Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulation 2020 (Accommodation Module)

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS -- whether the body corporate should be restrained from issuing parking non-compliance notices to owners and occupiers parking improperly on common property until a final decision can be made regarding the body corporate's power to require the payment of fees.

Act, ss 59(2)(b) - (d), 180(6) & (7), 279.

1. The body corporate, whether by itself or actually or purportedly authorised contractors or agents, must not issue, or permit or authorise to be issued, any parking non-compliance notices or tickets, or otherwise take any action to require the payment of parking fees, or tow vehicles.
2. The body corporate must direct OnlyPark to take no action to enforce parking non-compliance notices or tickets that may have already been issued.
3. These interim orders will remain in effect for one year, or until they are ended or amended as described at section 279(2) of the Act, whichever is earlier.

• [1] Girish Hebbani, joint tenant of lot 904 since 23 September 2021, brings this application against the body corporate regarding the visitor parking enforcement system introduced on 29 September 2025, which imposes a six-hour limit, requires QR code check-ins, advance permits for stays over 6 hours, and issues monetary penalties for breaches and threats to tow.
• [2] He says the core issues are:
  • The system imposes monetary liabilities contrary to section 180(6) of the Act.
  • The system operates unreasonably and oppressively contrary to section 180(7).
  • The enforcement lacks valid by-law authority and has not been approved by owners at a general meeting.
  • The body corporate has delegated enforcement and dispute resolution to a private contractor, inconsistent with the scheme of the Act.
  • Residents face misleading communications and threats of towing, exposing the scheme to liability under the Tow Truck Regulation 2009 (Qld).
• [3] The following final orders are sought:
  • A declaration that the visitor parking enforcement system adopted by the body corporate is invalid and unlawful, to the extent that it:
    • Imposes monetary liabilities on owners or occupiers, contrary to section 180(6) of the Act;
    • Operates in an unreasonable or oppressive manner, contrary to section 180(7); and
    • Delegates by-law enforcement and dispute resolution to a private contractor, contrary to the Act.
  • That the body corporate must immediately cease enforcement of visitor parking through the issuing of monetary penalties or 'non-compliance notices'.
  • That the body corporate must not authorise or permit any contractor to issue monetary penalties or enforce by-laws in a manner inconsistent with the Act.
  • That any future regulation of visitor parking at the scheme must be:
    • Authorised by a valid by-law properly passed at a general meeting of the body corporate;
    • Consistent with the Act; and
    • Communicated clearly to all lot owners and occupiers.
• [4] An interim order is sought that, until the final determination of the application, the body corporate immediately suspend implementation and enforcement of the visitor parking management system including, but not limited to:
  • Issuing or demanding payment of any 'non-compliance notices' or similar monetary penalties;
  • Requiring visitors to register through OnlyPark's QR code system; and
  • Towing or threatening to tow vehicles.

• [5] Centra' Toowong community titles scheme was established on 19 December 2016 with the registration of survey plan (SP) 275267, a building format plan of subdivision. It contains 161 lots in an 18-level concrete building. The community management statement (CMS) allocates parking and storage spaces to owners via exclusive use by-law 29. Most lots are allocated the exclusive use of 1 car space, with several lots allocated 2.
• [6] In response to my request to identify the visitor parking spaces on scheme land, the committee provided a marked-up copy of SP 275267, showing 19 residential visitors car spaces on Level C and 15 (including 2 for disabled persons) on Level D. Interestingly, the agreement with OnlyPark covers 31 bays.[1]
• [7] Although there is no statutory requirement to obtain comment from a respondent or affected party before an interim application is decided, in this case, I provided the committee and the caretaking service contractor (referred to as the building/facilities manager), Tessa Residential, with an opportunity to make a submission on the interim order application. Both did. I requested further information (a plan showing the visitor parking on scheme land and a copy of the agreement with OnlyPark) from the committee by email on 13 October 2025. That information was provided on 14 October 2025.

• [8] I can make interim orders if satisfied they are necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[2] An interim order is generally only warranted when a serious legal question needs to be determined and the balance of convenience favours it.

• [9] The applicant says residents were notified on 19 September 2025 by Tessa Residential, acting on behalf of the body corporate, that visitor parking would be managed by OnlyPark, with enforcement scheduled to begin on 29 September 2025.
• [10] I am satisfied that there is a sufficient degree of urgency to warrant consideration of whether interim orders should be made.

• [11] While I will not decide any legal questions posed by the application at this interim stage of proceedings, it is necessary to confirm that serious questions are raised as part of determining whether any interim orders would be appropriate.
• [12] The committee submits that Centra' Toowong's proximity to the University of Queensland, Toowong Village and Toowong train station, make it vulnerable to trespassers using the visitors parking spaces as a public car park, leaving genuine visitors, including residents' guests and body corporate trades, without available parking spaces. The committee says it undertakes to manage visitors parking in accordance with the by-laws and the Act and Accommodation Module.
• [13] OnlyPark has been engaged to assist the body corporate by providing the technology and systems to manage trespassers. It attaches minutes of committee meetings held on 17 June and 6 August 2025.
• [14] The minutes of the 17 June 2025 committee meeting noted, relevantly:

Body Corporate Committee to review proposal for visitor car park management from Only Park noting low costs and provision of a tailored database for the site. Further notes that automatic bollards are not a suitable solution due to installation and ongoing costs and maintenance requirements.

• [15] The minutes of the 6 August 2025 committee meeting noted, relevantly:

Only Park are currently building a database of Centra car park users for car park monitoring. New parking signage is being prepared by Drafting and Drawing and building management are investigating intercom options for the commercial gate. Overnight visitors parking may require a permit.

Only Park - Visitor Parking Management - $700 for signage and $150 per month fee. Initial 3 month period then month to month.

• [16] The committee notes that no queries or objections were received in response to either of those minutes, distributed to owners on 17 June and 19 August 2025, respectively. It says the body corporate previously used Care Park in this capacity and anticipates that OnlyPark will provide a more user friendly and streamlined experience for occupants and their guests. Occupants' guests are already familiar with scanning a QR code and registering guest vehicles.
• [17] By email to 'Centra Residents' on 26 September 2025, Andrew Christodoulou of Tessa Residential issued a 'final reminder that visitor parking enforcement will commence on Monday, 29th September 2025. Please avoid fines by taking the following steps':
  • Visitors scanning more than once in a single day for stays exceeding 6 hours will be fined.
  • Residents found scanning and parking in visitor bays will also be fined, as this is a breach of the building's parking bylaws, YOUR NUMBER PLATE IS ATTACHED TO YOUR RESIDENCE
  • Ensure you have your correct details lodged with Only Park.
  • If you have a guest or contractor staying longer than 6 hours, you must apply for a digital long-stay permit in advance (Monday to Thursday only).
  • Whitelist permits are available for regular visiting family members, care workers, nurses, and similar essential visitors.

These are permanent exemptions and must be applied for in person at the Manager's Office.

• All long-stay visitors are requested to use the lower carpark to reduce congestion and ramp usage.
• Any visitor who receives a ticket can dispute it through the Only Park System if they believe it was issued in error By scanning the Only Park QR code.
• IF YOU RECEIVE A TICKET IN ERROR Tessa cannot help, unless you have first applied with only park for a waver.

• [18] In a further email later the same day, Andrew Christodoulou issued a 'CORRECTION TO WORDING - PARKING NOTICE REMINDER - 26.09.2025' in which the word 'fine' was replaced with '$91 Non-Compliance Notice' issued in accordance with Only Park's Contractual Agreement - Terms and Conditions - Private Car Parks. It included the following:
  • Visitors who scan more than once in a single day and stay longer than 6 hours will receive a $91 Non-Compliance Notice.
  • Residents parking in visitor bays will also receive a $91 Non-Compliance Notice.
  • Visitors who receive a $91 Non-Compliance Notice may dispute it via the Only Park system by scanning the QR code in the visitor car park, if they believe it was issued in error.
• [19] In an email on 29 September 2025 from Andrew Christodoulou to the applicant, he claims 'no changes have been made to the building's parking rules or by-laws' - we have simply transitioned from our previous provider, Care Park, to OnlyPark. The applicant says the correspondence confirms a substantive change in enforcement with new operational restrictions (6-hour maximum, weekday-only permits, monetary notices).
• [20] The committee says the communication from the caretaker, Tessa Residential, was intended to provide guidelines to ensure that occupants' visitors weren't caught up inadvertently in this process. It concedes the delivery of this message was imperfect. In accordance with by-law 10, occupants should not be using the visitor car spaces and therefore will not be affected. The committee says occupants who are using the visitors parking in contravention of the by-laws will be dealt with in accordance with the by-law enforcement process required by the Act and Accommodation Module.
• [21] The committee encourages occupants' guests to engage with OnlyPark to identify themselves as bona fide visitors. OnlyPark provides for guest parking of all time periods, up to 6 hours or greater, allowing management to identify those vehicles which belong to long term guests and those of trespassers whose drivers have exited the premises. Further, OnlyPark non-compliance notices issued to occupants' guests who may have forgotten to register can be disputed and removed, in accordance with requirements under the Act and Accommodation Module. For ease of use, OnlyPark provides a whitelist service which allows regular bona fide visitors to be permanently registered, removing the need to register each and every time they visit the premises.
• [22] The committee says it undertakes to work with the body corporate manager and caretaker to refine the correspondence to better communicate the changes to residents.
• [23] The committee appears to concede, and information distributed by OnlyPark confirms, that changes have been made to the car park's terms and conditions. In a document headed "Change of car park conditions at Centra Toowong" it outlines 'New Parking Conditions'.
• [24] The applicant argues the enforcement system was implemented without a valid resolution at a general meeting and without clear by-law authority. Further, enforcement has been outsourced to OnlyPark, which he says is inconsistent with the Act.
• [25] There is certainly nothing in the by-laws that purports to authorise the body corporate (or anyone else) to collect parking fees from owners or occupiers who park contrary to the by-laws.
• [26] By-law 10 Vehicles (the only by-law of any apparent relevance) appears in the most recent CMS recorded on 4 May 2023 as follows:

10.1 An Occupier of a lot must not, without the Body Corporate's written approval:

a) Park a Vehicle, or allow a Vehicle to stand, on Common Property; or

b) Permit an Invitee to park a Vehicle, or allow a Vehicle to stand, on Common Property, except for the designated visitor parking which must remain available at all times for the sole use of visitor parking.

10.2 Subject to the following By-Law, an approval under subsection (1) must state the period for which it is given. However, the body corporate may cancel the approval by giving 7 days written notice to the Occupier with the exception of designated visitor parking.

10.3 Despite any other By-Law, designated visitor parking must:

a) Remain available at all times for the sole use of visitor vehicles, be used by bona fide visitors to the Scheme only, be clearly labelled as 'Visitor Parking', and remain unimpeded by landscaping, water tanks, storage (temporary or otherwise), gates or any other fittings, fixture or structure to provide 24-hour unrestricted access for bona fide visitors.

• [27] It does not mention parking fees for any improperly parked vehicles. Nor could it, as the applicant correctly points out, as section 180(6) of the Act states:

A by-law (other than an exclusive use by-law) must not impose a monetary liability on the owner or occupier of a lot included in a community titles scheme.

• [28] Owners and occupiers are obliged to comply with the scheme's by-laws, including in relation to parking.[3] But the by-laws do not make any provision for the payment of parking fees, nor do they mention the terms and conditions communicated via email to residents and appearing on recently installed signs. The Act makes no provision for the body corporate to impose fines for by-law breaches either.
• [29] Further, the system was implemented, as the applicant says, without a general meeting resolution. I question whether the committee resolutions above are sufficient to authorise the engagement of OnlyPark and in any event, if the parking conditions have changed, the engagement would arguably be a restricted issue for the committee[4]. I note further that the agreement with OnlyPark appears to have been signed by Andrew Christodoulou as 'Building Manager' for the client, with no authority of the body corporate to do so.
• [30] The body corporate is a creature of statute. It exists within the framework of the Act, Accommodation Module, and its community management statement. There is nothing within that framework that would allow it to require owners and occupiers to comply with terms and conditions that do not appear in the by-laws and have never been voted upon, nor to impose fees for non-compliance.
• [31] I am satisfied that there are serious legal questions to resolve at final orders about the body corporate's power to issue non-compliance notices and charge parking fees/fines.

• [32] An adjudicator must balance the inconvenience of granting relief now if final orders are ultimately refused against the inconvenience of refusing relief now if final orders are ultimately granted. Evidence that an interim order is necessary to prevent serious or irreparable harm is particularly relevant.
• [33] The applicant says, if not stopped, lot owners and visitors will be exposed to unlawful monetary penalties and possible towing, causing financial harm, distress and potential liability.
• [34] If I do not make an interim order to prevent it, OnlyPark will issue Non-Compliance Notices over the coming months until this matter is finally determined. Offenders will be told they have to pay within a certain time and will have further fees imposed if they do not comply. They may be visited by debt collectors engaged by OnlyPark. Some may pay the money to OnlyPark. That whole process can reasonably be expected to be stressful for owners and occupiers. Furthermore, any fees they pay may not be recovered if final orders are made in the applicant's favour.
• [35] On the other hand, if I do not make an interim order, the parking issues outlined in the committee's submission will likely continue. By-law 10 prohibits owners and occupiers from parking in the visitor car parking spaces, so residents complying with the by-law will not be affected. Whilst the body corporate can use the Act's by-law enforcement process to address residents' parking in visitors' parking spaces, I acknowledge that it is a slow process that is unlikely to result in the immediate removal of a car from the visitors' car parks.
• [36] However, given the likelihood that the body corporate will ultimately be found to lack the power to require the payment of parking fees, I am inclined to give greater weight to the inconvenience that will be caused by allowing it to continue with the practice until final orders.

• [37] I will make an interim order to restrain the body corporate, whether by itself or actually or purportedly authorised contractors or agents, from issuing, or permitting or authorising to be issued, any non-compliance notices, or otherwise taking any action to require the payment of parking fees, or towing vehicles. The body corporate must also direct OnlyPark to take no further action on any parking non-compliance notices or tickets that may have already been issued, pending final orders.
• [38] The application for final orders will be progressed in accordance with the Act.

[1] As stated in section 3. Service Offering & Pricing of the Centra Toowong Car Park Management Proposal

[4] Section 44(1)(b), Accommodation Module