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

USE OF COMMON PROPERTY; COMMITTEE PROCEDURES - whether the applicants require body corporate approval to place a freestanding storage locker in their exclusive use car park; whether the committee must circulate notice and minutes of informal meetings to owners; whether an application to the committee for permission to do something is an owner's motion requiring a decision within six weeks.

Act, ss 94(2), 100(5); Accommodation Module, ss 44(1)(d), 47, 50(3)(a), 63(4), 183.

• [1] Mr and Ms Turner sought the approval of the body corporate committee to install a storage locker at the end of their exclusive use parking space. The committee refused but said it would favourably consider an application for an over-bonnet (mistakenly described as "under-bonnet") storage locker like the one installed in an adjacent parking space. Mr and Ms Turner applied for the same locker again, submitting further information and explaining why their proposed locker would be more suitable than an over-bonnet equivalent, but they were again refused. They argue the committee acted unreasonably by failing to properly consider their application on its merits.
• [2] Mr and Ms Turner also take issue with some of the committee's decision-making procedures, claiming meetings are being held without giving timely notice or minutes to owners, owners' motions are not being decided within the mandatory six weeks, and owners are not being promptly informed of decisions on their motions.
• [3] They seek orders in the following terms:
  1. An order that allows us to install a 'Tidy Locker' storage unit in our underground car park for Unit 137 of Edgewater.
  2. An order that all motions/applications for storage be read thoroughly and considered on their own merit for 'reasonableness'.
  3. An order that the Body Corporate will provide at least 1 weeks' notice of up-coming Body Corporate meetings to all owners.
  4. An order that an agenda for up-coming meetings will be provided to all owners at least 1 week prior to meetings being held.
  5. An order that votes on motions are held within 6 weeks of being submitted.
  6. An order that results on votes on motions be provided to the party submitting it/them within 21 days.
  7. An order that minutes of meetings are provided to all owners within 21 days of the meeting being held.

• [4] I do not see that Mr and Ms Turner require body corporate approval to place a storage locker within their exclusive use car park. The storage locker is not a fixture. It would stand on its own legs within the parking space, held in place only by its own weight. Consequently, it is not an improvement requiring body corporate consent.[1] If it was an improvement, the committee could not have authorised it anyway as its installed value exceeds $3,000.[2]
• [5] By-law 10 does not permit "any fence, wall, barrier or impediment" to be erected in the car parking area without committee consent, but a storage locker placed against the wall at the rear of a parking space is not any of these things.
• [6] By-law 11 does not permit the erection or construction of "any fence, pergola, insect screens, security screens and privacy screens, awning or other structure or outbuilding of any kind within or upon a lot or on common property" without committee approval. This would only capture a storage locker if it could be considered an "other structure", but I interpret the by-law to be concerned with fixtures. Otherwise, owners would require body corporate approval for a cupboard inside their homes. If the by-law was intended to stretch that far, it would be oppressive and unreasonable contrary to section 180(7) of the Act.
• [7] I will dismiss the application for orders 1 and 2 because no approval is required.
• [8] I note that the exclusive use by-law (by-law 44) does not seem to permit the use of the car park for storage. It says the area must only be used for the purpose for which it was designed. Schedule E of the community management statement lists that purpose as "car park". That part of the by-law does not seem to be enforced at Edgewater Lake Kawana though. Several exclusive use car parks have storage lockers within them without objection from the body corporate. In any case, if storage lockers are not permitted under the by-law, that is another reason to dismiss the first two orders sought by Mr and Ms Turner.

• [9] Orders 3, 4 and 7 arise from the committee's practice of holding informal meetings without observing the usual requirements to notify owners at least seven days in advance,[3] give them the agenda for the meeting,[4] and forward the minutes of the meeting within 21 days after it is held.[5] The committee claims informal meetings "facilitate efficient decision-making".
• [10] Informal meetings were apparently held on 21 November and 12 December 2024. Minutes were produced, though apparently not circulated to owners for months. The minutes indicate the meetings had agendas and made decisions. Five of the seven committee members were present at the meeting on 21 November, while all attended on 12 December. There does not appear to have been any involvement by a body corporate manager, perhaps to contain costs. The earlier meeting resolved not to approve Mr and Ms Turner's storage locker and the later confirmed that decision. The agenda of a subsequent formal committee meeting on 8 April included ratification of a host of earlier decisions, including Mr and Ms Turner's "carpark storage locker request". Proper notice was given of the 8 April meeting and minutes were circulated afterwards, though a little late as discussed below.
• [11] It seems committee members are convening and reaching a common accord on body corporate business without observing the usual statutory formalities, then subsequently ratifying those decisions at properly convened committee meetings. I have considered this practice in the past:

Informal meetings have no basis in the legislation. The Accommodation Module only contemplates committee meetings, general meetings, and it provides a procedure for decisions to be made by vote outside a committee meeting. But that is not to say that informal meetings are prohibited. I can see nothing that prevents committee members from meeting informally to reach a common accord on issues at their scheme. Any agreements reached will have no legal force, but that may be cured by their subsequent ratification at a properly constituted committee meeting. Given that the legislation is silent on informal meetings, there are no attendant requirements to give notice or circulate minutes to owners...[6]

• [12] I am not satisfied that the committee is obliged to give owners notice or minutes of its informal meetings. However, the committee and owners should bear in mind that any decisions purportedly made at these meetings have no force until they are properly resolved in accordance with the procedures in the Accommodation Module; namely, by a committee resolution passed at a committee meeting or by vote outside a committee meeting.
• [13] Minutes of the formal committee meeting held on 8 April 2025 were circulated to owners late. 3 days late according to the committee. 39 days late according to Mr and Ms Turner. However, I would not make an order in general terms requiring minutes to be circulated to owners within 21 days in response to this sole contravention. Mistakes happen. The committee says the error will not be repeated. More importantly, it is already a statutory requirement that minutes be circulated within that timeframe. Little would be achieved by restating it in the same general terms.

• [14] Mr and Ms Turner say the committee is taking too long to decide motions submitted by owners and advise them of the outcome afterwards. They refer to an application to install an over-bonnet storage locker that the committee took longer than two months to decide. The committee blames the disruption caused by Cyclone Alfred during that period.
• [15] Where an owner submits a motion to the committee for decision, the committee generally must decide it within six weeks.[7] However, Mr and Ms Turner did not submit a motion. They submitted a completed "Application for Lot Improvement" form. They requested the committee's permission to do something, rather than submitting a motion for the committee to vote upon.
• [16] A motion is a proposal the body corporate can vote on in the form it is submitted. With sufficient votes in favour, it becomes a decision of the body corporate. It might say, for instance:

The committee authorises the owners of lot 137 to install an over-bonnet storage locker against the wall at the southern end of exclusive use parking space A137 as described in the owners Application for Lot Improvement of 16 January 2025, subject to the following conditions:

a) The locker will be maintained in good condition by the lot owners

b) The owners will move the locker at their expense should the body corporate require access around it

c) ...

• [17] By contrast, a request submitted in a form must be converted into a motion by the committee before it can be formally decided. The committee must still act reasonably when deciding the request,[8] so it cannot leave it to languish excessively without good cause, but it is not subject to the strict(ish) six weeks that apply to motions submitted by owners that the committee needs only to pass or not.
• [18] It follows that orders 5 and 6 are not warranted. It has not been established that the committee exceeded the six week deadline for deciding owners' motions.
• [19] With respect to order 6, there is also no specific requirement that an owner is notified of the decision on their motion within 21 days. There is only the general requirement to give owners a record of a resolution passed outside a committee meeting, or minutes of a committee meeting, within 21 days of that event occurring.[9] For the committee for Edgewater Lake Kawana, that may be within 21 days of a proper committee meeting that ratifies an earlier position agreed informally amongst the committee members.

[1] Accommodation Module, s 183(3); O'Neill v Perrins & Body Corporate for Bayview Mansions CTS 9302 [2008] CCT KA003-08 at [32].

[2] Tidy Locker quote #24588 B, 13 November 2024; Accommodation Module, ss 44(1)(d) & 183(4).

[3] Accommodation Module, s 47(2)(a), (3)(b) & (4)(c).

[4] Accommodation Module, s 47(4)(b).

[5] Accommodation Module, s 63(4).

[6] Pier One Hervey Bay [2018] QBCCMCmr 238 at [21].

[7] Accommodation Module, s 50(3)(a).

[8] Act, ss 94(2) & 100(5).

[9] Accommodation Module, s 63(4).