Question: Who pays for a TV antenna booster when a tree on common property blocks the signal?
Who is responsible for the payment of a TV antenna booster when a trades assessment identified that a large tree on common property is the blocking one unit’s TV signal? The body corporate trimmed the tree to comply with vegetation regulations, which limited cutting to only 20%. Most of the 20% reduction involved branches cut from two adjoining common area/owners’ fences, including the owner requesting reimbursement.
After reviewing the legislation, the body corporate believes it has completed its obligations.
Answer: The body corporate is not responsible for funding a TV antenna booster where the antenna is the lot owner’s responsibility.
The information suggests a consensus that the TV antenna is the responsibility of the lot owner. If that is accepted, maybe that point is sufficient in and of itself — the antenna is the owner’s property, and if they want to upgrade it, that is their choice.
That said, it is worth addressing the legislative question directly. The body corporate has obligations under the Act to maintain and manage common property, and trimming the tree, even if limited to 20% under vegetation regulations, fulfils those obligations. Whether the body corporate must go further by funding an antenna booster for the affected lot is a separate matter entirely.
The body corporate has taken reasonable steps to address the issue within the constraints of applicable vegetation regulations. There should be no expectation that the body corporate remove a tree entirely if the law prevents it. On that basis, arguing that its obligations have been met seems like a reasonable interpretation.
While some owners have argued before adjudicators that a body corporate bears responsibility for consequential impacts on lot owners where common property is the source of a problem, the body corporate’s position here appears sound. It has provided a rational and reasonable response within the limits set by the legislation and vegetation regulations.
If the owner is unhappy with that outcome, they can dispute the matter via the Commissioner’s Office. It may be an interesting case to hear, but the burden of proof will be on the lot owner to show that the body corporate has acted unreasonably or outside of the legislation. Is there clear evidence to show that this has happened?
This post appears in Strata News #793.
William Marquand Tower Body Corporate E: willmarquand@towerbodycorporate.com.au P: 07 5609 4924
