These articles about the reasonableness of QLD strata bylaws have been supplied by Chris Irons and Frank Higginson, Hynes Legal.
Jump directly to the QUESTION you are after:
- QUESTION: Our Body Corporate Manager has often strongly recommended that we do not change ByLaws. I would be interested in your comments.
- QUESTION: Our developer put in place a by-law stipulating that any alterations to the flooring must not exceed 50dB. Is 50dB a reasonable standard for apartment flooring?
- QUESTION: On my secluded rooftop deck I have a fire pit. A lot owner has put forward a motion to ban all forms of naked flames. Would a bylaw banning naked flames be lawful, especially when this is an exclusive use area?
- QUESTION: What rights does the Committee have to stop residents from using a facility if they are not obeying the By-Laws to do with conduct?
- QUESTION: Can a Body corporate general motion ban an owner or occupier from moving into or out of their apartment on a set day of the week, or is this unreasonable?
- QUESTION: We are having a running battle with our Body Corporate Committee about pet ownership. Is it unreasonable to have a ban on dogs over 10 kg at our scheme?
- QUESTION: Is it reasonable for a strata bylaw to state awnings can only be purchased by a single supplier? Surely we can only enforce that colour must be in line with the scheme?
- QUESTION: Is it worth our while trying to pursue this matter through the Commissioner on the oppressive/ unreasonable Qld strata bylaws platform or should we simply install a product we really don’t want?
- QUESTION: One of our Strata Title By-Laws seems unreasonable. Although we are allowed pets, the pet must not be walked or carried through the foyer. The alternative route is not suitable for me due to health reasons.
- QUESTION: The Committee in QLD is currently reviewing our twenty year old by-laws in an attempt to address some of the matters which are becoming problematic – building security and community power.
- QUESTION: Can we stop a resident from using the facilities if they potentially pose a health risk?
GET NOTIFIED WHEN WE PUBLISH NEW Q&As, NEWS AND ARTICLES TO THE SITE
Question: Our Body Corporate Manager has often strongly recommended that we do not change ByLaws. I would be interested in your comments.
I notice that LookUpStrata frequently mentions changing by-laws on their blog.
Our Body Corporate Manager has often strongly recommended that we do not change ByLaws as we could open a whole ‘can of worms’, particularly building regulations as our buildings are 15-16 years old and building regulations have changed in that time.
We have been advised that we would need many reports (building reports, etc.) which would be very costly. I would be interested in your comments.
Answer: It might cost money, but it is money well spent if it is going to prevent far more costs and stress in the future.
Surely the excuse provided to you for not changing by-laws applies equally if not moreso to changing them. If indeed building regulations have changed a lot over the years, wouldn’t your body corporate want to be compliant with them? If there’s an accident causing injury – or worse – and the cause was something on common property not kept to the required standard, I’m pretty sure that “we didn’t do it because we were told it would open a can of worms” would not cut it as an excuse.
Yes it might cost money, but it is money well spent if it is going to prevent far more costs and stress in the future. Remember also that by-laws regulate some of the more emotive and stressful conduct issues which happen in a body corporate, such as pets, parking and nuisance. If your by-laws on these issues are out of date or unlawful, then it means the body corporate will have few if any options to deal with these issues when they occur.
Chris Irons
E: [email protected]
This post appears in Strata News #388.
Question: Our developer put in place a by-law stipulating that any alterations to the flooring must not exceed 50dB. Is 50dB a reasonable standard for apartment flooring?
Several occupants in our recently completed apartment building have complained about acoustic noise transferring from other apartments, usually from above and limited to those with tiled floors. The developer/builder (same organisation) have tested several apartments, some have failed and others are very high ie. between 55dB and 62dB. They have committed to remediating the failed apartments but no comment so far on those that are well above 50dB.
The problem is the developer/builder, also being the original owner, put in place the by-laws and included one stipulating that any alterations to the flooring must not exceed 50dB, which is far more appropriate for a multi-story apartment than the NCC code of 62dB. This suggests that they themselves had intended to install flooring that did not exceed 50dB.
Is 50dB a reasonable standard for apartment flooring? Also, where does the original owner’s by-law leave the body corporate in terms of enforcing the standard BCCM Act 1997 ‘occupiers right to peace and enjoyment’ by-law? If one by-law makes reference to not exceeding 50dB with flooring and the occupiers know for a fact that the apartment above does, what then? Is the ‘offending’ lot owner responsible for the remedy or the builder/developer?
Answer: Your first step should be a comprehensive check of your by-laws.
Beyond that and putting aside the decibel specifics, which I’m simply not qualified to answer, it really boils down to 2 actions:
- If current by-laws are not fit for the person and don’t address a situation: seek to have them changed at a general meeting by way of a new Community Management Statement and passed by special resolution
- If a by-law is seemingly being breached: seek to have the breach addressed by enforcing the by-law. That’s the committee job and if they can’t or won’t do that, then an individual owner or occupier can.
In both of the above dot points, if there is an impasse, or the problem continues, there are avenues to challenge and resolve in my former Office. There are plenty of adjudicators’ orders on this topic. It’s relevant to note that I know of at least one adjudication order which has said that it’s not a defence for someone to say “well I’m only doing day to day things, nothing out of the ordinary” when it comes to noise transference.
Chris Irons
E: [email protected]
This post appears in Strata News #388.
Question: On my secluded rooftop deck I have a fire pit. A lot owner has put forward a motion to ban all forms of naked flames. Would a bylaw banning naked flames be lawful, especially when this is an exclusive use area?
In my lot I have a rooftop deck which is solely exclusive use. It is separated by thick concrete walls and not visible to other lot owners. I have a fire pit on the deck which is fully enclosed and on a safe insulated base.
One owner has put a motion forward to ban all forms of naked flames on balconies or rooftop decks.
Would this bylaw be lawful given this is not common property but an exclusive use area?
Answer: By-laws are meant to be regulatory, not prohibitive and they are also not meant to be unreasonable or oppressive.
The process around exclusive use by-laws is quite involved. Your query doesn’t make clear if this motion is meant to apply to all lots or just yours via an exclusive use by-law. Assuming it’s exclusive use, then have a look at the provisions of section 171 of the Standard Module. You’ll see a resolution without dissent is required. So while the owner can propose the motion it is unlikely it would carry and indeed quite likely the chair should rule it out of order.
My query to you, though, is to ask yourself why another owner is putting forward a motion like this which seems to be quite specific to you? Is there an issue that you and the body corporate need to consider? Are there, for example, issues about fires on the scheme? Have there been complaints and are they legitimate? It might be worth your while to make the enquiries to find out the answers to these questions to prevent situations like this from occurring again. It might be as simple as you explaining to that owner what you note in your query about things being safe and insulated.
Chris Irons
E: [email protected]
This post appears in Strata News #384.
Question: What rights does the Committee have to stop residents from using a facility if they are not obeying the By-Laws to do with conduct?
I’m Chairman on Body Corporate in a Complex on the Gold Coast, QLD. I’m trying to find a specific By-Law about who is entitled to use the indoor Community Pool/Spa in the Complex.
If renters and owners can use these facilities, what rights does the Committee have to stop either party from entering that facility due to not obeying the By-Laws to do with conduct in that area?
Answer: The short answer is no, there’s no option.
From your query it seems as though you’re considering an option where if, for example, there’s been a breach of by-laws about pool use, then someone can be restricted or even prohibited from using the pool thereafter.
The short answer is no, there’s no option. Moreover, how would this actually work? Would there be an ongoing ‘tally’ of breaches or a 3 strikes and you’re out approach? Could someone who has breached ‘redeem’ themselves and then get access privileges back? Do breaches roll over in a specified period, or do breaches get expunged from the person’s record over a period of time? If it’s only a minor breach, does that mean they get only a minor restriction in use of the pool? Who determines this? Is there due process? Does the breached party get a right of reply and ability to put forward their case in a meeting?
You might think all of the above are silly or facetious points, but I can assure you they are things you’d need to consider if you wanted your proposal to actually work. Your better bet is reviewing your by-laws to ensure they are lawful and enforceable and meet your needs. Otherwise you’ll be subject to challenges and frankly, a lot of disharmony.
Chris Irons
E: [email protected]
This post appears in Strata News #376.
Question: Can a Body corporate general motion ban an owner or occupier from moving into or out of their apartment on a set day of the week, or is this unreasonable?
Can a Body corporate general motion ban an owner or occupier from moving into or out of their apartment on any day of the week or is this unreasonable?
Answer: Setting removals to only 1 day per week is arbitrary and it is when by-laws become arbitrary that typically, they run into trouble.
Why not “no removals on a Friday”? Or a Sunday? Or a day of the week ending in ‘y’? Or why not prohibit removals to only occur on the Summer Solstice, or when there is dancing around a maypole in the common area?
My point is that setting removals to only 1 day per week is arbitrary and it is when by-laws become arbitrary that typically, they run into trouble.
Bear in mind that only an adjudicator in the Commissioner’s Office can determine whether a by-law is reasonable or not and that can only occur upon application by a party to challenge that by-law. That said, based on previous adjudication orders, it is very likely that this by-law would be found to be invalid. Bodies corporate firstly should not be in the business of prohibiting things and secondly should not be in the business of setting some arbitrary limits on things. The by-law as you’ve presented it is similar to pet by-laws in which a 10kg limit is set, and those type of by-laws have usually been found to be invalid.
Chris Irons
E: [email protected]
This post appears in Strata News #371.
Question: We are having a running battle with our Body Corporate Committee about pet ownership. Is it unreasonable to have a ban on dogs over 10 kg at our scheme?
Answer: Without knowing the specifics of the matter, if the committee’s only issue is the dog’s weight, that is not a reasonable objection. This is a well held position in the Commissioner’s Office.
This post appears in Strata News #309.
Question: Is it reasonable for a strata bylaw to state awnings can only be purchased by a single supplier? Surely we can only enforce that colour must be in line with the scheme?
The by law states “prior to installation of any awning/pergola the owner must obtain approval from the committee and any approval will be given providing the colour and design complies with the criteria set down by the committee from time to time”.
My believe we can recommend colour palates to suit, or a general reply to owners that the colour must be in line with the current colour scheme but surely we can’t force them to go with one supplier?
Answer: It all depends on whether it is reasonable.
It all depends on whether it is reasonable.
If there is an alternative contractor and material available which keeps the amenity of the scheme consistent, then I don’t think it would be reasonable to force the one contractor to be used. So I agree with the original question poster.
This post appears in Strata News #282.
Question: Is it worth our while trying to pursue this matter through the Commissioner on the oppressive/ unreasonable Qld strata bylaws platform or should we simply install a product we really don’t want?
Concerning oppressive and/or unreasonable by-laws.
Our QLD registered body corporate committee passed a resolution at a meeting in mid 2014 (registered on CMS in late 2015) saying all new flooring to replace existing flooring must meet 5 star AAAC rating (Lntw <=45 dB).
This was subsequently changed to 4 star AAAC through resolution (Lntw <=50 dB) earlier this year given nothing but carpet on underlay could meet or exceed specified acoustic rating. This latest change is probably not yet registered on CMS.
I have tried to explain to the Body Corporate committee that flooring acoustics is an imprecise science and that, for any owner to guarantee proposed new flooring meets the by-law, owners may require several acoustic tests at considerable cost. Indeed, several thousands of dollars may be spent without laying any new flooring.
The chairman of our committee himself and a number of other apartments have non-compliant flooring (some apartments were previously tested at body corporate expense for the purposes of the by-law consideration). In some circumstances, approval wasn’t sought or gained through committee, however, we’re now advised those who installed non-compliant flooring did so between the passing of the resolution in 2014 and the new by-law registration in 2015 or installed non-compliant flooring prior to the by-law being passed by the committee. We understand and accept the by-law shouldn’t act retrospectively against them.
The building managers have our preferred product installed which easily reaches 3 star AAAC rating of Lntw <=55 dB (5mm loose lay vinyl planking laid on pressure sensitive adhesive over concrete sub-floor) and reside in the apartment below us. They occupy the only apartment that would hear any noise emanating through our flooring.
We currently holiday let our apartment and wish to replace flooring (carpet on underlay) in our living/dining/kitchen areas but are finding anything but carpet or cork are not guaranteed to satisfy the existing by-law/yet to be registered change to by-law.
Is it worth our while trying to pursue this matter through the Commissioner on the oppressive/ unreasonable Qld strata bylaws platform or should we simply install a product we really don’t want?
Answer: We think the industry has taken a wrong turn on this specific issue.
We think the industry has taken a wrong turn on this specific issue.
Our belief is that the floor rating specifications are completely irrelevant and shouldn’t even be in a by-law. The purpose of the flooring by-law (as opposed to rating) is to regulate interferences of noise from one lot to another – which is the age-old nuisance argument.
It is not the type of floor covering that protects from the nuisance, it is the use of the floor itself. You could have a floor with a massively strong rating and if a kid went bouncing a basketball around on it at all hours it is going to transmit noise – and that is what should be regulated.
In our view, the by-law should only require body corporate approval on any flooring installations. The committee can then impose reasonable conditions on the installation and subsequent use. Having a hard and fast rule about any particular type of rating doesn’t make that rating reasonable. It all depends on the circumstances.
Question: One of our Strata Title By-Laws seems unreasonable. Although we are allowed pets, the pet must not be walked or carried through the foyer. The alternative route is not suitable for me due to health reasons.
I live in a strata unit in Queensland which allows pets but one bylaw says no pet is able to walk or be carried from the lift through the foyer but must be taken outside via the basement car park up the steps or winding busy driveway without a handrail.
I have difficulty with steps etc because of severe arthritis in my knee. What is the legal position on this? Is the bylaw reasonable? How would I be best to challenge the situation?
Answer: In Queensland, the starting point is that a by-law must not be oppressive or unreasonable having regard to the interests of all owners and occupiers of lots included in the scheme.
In Queensland, the starting point is that a by-law must not be oppressive or unreasonable having regard to the interests of all owners and occupiers of lots included in the scheme.
To determine whether or not a by-law that restricts pets from the foyer is invalid requires an understanding of the body corporate’s reasons for including that by-law.
It depends on the circumstances and whether the committee can justify those conditions as reasonable but most of the time they would not be able to be enforced.
I would start with writing to the committee to seek their views on whether they would enforce the by-law. If they are taking the view that they would enforce it – then I would submit a motion to change the by-law at the next general meeting.
This post appears in Strata News #235.
Question: The Committee in QLD is currently reviewing our twenty year old by-laws in an attempt to address some of the matters which are becoming problematic – building security and community power.
We live in a block of fifteen units on the Sunshine Coast which has a mix of holiday rentals, permanent rentals, owner-occupied, and lockups.
The Body Corporate Committee in QLD is currently reviewing the strata title by-laws, which have not been updated for approximately twenty years, in an attempt to address some of the matters which are becoming problematic.
Apart from the ever-present dramas of Parking and Pets, we are hoping to address the issues of Building Security, and the use of Community Power.
We have a “policy” in place that requires occupiers to keep garage and (building) entry doors locked, and another which prohibits the use of high load appliances (fridges, freezers, clothes dryers etc) in garages where power points are on the “community” electricity circuit.
The committee is anxious to have these items covered in the new strata title by-laws, and we are wondering if there other bodies corporate that have done so successfully?
Answer: The strata title by-law about building security is capable of being considered valid – if it is consistent with the requirements where owners and occupiers must not create a hazard.
To me, the by-law concerning community power is not a strata title by-law issue but one that falls within the body corporate providing a service to owners (electricity supply). To do that there needs to be a service agreement in place and there is a myriad of rules regulating that supply of electricity.
I think the strata title by-law about building security is capable of being considered valid – if it is consistent with the requirements of section 167 of the Act where owners and occupiers must not create a hazard. If leaving garage doors unlocked creates a hazard then it probably passes the test, but if not, the body corporate might be going too far with it.
But by putting it in the by-laws the committee needs to consider the practical implications of enforcing it – is the committee going to go around checking that doors are locked? If not, there is probably no utility in having the by-law.
I think the better way of managing this would be for owners to use the power connected through their lot or for the usage to be specifically metered.
This post appears in Strata News #221.
Question: Can we stop a resident from using the facilities if they potentially pose a health risk?
A resident has an obvious skin condition which covers a large part of the body area. Regardless, they insist on using our pool and spa facilities.
Do we, the committee, have a right to ask the person not to use the pool and spa due to potential public health risk to others until they can provide a suitable medical certificate stating they pose no health risk to others.
We have attempted to limit activity by use of signage in pool and spa areas.
What rights do we have at law to restrain a person with a potential ‘health risk’ condition from using our facilities?
Answer: It comes down to the “use” of the common property
As always, it comes down to the “use” of the common property.
Rather than Qld strata bylaws that restrict certain types of people or a particular person from using the facilities (which has unreasonable written all over it), there is probably more utility in looking at the interference by-laws.
The extent of those by-laws is set out in section 167 of the Act and essentially prevents an unreasonable interference to other occupiers. Unreasonable interference would include creating a health risk to other occupiers.
That would mean that if:
- There is a health risk in the person using the facilities – the person would be prevented from using the facilities.
- There is no health risk – the person would not be prevented from using the facilities (and rightly so).
Rather than jumping straight into by-law enforcement of Act contravention mode – a polite letter to the owner might be the most amicable way to deal with it.
This post appears in Strata News #106.
Have a question or something to add to the article? Leave a comment below.
Chris Irons
E: [email protected]
Frank Higginson
E: [email protected], Hynes Legal
Read next:
- QLD: Making Sure Your Bylaws are Correct
- QLD: Warning for strata schemes – Unreasonable refusal to install key box for Airbnb
After the latest information about QLD strata bylaws or information about strata living in your state or territory? Visit our Strata By-Laws and Legislation OR Strata Legislation QLD
Looking for strata information concerning your state? For state-specific strata information, take a look here.
After a free PDF of this article? Log into your existing LookUpStrata Account to download the printable file. Not a member? Simple – join for free on our Registration page.
Further to from Allan says, which ends in: “…is overturned. QED”:
When someone (say, someone living in strata) ‘determines’ that something is ‘unreasonable’ (even be it adjudicators’ orders, needing be overturned), it is this strata-person who first ‘determined’ whatever, as being ‘unreasonable’, and when a but-putative adjudicator agrees that it is ‘unreasonable’ and makes an order against it, or even overturns an ‘unreasonable’ order, all this but-putative adjudicator is doing is rubber-stamping a pre-existing and valid ‘determination’ (made by the strata-person/s) that something is ‘unreasonable’; remembering that without this ‘determination’ having already been made, the matter would not have been brought before a but-putative adjudicator to merely rubber-stamp it. It is really no different to that proven when someone succeeded in having lodged an application to patent some device before anyone else. First come, first served. Adjudicators would have nothing to do if no-one ever made a ‘determination’ that something is ‘unreasonable’ or ‘unlawful’, and even then, most of the brainwork (read as: decision/s) has already been done for the adjudicator (which they enjoy no end) when the evidence that something already ‘determined’ as being ‘unreasonable/unlawful’ is presented to receive its rubber stamp. So, the ‘determination’ of something deemed ‘unreasonable/unlawful’ veritably belongs to the first person who made the ‘determination’. Anything else is but leather and prunella. QED
FRom Chris Irons, Hynes Legal says:
[…] Allegations of bullying are serious…[…]
No they’re not, Chris, ‘Allegations’, as I believe you should well know, given you choose to present advice on legalities, are ‘mere assertions made without proof’, not unlike myriad things which ‘beg the question’.
Not all allegations (is there any other kind?) need be given serious thought, even though they may be, only to find that many, if not all alleged, weren’t worth the bother, except for someone to garner themself an easily-had dollar or two. This allegation of mine is of course worth but thinking about.
From P Thomas says:
[…] Where do we draw the line here?”
I suggest that better than drawing any line is to simply keep lines of communication open, remembering that there’s no guarantee that things will change even if action is taken which may only serve to foment the fire.
From Chris Irons, Hynes Legal:
“{…] So no. Anyone cannot at any time determine their choosing as to whether an adjudicator’s order is reasonable, because there are rights of appeal… […]”
You’ve shot yourself in the foot there, Chris, simply because:
Anyone CAN at any time determine as to whether or not an adjudicator’s order is reasonable, and it is this determination (‘fixed purpose* or intention’, remembering that “persistence is the key*) of THEIRS, and THEIRS alone, that often causes any person to appeal against that which has been determined by THIS PERSON as being an unreasonable order. People only need realise that semantics throws a whole new light on things, which all-too-easily counters those who dabble in legalities and like to keep in the dark, as if they are the font of all knowledge regarding ‘determinations* inter alia. Upton Sinclair said: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it.”
*It is often seen that it is the person’s *purpose or intention* that is *fixed* and not the adjudicator’s ephemeral order which, when duly determined to be ‘unreasonable’ and/or simply found to be unacceptable, is overturned. QED
We currently have a very inexperienced committee who see themselves as “the law”. They are constantly bullying our building manager and changing rules to suit themselves. No amount of trying to talk with them seems to help. Our building is kept immaculate and admired by many however there is always something that they find to pick on just to make their authority felt.
The building manager has many years experience at this job and is kind and helpful to everyone. The body corporate services manager tries to point things out to them ; the instances where they are out of order and then they threaten her with withdrawing their contract. They have created a very toxic environment in this building that is totally unnecessary, all ego driven. Unfortunately they go as far as withholding our managers RUM and reimbursements as a form of asserting their authority.
Where do we draw the line here?
Hi P
The following response has been provided by Chris Irons, Hynes Legal:
Sounds to me like the line should have been drawn some time ago. Of some concern is your comment about withholding payment to the caretaker. That relationship with the caretaker is a contractual one and so withholding payment may mean a breach of contract terms, which places the body corporate and thus, all owners, at some risk.
Allegations of bullying are serious, as the caretaker may be defined as an employee and thus is entitled to a safe workplace.
If you haven’t done so already, you should have a conversation with the committee about the above and raise your concerns. Assuming that doesn’t work or they don’t want to listen, you’d need to consider your next step. Do you want to replace the committee or the more challenging members of it? Do you have people to replace them with? Or is there another course of action possible? You may need to seek qualified advice about your options. Remember, the situation will go on unchanged if no action is taken.
“[…] Or why not prohibit removals to only o cur on the Summer Solstice. or when there is dancing around maypole in the common area?
My point is that setting removals to only 1 day a week is arbitrary and it is when by-laws become arbitrary that typically, they run into trouble.
Bear in mind that only an adjudicator in the Commissioner’s office can determine whether a by-law is reasonable or not… […]”
Nice try but no cigar…not even a ‘stogie’, because when an adjudicator from a Commissioner’s office makes a determination about anything at all then the determination is said to be an *arbitrary* determination (therefore, as you’ve said: “…typically, they run into trouble.”) given that an adjudicator is but an arbiter pure and simple, and anyone at all can determine at any time of their choosing as to whether or not an adjudicator’s determination – or a by-law per se – is veritably *reasonable*. It’s all but in the narrative.
Hi Allan
The following response has been provided by Chris Irons, Hynes Legal:
Actually, you’re wrong. An adjudicator is given that role and its attendant powers in legislation. In other words, the Parliament has seen fit to establish the role of the adjudicator in making legally-binding orders. That order is then subject to potential appeal to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal and then the District Court after that. I know of at least one body corporate case which proceeded all the way from an adjudicator to the High Court of Australia. So no, anyone cannot at any time determine their choosing as to whether an adjudicator’s order is reasonable, because there are rights of appeal and also significant penalties for non-compliance with an adjudicator’s order.
An incisive article from Frank Higginson. I think that we all need to understand that the world is evolving and we, as Body Corporate/Strata operatives need to adopt and adapt.The complex that I live in has a permissive pet policy and there have been no pets for the 8 years of it’s life. Welcome to the real world. We are now being requested to consider a pet for an apartment that is changing hands. We can apply conditions to it’s entry but we need to go with the flow or perhaps face some form of action from the seller if we impede his sale contract by prolonging a process which we well know will go in his favour anyway. The committee needs to look at this in a “big picture” view.
Just as a side note to the question of the level of noise transference between apartments and pets. The apartment above mine has a hard timber floor attached to the rafters on our apartment ceiling.
When their cat is chasing things around in the above apartment it can clearly be heard from mine.
So much for the footfalls of cats not being heard. I can hear every step when it runs and every chair being moved across the floor.
A very low level of noise transfer is a good thing to have in the bylaws.