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

MAINTENANCE - where the applicant claims their lot was damaged due to a leak from a common property pipe - whether the body corporate must reimburse the applicant for repairs to the damage.

Act, s 281; Accommodation Module, s 170

1. Within 7 days of the date of this order, the Body Corporate for Club Surfers must pay the applicant, Daniel Sala Blasco, the amount of $9,040.58 for repairs to the kitchen of Lot 16.

• [1] This application is about the responsibility for repairs to the applicant's Lot 16.
• [2] The applicant says a persistent water leak into their lot was identified in January 2023 soon after they acquired the lot. It seems water ingress issues were ongoing since June 2021. A plumber said the leak came from a common property pipe. The applicant says the body corporate repaired the pipe and damage to the Lot 16 bathroom in early 2023. The applicant subsequently also sought repair of the kitchen, which shares a wall with the bathroom, asserting it was damaged by the same leak. The body corporate did not agree to repair it.
• [3] The applicant says they lived in a damaged, mouldy kitchen without hot water for over a year while unsuccessfully pursuing the matter with the body corporate, including through a general meeting motion. The applicant then repaired the kitchen themselves, at a cost of $9,040.58. As the expenditure was within the committee spending limit, the applicant requested reimbursement from the committee in January 2025. However, it seems no decision on that request was made, and no reason was given for the lack of response.
• [4] The applicant seeks reimbursement of the repairs. I will consider whether an order is warranted based on the submitted evidence.

• [5] Club Surfers community titles scheme 10959 (Club Surfers) is a 60-lot scheme in Surfers Paradise. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Accommodation Module applies. The scheme is registered as building units plan 4225.
• [6] The application seeks the following orders:

I seek an order that the Body Corporate reimburse me $9,040.58 for the cost of repairing my kitchen, which was damaged by a failure in a common property pipe. The Body Corporate accepted responsibility for this same failure by repairing the pipe and the adjoining bathroom, but refused to repair my kitchen.

• [7] An adjudicator may make an order that is just and equitable in the circumstances to resolve a dispute about a claimed or anticipated contravention of the Act or the CMS, or the exercise of rights or powers or performance of duties under the Act or the CMS.[1] I am satisfied I have jurisdiction to determine this matter under the dispute resolution provisions.[2]

• [8] The applicant applied for conciliation in July 2025.[3] The conciliator issued a certificate in August saying the respondent did not make a reasonable attempt to participate.
• [9] This application was lodged on 20 August 2025. The Commissioner invited submissions from the committee and all owners.[4] The body corporate manager confirmed the application was received and distributed to the committee and owners. One owner made a submission in support of the application. However, the committee did not make a submission. The applicant obtained and noted the submission.[5]
• [10] The application was referred to department adjudication.[6] I have now investigated the dispute, including reviewing all the (voluminous and repetitive) submitted material.[7]

• [11] In determining this application, I will note the basis for an order to be made and then consider relevant evidence in support of the order.
• [12] The applicants refer to section 281 of the Act. That section provides:
  1. Order to repair damage or reimburse amount paid for carrying out repairs

(1) If the adjudicator is satisfied that the applicant has suffered damage to property because of a contravention of this Act or the community management statement, the adjudicator may order the person who the adjudicator believes, on reasonable grounds, to be responsible for the contravention -

(a) to carry out stated repairs, or have stated repairs carried out, to the damaged property; or

(b) to pay the applicant an amount fixed by the adjudicator as reimbursement for repairs carried out to the property by the applicant.

Example -

A waterproofing membrane in the roof of a building in the scheme leaks and there is damage to wallpaper and carpets in a lot included in the scheme. The membrane is part of the common property and the leak results from a failure on the part of the body corporate to maintain it in good order and condition. The adjudicator could order the body corporate to have the damage repaired or to pay an appropriate amount as reimbursement for amounts incurred by the owner in repairing the property.

(2) The order can not be made if -

(a) for an order under subsection (1)(a) - the cost of carrying out the repairs is more than $75,000; or

(b) for an order made under subsection (1)(b) - the amount fixed by the adjudicator would be more than $10,000.

• [13] The body corporate has a statutory responsibility to maintain common property in good and structurally sound condition.[8] Utility infrastructure will be common property unless it is wholly within the boundary of a lot, is not in a boundary structure, and only services that lot.[9]
• [14] Owners are responsible for maintaining their lot, except to the extent that the body corporate is responsible for elements of it.[10] But if the body corporate fails to meet its obligation to maintain common property, it may be liable for any resulting damage to a lot from that failure as well as for the cost repairing the common property. That liability arises regardless of whether the damage is covered by body corporate or owner insurance.
• [15] The applicant says the leak into Lot 16 and the resulting damage to the bathroom in Lot 16 was accepted by the body corporate as arising from a common property pipe, with repairs completed in April 2023. Although not necessarily explicit, the correspondence in the application appears to support that. It indicates the body corporate accepted the leak was from common property plumbing, paid for repairs to Lot 16, and repaired the source of the leak. In the absence of any contrary submission or evidence, I have no basis not to accept the applicant's assertion that the water ingress into Lot 16 occurred because of a failure of common property utility infrastructure. I further have no basis not to accept the body corporate acknowledged that was the cause and repaired to the bathroom for that reason.
• [16] The question then seems to be whether the apparent leak from the common property utility infrastructure damaged the kitchen in Lot 16 as well as the bathroom.
• [17] The applicant provides an invoice from a plumber dated 27 January 2023. That says the plumber investigated a leak in the main bathroom. It said "The copper toilet stack in wall has failed. We believe this to be a body corporate issue. Please advise body corporate to engage their plumber to investigate further". The invoice further said, "Extensive damage was caused to the kitchen and bathroom from the unit above as both rooms were on the same wall under the major internal stack leak" (my underlining).
• [18] The application includes photographs of damage to the kitchen. Supplied emails indicate the body corporate's insurer acknowledged the existence of damage to the kitchen.[11]
• [19] An invoice from a plumber dated 19 December 2024 (for expenditure claimed for the kitchen repairs) says the plumber was unable to get the hot water system to function due to the electrics tripping, believed to be caused by severe water damage at the switchboard.
• [20] Albeit limited, I am satisfied the applicant has provided prima facie evidence that the leak which damaged the bathroom also damaged the kitchen. The body corporate asked the applicant in September 2024 for proof that the leak and damage was caused by strata pipes. The committee's explanatory material for the unsuccessful general meeting motion to repair the kitchen said it had requested a plumber's certificate stating that the leaking was caused by strata pipes and that had not been provided. But it is not clear from the submitted material whether the body corporate overlooked the opinion of the plumber in January 2023 or did not consider that to be sufficient. I am unable to identify any explicit communication from the body corporate in that regard. And the body corporate has not availed itself of the opportunity to respond to this application. In the absence of any contrary submission or evidence, I have no basis not to accept the prima facie evidence that there was damage to the Lot 16 kitchen and that it was caused by the same leak that damaged the bathroom.
• [21] The application includes invoices and receipts for their expenditure on the kitchen:
  1. $2,429.93 for a plumber to supply and install a new hot water system
  2. $271.70 for an electrician to supply and install a safety switch
  3. $3,939 for kitchen cabinets, sink, tapware, cookware, worktop and fittings
  4. $199.95 for a new cooktop, and
  5. $2,200 for a contractor to install the replacement kitchen.
• [22] Prima facie, the costs claimed appear commensurate with the rectification of a water damaged kitchen. In the absence of any contrary evidence or submissions, I have no basis not to accept that all the costs claimed were necessary to rectify the water damage.

• [23] It is unfortunate that the committee has persistently failed to respond to the applicant or to engage with the dispute resolution processes on this matter.
• [24] The applicant has evidenced a prima facie case that they incurred $9,040.58 to repair water damage to the kitchen of Lot 16 arising from a leak in the common property plumbing. In the absence of a contrary submission or evidence from the body corporate, I have no reason not to accept that. On that basis, it appears the damage to the kitchen arose from the body corporate's a failure to maintain the common property utility infrastructure in good condition. Accordingly, it is appropriate to require the body corporate to reimburse the applicant for the repairs undertaken to Lot 16.

[2] Sections 227, 228, 276 and schedule 5 of the Act

[8] Section 170(1) of the Accommodation Module

[10] Sections 170(2) and 201 of the Accommodation Module

[11] It appears from the submitted correspondence that the insurer denied an insurance claim regarding the kitchen because it appeared to have arisen from multiple or ongoing leaks that had not been repaired.