This article discusses how Qld committees can use remuneration and duties reviews to guide negotiations with caretakers while ensuring maintenance obligations are met.
Question: Is the committee responsible for implementing changes recommended in a remuneration and duties review to ensure the body corporate meets its maintenance obligations?
Our body corporate commissioned a remuneration and duties review by a suitably qualified professional. The review highlighted that the recommended duties differ from the current duties, including new responsibilities such as monitoring security systems and removing items that require ongoing maintenance.
Is the committee responsible for initiating these changes to ensure the body corporate continues to meet its legal obligations for maintaining common property? What are the options for either the committee or the caretaker if the remuneration range is outside the market range?
Answer: Unless you are starting from scratch, there is no open market.
I’m not sure what you mean when you say the remuneration range is out of market range.
Generally, if you’ve done a remuneration and duties review, the purpose is to give your scheme an idea of the requirements for the site and the cost for providing that. You could use that document for consultation and negotiation with your caretaker to determine if they would agree to a new contract at the established new cost.
If you can’t reach an agreement, the current contract will remain in place until expiry. If the review suggests that the cost of providing caretaking services is less than the amount you are currently paying, that’s fine. Still, there is no obligation for the caretaker to agree to a new contract and a lower salary. Equally, if the review suggested your scheme is paying less than it should for the contracted services, the body corporate is not obliged to negotiate a new contract. Unless you are starting from scratch, there is no open market – only the contract you have negotiated and the contract you could negotiate.
William Marquand
Tower Body Corporate
E: willmarquand@towerbodycorporate.com.au
P: 07 5609 4924
This post appears in the November 2025 edition of The QLD Strata Magazine.
Have a question or something to add to the article? Leave a comment below.
Read next:
- QLD: Q&A Duties of a Building Manager
- QLD: Caretakers and maintenance responsibilities
- QLD: Caretaking Agreements And Negative Inflation
Visit our Building Managers OR Strata Legislation QLD.
Looking for strata information concerning your state? For state-specific strata information, take a look here.
After a free PDF of this article? Log into your existing LookUpStrata Account to download the printable file. Not a member? Simple – join for free on our Registration page.
William…many thanks for your answer re caretaker remuneration reviews.
My take-out is that any alteration to any existing contract requires negotiated consent from both sides, regardless of the merits of the proposed alterations.
In the particular case cited, the ‘suitably qualified professional’ was engaged – and presumably sourced – by the body corporate to do the review,
I have seen a number of reviews initiated by caretakers, who sourced and nominated their own reviewers. I’ve even seen reviews where the body corporate was required by the caretaker to agree in principle with the recommendations by their reviewer before the caretaker would commit to incurring any expense for the review.
Without making any comment on the professionalism and independence of the reviewers – whether the body corporate’s or the caretaker’s – both models raise questions of conflict of interest.
Is there an alternative model eg where each party engages their own reviewer and have them explain and justify their processes to each other.
Hi,
Thanks for your comments. So far as I know, there is no official or set process for the remuneration reviews. It just comes down to what the parties agree. So, yes, you could have two separate reviews and then negotiation on that basis. However, these discussions often come down to money, and there tends to be a reluctance to spend more than necessary. Still, the costs of the review are relatively low compared to the long-term costs of the contracts. I’d encourage owners to get the information they need to negotiate.