Question: Was the committee within its authority to replace keypad access with fobs, or did this need a general meeting vote?
Our complex is 160 houses under the accommodation module. The committee recently changed complex access from a keypad system to fobs, which now require a deposit and an application. Family members drop off and pick up my grandchildren, friends collect my wife for outings, and drop her off after work. None of these people will have a fob, so keypad access is the only practical option. There is also the safety issue and inconvenience of losing a fob at 2 am.
The committee’s stated reason for the change is to prevent unauthorised parking, but this seems ineffective since tailgating will still occur regardless of whether access is by fob or keypad.
Is this decision within the committee’s authority, or does it require a general meeting vote?
Answer: If the committee approved the new access system, there may be grounds to dispute it as a restricted issue.
A body corporate (BC) is responsible for administering the common property and BC assets reasonably for the benefit of the owners of lots included in the scheme. That function naturally extends to implementing arrangements facilitating access to scheme land, and ensuring that appropriate security measures are in place to prevent or minimise unlawful access, including through the issuing and management of security keys, access codes and the like.
However, what is reasonable and appropriate is not a ‘one size fits all’ for every scheme. The particular nature, features and characteristics of a scheme are important considerations in determining whether any security and access arrangements fairly balance the need for security and protection of scheme land from unlawful access with the needs of individual owners and occupiers to have practical and workable access arrangements which achieve a reasonable degree of convenience for themselves and their visitors, guests and invitees.
Because of this required balancing exercise, adjudicators have reached different outcomes on matters involving disputes about access arrangements, including what constitutes a reasonable number of access cards or fobs that owners and occupiers should be entitled to. Of course, adjudicators rarely like arbitrary restrictions on anything (e.g. the number, type or size of animals that can be kept on a lot by an occupier, which the recent legislative amendments have now codified under section 169B of the BCCM Act). Not least because such arbitrary restrictions do not take into account the personal circumstances of particular owners or occupiers who may have differing needs based on their own unique characteristics.
In the matter of Tank Tower [2016] QBCCMCmr 118, the adjudicator dismissed an application by a lot owner disputing the reasonableness of the BC’s decision removing the ability of owners and occupiers to access the building with an electronic keypad in favour of a key/card/fob system. The applicant, who had a disability, argued that it was impractical for his carers not to access the building and his lot through the previously available keypad system. The adjudicator noted that the BC had offered the applicant to install a code-accessible lock box on the common property for storing key cards/fobs for his carers, and did not consider the slight inconvenience from this alternate arrangement outweighed the right of the BC to replace the keypad system with a key/fob controlled system (for security purposes).
On that basis, it might be considered doubtful that the matters of (in)convenience which forms the basis of your grievance with the new system would be sufficient for an adjudicator to determine the BC’s decision to be unreasonable, particularly where any such inconvenience can be wholly or largely mitigated through other means (e.g. making a sufficient number of fobs/access devices available to owners and occupiers). That said, as noted, each case will turn on its particular facts, and there is insufficient information to determine the likely outcome without a full review of the circumstances and tailored legal advice, including an assessment of the scheme’s by-laws.
Regarding the level of approval required, there is certainly authority for the proposition that a decision to implement different access arrangements would be a restricted issue for the committee, on the basis that it changes the rights or privileges of the lot owners. Of course, there may be other restrictions, such as spending limitations, which also limit the ability of the committee to make such a decision (e.g., if the new system required improvements to the common property beyond the basic improvements limit). Given it appears that only the committee has currently approved the new arrangements, there may be grounds to dispute the validity of that decision. However, the same decision might reasonably be made and adopted by owners at a general meeting, in which case the same arrangements might be lawfully implemented if a sufficient number of owners supported them. Again, however, whether the committee had the power to make the decision comes down to the specific circumstances of the matter, and specific advice should be obtained (rather than relying on general principles, or outcomes in other matters).
This post appears in the September 2026 edition of The QLD Strata Magazine.
Jarad Maher Grace Lawyers E: jarad.maher@gracelawyers.com.au
