Question: Are owner-occupiers entitled to access the pool and BBQ after closing time? Can we access additional floors to visit our friends?
As an owner-occupier, am I allowed access to common areas like the pool and BBQ after closing time? Also, our friends live on another floor of the building. Can we request that our fob access other floors? The committee wants us to purchase additional fobs at $50 per fob. They clearly only like the holiday pool people.
Answer: There are no special privileges for you as an ‘owner-occupier’.
When it comes to by-laws – which is what you are talking about here – there are no special privileges for you as an ‘owner-occupier’. In fact, the legislation is quite clear that there should be no discrimination between owners and occupiers (which is the technical term for tenants under strata legislation) when it comes to by-law application.
So, in relation to using things after ‘closing time’, I assume you are referring to using the facilities after the time specified in the by-laws. It is reasonably typical for a by-law to say that the use of the pool will end at a certain time. If so, then the body corporate is obliged to enforce that by-law. That said, as an owner (and this is where your rights differ from those of occupiers), you can submit a motion to a general meeting to change the by-law. It is reasonable, up to a point, to have a time limit – noise from the use of the BBQ and pool late at night could disturb others – although it really should not be an arbitrary thing.
On the fobs, your desire to visit friends may not be a valid reason for you to be given access to other floors of the building (think of the reverse – would you want people who don’t live on your floor, accessing your floor? And in any event, can’t your friends simply buzz you up?). Putting that aside, it is not a cut and dried issue, and there have been several adjudicators’ orders about it. Maybe read this article as a start point: Frequently asked questions – Keys, fobs, swipe cards, security access and issues
Your query suggests some animosity going on here in relation to the management rights holder (aka, onsite manager) and ‘holiday pool people’. It would be good to resolve that lest any other matters arise. I’d suggest you first avoid terms like ‘holiday pool people’. It’s not a pleasant-sounding term, creating an ‘us and them’ mentality. After that, don’t forget you have the right as an ‘owner’ to submit motions to the committee to have things changed. Maybe start talking to others (owners and occupiers) to see if your views are shared, or if you are in the minority.
This is general information only and not legal advice.
Chris Irons
Strata Solve
E: chris@stratasolve.com.au
P: 0419 805 898
This post appears in Strata News #699.
can female owners decide to place privacy panels in a body corporate pool for PRIVACY ? on pool fence or around the pool permanently?
will this exclude men from using the pool? there are single men owners on our complex!
Is this taking privacy too far????
Hi Irene
Thanks for your question. Chris Irons has provided a comment here: QLD: Q&A Can an owner install privacy panels around a common property pool?
Can a committee decide to remove certain shared facilities, such as a tap located on common property that residents occasionally use? For example, could the committee make this decision at the committee level, perhaps for reasons like saving water or reducing maintenance costs? Or would this be considered a restricted issue that requires a vote at the general meeting level, even for the removal of a small shared facility like this?
Removing an item from the common property is equivalent to an improvement of the common property so the committee has the same authorisation power over an issue like this as it would if it were adding the tap.
That means that it can make a decision via a committee resolution – via a VOC or committee meeting for a cost up to $200 x the number of lots or $300 if the number has been previously increased. In most cases, the $200 limit should be sufficient for the removal of a tap.
See the BCCM website for more info:
https://www.qld.gov.au/law/housing-and-neighbours/body-corporate/maintenance/improvements
I disagree, “Improvement” even when subject of numerous points of definition overwhelmingly bases on “betterment”. Change through any vote does not mean ‘betterment’ (per-se or Ipso -facto). It may well ne a loss to property value even if majority or agreed by all Proprietors. Being a proprietor does not assure intelligence or common sense or being impervious to Executive Committee machinations…or misguided or biased proposals. The same can be said of ‘management’. If there is a tap who’s presence creates some “issue”…fix the issue…if you can’t do that without altogether removing the advantage of the access to a tap on Common Property then you are unsuited to exercising intelligent power.
Hi Hi Jack (and Will & Erison!),
Michael Kleinschmidt, Bugden Allen Group Legal has responded to your comment on this article: QLD: Q&A Authorising Common Property Changes or Improvements
Very interesting topic. There are still questions. No onside manager, no committee members live at the scheme. How can the committee manage keys from the common property (the gym, the communal laundry, etc.? May for instance two or three owners be authorised by the committee to keep keys? How to manage access to the common areas for other owners or occupiers and for the electrician, the plummer etc. as these owners are not committee members? What authorisation should be done by the committee or by the body corporate? Thank you.
Hi Helena
Thanks for your question. The response to this question may assist with your solution:
Question: I’m concerned about our Master Key System. Should all committee members have their own master key?
Can a body corporate allocate a portion of the swimming pool for a specific use. In our case the body corporate have allocated 2 of the 3 swimming lanes to be used specifically for resistance training on 3 mornings of the week.
We have responded to your comment in the article above.
We have access fobs and keys to out apartments. There is key pads at the entry doors and the carpark however residents are not provided the code to access and have to use the fobs. My concern here is in the event that the fob is lost or stolen perhaps we have been advised that we have to call a person to attend and provide access to the building at a cost of $150.00. I have questioned why we are not able to have a code provided to residents in the event fobs are lost however have been advised this can not be provided. My concerns here are in the event that I am away and my teenage daughter is out and looses her fob and key she is not able to access the building to obtain a key that has been placed in a safe place for the apartment. Further to this the person who attends are they available 24 hours? I have asked these questions to the Manager however not really getting anywhere.. Are they able to restrict access to the building by not providing the code. Also please note the code is provided to post deliveries and couriers etc ??
Hi Julie
Thank you for your comment. I have responded in the article above.
Will.
Can a owner, dump a unregistered vehicle in a common area, with the sole purpose of using it for spare parts? He states, his Solicitor says he can. There are other cars there that are registered and used, daily. The area is a car park, but was never on the map or registration of our complex., so is known as common property. Thank you for your help.
There are 6 units where I rent our carports have in front of them have a little bit of common area that is right up to next doors fence, we were told we are NOT to have ANYTHING in that area but the owner occupier has a garage shed which is flush with the fence, WHY CAN’T WE USE THE SPACE AS SHE DOES TO GROW THING OR USE IT FOR POTTING PLANTS, NOBODY GOES THERE OR USES IT, YET WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO USE IT AND SHE HAS A GARDEN SHED ON HER SPACE, WHAT’S THE DEAL OR DIFFERENCE???
Hi Merril
The following response has been provided by Chris Irons, Hynes Legal:
Generally speaking, an owner can make what is termed an improvement to common property. That is subject to proper approval processes by the body corporate. There’s no provision for an occupier (the term used for a tenant in body corporate legislation) to make improvements to common property.
I think your first step is to get informed. Who told you that you weren’t allowed? What does your lease say and is this something you can talk to your landlord about? Who said it was common property? Have you seen body corporate records to back this up? Are there by-laws governing the use of the common property? How do you know that the owner-occupier hasn’t gotten approval for their shed?
Your agent, landlord or body corporate manager, or committee member if you know them, are good places to start obtaining the answers to these and other questions. If you haven’t already, you might also like to contact the Commissioner’s Office regarding your rights and responsibilities as an occupier.
Wouldn’t the committee member charged with investigating solutions and getting quotes, have ascertained that those contacted contractors had the necessary qualifications? Or did the chairman doubt the committee member’s ability to do this.
This article is very interesting as we recently dealt with a similar circumstance. If a common property area has been deemed a potential hazard through an independent and accredited WHS audit and requires anyone accessing that deemed area to hold a working at heights accreditation, would it be reasonable for Committee to require sighting of any particular contractor’s appropriate accreditation and possibly insurances before granting access to the deemed area for the purposes of obtaining a quote? Would this be prudent action on Committee’s part or rather unnecessary?