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

MAINTENANCE OF LOT - whether the body corporate must pay for the replacement of corroded steel posts supporting the roof of the applicants' lot and other repairs related to water ingress through their balcony doors.

Accommodation Module, ss 170(2)(b)(iii), 201(3).

1. The respondent must pay the applicants $5130 within two weeks.
2. The application is otherwise dismissed.

• [1] Mr and Mrs Keune ask that the body corporate meets the cost of various repairs to their lot 36. Namely:

1. Cost of replacement of structural steel support posts - $5130.

4. Insurance excess for water damaged carpet - $600

• [2] They submitted a builder's invoice dated 5 November 2024 for $5130 to replace "two existing steel support posts located behind the aluminium cover strip as on inspection they were found to be corroded/rusted beyond repairs". They say the posts "are load bearing, supporting roof and are a Body Corporate responsibility even if not on common property."
• [3] At a scheme created under a building format plan of subdivision, such as Leeward Kawana Island, the body corporate must maintain "essential supporting framework" in "structurally sound condition" even though it may not be common property.[1] At face value, that would compel it to replace steel posts supporting a roof that are rusted beyond repair.
• [4] The body corporate committee acknowledged its responsibility for the posts in a letter to Mr and Mrs Keune on 30 July 2024 and said it would pay them $5130 if they signed a deed relinquishing their other claims against the body corporate. They did not sign and the money was not paid, so Mr and Mrs Keune had the work done at their expense some months later.
• [5] The body corporate has a statutory responsibility to keep essential supporting framework in structurally sound condition irrespective of any other claims a lot owner might make against it. I will order it to reimburse Mr and Mrs Keune's expenditure on this work.
• [6] Mr and Mrs Keune's other expenses seem to relate to water ingress from their balcony. They submitted:
  1. invoices from January and February 2023 for waterproofing work around their balcony sliding door for $1672 and $275
  2. an email of 25 March 2023 from Suncorp confirming an insurance payout for new carpets minus an excess of $600
  3. an invoice dated 5 November 2024 for "repair works to balcony area glazing wall and adjoining entry/bedrooms" for $14,420, and
  4. invoices dated 29 October and 16 December 2024 from G James Glass and Aluminium for the supply and installation of new sliding doors and a timber door frame for $17,292.
• [7] The committee submitted a Thermographic Inspection Report by Highpoint Solutions dated 31 July 2024 that investigated the water ingress to lot 36 via a "qualitative thermographic survey, moisture testing and leak detection activities". It concluded:

...the waterproofing around the window/door installation has failed, enabling moisture seepage to occur via capillary action once exposed to significant volumes of water over time. It is advisable to have a glazier provide further advice on repairs/replacement moving forward.

• [8] The balconies form part of lot 36, so the doors and windows separating the balcony from the interior of the lot are within lot boundaries and must be maintained in good condition by the lot owners.[2] Similarly, Mr and Mrs Keune's carpet is their property and their responsibility.
• [9] Mr and Mrs Keune seem to be arguing that the body corporate is responsible for these expenses because it failed to keep the steel posts structurally sound. They say:

5. The cost of waterproofing and insurance excess was wasted due to the Body Corporate failure to maintain and/or replace the structural steel support posts.

6. The structural steel support posts needed to be removed and replaced first.

7. Due to the Body Corporate failure to maintain and/or replace the structural steel support posts consequently the doors needed to be replaced also.

• [10] It is unclear whether they mean:
  1. the waterproofing done in January and February 2023 needed to be redone after they replaced the steel posts because the replacement works disturbed the new waterproofing
  2. the waterproofing was not needed because the condition of the posts was the real reason for the water ingress
  3. consistent with the previous point, the insurance excess was wasted because the new carpet was also damaged due to water ingress caused by the poor condition of the posts, and/or
  4. the doors needed to be replaced because they were damaged by the poor condition of the posts, or because the post replacement works required the destruction of the doors.
• [11] In any event, Mr and Mrs Keune have submitted no evidence in support of any of these contentions. The only evidence of the cause of the water ingress is Highpoint Solutions' report blaming the condition of the waterproofing on the balcony windows and doors.
• [12] Consequently, while the body corporate must reimburse Mr and Mrs Keune's expenditure on the steel posts, the remainder of the application is dismissed.

[1] Accommodation Module, s 170(2)(b)(iii).

[2] Registered plan SP 149947; Accommodation Module, s 201(3).