than doubled in the ten years since I purchased the property. When I received the latest notices, I wondered how I would be able to find the money to pay them."

Investors are also upset. Owners with portfolios of properties are facing significant increases. Those who rent out their properties would like to be able to pass on some of the increase in costs to their tenants but the market will not bear the increased costs.

Those owners with Units in a Holiday Letting Pool are also affected. One owner of a luxury unit in Palm Beach gave me the beakup of costs versus rent:

• Body Corporate Levies 115.00 per week.
• Council Rates 35.00 per week
• Water Rates 27.00 per week

That makes a total of 177.00 per week. The owner paid 800,000.00 for his property. Average rent in the holiday pool works out at a gross of 450.00 per week over a year.

He pays for Cable TV, Cleaning, Commissions and has the unit fully furnished. He also pays for Electirity. He has ducted air conditioning in the Unit and the tenants often leave the air conditioning on all the time resulting in high electricity bills.

The bottom line is that the owner is coming away with an appalling return on his investment while his unit is deteriorating through wear and tear.

Investors look at the sums and see that they just don't add up. The reality is that investing in Body Corporate Communities on the Gold Coast is not a wise move at the moment.

Gold Coast Mayor Tom Tate wants people to invest in the Gold Coast. Well, if Council and Water rates continue to increase along with other associated expenses, investors will be bailing out and leaving the Coast in droves.

If you are concerned about the Gold Coast Council Rate increase you should contact the Gold Coast City Council preferably in writing.

The Clayton's Body Corporate Dispute - owners kept in the dark!

In a recent Body Corporate Dispute owners were never provided with copies of the Application. Consequently, orders were made without a single submission from any owner.

The Applicant in Body Corporate Dispute Number 0394-2013 (yet to be published), contacted me to express her concern.

The Commissioner had asked that the Application be circulated to all owners but the person they asked to do this was the subject of part of the dispute.

The fact that there were no responses or submissions should have at least raised questions about whether owners had actually seen the Application.

In fact, the Applicant phoned the Commissioner's Office to alert them of the problem.
The Applicant told me "When I contacted the Commissioner's Office to let them know that owners had not received copies of the dispute, they said that they take the word of the person they sent them to. If he says he has sent them then that is good enough."

The Applicant went on to say "The Commissioner's Office said that I should provide stat decs to prove that owners did not receive the dispute. I did not feel that it was my responsibility to do the work of the Commissioner so left it up to them to decide whether to pursue the matter or not."

The Adjudicator ruled on the Application in due course. "The orders were basically what I had sought but I did think it was strange that an Application like this could be lodged and ruled upon without owners knowing about it. I'm sure that they would have made submissions had they known."

When the orders were made, it was the Applicant who actually distributed copies to owners.
This does raise some questions about the procedures of the Commissioner. Not all Bodies Corporate employ a Body Corporate Manager. I don't think it is good enough that they send a hard copy to someone who they think might be responsible and then expect that person to distribute copies to owners.

When the Applicant in this Body Corporate Dispute took the trouble to phone the Commissioners office to alert them to the problem the Commissioner's staff should have taken the time to verify the claim rather than expect the Applicant to do the work.

Footnote: The reference to the "Claytons Body Corporate Dispute" comes from a very popular advertising campaign. In the 1970s a company produced a non alcoholic drink that was marketed as a good alternative to drinking alcohol. The brand name was Claytons and the slogan "Claytons - the drink you have when you are not having a drink!" In this case, the Dispute you have when you are not having a Dispute!

Body Corporate Levy increase Magic Mountain owner loses appeal to QCAT

The implications of The Body Corporate and Community Management Amendment Bill 2012, which was passed on March 19th 2013, have started to affect many owners who now face a significant Body Corporate Levy increase.

Owners have had to cope with the changes to legislation and various QCAT challenges over the last 10 years leaving many confused and upset over Body Corporate Levy increases that they cannot afford.

When the recent legislation was passed, some angry owners vowed to fight Body Corporate Levy increases with legal challenges.

It is important to note that the new legislation is not automatically applied. There is a process that owners must follow to ensure that changes to the Lot Entitlements are implemented. The first step is for an owner to ask the Body Corporate Committee to revert the levies in accordance with the legislation.

Some owners have already commenced the process. In one case, former 60 Minutes reporter, Ian Leslie successfully applied to have the levies at Magic Mountain Two reverted in accordance with the new legislation. Although this was a formality, many owners were obviously upset that they faced a Body Corporate Levy increase.

Mr Phillip Williams, another owner at Magic Mountain, challenged the reversion in an application to QCAT. (An interesting aside is that the QCAT judgment refers to the applicant as Phillip Williams in one reference and Paul Williams in another - probably an unfortunate error but it should be corrected!).

In the QCAT decision, Dr J.R.Forbes commented:
"Naturally, the applicant strongly opposes the effective reversal of the restoration of pre-July 2003 contributions that he secured in 2012. Plainly he regards the recently amended law as arbitrary and unfair. No doubt other unit holders felt the same when the former section 379 enabled one owner (perhaps among hundreds) to upset the existing scale of contributions. But these considerations do not entitle the Tribunal to disregard the present law."

The Application from Mr Williams was dismissed and the comments that were made suggested that the Application had little merit...
"The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the application for leave to appeal filed on 15 May 2013. Furthermore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to give advisory opinions or answer hypothetical questions, or to substitute its own policies for those of the legislature, or to anticipate changes that may or may not be made to the Act "later this year"."
"The applicant's case is not advanced by such extravagant rhetoric as "indefensible hypocrisy", "a conflicted ambiguous Act", "Iegislative thuggery" or vague and misconceived allusions to fair trading laws. I note that the Body Corporate does not press for costs on this occasion, but that is a future possibility that the applicant could usefully bear in mind."

There are indeed many owners who are horrified at the Body Corporate Levy increase while a smaller percentage of owners are delighted at the decrease in their levies.

Owners who are aggrieved at the changes to the legislation need to understand that the changes are now Law irrespective of how unfair they are perceived to be. Any challenge in regards to the levies must be in accordance with the Law and on very specific and limited grounds.

However, one owner pointed out that when he purchased his apartment the contract specified the Lot Entitlements. He feels that the new Law has not considered that original contracts may be breached by changing the Lot Entitlements.  Although he does raise an interesting point, I doubt that anyone would be able to use that to challenge the change in the Law.

Those who feel that the levies should revert to the original levies that were set by the Developers would be better off directing their feelings to the Queensland Government rather than QCAT.

There are probably more than enough owners who have been adversly affected by the new legislation and the Body Corporate Levy increase to have a real influence on the Goverment but they will not get anywhere unless they voice their opinions in large numbers.

Full and accurate minutes of Meetings? Don’t worry about it.

The BCCM Act requires that full and accurate minutes be kept of Body Corporate meetings. However, an Adjudicator has cast some doubt on the definition of the words full and accurate minutes in a recent decision.

In Coomera on the Park [2013] QBCCMCmr 204 (14 May 2013), the Adjudicator ordered that the Application be dismissed. In Point 1 of the Outcomes Sought the Applicant had asked:
“That all committee meetings as well as AGM meetings held by the committee be recorded to ensure that the final minutes actually reflect the decisions and points made by committee members...”
To the layman, it follows that by dismissing the Application, the Adjudicator appears to be saying that there is no need to “ensure that the final minutes actually reflect the decisions and points made by committee members”.

From the Adjudicator’s comments, it appears that the minutes of one of the meetings in question were certainly short on substance.

He quotes a couple of examples:
“There are a number of instances where “...” appear.
Item q) “Pest control quotations for Common Property” is followed by “????”.
“BUILDING AND GROUNDS MAINTENANCE AND CARETAKER’S REPORT” is similarly followed by “????”.”
Although the Adjudicator states that “I would encourage the minute taker to refrain from using “...”, he goes on to say “they are not inaccurate in any significant way in the areas they are required to be accurate by the legislation.”

He points out that, in the legislation, full and accurate means minutes including each of the following:
(a) the date, time and place of the meeting;
(b) the names of persons present and details of the capacity in which they attended the meeting;
(c) details of proxies tabled;
(d) for each motion voted on at the meeting—
(i) the words of the motion; and
(ii) the number of votes for and against the motion;
(e) details of correspondence, reports, notices or other documents tabled;
(f) the time the meeting closed;
(g) details of the next scheduled meeting;
(h) the secretary’s name and contact address.

I disagree with the Adjudicator's comments in this case. He appears to be saying that the minutes only need to include points a – h to be considered accurate. I feel that he is misinterpreting the definition of the word “including” as in “minutes including each of the following”. My reading of this is that the phrase means that the minutes should include all of those points from a – h but “including” does not mean that the minutes should include ONLY those points.

The definition of include means "Comprise or contain as part of a whole". In other words Full and Accurate minutes should certainly include points a – h, but that is just a part of what forms an accurate representation of what was determined at the meeting. To suggest otherwise is just playing with semantics.

In this case, the Applicant also wanted to be able to voice record the meetings. He raised the fact that threats had been made at the meetings but that there was no record of that in the minutes. The Adjudicator also dismissed that part of the Application and suggested that he could take his own notes of the meeting but that would not be of much help if they differed significantly from the “official” minutes.

I am not aware of any legislation that prevents anyone from making a personal record a meeting albeit that the recording may not be able to be used for any purpose.

In looking at the Dispute in its entirety, it seems to me that the Applicant in this case was not being unreasonable in asking that “full and accurate” minutes be taken for all meetings. I think that it is a pity that his Application was not upheld, at least in part. The penalty to the Body Corporate would have been minimal and an order might have ensured that future communication was improved.
I feel that this ruling gives Committees the opportunity to keep minutes to the absolute minimum as long as they include points a – h.

Despte that, an honest Committee will always try to keep owners informed by providing full and accurate minutes. Part of that role is to ensure the minutes of all meetings that are sent to owners are accurate and detailed to the point where nothing can be considered to be hidden.
___________________________________________
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. www.moviemem.com

New Ways for Body Corporate Managers to make money

Body Corporate Managers are always looking for new ways to make money. In recent years many have started offering additional services to clients but there is growing concern that the promotion of some of these services may constitute a conflict of interest.

In an ideal world, Bodies Corporate should take steps to ensure that they are compliant with all legislation and general rules and regulations. Some Body Corporate Managers have seized the opportunity to exploit this and make money.

The way it works is quite simple. They point out to Committees that  that the Body Corporate needs to get reports on various areas of compliance. They often give veiled threats of potential liability or Committee responsibilities if the reports are not obtained.

They then recommend their own in house services to provide the reports which can include things like:

• Sinking Fund Forecasts
• Workplace Health and Safety Reports
• Fire Risk assessment reports
• Asbestos reports
• Insurance assessments

and many more.

They don't stop there. They also provide services to "assist" owners with Dispute resolution, Levy Equalisation claims and one BC Manager even has a separate department that completes insurance claims at an additional cost of course.

There are often times when BC Managers do everything they can to promote these offshoot services in an attempt to generate more income for themselves. However, the problem that I have with all of this is that I don't see them always offering alternatives.

In one case, the Chairman of a Body Corporate was convinced that he needed to get three reports done urgently on Fire Safety, Workplace Health and Safety and an Asbestos assessment. He was pressured into thinking that he might even be liable if the reports were not done.

The Body Corporate Manager then proceeded to convince him that he should use the services of companies that were subsidiaries of the BC Manager. No alternatives were offerred.

When the reports were completed, they highlighted various issues that needed to be addressed and they offerred yet more "in house" services to rectify the faults.

It is inevitable that Body Corporate Managers will be creative in developing other services for their clients but they need to be very careful indeed to offer alternatives rather than try and convince Committees to go with their own offshoot companies.

An example of the potential problems that can occurr was highlighted in the comments of a QCAT adjudication  .....

“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.”
This case referred to a claim to equalise the levies. The Body Corporate Manager offerred the services of one of their own consultants to represent the Body Corporate.

There is nothing wrong with Body Corporate Managers developing their business and providing additional services to their clients providing that they act ethically and offer alternatives to Committees.
___________________________________________
The opinions expressed in this article are personal commentaries and not intended in to be legal advice in any way. I have spent many years participating on a number of different Body Corporate Committees and provide an owner’s perspective on Body Corporate issues.
If you have any concerns or comments about any of the issues that are raised in these articles please use the form below to contact me.

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.

_______________________________________


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 the owner of http://www.moviemem.com/

Access to BC records for all owners? Not necessarily.

As a general principle owners should be able to expect to have access to BC records after paying a prescribed fee. However, recent rulings by Adjudicators indicate that it is not that simple. If a BC believes that certain records are subject to "legal privilege" then they have the right to refuse access to any owner who may be involved in either actual or threatened legal action against the BC or presumably anyone who claims to be affected by the records.

There are times when it might be prudent to withhold certain documents from an owner on the basis of legal privilege but anyone with an ounce of imagination should be able to see how this ruling could be abused.

It would be very easy for a Committee to deny access to records based on "legal privilege". The owner would then have to decide whether to lodge a dispute. If the records were needed urgently, the process of waiting for the dispute to be heard could prove costly for the owner.

An Adjudicator recently ruled that a dispute with QCAT constitutes legal action. Presumably any dispute that has been initiated or implied also comes under the banner of "legal privilege".

There are other considerations that could lead to abuse of this process. Who decides whether records are subject to legal privilege or not? What if the person who is actually seeking the records is the Chairman, Secretary or another Committee member?

There have been disputes between the BC and the BC Manager in the past. The BC Manager is the custodian of the records. What would happen if the BC decided that the BC Manager could not access records because of legal privilege?

I feel that all BC records should be available for access by owners irrespective of any implied or actual legal privilege.

_______________________________________
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.

No Smoking on Balconies for Unit Owners - coming soon!

Proposed changes to NSW strata laws could result in legislation to ban unit owners from smoking on their balconies.
Smoking Ban on balconies for unit owners


_______________________________________

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.

Commisioner for Body Corporate & BCCM Act. Irrelevant to BC Communities?

The Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management Queensland and The BCCM Act are rapidly becoming irrelevant to Body Corporate Communities.

The reality is that many Bodies Corporate ignore the regulations often through lack of knowledge of the legislation but occasionally through indifference. When owners raise concerns they often find that the process of lodging disputes is too cumbersome and costly and in many cases they are forced to accept that their Body Corporate operates by its own rules.

The function of the Commissioner is largely to hear and adjudicate on disputes that are lodged. I have always found it strange that the only way that the legislation might be enforced if a dispute is lodged.

I know of Bodies Corporate who do not hold AGM's. I know of others who don't keep proper records and do not communicate with owners. However, the only way that a Body Corporate would ever be accountable would be if someone lodged a dispute. In many cases, the BC know that there is little possibility of a dispute even if they knowingly ignore the legislation.

The fact is that many owners are intimidated by the entire process and The Commissioner has done little to help make the process user friendly. I think it is fair to say that the process is designed to generally discourage owners from lodging disputes in the hope that they will sort out problems "in house".

In the recent adjudication of Dispute Number 0010-2012 Palm Springs Residences, the Adjudicator made two interpretations of the Act that only accentuate the fact that the Act is becoming irrelevant.

1. The Adjudicator, M.A.Schmidt stated: "as a general proposition, a body corporate may validly resolve to ratify past irregular conduct".

This comment sets an  extraordinary precedent. Firstly there is no time limit specified by M.A.Schmidt so presumably, the comment which is part of the overall ruling allows a BC to come back and "ratify irregular conduct" any time after the event. The implications of how this could be manipulated and applied make a mockery of the Act.

M.A Schmidt goes on to say that there could be legal implications for the BC in doing this but they would be outside the jurisdiction of the Act and, once again, owners would find the process of taking legal action against a BC daunting.

2. The Adjudicator, M.A.Schmidt stated that the applicants did not "complain of any detriment suffered as a result of having received notification 7 days after when they thought they should have been notified". The implication is that if a Body Corporate does not comply with time limits in notification of meetings, etc anyone who lodges a dispute would have to show that they suffered a "detriment" or some form of hardship.

These "rulings" only continue to demonstrate why so many Body Corporate Communities ignore the Act. The likelihood of an owner lodging a dispute is small. If an owner does happen to decide that there is no alternative but to lodge a dispute the chances of having the application upheld are a lottery.

It is time that the BCCM Act and the Office of the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management were completely overhauled by the Government.

_______________________________________

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.

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.

Schoolies Ban!

Interesting to hear that the committee of Q1 in Surfers Paradise are looking at ways to prevent schoolies from staying in the states tallest highrise. The Courier Mail reports that up to 500 students may have already been booked for the week. Apparently, the committee at Q1 are investigating legal avenues and possible changes to the by laws to prevent schoolies from staying in their building.

Perhaps the committee at Q1 might take their cue from Palm Springs Residences who recently voted to restrict all letting to a minimum of 42 days in their building. No doubt this will be open to challenge but it is an example of how residents and holiday rentals do not always mix.

It will be interesting to see how the committee for Q1 deals with this situation.

_____________________________________

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.

Why would you holiday let your apartment?

A large resort complex is currently advertising a special on luxury one bedroom apartments with beach views, separate lounge and kitchen, spa, etc etc, for $115.00 per night - no minimum stay. The complex is obvioulsy managed with hefty Body Corporate levies to go towards maintaining the extensive grounds, pools, gyms, tennis courts, etc.

The units were sold as "investments" with a "guaranteed return" for a set time frame. If you do your calculations, $115.00 a night will not leave very much at all for the owner of the unit after deducting cleaning and linen fees (often at $80.00 per clean), management fees/commission, Body Corporate levies, rates, etc etc. By the time all that is taken into account there is no possible way an owner can make a viable return.

The managers of the complex argue that they have to compete with other resorts but all they really care about is having high occupancy.

Many owners have had to liquidate their investments for far less than their purchase price because they were misled into believing that the holiday rentals would cover their repayments.

Bottom line is that you should think very carefully about purchasing an apartment for holiday letting.
_____________________________________

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.

Illegal Parking or a free for all?

Bodies Corporate often have to deal with vehicles that have been illegally parked and they usually go through a combination of the following steps:

• notify the owner of the vehicle
• place a notice on the vehicle requesting that it be moved.
• give a further notice if the vehicle is not moved within a set time frame
• have the vehicle towed if it is not moved within a reasonable time frame

Well, it seems that a recent decision might prevent Bodies Corporate from taking these steps without:

• issuing a formal contravention notice
• obtaining an order from the commissioners office which might take months to receive

There has been a report that one Body Corporate was ordered to retrieve a car that had been towed away and pay expenses to the owner.

Many committees will feel that it is not worth the aggravation of going to the trouble of lodging applications to the commissioner and issuing contravention notices over a perceived illegally parked vehicle.

This is another example of how the system fails owners by being unnecessarily complicated.

_____________________________________

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.

Queensland Body Corporate - A system out of control

In the last twenty years or so there has been an explosion of communal developments in Queensland. These include gated communities, high rise unit complexes, townhouse developments and various other complexes where owners coexist in an environment that is managed by a Body Corporate.

The Body Corporate is usually controlled by owners and is intended to ensure that the common property is maintained, a set of by laws are in place and finances are managed.

So far, so good. The problem with all of this is that each Body Corporate is governed by a complex set of rules and regulations known as the BCCM Act.

Many owners who make the courageous decision to become involved in Committees find themselves embroiled in the tangled web of The Act that can make the smallest decision unnecessarily complicated.

Many Bodies Corporate find that they cannot survive without a Body Corporate Manager who provides a secretarial and accounting service to ensure that they comply with the regulations.

Others rountinely enlist the help of lawyers to unravel the complexities of The Act in dealing with disputes or contractual issues that plague Bodies Corporate.

Perhaps the greatest problem with the system is that the legislation is not properly enforced.

A Government department fronted by The Commissioner for Body Corporate hears and rules on disputes but no one actually polices the regulations unless a formal dispute has been lodged. The result is that many Bodies Corporate simply ignore the legislation usually through apathy and ignorance of the regulations.

Take the case of one complex of six units. Each owner shows no interest in the Body Corporate. They have no Body Corporate Manager. They do not hold meetings or keep records of any substance. One owner banks the levies and organises lawn mowing but little else is done.

This is all fine until something goes wrong. An insurance policy allowed to lapse, structural problems with the building, a dispute about use of the common property, etc etc can all result in a major problem for a Body Corporate who ignores the legislation and yet many Bodies Corporate meander along like an accident waiting to happen.

Other Bodies Corporate, with owners who take more interest in ensuring that their building functions within the law, struggle to cope with the endless amount of work that can result from simply looking after the best interests of the owners.

In many cases, developers install Caretakers into complexes with lengthy contracts to maintain the property. However there are little or no checks and balances as to whether the Caretakers have the ability, experience or desire to actually fulfill their obligations. If Bodies Corporate are not satisfied with the performance of the Caretakers they have to jump through hoops to resolve the issues due to the complexities of The Act.

As is so often the case, the Body Corporate Managers and the Lawyers thrive on all of this, lining their pockets as The Act becomes more complex.

In the coming months I will be highlighting some of the major issues that confront Bodies Corporate, including some Adjudications that can make living in a Community Title Scheme with a Body Corporate a nightmare and threaten to destroy a lifelong investment.

Watch this space

---------------------------------------------------------

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.