Question: We need to replace the boundary fence. The adjacent complex has agreed to pay half. How do we proceed? Do we each pay half the cost or do we pay the full invoice and recover their proportion from the neighbours?
We live in a small complex of eight units. A recent safety report suggested we replace a section of the boundary fence. The adjacent complex has agreed to pay half the cost.
We’ve obtained a quote, but what is the best arrangement for paying the fencer? Our body corporate manager looks after the adjacent complex. Should our body corporate pay for the fence in full and bill the neighbouring body corporate for their half or should each complex pay its contribution directly to the contractor?
Answer: Have both parties sign a fencing agreement and then get the contractor to split the invoice.
As one body corporate manager manages both sites this sounds like something they should be sorting out for you.
If it was me, I would have a fencing agreement signed between the two parties to ensure there was legal documentation of the decision to split costs. Then I would contact the contractor and ask them to split the bill in two – most will. If for some reason the contractor was unhappy to do this, the manager can arrange for one entity to pay the total and invoice the other for their share.
This post appears in Strata News #633.
William Marquand
Tower Body Corporate
E: willmarquand@towerbodycorporate.com.au
P: 07 5609 4924
I live in a townhouse complex of 52 homes. we have a fenced courtyard between your garage and the house and a dividing fence between the neighboring home. The fence between the two units needs replacing. the courtyards are “common property and NOT exclusive use, even though they are fully fenced and not accessible to other residents.
By way of context, the Committee resolved on 26 July 2023 that courtyard boundary fences, in
circumstances where exclusive use has not been granted and no exclusive use by-law assigns
maintenance obligations, are deemed improvements to common property for the benefit of the
adjoining Lot. Under Section 187 of the Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard
Module) Regulation 2020, the benefiting lot owner(s) are responsible for maintaining such
improvements in good condition, unless excused by the Body Corporate.
Can the committee do this? they only did this when the fences started to get old and needing work. and after committee members fences where replaced.
I feel they built the fence they own the land on both sides of it. I am not permitted to ” make improvements” to the courtyard. they should be responsible for the fence.
There are dividing wooden fences adjoining lots at the scheme. Some of them are broken. May the body corporate at a general meeting approves replacing them using a different material then wooden material is? The by-laws is silent. Thank you.
Hi Helen
This recording of a previous webinar will assist:
QLD: Maintenance vs Improvements What spending limits apply
Our body corporate is preparing the budgets for our upcoming AGM and have discovered that some fences dividing back yards from common property,are entirely contained within the lots boundary. These fences have historically been considered a shared cost between the lot owner and BodyCorporate for maintenance however they are 670mm inside the lot boundary. Would I be correct in assuming that means these particular fences are wholly at lot owners expense for repairs and maintenance?.
Hi Nikki
Just reading this one
Question: Should my body corp be responsible for replacing a collapsing boundary retaining wall and fence?
I note that the question relates to both a retaining wall and fence.
A retaining wall, (not a boundary wall or fence) is a Class 10b Structure according to the Australian Building Code and therefore comes under the relevant Local Council, in all jurisdictions is not a shared item, in most cases the retaining wall belongs to one entity not both.
Not knowing where this building is I would recommend the Owners contact their local council. as an example I have included Ipswich Council link https://www.ipswich.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/8656/af_b0032-v3.pdf
I would recommend that the searches mentioned should seek to establish who the owner is.
Having said that, the other information supplied regarding ‘standard plans’, ‘building format plans’, exclusive use will all apply if the retaining wall is
– on the Body Corporate site or
– on the lot owners property
Hi Lisa,
My wife and I live in SE Qld and are half of a Body Corporate of 2 lots, comprising 2 totally detached lots on 1 property. We understand that the Body Corporate is responsible for the 4 boundary fences. Each unit has designated “exclusive use ” areas as specified by the Body Corporate.
The rendered brick wall at the front of the property (our house is right at the back) is the street-front and forms one wall of our neighbour’s exclusive use area. This brick wall is quite clearly being slowly pushed over/damaged by the root boles of the overgrown and un-tended golden cane palms that are growing hard up against the inside of the wall.
The exterior of the wall was repainted and repaired a few years ago, with an agreed 50:50 cost split. However, when we suggested to our neighbour that the palms were likely to continue causing damage, he did not accept that the palms were an issue. Now, 2 years later, the crack in the brickwork has enlarged very significantly and the whole wall is leaning outwards but the neighbour refuses to accept that there is any change whatsoever, despite our having sent photographs to him clearly showing the changes.
We think that the maintenance of the exclusive use area is entirely the responsibility of the user but we are unsure as to whether the term “maintenance’ includes ensuring that roots from shrubs, plants and trees do not cause damage to common property.
At the very least we are keen to stop further damage occurring. We have considered getting expert opinions from a horticulturist and/or a builder/concreter to take to our neighbour regarding the palms but we doubt he will listen.
As our next conversation with the neighbour is likely to be “vigorous” (at the very least) could you advise us as to our next step?
Jamie
Who is responsible for repairs of a boundary fence between common property and a lot owners exclusive use area ?
We own a body corporate unit in a gated complex of 15 units built in 1995..we bought same unit in 2007.? Have had 2 body corporate managers of this complex in this time.
All of a sudden this current B.C. Manager – we’ve hard for last 7 years., has said we have to mow the grass area in our units??? Owners are up in arms! Many owners Live out of town.
Can’t see any recent changes in BCCM in relation to moving lawns in our exclusive use areas of our units. In 2018.
Could you please inform
Hi Irene
We have received the following response back from Frank Higginson, Hynes Legal:
This is a bit trickier.
The first thing is to determine who actually owns the backyards.
They could be:-
1. On title to the owners lots
2. Common property subject to a grant of exclusive use to the owners
3. Common property
Each has different consequences.
If the backyards belong to owners then the body corporate has no business maintaining them on a day to day basis. Funds raised by the body corporate are for common purposes. The provision of private services to owners (which this would then be) is not what they were raised for. At law if the body corporate provides services to owners it has a statutory obligation to seek to recover the costs of those services.
If they are exclusive use you need to check what the conditions of the exclusive use grant are. In the absence of specific provisions stating the body corporate is responsible for maintaining the areas the responsibility for maintaining them rests with the lot owners and then the same comments above apply about recovery of service costs.
If they are pure common property then the body corporate should maintain them – but that also means that the use of the areas is not exclusive to any owner.
This happens quite a bit in Queensland where practice displaces what the correct legal position is over time.