Cadagi [2025] QBCCMCmr 361 (20 October 2025)

PROPERTY DAMAGE - responsibility for rectification of damage to lot caused by water ingress

Act, ss 152, 281; Standard Module, ss 180, 195, 198

• [1] Genevieve Meek, owner of lot 4 since March 2024, brings this application (lodged on 29 July 2025 and amended on 7 August 2025) against the body corporate, regarding damage to the lot from water ingress. She says lot 4 has been damaged by multiple flood events, the cause of which is a poorly maintained roof. She seeks orders that all roof repairs be done to a high standard as a matter of priority and that the property be repaired at the body corporate's expense ASAP. The tenants, she says, are living with flood damaged ceilings, walls and floors.
• [2] The application was not well put together and difficult to unravel. Apart from the completed 9-page application form, all that was provided was 48 pages of unreferenced emails in no particular order, including photos; and 5 separate video/movie files.

• [3] Cadagi was established in September 1978 with the registration of building units plan (BUP) 3045, a building format plan of subdivision. The scheme contains 5 lots in 2 buildings (one 3 level (rear section) and one 4 level (front section)) joined by a stairwell, in Miami on the Gold Coast. Lot 4 is on Level C (the top level) at the rear of the scheme.
• [4] Submissions in response to the application were sought from all owners and the committee. The committee made a submission. The applicant inspected the submission and provided a written reply (a copy of which was provided by the applicant to the committee).
• [5] I requested further information from the committee by emails dated 29 September 2025 and 8 October 2025. Further information was provided by the committee by emails on 30 September and 13 October 2025 (copied to Mr Meek).

• [6] The applicant says the first flood was 30 January 2024 (prior to the applicant's ownership). Minutes of the AGM held on 30 April 2024 record:

Roof and Gutter Repairs: it is important to note that Ryan Roofing has been scheduled for the necessary roof and gutter repairs, which are likely contributing factors to the ceiling damage. A work order was issues on the 28th of February, and they are currently facing an 8-10 week delay before the work can commence. Rest assured that addressing the external issues remains a priority for the Body Corporate.

• [7] The applicant says repairs were not done until after May. It appears repairs were completed in June. Invoice 12976 dated 18 June 2024 for job number 26151 from Ryan Roofing lists the following works as having been done at cost of $3,255.89:

• Supply materials and tradesmen to site to complete required works
• Delivery of materials to site
• Allow to set up static lines and harness's as required to complete roof works
• Remove existing roofing materials that require replacement and dispose from site
• Supply and install a 580mm wide x 2.5m long custom made box gutter and 1 x outlet, with associated fittings and sealants
• Supply and install a 580mm wide x 1.3m long custom made box gutter and 1 x outlet, with associated fittings and sealants 5
• Supply and install a 320mm wide x 1m long custom made box gutter, with associated fittings and sealants
• Remove all rubbish and leave site clean and tidy

• [8] The applicant says the second major flood, through the allegedly recently repaired roof, was on 8 March 2025 during cyclone Alfred, resulting in multiple leaks in multiple rooms, walls and ceiling. An email from Ryan Roofing on 20 March 2025 to the body corporate manager and property manager for lot 4 indicates that repairs were done, free of charge.
• [9] Flood 3 is stated to have occurred on 12 June 2025 with water coming through the temporary repairs from the damage caused 3 months prior. The applicant says it's been 5 months of no action and the roof is still leaking.
• [10] The body corporate manager and committee gave instructions that the internal repairs should go through the applicant's insurer. The previous body corporate manager confirmed the internal repairs were the responsibility of the body corporate. That manager left and the new body corporate manager has 'walked that back'.

• [11] Despite the application being made in Genevieve Meek's name, as owner of lot 4, the only evidence of communication concerning the issues the subject of the application with the respondent body corporate and this office is with Martin Meek. I have not been provided with any evidence of his authority to act for Genevieve Meek in matters concerning lot 4.
• [12] Section 227(1) of the Act defines a dispute as a dispute between the body corporate and the owner or occupier of a lot included in the scheme. 'Owner' is defined to mean the person who is, or is entitled to be, the registered owner of the lot[1]. Martin Meek is not an owner or occupier of any lot in the scheme. Accordingly, although the body corporate appears to treat Martin Meek as a representative of the owner of lot 4, I consider that there is no evidence of a dispute between the named applicant and respondent body corporate and must dismiss the application on this basis.
• [13] However, even if Martin Meek had been appropriately authorised to act on behalf of Genevieve Meek in this application, I would dismiss it on its merits, for the following reasons.

• [14] Under section 281 of the Act, an adjudicator can order repairs (the cost of which are not more than $75,000) or reimbursement (of not more than $10,000) where an applicant has suffered damage to property due to a contravention of the Act or community management statement (CMS).

Has the applicant suffered damage to property?

• [15] It is a prerequisite for a claim under section 281 that the applicant has suffered property damage. The primary issue in this application is the extent of the damage alleged to have occurred.
• [16] The applicant seeks an order that the body corporate carry out necessary roof repairs and reimburse her for damages caused, totalling $7,604.87.
• [17] The body corporate accepts responsibility for the internal damage to lot 4, but in relation to the flooring, only to the extent of replacing the carpet in the second bedroom.
• [18] The applicant says it is not possible for the ceiling to be flooded on several occasions; for it and the walls to sustain damage, without the floor sustaining the same level of damage. The same volume of water that damaged the ceiling, impacted the floor.
• [19] Two quotes for replacement flooring are provided: The first is Estimate No 017 from Mark McGill (who appears to be a tenant of lot 4) dated 11 March 2025:

Hybrid flooring (this is basically the same as the vinyl planks bit it's a click system that doesn't require you to glue in to the concrete. It also has an acoustic underlay under the floor board which complies with what strata require

Remove and dispose carpet and underlay in bedroom 1 & 2 25.5m2 area $300 + gst

Remove + dispose existing vinyl planks in main area and grind off glue which holds the plans to the concrete slab 35m2 area $1200

• [20] The second is Quote number IV00000003672 from Riverside Carpets dated 23/04/2025:

Supply & install similar quality carpet to replace water/storm damage carpets in both bedrooms

Supply & install similar quality vinyl planks to replace water/store damaged floor

Price inc take up of existing flooring and disposal.

• [21] Minutes of a committee meeting held on 20 May 2025 relevantly record the following:

The committee discussed Unit 4's owners' request for total floor replacement due to supposed water damage. Bob advised the meeting that he had been invited by the tenant to inspect the water ingress and noted that this had occurred in one corner of one bedroom (north-west corner of the unit). No water ingress had occurred anywhere else in the unit. Given that the carpet is aged,

stained and worn, the committee agreed to compensate Mr Meeks for replacement of carpet in that one room on a depreciated basis. The committee is not prepared to pay for replacement carpet in the other bedroom, nor the vinyl plank flooring throughout the remainder of the unit, which is also aged, sun/weather damaged, and of inferior quality. That last assessment having been

made by an experienced flooring supplier and layer. The committee determined that Melanie be advised of this decision, and to pass it on to Mr Meeks.

• [22] In an email on 22 May 2025 from the body corporate manger to Martin Meek, the body corporate manager confirms that the Committee agreed that they would pay the cost of replacing the carpet in one bedroom only. This is due to the lack of evidence that all floors were damaged in the unit and require replacement. The Committee request that you please obtain a revised quotation for carpet for the damaged bedroom and submit this for consideration.
• [23] In a reply email to the body corporate manager on 29 May 2025, Martin Meek says he inspected the unit the day before and in response to the stated 'lack of evidence' as the reason for rejecting the floor damage, he says to refer to the photo's attached, along with the videos sent through in his last email. He claims the videos show water breaking through the ceiling in multiple places, including in the living room. He says 'Where does the chairman and the committee think this water went, after pouring from a previously and often damaged roof space? The rain water, the mould spores, the dirt and 40 years' worth of detritus is pouring into the property, its carpets and under the vinyl planking.' He says the videos are the evidence, the damaged mouldy ceiling in the living room 3 months on is the evidence.
• [24] By email on 13 May 2025 the managing agent for lot 4, Ruth Chessell, only mentions ceiling damage, making bedroom 2 unusable, and replacement carpet.
• [25] An email from former tenant, Brittany Hamwood, to Bob Coleman on 21 May 2025, says:

I lived at 4/8 Riviera Road, Miami from December 2021 to February 2025. Throughout my time living at the property there were no leaks or water damage that occurred that would have impacted or affected the carpet and/or vinyl plank flooring.

I have provided a copy of all the maintenance requests from my time at the property. The carpet was in need of replacing, full of stains and was not cleaned prior to me commencing the lease in December 2021 nor was it cleaning on our departure due to same in February 2025.

My perspective is that all flooring within the property required replacing many years ago, however, this was never a priority for the owner. The vinyl planks have been sundamaged since I first moved in, as well as the carpet stained from previous tenants and general wear and tear.

• [26] In an email dated 30 May 2025, Bob Coleman says:

The previous water event in Unit 4 (Feb2024) did NOT result in water penetration into the unit.

As far as the eye could see, water damage was confined to moisture apparent on the ceiling. Furthermore, water entry from the ceiling was caused by the tenant poking a hole in the ceiling to release water from the sagging ceiling, he believing that that was the most appropriate course of action. This water did not spread beyond a patch on the carpet - certainly not to the laminated flooring. As for the comment regarding 40 years of accumulated debris pouring into the unit, that is an exaggeration, as I personally viewed the floor immediately after the ceiling had been disrupted.

Moisture penetration in the loungeroom was caused by aged window frame seal, the same problem that we in unit 3 have experienced. This can be rectified by applying a bead of silicone along the external top of frame. Moisture on the ceiling causing mould was the only issue here. There was definitely no flowing water entry that could cause damage to the vinyl flooring.

The committee did not state "lack of evidence" as the reason for rejecting the claim, the reason was that simply a patch of carpet in the relevant bedroom was the only piece of flooring damaged by water ingress, and that carpet is old, and while the committee agreed to contribute on a depreciated replacement cost basis, it felt that it should not hold responsibility for replacing other flooring unaffected by water ingress from the roof. The committee took into consideration the age and quality of the existing flooring.

• [27] Mr Coleman says further in an email on 4 June 2025 to Melanie Taylor and 2 other committee members that from his observations made at the tenant's request, he noted only 2 areas of water ingress: 1 in the nw facing bedroom, and the other above the lounge-room window, as is obviated by the mould treatment and coverings.
• [28] The only evidence of any damage in the photos and videos provided with the application is a small area of the ceiling directly in front of the window in the living area on the wall near the entrance door and a larger area of ceiling and wall in the second bedroom in front of the window. One photo depicts what I think is a close-up of a very small section (approx. 10cm?) of damaged skirting board over some carpet, presumably in one of the bedrooms since they are the only carpeted areas of the lot. It was not easy to figure out where the damage featured in the photos and videos was - I had to consult a floor plan and photos of the unit available on realestate.com.
• [29] Some photos and videos appear to have been provided by a current tenant, Lauren Crompton. None of these are dated, nor is there any description on them. From what I can tell, only 2 areas are depicted in the videos supplied: the ceiling in the vicinity of the window in the living area on the wall near the entrance door and the ceiling and wall in the second bedroom in front of the window. The videos show water pouring through a hole in the ceiling in the second bedroom onto the carpet below and water pooling on the windowsill underneath this area of ceiling.
• [30] The committee notes that the videos supplied reveal that no attempt was made to capture the water released from the ceiling, thus causing the carpet damage.
• [31] Some photos appear to have been provided earlier, by former tenant Brittany Hamwood, taken on 30 January 2024 and sent to the managing agent on 2 February 2024. They appear to be of the ceiling of the main bedroom (although it is described as the second bedroom in her email) and appear to be related to what the applicant describes as 'the first flood event'.
• [32] Damage to the main bedroom was repaired by Minc in August 2024.
• [33] From the material before me it does not appear that there has been any further water ingress nor any further damage, in the main bedroom.
• [34] What the applicant describes as the second and third floods appear to be separate instances of water ingress in a different area from the first.
• [35] In reply to the committee disputing the extent of the internal damage, the applicant says:
  • The Amalgamated quote, commissioned by the committee, clearly records damage to walls and flooring.
  • The committee previously acknowledged flooring damage when suggesting the matter be claimed under the lot owner's insurance (including offering to pay the excess).
  • Only after the applicant declined to proceed through their insurer did the committee begin disputing internal damage.
• [36] The committee does not dispute internal damage per se; the committee disputes that all the aged flooring had been damaged. It concedes damage to carpet in one bedroom only (caused largely by the tenant not capturing the water when released from the ceiling). The previous tenant states water ingress through the ceiling was minimal and had not caused any carpet damage by the end of her tenancy in February 2025. She says vinyl planking has never been affected by water ingress.
• [37] A partial decline letter dated 4 September 2025 from CHU, the body corporate's insurer, relating to Claim No. CL02123261 for storm damage sustained on 10 March 2025 states that the carpets which sustained damage are not covered by the policy. The rest of the claim (including damage to storage locker doors and ceiling damage to lot 4), according to Melanie Taylor (who was informed by their insurance team leader) in an email to this office on 13 October 2025, remains ongoing.
• [38] I am satisfied that the applicant has suffered property damage. However, the extent of the damage allegedly suffered is unsubstantiated and disputed.

Was there a contravention of the Act or community management statement?

• [39] It is a further prerequisite for a claim under section 281 that the damage was caused by a contravention of the legislation or CMS.
• [40] The applicant claims the body corporate has breached section 152 of the Act by failing to maintain the roof in good condition. Section 152(1) of the Act requires the body corporate to administer, manage and control the common property and body corporate assets reasonably and for the benefit of lot owners and comply with obligations regarding common property and body corporate assets imposed under the applicable regulation module.

• [41] An owner must maintain their lot in good condition, except those parts of the lot that are the body corporate's responsibility.[2] The body corporate is generally responsible for maintaining common property in good and structurally sound condition.[3]
• [42] Where the scheme is created under a building format plan of subdivision (as Cadagi is), the body corporate has additional responsibilities, including maintaining in good condition:
  1. Railings, parapets and balustrades on the boundary of a lot and common property; and
  2. Doors, windows and associated fittings in a boundary wall separating a lot from common property; and
  3. Roofing membranes that are not common property but that provide protection for lots or common property[4];

1. Foundation structures;
2. Roofing structures providing protection;
3. Essential supporting framework, including load-bearing walls[5].

• [43] The legislation provides exceptions, including that a body corporate will not be responsible for maintaining fixtures and fittings installed by an occupier for their benefit, or certain types of utility infrastructure that service only one lot.[6]
• [44] Martin Meek claims the failure of the body corporate to maintain the roof has resulted in his property being damaged on 3 separate occasions.
• [45] From a series of emails supplied by the committee, it appears the body corporate has undertaken various works on the roof, as detailed below:
• [46] Tax Invoice No: 9373 from Ryan Roofing Australia, for Job No: 16819 for $2,032.80, dated 17/06/2021 details the following work performed:

• Supply materials and tradesmen to site to complete required works
• Delivery of materials to site
• Removed roof sheet to access box gutter
• Removed the rusted section of box gutter
• Supplied and installed a 2m section of box gutter, with associated fittings and sealants - Existing pressure flashing to be reused
• Turned down the roof sheets at the box gutter x 16 sheets
• Removed old sealants and wire brushed joins in pressure flashing, box gutter joins and outlet, resealed and re riveted as required with high grade silicone
• Remove all rubbish and leave site clean and tidy

• [47] There is no evidence before me of the roof not being in good condition until January 2024.
• [48] An email from Bob Coleman to the then body corporate manager, Kadri Poldmets, dated 30 January 2024 says:

Unit 4 in our building has experienced more water ingress to the ceiling of the second bedroom. This fault has been attended approx 3 years ago. Will you please have a look at the records to see who supposedly fixed it last time and get them back around again.

• [49] A work order W0306953 dated 31 January 2024 issued to Ryan Roofing Australia says:

Please attend site to inspect and remedy Lot 4 roof leak. Bob site contact will arrange access to see the internal leak damage.

Ryan Roofing attended this site in 2021 invoice #9373. Committee would like to know if this is a new issue or if this is under warranty from previous repairs? If under warranty please rectify. If it is a new issue please provide a quote/ report to be sent to Kadri.Poldmets@bcssm.com.au.

• [50] Ryan Roofing provided Quote No: 26151 for $3,255.89 on 20 February 2024 as follows:

When our tradesmen inspected the site he was advised of the leaks, he accessed the roof and found the following items of concern on his inspection.

• There are sections of box gutter including the outlets that are heavily corroded. We recommend to remove and replace the rusted sections of box gutter and outlets.
• Please note: The box gutter sections were not replaced during our previous works.
• Please see below Quotation for works required to eliminate the roof related problem

Please see attached photos, for your reference.

• Supply materials and tradesmen to site to complete required works
• Delivery of materials to site
• Allow to set up static lines and harness's as required to complete roof works
• Remove existing roofing materials that require replacement and dispose from site
• Supply and install a 580mm wide x 2.5m long custom made box gutter and 1 x outlet, with associated fittings and sealants
• Supply and install a 580mm wide x 1.3m long custom made box gutter and 1 x outlet, with associated fittings and sealants 5
• Supply and install a 320mm wide x 1m long custom made box gutter, with associated fittings and sealants
• Remove all rubbish and leave site clean and tidy

• [51] A further work order WO316994 was issued on 28 February 2024 accepting the quote from Ryan Roofing. They were scheduled to attend to do the work on 31 May 2024, and that work was completed before the internal repairs were done in August 2024.
• [52] Two quotes to repair the internal water damage to lot 4 were sourced by the body corporate: 1 from Amalgamated Group (GC6190) dated 18 June 2024 for $8,184 (of which $5,650 excluding GST was attributable to water damage repairs and $1,780 excluding GST for carpet replacement) and 1 from Minc Gold Cost dated 8 August 2024 for $1,958. The photos of the damage in the Amalgamated quote appear to be of the main bedroom and describe the scope of works as follows:

Replace nominated sections of plasterboard to wall and ceiling.

Spot prime bare areas with Dulux Precision Stain Blocker.

Apply two coats of Dulux Professional Ceiling paint to ceiling and cornice.

Apply two coats of Dulux Wash and Wear Low Sheen to walls to match existing colour.

Supply and install new underlay and carpet to match existing or as close as possible.

All personal items must be removed prior to replacement.

PLEASE NOTE: There is no allowance for any unforeseen structural timber replacement.

• [53] The Minc quote included the following:
  • Set up site to meet WPHS requirements
  • Install protection to furniture and flooring as required
  • Supply height access as required to meet WPHS
  • Carry remedial and plastering works to ceiling, cornices and wall as required
  • Prepare and prime repaired ceiling areas as required
  • Install a suitable anti-mould treatment to repairs
  • Apply ceiling white paint system to entire ceiling to match existing,
  • Prepare and prime repaired cornice section and wall adjacent to the window, as required
  • Install a suitable anti-mould treatment to repairs
  • Apply 2-coats Dulux Wash & Wear paint system to affected areas as required,
  • Dispose of all rubbish and leftover materials
  • Clean site in completion
  • Remove exclusion zones

• [54] A work order (WO370815) was issued for Minc to do the work quoted on 9 August 2024. An email from Bob Coleman to assistant strata manager Courtney Ranch on 15 August 2024 indicates that Mr Coleman had the opportunity to inspect the repairs in unit 4 and all repairs had been satisfactorily completed, so presumably, the work was done some time between 9 and 15 August 2024. Minc stated the work had been completed when attaching its invoice dated 15 August 2024.
• [55] The committee says the applicant's assertion that internal repairs could not be done until external repairs to the roof were completed and that the roof continued to leak and continued to cause additional inconvenience to the tenant and further damage to the property is incorrect. It says there were no further reported water ingress issues through the remainder of 2024.
• [56] After the water ingress reported in January 2024, roof repairs were undertaken by Ryan Roofing and Minc repaired the internal property damage to lot 4 (no carpet replacement was undertaken). The body corporate funded both. No insurance claim was lodged, presumably because the cost of the internal repairs were less than the excess on the policy.

• [57] What the applicant describes as the 'second flood' was due to Cyclone Alfred. The committee says the tenant reported 1 leak in the second bedroom ceiling and 1 above the lounge/dining window. The committee attaches a series of emails to show that action was taken promptly.
• [58] It appears Cadagi suffered some flooding because of the cyclone (damage included locker doors that became swollen after being inundated with approx. 30cm water, a mower, drill and sundry tools and accessories kept in the lockers), reported to the body corporate manager on 14 March 2025.
• [59] A request for an assessment of the internal damage to lot 4 and common areas and quote was made on 18 March 2025 to Ceddia Carpentry.
• [60] Ryan Roofing were requested to attend to the roof repairs. They inspected on 12 March 2025 and advised that the problem appeared to be the downpipe splashing into the gutter above unit 4. An email from Ryan Roofing dated 20 March 2025 indicates that repairs were done free of charge. By email on 3 April 2025 Kadri Poldmets, the body corporate manager at the time, confirms the roofer had re-attended and completed further works and it was the internal works that now needed action.
• [61] There were delays with contractors having limited availability to assess damage and quote for repairs following the cyclone. Mould Men (available the soonest out of 4 companies enquired of) were engaged by the body corporate in the interim to have the mould treated in the 2nd bedroom and above the window in the living/dining area.
• [62] Ceddia Carpentry attended on 15 April 2025 to quote on ceiling repairs in lot 4. An insurance claim also appears to have been lodged - an email on 3 April 2025 from Kadri Poldmets to the insurer asks for an urgent update regarding the claim, noting that the agent had noted the internal condition in lot 4 worsening due to mould.
• [63] The body corporate says it has accepted responsibility for the roof repairs and attended to those as promptly as possible following the cyclone. A claim on the buildings insurance policy was made for the resultant internal damage to lot 4 (Claim No. CL0212361 for Storm Damage sustained on 10 March 2025).

• [64] The tenants were overseas for approximately 3 weeks, returning on 7 June 2025. It was evident on their return that there was water in the plastic cover on the ceiling in the second bedroom, indicating that the roof was still leaking.
• [65] An inspection of the roof on 26 June 2025 by Damien from LJ Building (who had performed work on the roof around 5 years earlier) revealed suspected water entry points and advised the leaks were not connected in any way to their previous work, nor the work that Ryan Roofing completed following the cyclone. Water pressure testing on the roof above lot 4 was recommended.
• [66] An urgent work order request (WO473169) was issued on 11 July 2025 to Ryan Roofing. Ryan Roofing were scheduled to attend on 29 July 2025.
• [67] That was the latest information provided by the committee with its submission, submitted on 21 August 2025. In an email on 23 August 2025 (provided to this office by the body corporate manager on 28 August 2025) from Bob Coleman, he states he had just spoken with the tenants in unit 4 and they reported no water ingress during the week, over which Mr Coleman had noted 2ml of rain on 20th, 23mls on 21st and 135mls on 22nd.
• [68] In his reply to the committee's submission on 3 September 2025, the applicant states that the roof remains unrepaired and internal damage has not been addressed. The committee says the roof has been attended and repaired in July by Ryan Roofing at the first opportunity the roofing company was able to schedule a visit. While water collected on the ceiling, very little had dripped through to the floor, until the tenant used a broom handle to release the water without making any attempt to capture the released water.
• [69] He says an email from Bob Coleman on 13 June 2025 in which he states 'Unit 4 has been suffering water ingress issues for at least the last 4 years from my memory' is a direct acknowledgement by the committee itself that water ingress has been a recurring and unresolved problem affecting unit 4 for an extended period. The applicant says it demonstrates:
  • Longstanding awareness of the issue;
  • Failure to resolve the defect despite previous roofing works; and
  • Breach of the body corporate's statutory obligation under section 152.
• [70] The committee does not believe it has failed in its duty to maintain the roof in good condition. It says it has requested roof repairs for all water ingress issues over the last 5 years (at least 4 roof repairs since 2021). Delays have been caused by excessive demand on tradespeople, especially after cyclone Alfred and over holiday periods. There have been multiple efforts to repair the roof, and while one repair was done free of charge by Ryan roofing since a previous effort of theirs proved unsuccessful, other leakages have come from different sources, as is want to occur in a 45+ year old building.
• [71] The committee notes that the previous tenant stated the new owner did not arrange a building inspection upon their purchase of the unit in January 2024.
• [72] A considerable contributing factor to the delay in effecting internal repairs has been due to lack of decision by the insurance company. The committee is still awaiting insurance approval to complete other repairs unrelated to this issue.
• [73] Mr Meek reiterates his request for orders that the body corporate undertake immediate repairs to the roof to prevent further ingress; repair the internal ceilings and walls in lot 4 damaged by water ingress and replace flooring that has been damaged.
• [74] The committee says the repairs to the roof have been done and there have been no further instances of water penetration since the most recent repairs. The internal ceilings and walls damaged by water ingress will be repaired when the insurance claim is settled. The committee agrees to replacing the carpet in the second bedroom.
• [75] To the best of the committee's knowledge, there was never any attempt by Mr Meek to meet or converse directly with the committee to discuss the concerns or to seek resolution. All communication has been carried out through email and via the body corporate management company. At no time has he (or the registered owner of the lot) requested an EGM, nor was a proposed agenda proffered. The applicant has owned the property since 21 February 2024. Any assertions made regarding repairs prior to that date can only be hearsay.
• [76] In response to my email of 29 September 2025 asking whether Ryan Roofing attended the scheme pursuant to the above work order, or otherwise and if so, what work was done, the committee replied that Ryan Roofing attended on 29 July 2025 and conducted some repairs at no charge, as detailed in an email from Ryan Roofing with photos attached, supplied by the committee, which relevantly provides:

Our tradesman attended the property at 4, 8 Riviera Road Miami following reports of and ongoing leak. He accessed the roof and found the following:

• The sealants to the flashing above the box gutter had failed. While on site our tradesman re-sealed the flashing above the box gutter.
• There were gaps around the window frame that leaked during the water test. While on site our tradesman seal the gaps around the window.
• Please note: There are gaps in mortar of the brickwork. We recommend to have relevant trade inspect and offer repair solutions for the brickwork.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and should you experience any further issues, please contact our office.

• [77] The committee also advised that according to the tenant, there has been no further water ingress in lot 4. The insurance claim is still proceeding. The committee understands from the insurers that there is a backlog from tropical cyclone Alfred.
• [78] In an email dated 15 October 2025, Mr Meek is adamant that there has definitely been further water ingress and claims to have sent the body corporate manager and the committee an email showing water pooling in the plastic sheeting installed in unit 4. He sends a second email on the same date, attaching a movie depicting 'Further water damage, that the body corp and the committee claimed was never reported.' However, that movie had already been provided when the application was lodged on 29 July 2025, and was taken before Ryan Roofing had undertaken the most recent roof repairs.
• [79] There is no evidence before me that the roof is currently not in good condition, or of any further water ingress into lot 4 following Ryan Roofing's most recent attendance on 29 July 2025. I do not consider that any orders regarding roof repairs as sought by the applicant against the body corporate are warranted. However, I note the comment by Ryan Roofing that There are gaps in mortar of the brickwork and their recommendation to have relevant trades inspect and offer repair solutions for the brickwork. The body corporate should follow this up as part of its legislative maintenance obligations.

• [80] It appears to me the body corporate accepts responsibility for the water ingress from the roof and the costs of repairing the resultant damage to lot 4.
• [81] The body corporate has now attended to the roof repairs and says the tenants have not reported any further instances of water ingress since the most recent repair done by Ryan Roofing on 29 July 2025, free of charge. Mr Meek disputes this but does not provide any evidence to substantiate his claims. I do not consider that any orders regarding roof repairs as sought by the applicant against the body corporate are warranted at this time.
• [82] Internal damage to lot 4 after the January 2024 event was repaired at the body corporate's expense by Minc in August 2024. A claim on the body corporate's insurance for the internal damage to lot 4 resulting from the March event has been lodged but is yet to be settled.
• [83] Building insurance for damage[7] is a legislative requirement for bodies corporate. Where damage to a lot caused by an insurable event can be claimed under its building insurance policy, it is right for the body corporate to make a claim and await the outcome of that process, which I understand can be slow and frustrating, especially after significant weather events with widespread effects resulting in numerous claims, such as Cyclone Alfred. The policy was not required to, and did not, include cover for carpets[8]. The body corporate accepts responsibility for replacing the carpet in the second bedroom, on a depreciated basis. The body corporate has asked Mr Meek to provide a quote for replacing the carpet in the second bedroom. It does not appear that he has done that.
• [84] So, it is the extent of the damage claimed that is disputed.
• [85] The primary difficulty in this application is that the applicant has provided insufficient evidence to establish the extent of the damage to lot 4 that she seeks compensation for.
• [86] The applicant has not provided a report or statement from any appropriately qualified person as to the condition of the allegedly damaged flooring and whether it needs to be replaced. The photos and videos provided do not reveal any visual damage to the unit flooring, apart from the carpet in the second bedroom.
• [87] Based on the submitted material, I am not satisfied the applicant has substantiated the need for the hard flooring in the lot and carpet in both bedrooms to be replaced.
• [88] While some carpet may have been damaged, the submitted material does not establish that it was so badly damaged that it required replacement. There is some suggestion that the carpet may have been at the end of its useful life and in need of replacement apart from any damage caused by water ingress from the roof.
• [89] The only evidence of damaged flooring is limited to a small area of the carpet near the second bedroom window. I am not satisfied that it is necessary to replace the carpet in both bedrooms and all of the hard flooring in the lot on account of any failure of the body corporate to comply with its statutory maintenance obligations. It appears that the flooring allegedly damaged to the extent of requiring replacement, remains in situ.
• [90] The applicant has provided insufficient evidence to substantiate the extent of the alleged damage to lot 4. There is no evidence before me that the body corporate has failed to act reasonably in handling the matter. I have therefore dismissed the application.

[6] Section 180(3) & (4), Standard Module

[7] 'Damage' is defined in section 195 of the Standard Module to mean (a) damage from earthquake, explosion, fire, lightning, storm and water; and (b) glass breakage; and (c) damage from impact, malicious act, and riot.

[8] Section 195 of the Standard Module defines 'building' to include improvements and fixtures forming part of the building, but specifically does not include, at paragraph (e) carpet.