REFORM BILL INTRODUCED TO PARLIAMENT
Reform Measures in Parliament
Yesterday the Attorney-General introduced a Bill to make significant changes to the Body Corporate and Community Management Act. Whilst we are waiting on more detail, we are pleased to provide you with a high level summary below.
Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023
Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister for the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence The Honourable Yvette D’Ath today introduced the Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill into Queensland Parliament.
- Proposed law reforms will better protect ‘off the plan’ home buyers from developers invoking sunset clauses
- Changes will allow bodies corporate to prohibit smoking in outdoor and communal areas
- Bodies corporate will be prevented from blanket banning pets
- Termination of body corporate schemes will only require the consent of 75% of owners
This is the most significant change to Queensland Body Corporate and has been developed with significant consultation with SCAQ through the Community Titles Legislation Working Group. We thank each and every member who has participated and helped drive positive reform.
Key Changes to Body Corporate Law
The changes to body corporate law will:
- allow bodies corporate to make by-laws that prohibit smoking (including vapes) on common property or an outdoor area such as a balcony;
- make clear that regularly exposing a person in another unit or on common property to second-hand smoke is a nuisance, hazard and unreasonable interference that should not be occurring;
- prevent bodies corporate from making by-laws banning pets in community titles schemes;
- clarify and enhance the ability for bodies corporate to tow vehicles from common property in a timely manner
- allow for an adjudicator to approve for a body corporate to put in place alternative insurance when it cannot comply with the required level of insurance for particular buildings;
- enhance by-law enforcement and access to records in more complex layered arrangements of community titles schemes;
- enhance the code of conduct for body corporate managers and caretaking service contractors; and
- clarify and streamline body corporate administrative and procedural matters.
Scheme Termination
Scheme termination will require the consent of only 75% of owners in certain circumstances going forward.
The Bill allows for the termination of a community titles scheme with the support of 75 per cent of lot owners, where the body corporate has agreed there are economic reasons for termination which meet defined thresholds.
An economic reason for termination is that it is not economically viable, or will not be economically viable within 5 years, to carry out repairs or maintenance to parts of the property the body corporate is responsible for.
Protections and safeguards for lot owners will be part of the new process, including requirements for professional reports and other information to inform decision making about economic reasons.
There will also be minimum compensation requirements for lot owners, and review and dispute resolution pathways including provisions to reduce lot owners’ exposure to costs associated with proceedings relating to a proposed termination.
In all other situations, termination of a community titles scheme will still require either that the body corporate pass a resolution without dissent or that an order of the District Court is obtained.
Article Contribute by Strata Community Association QLD
Advocacy inquiries:
Contact SCA Queensland Policy Officer, Kristian Marlow on 0437176366 or advocacy.qld@strata.community
About Strata Community Association (Qld)
SCA (Qld) is the peak association supporting the state’s strata sector, with more than 1,200 individual and corporate members who help oversee, advise, and manage hundreds of thousands of lots across Queensland. The association brings together people who manage strata schemes, own units or live in
strata communities, and those who provide products and services for schemes. We also provide education, advice, and advocacy to enable better understanding of the regulations, obligations and owner’s rights.
Leave a Reply
I for one will be leaving my Strata Apartment and will never move into another one. Your Home should be Your Home.
This is a Government gone mad on power, how dare they tell me what I can and cannot do in my own home. What is next, consider.
Totally agree with you Roy we can’t smoke as this is a nuisance to others but we can have pets that bark and often leave little surprises around the place??? I wonder it there will soon be a law introduced on what you can and cannot cook in your apartment as it may be offensive to others.
I agree with the smoking and vaping restrictions ..
I disagree with a blanket law allowing pets without community consultation… pet owners can be very inconsiderate of other peoples comforts and blind to the disturbances that their pet may create.
Consultation is imperative.
Just remember, adding or changing a By-Law requires a special resolution at a general meeting.
In order to pass, special resolutions require
1) a minimum of two-third YES votes,
2) a maximum of 25% NO votes of total number of lots, and
3) a maximum of 25% NO votes from the total of the contribution schedule lot entitlements.
FACIT: Try to preserve 25% sanity in your Body Corporate 😉
Where is some substantial reform?
Currently Body Corporate Committees are forbidden by QLD legislation from charging a caretaker any amount of money for extending the term of a caretaking agreement. Eg. Say $10000 per year for a 10 year extension. However, there is nothing preventing the caretaker from selling the management rights to a complex , which includes the manager’s residence, for millions of dollars after the caretaking term is extended by the Body Corporate for ZERO return. The caretaker only has to pay the BC’s legal fees and costs of an extraordinary general meeting to approve the caretaking term extension.
The current legislation prohibition is very unfair to the lot owners in the BC and needs to be remedied.
With regard to the proposed 75% vote regarding termination of schemes one would think that if it gets to a situation where it is no longer financially viable to maintain a scheme then there shouldn’t be a problem achieving a
“Resolution Without Dissent” vote to terminate the scheme.
I agree that every lot owner should have a voice and not just 75% of the owners, what if 25% of owners have their units/townhouses right on the oceanfront with amazing oceanviews and these dwellings have suffered deterioration due to the salt air more so than the other 75% of dwellings that are located by the roadside away from the ocean with garden views, I guess the new rule would make it easy for the roadside dwelling owners to terminate the scheme rather than the body corporate maintaining/repairing the valuable oceanfront dwellings.
Yes, all lot owners should have a voice!
All very good points mentioned here. We’ll have to burn incense or mossie coils to overpower the odour of animal excrement coming from neighbouring balconies, as that apparently IS acceptable, and we’ll also have to turn up the music for the endless yapping that little apartment sized dogs do when they’re home alone! So Yvette Darth, how about also addressing the conflict of interests of on-site caretakers also being on-site real estate agents & rental property managers, who then go on to harass tenants of other property managers, and prospective buyers of other sales agents. How about removing the compulsory insurance requirements so that body corporates can self insure, without the prohibitive claim excess, once they have accumulated enough funds. How about ensuring body corporates build up funds before they go off spending willy nilly on unimportant items that only enhance the lifestyles of certain influential owner occupiers, and then raise levies at the next AGM for everyone else to pay as well. How about having multiple committees and fee structures, that service the needs of the different demographics in a strata complex, such as owner occupiers & investors, or those on the expensive water view side of the building & those on the less pricier non-water view side. So much more needs to be focused on instead of this.
Proposed 75% Vote.
As you may find, as I have found on nearly all occasions when I have been asked to amalgamate strata sales for CMS, all owners are wanting to sell, but one, you will always find one owner that doesn’t. Is it fair for one owner to stop and hold all other owner’s hostage? knowing the building is in disrepair, but if one owner has the resources to bear the costs of special levies and high strata fees, this chews up any profit margin for investors and owner occupiers, some having to sell and find cheaper places to live, often preventing all other owners from accepting a very lucrative opportunity to sell. Unit blocks then get built-out, preventing the block from any value as a development site. The sale of each individual unit is not able to even achieve market price. If you are the owner in this situation and you have 48 owners wanting to sell and one owner preventing a sale, always believe if they hold out for more money being the last to sell.
Things need to change, to be fair to all.
Real Estate Agent