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

BY-LAWS - whether the respondent has contravened by-laws prohibiting damage and obstruction of common property - whether the respondent contravened by-laws prohibiting disturbing neighbouring lots - whether the respondent is required to remove personal items and rubbish from common property.

NUISANCE - whether the respondent has contravened a provision of the Act prohibiting occupiers from causing a nuisance or unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of a lot or common property.

APPEARANCE OF LOT - whether the respondent has contravened a provision of the Accommodation Module requiring observable parts of the lot to be kept in a clean and tidy condition.

COSTS - whether the respondent is responsible for paying the costs for the conciliation and adjudication applications.

Act, ss 167, 182, 183, 280; Accommodation Module, s 201

1. I hereby order that the owner of Lot 18 is prohibited from acting in a manner that is likely to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of persons lawfully on another lot or common property. The owner of Lot 18 is specifically prohibited from engaging in the following conduct:
   1. yelling or swearing at, or engaging in any other insulting or intimidating behaviour towards, any person lawfully on the scheme;
   2. making excessive noise including by slamming doors, running, stomping, talking loudly and playing loud music;
   3. accessing, and attempting to access, other lots without permission;
   4. spitting, throwing or pouring water or other things off Lot 18's balcony; and
   5. locking bicycles and other personal property to common property without written approval from the body corporate.
2. I order that the owner of Lot 18 must take all reasonable steps to ensure their invitees do not engage in the conduct as specified in the above order.
3. I order that, within 14 days from the date of this order, the owner of Lot 18 must:
   1. remove and keep removed all rubbish from Lot 18's parking space; and
   2. ensure that all remaining items in Lot 18's parking space that are readily observable from another lot or common property are kept in a clean and tidy condition.
4. I order that the owner of Lot 18 is prohibited from damaging common property without prior written approval from the body corporate.
5. I also order the owner of Lot 18 must pay the body corporate $220.60 as reimbursement for the conciliation and adjudication application fees within 14 days from the date of this order.
6. This application is otherwise dismissed.

• [1] This application is about the respondent's behaviour in allegedly disturbing neighbouring lots in the scheme, causing damage to common property, and storing rubbish and items in his parking space. This application is also about whether the respondent permitting his invitees to disturb neighbouring lots in the scheme and to cause damage to common property. The application also raises whether the respondent should pay the costs for the adjudication and conciliation applications (the Costs).
• [2] The body corporate seeks the following final orders:
  1. that the Respondent immediately refrain from using or permitting the use of, or conduct upon, the Lot or the common property in a way that causes a nuisance or hazard or interferes unreasonably with the use and enjoyment of any other lot or common property at the Scheme,
  2. that the Respondent immediately refrain from obstructing, or permitting the obstruction of common property,
  3. that the Respondent immediately refrain from causing damage to the common property,
  4. that within 14 days of the date of the adjudication order, the Respondent must remove rubbish from, and clean and tidy the Lot car space,
  5. that if the respondent fails to remove and dispose of all rubbish stored in the Lot car space, the Applicant is authorised to enter and arrange for rubbish to be removed from the Lot car space, and
  6. that within 7 days of the date of this order, the Respondent must pay the Applicant:
     1. $110.30, being the reimbursement for the conciliation application fee paid by the Applicant; and
     2. $110.30, being the reimbursement for the adjudication application fee paid by the Applicant.

• [3] Lloyds Of Southport 2 community title scheme 15908 (Lloyds of Southport 2) is a 25-lot scheme and common property in Southport. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Accommodation Module applies. The scheme is registered as building unit plan 104519.
• [4] The applicant is the Body Corporate for Lloyds of Southport 2. The respondent is the owner of Lot 18.

• [5] On 28 July 2023, the respondent was issued with a continuing contravention notice (CCN) in relation to the breach of by-laws 2, 3, 4 and 15 (the First CCN). The First CCN stated that the respondent was breaching the by-laws:

[...] by Invitees visiting in the early hours of the morning, slamming doors, leaving bikes on common property, causing a nuisance and noise, disturbing other residents, pressing other unit's intercoms, leaving bikes in the stairwell.

• [6] On 9 January 2024, the respondent was issued with a future contravention notice (FCN) in relation to the likely future breach of by-laws 2, 4, 13 and 15 (the First FCN). The First FCN stated the by-laws were being breached in the following manner:

[...] Night 25 December - forcing open common property locked power board and on further multiple occasions interfering with the common property power board. Slamming doors, yelling, swearing, threatening other residents.

• [7] On 1 March 2024, in relation to by-laws 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 12 and 15, the respondent was issued with a CCN (the Second CCN) and FCN (the Second FCN). The notices referred to an attachment which stated the by-laws had been breached, and were likely to continue to be breached, by:
  1. the respondent and his invitees interfering with, and causing damage to, the garage door, exit door and electrical meter box,
  2. the respondent storing a large quantity of rubbish in his car space which is part of his lot,
  3. the respondent frequently disturbing neighbouring lots by slamming doors between 12:00am and 4:00am,
  4. the respondent engaging in verbally abusive and threatening behaviour towards the body corporate's contractors,
  5. the respondent being involved in a number of disturbances with his girlfriend, resulting in the attendance of police and disturbance to neighbouring lots, and
  6. the respondent's invitees frequently disturbing occupiers by slamming doors, banging on doors, buzzing multiple intercoms to access Lot 18, depositing rubbish on common property, and leaving bikes on common property.
• [8] The attachment included incident reports, complaint forms and photographs depicting the above events on numerous dates between 12 November 2023 and 26 June 2024.

• [9] The body corporate applied for conciliation in July 2024, but a conciliation scheduled in August 2024 did not proceed because the respondent could not be contacted.
• [10] On 27 August 2024, the body corporate lodged the current adjudication application to the Office of the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management.
• [11] The Commissioner invited the respondent and all owners to make a submission on the application.[1] No submissions were received from the respondent or the other owners.
• [12] On 6 December 2024, the respondent provided an email which confirmed receipt of the email and stated his phone was broken, he had no internet access or computer and could not download the application. The respondent also requested a copy of the application to be sent physically by post via the onsite manager. The Commissioner posted a copy of the application to the respondent by mail via Lloyds of Southport 2's onsite manager and provided the respondent with an extension until 6 January 2025 to provide submissions.
• [13] The Commissioner then referred the application to department adjudication.[2]
• [14] I have investigated the application, including reviewing the application, the current CMS and the survey plan.[3]
• [15] On 25 February 2025, I provided the respondent with a further opportunity to make submissions until 11 March 2025. Given the respondent's email on 6 December 2024 and the absence of a response to the correspondence sent to the onsite manager at the respondent's request, the further invitation was sent directly to the respondent's address. This invitation included another copy of the application. To date, no response has been received from the respondent or on his behalf.
• [16] While the respondent has not made a submission, I am satisfied that all reasonable attempts have been made to put the respondent on notice of the dispute and enable him to respond to it.

• [17] The orders sought relate to a dispute about the behaviour of the respondent and his invitees towards other lot owners, leaving rubbish and personal items in a parking space and causing damage to common property. As such, I am satisfied this is a dispute within the dispute resolution provisions of the Act.[4]
• [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 CMS, or about the exercise of rights or powers or performance of duties under the Act or CMS.[5] An order may require a person to act, or prohibit a person from acting, in a way stated.[6] An order may contain ancillary and consequential provisions the adjudicator considers appropriate.[7]

• [19] I have summarised the grounds to this application as follows:
  1. By-laws 2 and 4 require the respondent to not cause a nuisance or interfere with other lot owners' enjoyment of their property. The respondent and his invitees have engaged in behaviours described as threatening, aggressive and a nuisance.
  2. By-law 8 prohibits the respondent from damaging common property without body corporate consent. The respondent has damaged the common property garage door, exit door and electrical metre box.
  3. By-law 12 requires the respondent to maintain his property so as not to be offensive in appearance to other occupiers. The respondent has failed to ensure his parking space is kept in a clean and tidy condition.
  4. By-law 15 requires the respondent to take all reasonable steps to ensure his invitees abide by the by-laws and do not behave in a manner likely to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of others on other lots or common property. The respondent's invitees have engaged in threatening, aggressive and abusive behaviours and left bicycles on common property.
  5. Section 167 of the Act prohibits the respondent from using, or permitting the use of, the lot or common property in a way that causes a nuisance, a hazard or unreasonably interfered with the use or enjoyment of the lot or common property by others. The respondent and his invitees have caused significant amounts of noise in the evenings which caused a disturbance to other occupiers.
  6. Section 201 of the Accommodation Module requires the respondent to keep observable parts of his lot in a clean and tidy condition. The respondent's parking space is observable from the common property and is in an untidy condition.

• [20] The first issue in question is whether the respondent is compliant with Lloyds of Southport 2's by-laws prohibiting him and his invitees from disturbing others, obstructing and common property, and failing to maintain his parking space in a clean and tidy condition.
• [21] The second issue in question is whether the respondent has breached section 167 of the Act by causing a nuisance, hazard or unreasonable interference to others.
• [22] The third issue in question is whether the respondent has breached section 201 of the Accommodation Module by failing to keep observable parts of his lot in a clean and tidy condition.
• [23] The fourth issue in question is whether the respondent is responsible for paying the Costs.
• [24] In determining whether to grant the orders sought, I will consider the applicable by-laws, whether the CCNs and FCNs were appropriately issued to the respondent and whether the respondent has breached the by-laws. I will also consider whether the respondent breached sections 167 of the Act and 201 of the Accommodation Module, and whether it is within an adjudicator's authority to require the respondent to pay the Costs.

• [25] The Act states a scheme's by-laws may provide for the administration, management and control of common property and body corporate assets.[8] This may include the regulation and applying conditions to the use and enjoyment of common property.
• [26] Lloyds of Southport's current CMS was registered on 28 February 2023. The by-laws seeking to be enforced by the body corporate are:

1. An Occupier must not create any noise likely to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of a person lawfully on another Lot or the Common Property.
2. Occupiers leaving or returning to Lots late at night or early in the morning must do so with minimum noise.
3. The Occupier must request Invitees leaving after 11pm to leave quietly.

1. An Occupier must not obstruct lawful use of Common Property by any other person.
2. An Occupier must not cause a nuisance or act in such a way so as to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of a person lawfully on another Lot or using the Common Property.

1. An Occupier must not mark, paint or drive nails or screws or the like into, or otherwise damage or deface a structure that forms part of the Common Property, except with the consent in writing of the Body Corporate Committee [...]

Each Owner must ensure that his Lot is kept and maintained so as not to allow infestation by vermin or insects or be offensive in appearance to other Occupiers.

1. Occupiers must take all reasonable steps to ensure that their Invitees abide by the by-laws and do not behave in a manner likely to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of a person lawfully on another Lot or the Common Property.
2. Owners will be liable to compensate the Body Corporate for all damage to the Common Property caused by their Occupiers and Invitees.

• [27] Sections 182(1) and 182(2) of the Act combine to state that if a body corporate reasonably believes that a person who is an owner or occupier of a lot in a scheme is contravening a provision of the scheme's by-laws, and the circumstances make it likely the contravention will continue, the body corporate may issue a CCN requiring the person to remedy the contravention.
• [28] I acknowledge the body corporate also issued FCNs to the respondent. FCNs may be issued by a body corporate where the owner or occupier's contravention is likely to be repeated.[9]
• [29] The validity of the contravention notices is not in dispute. On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the CCNs and FCNs were valid and appropriately provided to the respondent.

• [30] The Act states the CMS, and the by-laws contained within, is binding on each member of the body corporate.[10] I am satisfied on the evidence before me that the respondent was both the owner and occupier of Lot 18 at the relevant times. As such, I am satisfied the by-laws are applicable to him as both the owner and occupier.
• [31] The first question to be answered is whether the respondent's actions as outlined in the application have breached the by-laws.
• [32] In the absence of submissions from the respondent refuting the material in the application, I accept the evidence submitted by the body corporate.

• [33] By-law 2 prohibits occupiers from creating any noise likely to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of a person on another lot or common property. By-law 2 also requires the occupier's invitees leaving after 11pm to do so quietly.
• [34] The body corporate argued the respondent breached this by-law as follows:
  1. On 12 November 2023, the respondent and/or his invitees made excessive noise by the repeated slamming of doors, yelling, running and stomping on the floors.
  2. On 25 December 2023, police attended Lloyds of Southport 2 in relation to reports of an altercation between the respondent and his girlfriend. Shortly after the police officers left, the respondent swore and threatened the occupier of Unit 24. The respondent also engaged in a verbal altercation with the occupier of Unit 39 who asked him to stop slamming his door.
  3. On 23 January 2024, the respondent verbally abused Lloyds of Southport 2's caretaker after he refused to provide the respondent with a key to the electricity meter box.
  4. On 9 February 2024 and 20 June 2024, police attended Lloyds of Southport 2 in relation to reports of altercations between the respondent and his girlfriend. The altercations continued intermittently after the police officers left.
  5. Between 8:00pm on 13 April 2024 and 3:00am on 14 April 2024, the respondent and his invitees played loud music, talked loudly, argued and drank on the balcony. Similar behaviour was repeated on 15 April 2024.
  6. On 31 May 2024, the respondent was heard engaging in a loud verbal altercation with a female invitee who was yelling and crying.
  7. On 1 June 2024 between 12:00am and 1:00am, the respondent and a large group of his invitees made excessive amounts of noise inside his lot before continuing to talk loudly and swim in the common property pool.
  8. On or around 17 June 2024, the respondent and his invitees shouted and used loud, abusive language and the respondent's dog barked excessively.
  9. On 18 June 2024 and 8 August 2024, the respondent and his girlfriend engaged in noisy altercations, causing his dog to bark.
• [35] The two written complaints from the occupiers of Units 31 and 39 dated 12 November 2023 and 13 November 2023 respectively outlined that the respondent and his invitees would come and go late at night or early in the morning and they would slam doors, walk loudly up and down the stairs and talk loudly on the balcony which could be heard through the walls. The occupier of Unit 39 also stated the respondent would regularly argue with others and talk with others in the street loud enough to be heard.
• [36] In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I am satisfied the respondent has generated noise that has interfered with the use of other lots and common property. I am satisfied the respondent has breached by-law 2(a). It also appears likely the applicant has made excessive noise, and permitted his invitees to make excessive noise, when entering and leaving the scheme late at night and in the early morning. This is a breach of by-laws 2(b) and 2(c).

• [37] By-law 4 prohibits occupiers from obstructing common property, causing a nuisance or acting in a way that interferes with the peaceful enjoyment of a person on another lot or common property.
• [38] The evidence in the application related to about noise contrary to by-law 2 is also relevant to the question of nuisance under by-law 4. It is not necessary to repeat these events. The application also alleges:
  1. On 12 November 2023, marijuana smoke drifted from the respondent's balcony to the lots of neighbouring units.
  2. Since December 2023, the respondent frequently buzzed the intercoms of other lots and struck the stairwell doors to gain entry to his lot when he forgot or lost his keys.
  3. On 5 December 2023, the respondent padlocked his bicycle to the balustrade of a common property stairwell.
  4. On 25 January 2024, the respondent's invitee parked his bicycle in a location that obstructed the occupier of Unit 32 accessing their parking space.
  5. On 29 March 2024, the respondent and his invitees struck the door of Unit 39 and asked to access their balcony to climb over the dividing wall. When the request was refused, the respondent and his invitees damaged the Unit 39's flyscreen to attempt to unlock the door and force access.
  6. On 15 April 2024, the respondent caused water to fall from his balcony onto the balcony of Unit 31, resulting in clothes that were drying to become wet and soiled.
  7. On 1 June 2024 between 12:00am and 1:00am, the respondent and a large group of his invitees were observed spitting and throwing water or another liquid from the balcony.
• [39] I also note the occupier of Unit 31's complaint stated they had to retreat from using their balcony multiple times due to the smell of respondent smoking marijuana on their own balcony.
• [40] In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I am satisfied the respondent breached by-law 4(a) at least on one occasion by leaving his bicycle on the common property stairwell in a manner that impeded the safe use of the stairwell.
• [41] I am also satisfied that the persistent noise generated by the respondent as detailed in regard to by-law 2 has also caused a nuisance or interference with the use of other lots and common property, in breach of by-law 4(b). While isolated incidences of the other alleged conduct may not necessarily rise to the level of a nuisance or interference, I consider the evidence indicates a pattern of behaviour that when viewed collectively demonstrates a nuisance or interference with the use of other lots and common property.

• [42] By-law 8 prohibits occupiers from damaging or defacing a structure that forms part of common property without approval from the body corporate committee.
• [43] The body corporate argued the respondent breached this by-law as follows:
  1. On 25 December 2023 and 7 January 2024, the respondent and his invitees pried open the locked door of the electricity meter box on common property.
  2. On 3 February 2024, the respondent and an invitee interfered with the garage door sensor, door chain, moving arm and main control board on common property.
  3. On 16 February 2024, the respondent and his invitee opened the garage door main control board.
  4. On 22 February 2024, the respondent opened the garage door control box and pressed buttons to manually open the garage door, however the garage door would not fully close and the sensor failed to detect vehicles and persons passing the door.
• [44] The body corporate also provided photographs of the respondent and his invitees interacting with the electricity meter box and garage door components. I note the timestamps on the photographs indicate they were of the interactions occurring between 25 December 2024 and 22 February 2024.
• [45] The body corporate also provided photographs dated 5 February 2024 and 22 February 2024 which showed bent pins on the garage door control board and the garage door being unable to fully close.
• [46] Interference with the meter box and garage door equipment that did not actually damage or deface the equipment would be inappropriate but not strictly in breach of by-law 8. However, based on the submitted evidence of damage to the garage door equipment, at least in that regard, I am satisfied the respondent has breached by-law 8.

• [47] By-law 12 requires owners to ensure their lot is kept and maintained to prevent infestation by vermin or insects or be offensive in appearance to other occupiers.
• [48] The body corporate argues that the respondent has stored rubbish and household items in his parking space in an untidy manner since 26 December 2023.
• [49] The body corporate's photographs showing the rubbish bags and household items on the respondent's parking space indicate that the items on the parking space are readily visible from other parking spaces and common property.
• [50] While I am satisfied the respondent has stored rubbish and personal items in his parking space, there is no evidence before me to indicate that the appearance of such has caused offence to other occupiers, nor that it allowed for the infestation of vermin or insects. As such, I am not satisfied the body corporate has provided sufficient evidence to establish that the respondent has breached by-law 12.

• [51] By-law 15 requires occupiers to take all reasonable steps to ensure their invitees abide by the by-laws and do not behave in a manner likely to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of a person on another lot or common property.
• [52] Many of the allegations in respect of by-laws 2, 4 and 8, as outlined above, involved conduct where the respondents' invitees were also involved. The body corporate also argued the following:
  1. On 31 May 2024 at approximately 2:00pm, three of the respondent's invitees were observed smoking in the common property pool and pool toilet area, throwing a broken mug and toilet paper. One invitee was also observed using the pool to wash his hair.
  2. Between 11:00pm on 16 July 2024 and 5:00am on 17 July 2024, several of the respondent's invitees called out to him from the street after being unable to reach him via the intercom. One of the invitees loudly cried and begged to be let in from the driveway.
  3. On 7 August 2024, one of the respondent's invitees forced entry by using an item to reach over the entry gate and open it using the inside doorknob.
  4. On 8 August 2024, one of the respondent's invitees attended and, after being refused entry by the caretaker, damaged a CCTV camera.
• [53] I am satisfied from the submitted material that the respondent's invitees have engaged in conduct, either in individual instances or as a pattern of behaviour, that would contravene by-laws 2, 4 and 8. In the absence of a submission from the respondent, I have no evidence that the respondent has made any attempt, let alone taken reasonable steps, to ensure his invitees act in a manner that complies with the by-laws and does not interfere with others at the scheme. Accordingly, I am satisfied the respondent breached by-law 15.

• [54] As I am satisfied the respondent breached by-laws 2, 4, 8 and 15, my next consideration is whether the circumstances indicated the breaches were ongoing or likely to be repeated at the time the contravention notices were issued.
• [55] The most recent contravention notices were issued on 1 March 2024. As outlined above, the body corporate argued that the respondent and his invitees continued to breach the by-laws since this time. I note the most recent breaches of the by-laws were stated to have occurred in August 2024, indicating the respondent's behaviour continued even after the conciliation application was lodged.
• [56] In the absence of any contrary evidence before me, I am satisfied the respondent's breaches of by-laws 2, 4, 8 and 15 were ongoing and that it is appropriate to make an order regarding such behaviour in the circumstances.

• [57] Section 167 of the Act prohibits occupiers from using, or permitting the use of, the lot or common property in a way that causes a nuisance, hazard or an unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of another lot or common property.
• [58] The body corporate argued the behaviour of the respondent and his invitees significantly interfered with the use and enjoyment of other lots in the scheme. The body corporate stated that, as a result of the respondent's behaviour, several occupiers reported feeling anxious and fearful for their safety and had become mentally and physically exhausted due to frequent interference with their sleep.
• [59] The behaviour of the respondent and his invitees as argued by the body corporate is outlined above in relation to by-laws 2, 4 and 15.
• [60] As previously stated, I accept the evidence provided by the body corporate in the absence of any submissions from the respondent refuting the material.
• [61] I have considered the complaints provided by the occupiers of Units 31 and 39 dated 12 November 2023 and 13 November 2023. The body corporate also provided:
  1. A text message dated 9 February 2024 from the occupier of Unit 31. The occupier stated their sleep had been extremely disturbed over the previous three nights due to noise from the upper floor.
  2. A text message dated 29 March 2024 from the occupier of Unit 39. The occupier stated the respondent and his invitee buzzed his unit, tried to open his locked screen door and attempted to gain entry.
  3. A photograph dated 30 March 2024 of Unit 39's damaged flyscreen.
  4. A text message dated 15 April 2024 from the occupier of Unit 31. The text message contained a screenshot of water falling on the balcony from above and stating that drying cloths had gotten wet.
  5. An email dated 20 April 2024 from the occupier of Unit 31. The email stated there had been continuous crying, arguments and banging between 1:00am and 4:00am.
  6. An email dated 1 June 2024 from the occupier of Unit 31. The email stated that there had been music, dancing, crying and yelling between 7:00pm and 12:00am the night prior.
  7. An email dated 18 June 2024 from the owner of Unit 23. The email stated the occupier of Unit 23 reported she felt unsafe due to constant abusive language and dog barking from the respondent's lot.
• [62] I consider repeated noise that disturbs the sleep of others and behaviour that causes an occupier to feel unsafe constitutes a nuisance and unreasonably interferes with their use of another lot. It has not been disputed that such behaviours would not cause a nuisance or unreasonable interference.
• [63] In the absence of any contrary evidence, I am satisfied the respondent has caused a nuisance and unreasonable interference in breach of section 167 of the Act.

• [64] Section 201 of the Accommodation Module states that the occupier of a lot must keep the parts of the lot observable from other lots or common property in a clean and tidy condition.[11] Further, lot owners are required to maintain their lot in good condition.[12] This means that the respondent is obligated to keep his parking space in a good, clean and tidy condition.
• [65] As discussed above in relation to by-law 12, the body corporate argued the respondent's parking space was in an untidy and unclean condition as a result of the rubbish and personal items on it. I note the body corporate stated in their grounds that as of the date of filing the adjudication application, the respondent's parking space remained in an untidy condition.
• [66] I have also considered the photographs provided by the body corporate which showed rubbish bags and household items on the respondent's parking space.
• [67] I have reviewed the survey plan which records the respondent has a parking space on level A of the building which forms part of Lot 18. As such, I am satisfied that the respondent's parking space forms part of his lot. I am also satisfied that the parking space and the items on it are readily visible from other parking spaces and common property.
• [68] No evidence has been provided by the respondent to indicate his parking space is not an in untidy or unclean condition, nor that any of the items on it have been tidied or removed.
• [69] In the absence of any contrary evidence, I am satisfied the respondent's parking space is not in a clean or tidy condition in breach of section 201 of the Accommodation Module.

• [70] The Act states an adjudicator may order the respondent to pay the applicant the costs of the conciliation and adjudication applications if:[13]
  1. the applicant for an adjudication made a conciliation application for the same dispute; and
  2. the respondent to the adjudication application was the respondent to the conciliation application; and
  3. the commissioner ended the conciliation application under section 252K because the respondent failed, without reasonable excuse, to participate in the department conciliation.
• [71] There is no dispute that the conciliation related to the same dispute as this application and the respondent was the same respondent to the conciliation application.
• [72] The conciliation certificate recorded that the application had been referred back to the Commissioner because the respondent could not be contacted and he was considered not to have made a reasonable attempt to participate in conciliation.
• [73] The evidence before me indicates multiple attempts to contact the respondent were made in writing and by phone, both before and after the conciliation application. The sole email received from the respondent to date was received during this adjudication application and did not explain his failure to participate in conciliation.
• [74] As such, I consider it appropriate in the circumstances that the respondent pay the costs of the conciliation and adjudication applications. I am satisfied the respondent was sufficiently aware of the dispute and no reasonable excuse has been provided as to his failure to participate in conciliation.

• [75] The evidence before me indicates the respondent and his invitees have caused a disturbance to other occupiers and interfered with their peaceful enjoyment of their lots on multiple occasions in breach of both the by-laws and section 167 of the Act. I note the noise caused by the respondent and his invitees has continued into the early hours of the morning and caused other occupiers to lose sleep. As such, I consider it is necessary and appropriate to impose an order requiring the respondent not to make act in a way that is likely to interfere with others being able to peacefully enjoy the use of their lots or the common property. I also consider it appropriate in the circumstances to order that the respondent take all reasonable steps to ensure his invitees do not breach the by-laws or similarly act in a way that is likely to interfere with others peacefully enjoying their lots or common property.
• [76] While I am satisfied that there is rubbish in Lot 18's parking space and that it is in an untidy condition, it is unclear on the evidence as to any offense this may have caused to others. Further, I am unable to make a distinction as to which items are rubbish and need to be removed, and which may be the respondent's personal items that have been untidily stored in the parking space. As such, I consider it appropriate to order that the respondent remove all rubbish from his parking space and to ensure any remaining personal items are kept in a clean and tidy condition.
• [77] I have not granted the order authorising the body corporate to enter and arrange for rubbish to be removed from the respondent's parking space should he fail to comply with this order within 14 days. As stated above, there is insufficient evidence before me to make a distinction regarding which items are rubbish or may in fact be personal items. However, all parties should be aware that the Accommodation Module permits a body corporate to carry out work the owner of occupier of a lot has an obligation to carry out under a provision of the Act or the Accommodation Module or through an adjudicator's order.[14] The Accommodation Module also permits a body corporate to recover the reasonable cost of carrying out such work from the owner of the lot as a debt.[15]
• [78] In granting the order prohibiting the respondent from causing damage to common property without permission, I note the evidence before me indicates the body corporate refused to issue the respondent a key to access the power board and spoke to him about manipulating the garage door control box without permission. The evidence also indicates the respondent interfered with the garage door control board on more than one occasion which caused damage.
• [79] This matter has been complicated by the absence of any submissions or further contact from the respondent beyond his sole email requesting the application be physically posted to him. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that procedural fairness has been offered to the respondent as multiple attempts to contact him were during both the conciliation and adjudication processes by phone, email and physical post. I consider all reasonable attempts have been made to contact the respondent. As such, and in the absence of any submissions regarding a reasonable excuse for the respondent's failure to participate in the conciliation process, I am satisfied it is appropriate in the circumstance to grant the body corporate's order requesting he pay the costs for the conciliation and adjudication applications.

[4] Sections 227, 228, 276 and Schedule 5 of the Act.

[9] Sections 183(1) and 183(2) of the Act.

[11] Section 201(2) of the Accommodation Module.

[12] Section 201(3) of the Accommodation Module.

[14] Section 202(1) of the Accommodation Module.

[15] Section 202(2) of the Accommodation Module.