Question: What does “supervise” mean in a caretaker agreement when it comes to contractor works?
Our caretaker agreement states that the caretaker is to “supervise” all contractors. What would be the definition of “supervise”? Do they have to remain onsite while contractor works (such as fencing) are being done, or sign the contractor in, check the work, sign off at the end, and be contactable in between while the work is being done?
Our caretaker does not live onsite and has no set hours. The agreement states work will not exceed 40 hours a week. The committee want them to be onsite while a contractor job is being done. They argue their working hours are flexible, and they’re not required to be onsite.
Answer: A caretaker’s supervision duty is confined to the caretaking agreement, and does not extend to project management.
The duties that the caretaker is required to provide arise from, and are solely confined to, the terms of the caretaking agreement, and it will depend on how the scope of the duty to supervise is worded.
If the agreement itself does not clarify or provide further detail about the extent to which the caretaker is required to supervise, the duty should, sensibly and practically, be limited to:
- providing contractors with access to the scheme;
- making note of when, and for how long, contractors are expected to access the scheme;
- advising contractors of the standard of works to be performed; and
- upon completion of the works, reviewing the works and reporting to the committee of any concerns accordingly.
Arguably, that would require the caretaker to be physically present at the scheme during the time that the works are being undertaken. However, the caretaker could reasonably be completing other duties whilst “supervising” the contractors, and this would assist to ensure the supervisory duties do not exceed the limitation of the hours required onsite. It is important that the caretaker’s supervision does not extend to project management, which would likely be excluded from the duties and require appropriate QBCC licencing.
Depending on the level and extent to which the body corporate requests the caretaker supervise, it may exceed the scope of their contracted duties and incur additional remuneration to be paid to the caretaker. In that instance, it may be more appropriate or economical for the body corporate to have a person other than the caretaker, including its own committee or a specialist project manager, supervise works.
This post appears in Strata News #802.
Hi Ross,
The Body Corporate has an obligation to let owners know when they are engaging contractors to carry out essential works in the residents’ units. It is then up to the resident if they want to be present when they come in or, like some in our building ask me as the caretaker manager to please accompany them because I’m interstate etc. This is not the norm though most people trust the BC contractors.
Katya (and Todd)… many thanks.
When you talk about supervision by the Caretaker of work done by contractors, I also think of supervision – or lack thereof – of those same contractors when provided with a master key by the Caretaker for accessing the work area. It then becomes not just a matter of whether they are doing what they are paid to do, but also what else are they up to.
I assume some Bodies Corporate insist on the Caretaker accompanying the contractors when they move around the building, but I wonder if this is the exception rather than the norm..
Was in my home office just recently, and was surprised to find a contractor in my unit checking some alarms etc. He had been provided with a master key, and was doing the rounds of all 120+ units. And the Caretaker? Nowhere to be seen…
I do not wish to be alarmist about this, but I also recall reading about the Townsville Caretaker recently convicted, and sentenced to 9 years imprisonment, for a string of sexual offences including rape…and it was reported that he was accessing lots with his master key.
In my opinion, the master key problem all stems from the provision in the BCCM legislation transferring ‘ownership’ of my front door to the Body Corporate, prompting the Original Owner to install a ‘one-key fits all locks’ system without the real owners getting any say. Not good when the Caretaker’s convenience takes precedence over Owners’ privacy and security.
There has to be a better system….