COMMON MAINTENANCE PITFALLS & PRACTICAL TIPS
When it comes to maintaining common property, what seems straightforward on the surface is often anything but. While the general rule is that the body corporate is responsible for maintaining common property, recent articles highlight how the most common maintenance pitfalls can lead to misunderstandings, grey areas, and neglected obligations frequently causing disputes and costly delays.
Here’s a practical guide to some of the most common maintenance pitfalls and how your committee can avoid them.
Pitfall #1: Common Maintenance Pitfalls – Assuming the Caretaker Handles It All
It’s a common misconception that the caretaker is responsible for all repairs and upkeep on common property. In reality, their duties are defined by contract, not legislation.
Recent coverage: Caretakers and Maintenance Responsibilities
Tip: Review caretaker agreements regularly and ensure responsibilities are clearly understood by all committee members.
Pitfall #2: Common Maintenance Pitfalls – Obtaining Maintenance Quotes
Who should get the quotes? The manager? The caretaker? A committee member? Confusion over this process can delay urgent work and lead to friction.
Clarified in: Who Gets My Body Corporate Maintenance Quotes?
Tip: Develop a policy for obtaining quotes—minimum number, sources, and who’s responsible for coordination.
Pitfall #3: Exclusive Use Complications
Exclusive use by-laws can shift maintenance responsibility for parts of common property to individual lot owners—but only if clearly stated.
Explore: What Is a Specific Provision in Exclusive Use By-Laws?
Tip: Always check by-law wording and seek clarity from legal professionals when responsibilities are unclear.
Pitfall #4: Air-Con Units on Common Property
Air conditioning units, especially external condensers installed on walls or rooftops, can sit in a maintenance grey zone. Who’s responsible for repairs or replacement when they’re on common property?
See: Air Conditioners – Whose Responsibility Are They?
Tip: Require committee approval for all external installations, and document who is responsible for ongoing maintenance.
Pitfall #5: Responsibilities for Balcony Painting
Who is responsible for areas within the lot boundary and also what approval is required is an area that is often overlooked when a full building repaint is being arranged. The answer will depend on the scheme set up and how the owners decide to proceed.
Review: Who Is Responsible for Balcony Painting During Building Repaints?
Tip: Plan ahead early by collaborating with owners to avoid mismatched finishes and ensure cost-effective, compliant outcomes.
Quick Maintenance Health Check for Your Scheme
- Have all maintenance responsibilities been reviewed against contracts and by-laws?
- Are major infrastructure areas on a regular inspection and maintenance schedule?
- Does your body corporate have documented policies for installations on common property?
- Are lot owners aware of who maintains what—and who pays?
- Are committee decisions on maintenance clearly recorded in minutes?
A proactive, well-documented approach to common property maintenance not only prevents disputes—it protects the value of everyone’s investment.
Got questions or an unusual maintenance scenario? Let us know and I may cover it at the Cairns Seminar next week!
Article contributed by Stephen McCulloch – Partner, Archers the Strata Professionals
Leave a Reply
Ross,
You do make a very good point with this observation and it stresses the importance of seeking legal advice from a lawyer that practices in Strata Law before a by-law is amended or a new one proposed. If the by-law is inconsistent with the BCCM Act (including a regulation module applying to the scheme) or another Act, the by-law is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency.
As we are aware, the body corporate can pass a resolution at a general meeting to add any by-law and register a new CMS. However, if the by-law is defective and if a decision is made in reliance of that by-law is challenged, then the by-law may be deemed invalid and unenforceable.
Generally speaking, the BCCM Act, or more so, the relevant regulation module for the scheme, determines the responsibilities of an owner vs. the body corporate in relation to maintenance. In my opinion, trying to transfer that responsibility is opening the door for an owner to challenge this by-law.
Stephen…many thanks for this round-up. Pulling together a range of discrete issues helps me understand how things fit together.
One Q please re Pitfall#5 and responsibilities for balcony painting.
In the link, there is an embedded comment from Kerri Yarsely advising that her scheme passed a By-Law transferring maintenance responsibility for the outer walls – including painting of the balconies – from the owners to the body corporate. If so, then surely the By-Law conflicts with s.180 of the BCCM Act and would be voided if disputed?
More generally, I assume that the allocation of maintenance responsibilities between owners and the body corporate is determined by the BCCM legislation, not by owner resolution… even if the popular vote is unanimous.
Your advice would be much appreciated.