Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (Act), sections 227and 229(3)(a)

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

• responsibility of body corporate for structural concrete repairs

1. The Body Corporate must ensure that contractors engaged to undertake any future structural works on the building are appropriately licenced as per Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) requirements.
2. The application is otherwise dismissed.

• [1] La Porte D'Or was established on 30 March 1977 with the registration of building units plan 2457. It contains 184 lots in a high-rise building in Surfers Paradise on the Gold Coast. The building is more commonly known as the 'Golden Gate Resort'.
• [2] The applicant is the owner of lot 187 and seeks the following final outcomes:
  1. The Body Corporate Committee must provide evidence that all contractors completing any structural works within the building are appropriately licenced as per QBCC requirements. A register of the current "preferred contractors" for any trade, their licence details and any conflicts of interest (contractors being relatives or friends of committee members or other contractors) are to be disclosed to the body corporate for endorsement at the next AGM. Any new contractors cannot commence works until their licence details are disclosed to the body corporate for acceptance.
  2. That the body corporate notify all owners that an unlicensed contractor was engaged to complete these works, confirming that the insurer has been notified and the remediation plan.
  3. That the body corporate notify the insurer that an unlicensed contractor was used to complete these works.
  4. That all members of the body corporate committee must complete the Online Body Corporate Training to ensure that they understand the obligations of their position to ensure compliance within the scheme moving forward and provide evidence back to all owners that each member has completed this training.

• [3] The applicant previously sought an interim order that:

The body corporate not spend any further funds from the sinking fund (aside from the BC approved and contracted foyer refurbishments) until quotes from a suitably licensed company (concreting or open building license as per QBCC's confirmation) have been voted on, and accepted by the body corporate at either an AGM or EGM.

• [4] On April 5 I made the following Interim Orders:
  1. Pending the making of final orders in relation to this application, the body corporate is not to spend any further monies on concrete repairs unless quotes have been obtained from suitably licensed contractors and voted upon at a general meeting of the body corporate.

1. Order 1 above, does not apply to the body corporate approved and contracted foyer refurbishments or to emergency repair work by an appropriately licensed contractor.

• [5] La Porte D'Or was established in March 1977, and consequently the building is now close to 50 years old. It is constructed from steel reinforced concrete and requires periodic maintenance such as painting and repairs to any degradation of concrete surfaces.
• [6] The applicants initially sought an "emergency adjudication order" to stop the committee from spending any further monies from the sinking fund (aside from the BC approved and contracted foyer refurbishments) on concrete repairs unless quotes have been obtained from suitably licensed contractors and voted upon at a general meeting of the body corporate.
• [7] The applicants are concerned that repairs to concrete surfaces, undertaken by a painting contractor over a number of years, may have been outside the scope of repair works which they were licensed to undertake. The applicant says this has been an ongoing issue for a number of years and when a thorough examination of the building structure was last undertaken, and the extent of deterioration was identified, the body corporate incurred a large bill of around $600,000 for concrete repairs.
• [8] The painting contractor who has previously undertaken patching work, holds a Painting and Decorating licence from the QBCC. In addition to the application of paint and protective coatings, the contractor is licensed to apply cement render up to a certain thickness and undertake incidental works. However the applicants believe that more extensive concrete repair work is usually required, for which a different class of QBCC licence is required i.e. a concreting or open building license.
• [9] Attached to the application were a number of invoices from APT Rope Tech Pty. Ltd., accompanied by photographs showing their staff undertaking concrete patching repairs.
• [10] The applicants say they are concerned that despite the age of the building and the scale of repairs required, the committee has not kept lot owners informed and has not presented quotes to owners for the work done, or to be undertaken in the future. They say owners are not aware of what work has been undertaken and have not had an opportunity to vote on whether to accept quotes.
• [11] The applicants also say there was an amount of $85,000 set aside for building works in the budget considered at the 2024 AGM, but there were no quotes attached for this work for the owners to vote on. They believe that owners were denied the right to look into the proposed contractor and understand the scope of work that was being undertaken. They are concerned that the committee can spend over $20,000 at a time without needing approval from the wider body corporate and do not openly disclose information about contractors to the wider body corporate for transparency.
• [12] The applicants are also concerned that the 10 year capital works budget, completed in 2024, is deficient and does not include a number of capital expenditure items for which significant special levies will be needed in the future.
• [13] The applicants believe that the committee is currently looking at engaging contractors who do not hold a concreting or open building licences, despite a communication from QBCC to the body corporate that such licenses are required to undertake concrete cancer repairs. The applicant is concerned that allowing them to engage another contractor without the necessary license, could result in serious harm to the building and result in further expense to the body corporate to have defective work inspected and remediated.
• [14] The applicants also refer to the Chairman's Report to the 2024 AGM which noted that the previous committee had recommended the engagement of contractors to undertake concrete repairs and to re-paint the complex. The Chairman said this project included an expense of $600,000 for concrete cancer repairs by Building Rectification Services (BRS). However he also noted that concrete repairs had previously been undertaken from time to time over a number of years previously, at a total cost of only $78,000.
• [15] The applicant believes that previous committees have engaged a contractor to undertake cosmetic patching of concrete degradation rather than more extensive and permanent repairs. They say the chairperson highlighted the "substantial savings of using this contractor in the past" and asserted via multiple email confirmations, and at committee meetings, that the contractor held the appropriate QBCC licenses, despite it being clear that they do not.
• [16] Although the need to engage licensed contractors has been brought to the attention of the chairperson, the applicants say the committee have obtained quotes from another contractor who also does not hold the appropriate license to complete concrete cancer works.
• [17] In conclusion the applicants say it is important that work be undertaken by licensed contractors so that proper warranties can be obtained. They believe that warranty of work in a building of this size is critical and that "using cheap quick fixes in an ageing building only costs owners more in the long run". For example, they say that some of the works that have been done in the concrete slab under newly renovated apartments, may need to be removed in order to determine whether the repairs were carried out properly.

• [18] 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]
• [19] In particular, an adjudicator may make an interim order if satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that one is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[2]

• [20] After receipt of the application, the Commissioner invited submissions from the respondents, the committee and owners within the scheme.[3] Submissions were received from the respondent body corporate as well as three short submissions received from owners. The applicant exercised their right to inspect and reply to the submissions received.[4]
• [21] The file was referred to department adjudication.[5] I have investigated the dispute by reviewing the application and available submissions, the CMS and the titles records for the scheme.[6]

• [22] The committee says they reject the accusations by the applicants. They note that the applicants are not engaged in the construction industry and have limited practical knowledge of building construction and maintenance. They say an active member of the present committee is a licensed builder who holds an open builder's license.
• [23] The Body Corporate Committee says it is responsible and accountable for any work that is carried out during their term of office and will continue to diligently address ongoing issues in the ageing building, according to need and their statutory obligations. They say that no unlicensed concrete cancer work (including structural repairs and patching) has been undertaken at La Porte D'Or.
• [24] The committee have provided a letter dated 21 May 2025 from the Maintenance Manager at the Resort stating that they have a policy of only engaging licenced contractors to carry out works. They say any suggestion that they use unlicenced contractors is incorrect.[7]
• [25] The committee has also provided a list of all Contractors engaged at La Porte D'Or, with Details of their QBCC licences.[8] They state that Concrete cancer repairs were completed by BRS, who are appropriately licensed, in April 2022[9] in conjunction with the painting of the building. Quotes for ongoing concrete cancer patching were commissioned in November 2022.[10]
• [26] Structural repairs are carried out by a builder in accordance with the advice of a registered structural engineer who specifies the method used to effect a structural repair and the materials to be used.
• [27] Structural repairs have been carried out by their builder in accordance with written specifications provided by the engineer. The engineer is subsequently required to provide both a "design certificate" confirming that their design specifications comply with recognized engineering standards applicable and, an "inspection certificate" that the structural engineer has inspected the works and that the works meet his design specifications.
• [28] Prior to payment, the builder will warrant that their works have been carried out according to the design specifications determined by the engineer .
• [29] They say that non-structural spalling repairs have been carried out by APT Rope Tech who are licensed Painters & Decorators and permitted to carry out surface repairs under their existing license.[11] They have carried out non-structural repairs involves patching the concrete using proprietary patching material.
• [30] At the September 2023AGM, owners voted to accept a quote by a firm named Spectech but that engagement did not eventuate. Non-structural repairs are now undertaken by APT Rope Tech who they say holds an appropriate license. All of those works were under the auspice of a previous Committee as the current BC Committee was appointed in October 2023.
• [31] Following complaints by the applicants, the QBCC issued an infringement notice to the contractor. However they say that the contractor did not undertake any structural repair work to the building. An inspection of their work was undertaken by the Master Painters' Association (MPA) which confirmed that the non-structural patching work was within the scope of the APT Rope Tech license and recommended that the infringement notice issued to APT Rope Tech be withdrawn.

• [32] The applicants believe that APT Rope Tech undertook concrete cancer remediation, which they were not licensed to undertake and that this is the reason BRS was engaged to perform the work after several years of APT Rope Tech's involvement. They say that on 12 February 2025, the QBCC confirmed that the works discussed and depicted in the photographs fell outside the contractor's licensing scope.
• [33] While they note that the MPA is of the view that non-structural work undertaken in the building has been within the scope of the APT Rope Tech license, they say it is not a statutory authority and lacks the regulatory capacity to determine building compliance matters. Similarly, they say the Maintenance Manager's informal comments carry no legal weight.
• [34] The applicants believe that failure to notify owners of the engagement of an unlicensed contractor for concrete repairs "violates the duty of transparency and disclosure" and may prejudice insurance coverage.
• [35] They also say that a committee member admitted to excluding essential works (lift maintenance, window replacement) from the capital works plan to avoid increasing levies because they wanted to sell their lots before the levies increased.

• [36] Construction of La Porte D'Or was completed in 1977 and therefore the building is close to 50 years old. The main vertical/lateral structural elements and the floor slabs are constructed from concrete with steel reinforcement bars and mesh.
• [37] As an adjudicator, I have dealt with numerous disputes relating to maintenance and repair of similar buildings which are around 40 to 50 years old. Owners of such buildings need to be vigilant for any signs of concrete degradation or corrosion of steel reinforcing. It is also common knowledge that coastal buildings, particularly those close to the ocean, are subject to additional environmental stress due to higher humidity and salt aerosol exposure. As is to be expected for such a building of this age, there have been a number of instances where repairs have been undertaken to remedy degraded concrete.
• [38] The maintenance obligations of the body corporate are set out in section 180 of the standard module which provides as follows:

180 Duties of body corporate about common property - Act, s 152

(1) The body corporate must maintain common property in good condition, including, to the extent that common property is structural in nature, in a structurally sound condition.

_Note - _ For utility infrastructure included in the common property, see section 20 of the Act .

(2) To the extent that lots included in the community titles scheme are created under a building format plan of subdivision, the body corporate must -

(i) railings, parapets and balustrades on, whether precisely, or for all practical purposes, the boundary of a lot and common property; and

(ii) doors, windows and associated fittings situated in a boundary wall separating a lot from common property; and

(iii) roofing membranes that are not common property but that provide protection for lots or common property; and

(b) maintain in a structurally sound condition the following elements of scheme land that are not common property -

(iii) essential supporting framework, including load-bearing walls.

• [39] Consequently the body corporate is responsible for maintenance of common property including exterior walls, as well as essential supporting framework. I note that recently, a project manager was engaged to administer a repaint of the building and any concrete repairs deemed necessary before painting. A dilapidation inspection undertaken prior to painting, revealed that extensive repair work was required to remedy concrete cancer in structural elements of the building. These works were undertaken by Building Rectification Services (BRS) at a cost of around $600,000.
• [40] The nub of the applicants' complaint is that over a number of years previously, the body corporate paid contractors around $78,000 in total to undertake various concrete repairs. They believe the contractor engaged by the previous committee to repair concrete degradation, was not appropriately qualified to carry out such repairs because they are licensed as Painters & Decorators, rather than Builders or Concreters.
• [41] It should be noted that apart from concrete cancer, concrete degradation can take the form of surface spalling which is flaking, cracking, or crumbling on the concrete's outer layer, often caused by exposure to the elements over time. This damage is usually visible or easily discoverable and requires a non-structural repair involving patching with cementitious mortars**.** In my experience it is not uncommon for repairs to cosmetic surface spalling, to be undertaken by licensed painters/ decorators in the course of surface preparation prior to painting.
• [42] On the other hand, "concrete cancer" usually occurs when steel reinforcement inside the concrete corrodes and expands. This expansion creates internal pressure, eventually leading to cracks and compromised structural stability. Detection and remediation of concrete cancer is a specialised skill. While some signs of concrete cancer can be detected by visual inspection, I am aware that it is often difficult to detect concrete cancer in its early stages because the damage often begins beneath the surface. Apart from visual inspection, detection methods can include core drilling and GPR scanning[12] to detect subsurface defects.
• [43] Tradesmen undertaking detection and remediation of concrete cancer require a different class of QBCC licence (i.e. a concreting or open building license).[13] Concrete cancer repairs are regarded as being of a structural nature and are carried out by a tradesmen with accreditation as a builder or concreter, in accordance with the advice of a registered structural engineer.
• [44] This leads to a consideration of the applicants' complaint regarding the engagement of APT Rope Tech Pty Ltd by the previous committee. The applicants have provided copies of invoices from APT Rope Tech Pty. Ltd. including an invoice dated 16 December 2024 in the amount of $4,675 for the following works:

• [45] This was accompanied by two photographs including one showing a concrete beam from which spalled concrete had been removed and patched.
• [46] Also attached to the application was an email dated 12 February 2025 from the QBCC regarding a complaint made by the applicants. This email states:

The QBCC has investigated the work of APT Rope Tech Pty Ltd, specifically whether concreting work has been carried out within the scope of the Painting and Decorating licence held by the company. The scope of this licence can be found on our website, and includes the following:

Based on the scope of the Painting and Decorating licence as outlined by the QBCC, the permitted

1. Apply paint or other substances for protective, decorative, or technical purposes.
2. Apply texture coatings.
3. Apply wallpaper.
4. Preparation of surfaces for painting or protective coatings.
5. Apply cement render up to 8mm thickness.
6. Incidental work within another class if under $3,300.

The invoices the QBCC has received in relation to concreting work carried out by APT Rope Tech exceed the $3,300 value, and do not appear to be incidental to painting works being carried out under the licence. As such, the QBCC has determined there has been a breach of section 42(1) of the QBCC Act.

• [47] However the body corporate says that after the QBCC issued an infringement notice to the contractor an inspection of their work was undertaken by the Master Painters' Association (MPA) which was of the view that the non-structural patching work was within the scope of the APT Rope Tech license, and recommended that the infringement notice issued to APT Rope Tech be withdrawn.
• [48] Attached was a copy of the correspondence from the MPA to the QBCC dated 3 March 2025 which states:

Please find attached a report which clearly defines that the infringement should be withdrawn. I recommend that you organise for an inspector to do a site visit as there is no structural concrete repairs completed nor any concreting. Most of the work is patching of a perimeter concrete beam, with a patching compound suitable for repairing concrete and preparing the surface for the application of a paint product.

• [49] It would not appear that the infringement notice issued to the contractor on 20 September 2024 was withdrawn. This indicates to me that the QBCC was of the view that the subject work went beyond the permitted activities for a Painter & Decorator licence such as (1) Preparation of surfaces for painting or protective coatings, or (2) Incidental work within another class under $3,300.
• [50] This leads to the question of what, if any, orders should be made. Section 276 of the Act sets out the Orders which an adjudicator may make. Orders may be made by a departmental adjudicator to resolve a dispute about:
  1. a claimed or anticipated contravention of the BCCM Act or the community management statement; or
  2. the exercise of rights or powers, or the performance of duties, under the BCCM Act or the community management statement
  3. An adjudicator may also make an order of the types mentioned in schedule 5.

• [51] In summary the applicants seek orders that the body corporate:
  1. Ensure that all contractors completing any structural repair works within the building are appropriately licenced as per QBCC requirements.
  2. notify (i) all owners and (ii) the building insurer, that an unlicensed contractor was engaged to complete concrete cancer / spalling repair works
  3. ensure that all members of the committee complete online body corporate training
• [52] As part of their maintenance obligations, the body corporate is obliged to ensure that concrete degradation, including concrete cancer is attended to. This involves engagement of appropriately qualified contractors. As mentioned above, tradesmen undertaking detection and remediation of concrete cancer require an appropriate class of QBCC licence. Concrete cancer repairs are regarded as being of a structural nature and should be carried out are carried out by a tradesmen with accreditation as a builder or concreter, in accordance with the advice of a registered structural engineer.
• [53] While it was noted that "concrete repairs" had previously been undertaken over a number of years previously at a total cost of only $78,000, it would appear to me that it was only when a dilapidation inspection was conducted prior to painting that the extent of concrete cancer in the building became evident. This is not surprising because concrete cancer begins beneath the surface and detection and remediation of concrete cancer requires specialised skills.
• [54] There does not appear to be any dispute regarding the repair method or quality of the workmanship by APT Rope Tech. Further, I note that the previous committee engaged contractors to undertake concrete cancer repairs and to re-paint the complex. This project included an expense of $600,000 for concrete cancer repairs by Building Rectification Services (BRS), an appropriately qualified contractor. This indicates that existing concrete cancer within the building has been detected and remediated. From submissions received it is also evident that the body corporate is aware of the need for vigilance in this regard.
• [55] Having regard to the extensive works recently undertaken on the building, I am satisfied that body corporate is meeting its maintenance obligations.
• [56] Nevertheless, I believe that I am able to make the first requested order that in future the body corporate is to satisfy itself that all contractors completing structural repair works within the building are appropriately licenced as per QBCC requirements.
• [57] I would also point out that the body corporate should ensure that future sinking fund budgets make realistic provision for future concrete cancer repairs over at least the next nine years. Section 160(3) of the Standard Module provides that the sinking fund budget must allow for raising a reasonable capital amount to:
  1. Provide for necessary and reasonable expenditure for the financial year; and
  2. Reserve an appropriate proportional amount necessary to be accumulated to meet anticipated expenditure from the sinking fund over at least the next nine years.
• [58] The purpose of these requirement is to ensure that the body corporate accumulates the financial reserves necessary to cover future capital expenditure and regularly putting aside a proportional amount of anticipated expenditure in advance. This ensures that current and future owners contribute equitably toward future capital expenditure.
• [59] I do not believe I am empowered by the Act to make orders requiring the body corporate to notify all owners and the building insurer, that the contractor was engaged to complete concrete repair works was not licensed to undertake concrete cancer repairs.
• [60] Finally, I do not believe that I am empowered to specifically order that all members of the committee complete online body corporate training. Of course the Code of Conduct for Committee voting members[14] requires their commitment to acquiring an understanding of the Act & the Code of Conduct, and I would certainly recommend the free online training program[15] provided by the office of the Commissioner to assist body corporate committee members. However, this training is not compulsory, and I also recognize that committee members may have acquired relevant knowledge through practical, work experience and professional experience as well as formal and informal training.
• [61] I have therefore made the following final orders:
  1. The Body Corporate must ensure that that any contractors completing structural works within the building are appropriately licenced as per Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) requirements
  2. The application is otherwise dismissed.
• [62] The Interim Orders made on 5 April 2025 no longer apply.

[4] See sections 246 and 244 of the Act, respectively

[6] See section 271 of the Act for the investigative powers of an adjudicator

[10] Attachment 6 to submission, pgh 6.9.

[13] I am aware that some Painting Contractors also hold appropriate builder or trade licences that allow for structural concrete repairs**.**

[15] Online body corporate training | Your rights, crime and the law | Queensland Government