Question: Our committee and body corporate manager are both ignoring by-law breaches and safety issues. What can be done about a dysfunctional scheme?
We live in a complex of seven townhouses. Three owners don’t live on site, and two of those are committee members. The chairperson lives in the complex, constantly parks on the grass and common property, and has one unregistered dog. There are three more dogs and about five cats in the complex that also aren’t on the register. I’ve reminded the committee a couple of times about the neglected maintenance and ignored by-laws, and I’ve obtained some quotes for the maintenance issues. The WHS reports haven’t been attended to either, and the occupants of the three rented properties aren’t on the roll.
The chairperson’s latest two replies were very different in tone. The first, an official reply, states that I’m not communicating properly with the committee, have no right to obtain quotes, and they are already aware of the problems. The second, sent as an owner rather than in an official capacity, involved personal threats, which I’ve reported to police and had filed, though not yet at a criminal level. All my communication was addressed to every committee member and the body corporate manager, but there’s been no response from the manager either. The complex is in a state of anarchy. One owner is claiming ownership of two visitor parking spaces, which aren’t marked. What can be done?
Under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997, the body corporate must enforce its by-laws. What options are available to an owner when the committee and manager are both unresponsive?
Answer: Owners can apply to have an administrator appointed to take over a scheme that isn’t functioning.
We think there are three possible approaches to your situation, which we agree doesn’t sound great.
The first approach might be to address the individual issues in order of priority. If parking is your biggest issue, then enforce the by-law (assuming there is one) about parking. Refer to this excellent resource from the Commissioner’s Office about how to enforce by-laws. Addressing individual issues might focus everyone’s attention on what needs to be done, and things may start moving along as a result.
The second approach is to look at things broadly. If your scheme is in “disarray” as you say, then it might be what we call “dysfunctional” and require the appointment of an administrator. The administrator’s job is to get the scheme up and running again so that it can operate properly in future. To get an administrator appointed is a serious step, so you’d have to be able to show the body corporate cannot manage its own affairs. Key indicators of a dysfunctional body corporate are:
- no functioning committee,
- no budgets adopted and no levies struck/collected,
- no funds being maintained,
- records not being properly kept,
- no maintenance being done and
- no insurance in place.
You’ve listed a few things which may mean your scheme is dysfunctional.
The third approach is engaging with the other owners, ensuring you are sending clear and consistent messages about the risks (financial and otherwise) the scheme is facing by not taking action, and seeking their support and cooperation. If the issue you face is the committee, or certain people on the committee, it might be necessary to look at changing the committee.
Is it unfair that it falls to you to be the one to have to deal with this? Yes. Unfortunately, though, it does require someone to take the initiative, so please be sure you have the will, resilience and resources to see this through. Think about the above, seek qualified advice as necessary and then get started.
This is general information only and not legal advice.
This post appears in Strata News #803.
Chris Irons
Strata Solve
E: chris@stratasolve.com.au
P: 0419 805 898
So many body corporate committees are dysfunctional and continue to operate this way.
I’m in a complex of 58 and the same thing is happening.
Reflecting on the ongoing dysfunction within our body corporate, even after diligently pursuing every recommended avenue, it has become painfully clear that the BCCM rules, policies often serve only those who choose to act without integrity. They are all too easily manipulated by certain body corporate owners, bullies and committee members, who exploit these systems for their own benefit, frequently at the expense of others. This manipulation not only causes undue stress but also appears to be a deliberate tactic to pressure or drive away other owners. From personal experience, and after investing significant time, energy, and thousands of dollars in attempting to follow the prescribed steps, including escalating matters legally, the harsh reality is that the system itself, and the BCCM as an institution, are failing to protect those they were designed to support. The adjudication process is not only prohibitively expensive and ineffective for many owners. As instead of providing the relief and fairness as many owners feel it was created for, it often leaves owners without meaningful recourse, effectively trapped with nowhere else to turn. Rather than guiding and fostering real support for fairness, the current system perpetuates dysfunction, undermining the very people it is meant to protect.
I’m not sure how widespread dysfunctional body corporate committees are, but our experience has been one of requiring much resilience only to lead to frustration, loss of faith. We took the time, energy and funds to get an administrator appointed, yet their authority was limited to organising an overdue AGM to elect a committee. Afterwards, nothing changed, decisions about appointing a Strata Manager or approving essential maintenance and repairs were repeatedly blocked. With just four owners in our complex, every vote ends in a deadlock of two against two, leaving us stuck and unable to move forward.
Regrettably, I cannot recommend pursuing the administrator pathway. Despite the fact that we not only met but exceeded all the necessary indicators and gathered ample evidence supporting the need for a Strata Manager, as well as for an administrator with expanded authority to address and approve repairs and maintenance to Common Property, particularly in situations where decisions are stalled by tied votes, to enable the resolution required and for the committee and owners to move forward. The frequent observation that “so many body corporate committees are dysfunctional” highlights a pressing need for intervention. I genuinely hope this serves as a catalyst for the BCCM and Government to implement meaningful reforms. The current system is evidently failing both committees and owners—by-laws are routinely disregarded, and the established processes seem to disadvantage honest individuals striving to do the right thing. It is time for decisive action to ensure the system works fairly and effectively for everyone involved.