QLD: Fire Door Inspection Failures: Body Corporate or Lot Owner Responsibility?

Question: If a lot owner fails to complete a required fire door inspection, how does this affect the building’s compliance and insurance, and who is responsible if a claim is denied — the body corporate or the owner?

A notice was sent to all owners and residents one month in advance for a scheduled fire door inspection. One lot was non-compliant because the technician was unable to access the unit after multiple attempts on the allocated day and time. The body corporate has since contacted the owner to reschedule the inspection—at their own cost, as stated in the original notice—but the owner has not followed through.

If the inspection isn’t completed, how does this impact the building’s overall compliance and insurance coverage? In the event of a fire, who would be responsible for rectification and costs if an insurance claim is denied due to the non-compliant lot — the body corporate or the individual lot owner?

Answer: The body corporate should document all attempts made to access the unit and seek legal advice or a dispute resolution pathway under the Act.

In this situation, the primary responsibility to maintain compliance rests with both the body corporate and the individual lot owner, depending on the specific legislative requirements and what the door services. Is the fire door in question part of the common property (e.g. entry doors to units in many apartment buildings)? If so, the body corporate typically holds ultimate responsibility for ensuring inspections and maintenance are completed in accordance with the Building Fire Safety Regulation 2008 and relevant Australian Standards (AS 1851-2012). However, if the owner denies access and fails to reschedule after reasonable efforts have been made, this can complicate matters.

From a compliance perspective:

• The incomplete inspection technically leaves the site non-compliant, as all fire doors are required to be inspected and maintained at the prescribed intervals.
• Continued failure to inspect may be seen as a breach of the body corporate’s statutory obligations, even though the owner has contributed to the situation.

From an insurance perspective:

• If a claim arises directly related to the non-inspected or non-compliant door, the insurer may investigate whether reasonable steps were taken by the body corporate to maintain compliance.
• Insurers could potentially deny part or all of a claim if they determine that non-compliance contributed to the loss or increased the risk.
• Some insurers may cover the loss but reserve the right to recover costs from responsible parties (either the body corporate or the owner).

Responsibility for rectification and payment:

• If the door is common property, ultimately, the body corporate may need to engage legal options to compel access as part of its obligation to maintain compliance.
• The owner may be liable for costs incurred due to their refusal or failure to provide access as per the initial notice.

I would recommend the body corporate formally document all attempts made to access the unit and seek legal advice or a dispute resolution pathway under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 if the owner continues to be non-compliant. This protects both compliance obligations and potential insurance coverage.

This post appears in the August 2025 edition of The QLD Strata Magazine.

Stefan Bauer
Fire Matters
E: sbauer@firematters.com.au
P: 07 3071 9088