This article is about dealing with COVID in body corporate buildings in Queensland. The new Government announcement concerning the COVID-19 strata regulations. This article was updated in September 2021 after the announcement that the COVID-19 emergency arrangements for bodies corporate have been further extended to 30 April 2022. You can read more about this on the QLD Government site here: COVID-19 in bodies corporate.
Table of Contents:
- QUESTION: Can a Committee instruct the Caretaker to place a notice on the board should a resident advise they have COVID?
- QUESTION: What are the rules about disclosure of COVID Positive cases isolating in their body corporate units? Is it a good idea to notify residents of the safety risk or does this create a privacy issue?
- ARTICLE: The COVID-19 Emergency Response Act 2020 (Qld) has been amended to change the definition of its expiry to be 30 April 2022.
- QUESTION: Is the Body Corporate required to provide sanitisation stations in strata buildings in Queensland?
- QUESTION: If an owner has requested relief from paying levies, ie: payment plan, is that owner required to provide evidence of financial hardship?
- QUESTION: Will an owner be declared unable to vote at an AGM if their levies are not paid on time during this COVID-19 period?
- QUESTION: If painting is a budgeted expenditure line item for the year and is removed, the expected cost having been collected over a number of years, how far back does one go in calculating the temporary refund?
- ARTICLE: QLD Government Announcement: COVID-19 Strata Regulations
Question: Can a Committee instruct the Caretaker to place a notice on the board should a resident advise they have COVID?
Can a Committee instruct the Caretaker to place a notice on the board should a resident advise they have COVID? Only the instruction itself would be on body corporate records. Any later advice by a resident to the Caretaker would not be listed.
People can become complacent and it is important to keep them informed.
Lift buttons, doors, gates, etc could be contaminated. If there was a case of Ebola in the complex, I think we should know!
Answer: A more practical instruction to the caretaker would be to clean the areas in which the occupier has recently been on the common property.
A committee may choose to give this instruction but displaying such a notice won’t stop the spread of the virus.
If the committee is made aware of the virus (which in reality is not going to be all that likely) a more practical instruction to the caretaker would be to clean the areas in which the occupier has recently been on the common property.
This post appears in Strata News #566.
Question: What are the rules about disclosure of COVID Positive cases isolating in their units? Is it a good idea to notify residents of the safety risk or does this create a privacy issue?
We have a situation at our complex on the Sunshine Coast about non-disclosure to all occupants when there are active COVID Positive cases in isolation in the body corporate building.
We have 60+ residential units. 40 or so units are either owner-occupied or lock-ups, and many of these owners are retirees of an age identified as higher risk re COVID. There are fewer than 20 in the holiday rental pool.
We found out recently there have been several instances of COVID Positives isolating in their units, to the knowledge of the Caretaker who had undertaken to organise shopping, delivery of meals etc. The Committee had decided not to make any general disclosure of this risk because of ’the obvious privacy concerns’.
Some Committee members are in the rental pool and clearly, there is a potential conflict of interest here, especially leading up to peak times. I do not see how putting up a general notice alerting people to the presence of COVID Positives isolating in-house and encouraging everyone to be more vigilant about safe practices – without naming the occupants, the unit, or even the level – can affect anyone’s privacy.
I cannot find any rules either requiring or prohibiting this type of notice. One owner has already taken the personal initiative and put up their own sign on the community notice board, but am not confident it won’t be removed.
For my money, this is one area where community safety trumps any concerns about personal privacy, particularly when there is no risk to that privacy.
I’m sure we are not alone, especially in the complexes where there is a real mixture of owner-occupiers and holiday rentals.
Answer: At this stage of the pandemic, it would be a brave Body Corporate that adopted a by-law legislating the equivalent of a precursory plague cross; that being in my view both (outrageously) unreasonable and manifestly oppressive.
The Queensland Government Health website, devoted to COVID-19, is an excellent resource (and in my experience has been for pretty much the entire pandemic, at least in Queensland). For those that test positive, the current health guidance (as at 19 April 2022) is to:
- immediately isolate for 7 days
- tell household contacts
- manage symptoms and health
- get necessities delivered and
- tell social, work and education contacts to get tested, if they have symptoms.
This fifth point makes it the personal responsibility of the COVID sufferer to disclose their infection to those people they had contact within the 2 days before becoming symptomatic. Funnily enough, the guidance does not require the COVID sufferer to nail a plaque to the notice board proclaiming ‘Plague be here’.
While I am sure there are some COVID sufferers that would be happy to (over)share their health information, for example on social media (‘Yeah brah, down with the rona’), most of society, with most health conditions, treasure the right to medical privacy. At this stage of the pandemic, it would be a brave Body Corporate that (adopted a by-law) [https://www.lookupstrata.com.au/qld-general-rules-queensland-bylaws/] legislating the equivalent of a precursory plague cross; that being in my view both (outrageously) unreasonable and manifestly oppressive.
The snappy rejoinder at this point, is usually for someone to point out that the (extraordinary) action of requiring public disclosure of a COVID infection to everyone in a community titles scheme is justified to protect the health of a group within that scheme; in this case, retirees. There is some (limited) merit in that proposition; after all, Queensland’s chief health officer has decided that you still need to be fully vaccinated and to check in when visiting a residential aged care facility. What the CHO has not decided, however, and respectfully I would suggest that this concerned older citizen (notice the ‘we’ in the question) take note of, is that public disclosure of your infection to all of your neighbours is not required. But, you say, we don’t have to use anyone’s name! i.e. the notice can be ‘general’ and not disclose any personal details. Well, for a notice to be posted, there must be a notification. A notification would be a body corporate record. Body Corporate records are searchable. So, as soon as a notice is up (and someone mentions they have not seen Bob at unit 3 walking his dog for the last 2 days), the secret will be out…
Balancing rights, such as a right to privacy and a right to health, can be very tricky. I have always found that applying the Golden Rule helps; treat others as you would be treated. Whoever has posed this question might consider whether they would be comfortable having to notify their Body Corporate if they contracted another transmissible disease, all of which can lead to serious illness or even death. Stop reading when you feel uncomfortable disclosing your status if you were infected… bronchitis… chickenpox… influenza… syphilis… HIV…
This post appears in Strata News #563.
ARTICLE: The COVID-19 Emergency Response Act 2020 (Qld) has been amended to change the definition of its expiry to be 30 April 2022.
The COVID-19 Emergency Response Act 2020 (Qld) has been amended to change the definition of its expiry to be 30 April 2022.
This legislation facilitated the temporary COVID related amendments to the relevant Body Corporate legislation which facilitated:
- Financial management changes in the Act (changes to sinking funds, levies, penalty interest and borrowing); and
- Flexibility on holding, attending and voting at body corporate meetings;
- Record inspections; and
- Closing body corporate facilities.
This post appears in Strata News #512.
Question: Is the Body Corporate required to provide hand sanitisation stations in strata buildings in Queensland?
Answer: Body corporate legislation doesn’t require sanitisation stations. However, I don’t think there’s necessarily a simple yes/no answer.
Body corporate legislation doesn’t require them.
Health directives may and you’d want to check Queensland Health in that regard. Given how quickly things are changing with COVID, you’d want to be checking that website frequently for changes as well.
Put those 2 things aside, there may be some very good reasons why your building would need sanitisation stands. For example, if the building was in a known COVID hotspot or had occupiers who had been. At that point, it’s a matter for the body corporate to decided upon and if you’re an owner you can submit a request in writing for the committee to consider that. You might want to put some reasons with it.
While I appreciate you’re asking what you hope is a simple yes/no question, I don’t think there’s necessarily a simple yes/no answer.
This post appears in Strata News #385.
Question: If an owner has requested relief from paying levies, ie: payment plan, is that owner required to provide evidence of financial hardship?
Answer: Committees should always treat each case on its merits.
The new legislation doesn’t require a standard of proof for financial hardship like the new residential tenancies regulations do. A committee has to act reasonably in everything it does and should do so here as well.
If a committee knows very well that an owner has lost their job due to COVID – e.g. they worked in hospitality or Virgin – then it’s kind of pointless asking that owner to provide proof. And there’s also a need to be a bit humane and compassionate. Asking for bank statements or tax returns details when someone is stressed out is hardly a compassionate thing to do.
On the other hand, if the owner is a regular ‘defaulter’, then it might make sense for the committee to ask for a bit of material to support their request for instalments. Committees should always treat each case on its merits.
This post appears in Strata News #355.
Question: Will an owner be declared unable to vote at an AGM if their levies are not paid on time during this COVID-19 period?
Answer: If an owner is unfinancial at the time of the AGM, then they won’t be able to vote.
The new legislation has not completely waived an owner’s obligation to pay levies. It has given committees and owners options to manage financial stress caused by COVID. That’s really important to remember at the outset.
So while it is the case that a committee can waive interest or can extend the due date or in some cases refund money, and also a committee can also not pursue an outstanding debt for a period, if an owner is, after all that, still unfinancial at the time of the AGM, then they won’t be able to vote.
This post appears in Strata News #355.
Question: If painting is a budgeted expenditure line item for the year and is removed, the expected cost having been collected over a number of years, how far back does one go in calculating the temporary refund?
There are usually various line items for expenditure in a budget but not for levies. If painting is a budgeted expenditure line item for the year and is removed, the expected cost having been collected over a number of years, how far back does one go in calculating the temporary refund or is it just the component amount included in the levies relating to the current financial year? Budgeted sinking fund expenditure for a year often bears no resemblance to the levies collected for that year.
Answer: The committee really should be considering taking qualified advice.
The provision states: ‘The body corporate for a community titles scheme may, by ordinary resolution, adjust the sinking fund budget for the current financial year to remove or reduce the anticipated major expenditure amount, or part of the amount, included in the budget.’ That would suggest it is the line limit for that current financial year, although I appreciate there may be different views on that.
The committee really should be considering taking qualified advice – financial, legal or otherwise – about this prior to a resolution being considered at a general meeting, as this is a significant issue with big potential consequences.
This post appears in Strata News #355.
Frank Higginson and Chris Irons recently held a webinar on the new changes. You can view this on the Hynes Legal Facebook page.
QLD Government Announcement: COVID-19 Strata Regulations
The starting point is that all of this is only temporary. These amendments commence on a date to be determined (but likely to be very soon) and expire on 31 December 2020. For the purposes of this article we will talk about that as being the COVID period.
The key term is ‘financial year’. Every body corporate has a financial year-end that usually ties back to when it was first registered. A body corporate’s financial year is not necessarily the tax year ending 30 June. The quickest way to check is go to your last year’s AGM papers. The budget will be drafted through to the end of your body corporate’s financial year.
These regulations do not address electronic voting. That may still become law via the previous strata law reform that was underway before COVID-19, but who knows?
What this bill deals with, and what it means for owners, committees, managers and others, is as follows:
Reducing sinking fund budgets (and therefore, sinking fund levies)
A body corporate can, by ordinary resolution, adjust the sinking fund budget to remove some or all anticipated major expenditure for the current or future financial years. If it does that, and amounts have already been paid by owners towards that budgeted amount, then the body corporate must – and it is definitely ‘must’, not ‘may’ – refund to owners the amount already paid on account of that element.
A simple example might be that a scheme needs painting and $400,000 has been budgeted to be collected, with some collected to date and the rest to come. That line item can now, if agreed by ordinary resolution, be removed from the budget.
If it is removed, any amounts paid by owners towards that item as part of their sinking fund levies needs to be refunded to them. The new laws also make clear that an owner doesn’t have to request that refund in writing, which is important for committees to keep in mind.
Come 1 January 2021, that amount will then need to go back into the next budget and be levied against all owners to catch up. So, what this would do is provide some financial relief at the moment, until the amount is required to be built back into the budget. In other words, don’t go rushing towards this option as a Hail Mary solution. It really is only a short-term fix.
Logistically we suspect it might be quite an exercise for those without sophisticated sinking fund forecasts to determine what can be cut and what has to be refunded.
Changing due dates for levies
Committees can change the due dates for payments of levies to the last day of the body corporate’s financial year. This can be selectively applied to owners who are suffering COVID-19 related financial hardship or to every owner regardless of that. This is expressly confirmed to not be a restricted issue.
The committee is obliged to take into account what the body corporate still needs to spend during the financial year.
Cashflow forecasts will become incredibly important if committees take advantage of this provision.
Interest on overdue levies
Bodies corporate can charge 2.5% interest per month on overdue levies under the Modules.
They now cannot do that on amounts that are overdue during the COVID period, irrespective of any previous resolutions to charge interest and whether the amount falls due in the COVID period or not. The example in the bill is illustrative:
‘An account requiring payment of a contribution instalment given to an owner of a lot 2 months before the commencement is not paid until 1 February 2021. The owner is not liable for a penalty for the contribution instalment being in arrears during the relevant period. However, the owner may be liable for a penalty for the contribution instalment being in arrears before and after the relevant period.’
Getting the mechanics right in the strata management software everyone uses is going to be critically important as this provision will arrive almost immediately. If it is not managed correctly, it is going to be a logistical nightmare for bodies corporate seeking to detail the amounts owed for overdue levies in due course, especially in recovery proceedings.
Commencement of levy recovery proceedings
At the moment there is a statutory obligation to commence proceedings for recovery of body corporate levies two years and two months from when they first fall due. We wrote about that here: The timing for body corporate debt recovery proceedings is clarified.
That obligation has been removed during the COVID period. Bodies corporate can still commence proceedings, but they are not obliged to. Proceedings started before the COVID period remain unchanged.
After the COVID period, bodies corporate then have two months to commence those proceedings for levies that are outside that two-year and two-month period.
What bodies corporate should do here in either case is something else entirely. We will talk about that in this Friday’s webinar.
Body corporate borrowing
Bodies corporate have the ability to borrow. Under the Standard Module that is by ordinary resolution unless the amount borrowed is more than $250 per lot, in which case the borrowing has to be approved by resolution without dissent. The equivalent provisions in the Accommodation Module have the same $250 line in the sand, but approval of borrowing above that is by special resolution. That is the same under the Commercial Module.
The base-line amount has been doubled. All bodies corporate can now borrow up to $500 per lot by ordinary resolution. After that, they need to comply with the higher threshold.
There are no equivalent sections for many of the BCCMA provisions under the BUGTA. The one change here is that committees have the same right to extend the date for payment of levies to the end of the body corporate’s financial year, and committees have the same obligation with respect to making sure that the body corporate still has the ability to meet its financial commitments.
These are sensible and practical solutions to help with critical body corporate financial issues, however:-
- they are only temporary; and
- they probably could have gone even further.
Even so, we don’t think it is a green light for bodies corporate to come up with crazy ideas about finances and then force them through under the cover of ‘COVID emergency’. These amendments will need to be complied with, and bodies corporate are still required to act reasonably at all times.
What is ‘acting reasonably’, we hear you ask? That’s something we can advise you on…
You can also read the whole bill here: Justice and Other Legislation (COVID-19 Emergency Response) Amendment Bill 2020.
This post appears in Strata News #354.
If you have a question about the new Government announcement concerning the COVID-19 strata regulations or something to add to the article, please leave a comment below.
- NAT: COVID-19 Q&A Session: Strata Living With the Coronavirus Crisis
- QLD: COVID-19 Frequently asked questions – Office of the BCCM
- QLD: Q&A Confining Residents During COVID-19 Lockdown
- QLD: Strata levies and COVID-19
Looking for strata information concerning your state? For state-specific strata information, try here.