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

BY-LAWS - whether the respondent is storing items in their exclusive use car space contrary to the by-laws - whether the respondent has installed a washing line on their exclusive use balcony contrary to the by-laws - whether orders about the items are warranted.

Act, ss 182-186

1. Within 14 days of the date of this order, the respondent must remove all items other than cars and bicycles from the car space allocated for the exclusive use of Lot 26.
2. The respondent must not store or keep items other than cars and bicycles in the car space allocated for the exclusive use of Lot 26 except in a storage locker or a canoe or kayak storage device that has been installed with the written approval of the Body Corporate for Mercantile-Dalgety Place.
3. The application is otherwise dismissed.

[1] In this application the body corporate alleges that the respondent, the owner of Lot 26, has breached the by-laws. Two issues are raised.

[2] First, the respondent has exclusive use of a car space on common property. Under By-law 39 owners are only permitted to use car spaces for parking and there are restrictions on storage within car spaces. The body corporate says the respondent has stored unauthorised personal items in the car space, in breach of the by-law.

[3] Second, the respondent also has exclusive use of a balcony adjacent to the lot, pursuant to By-law 44. The body corporate asserts that the respondent has installed a fixed clothesline on the balcony, variously alleging breaches of By-laws 10 and 48.

[4] The body corporate seeks a declaration that the respondent has breached the by-laws, along with the removal of the disputed items and compliance with the by-laws relating to the exclusive use areas. I will consider whether orders are warranted.

[5] Mercantile-Dalgety Place community titles scheme 16834 (Mercantile-Dalgety Place) is an 84-lot scheme in Teneriffe. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Accommodation Module applies. The scheme is registered as building units plan 102993.

1. A declaration under s 276(1)(a) of the BCCMA that the Respondent has contravened By-laws 39.3 and 48.1.
2. An order under s 276(1)(b) of the BCCMA that the Respondent:
3. Remove all non-permitted items stored in the car space allocated to Lot 26;
4. Uninstall the fixed clothesline attached to the balcony of Lot 26;
5. Comply with the scheme's by-laws with respect to the use of exclusive use areas;
6. Complete the above within 14 days of the date of the order.

[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 body corporate initially applied for conciliation of this dispute in March 2025.[3] A conciliation session was scheduled, but the conciliator ended the conciliation on the basis that the respondent did not make attempt to participate.

[9] This application was lodged on 2 July 2025, pursuant to a committee resolution on 23 April.

[10] The Commissioner's delegate sought clarification on some aspects of the application.[4] The application was subsequently amended.[5]

[11] The Commissioner invited submissions from the respondent and all owners,[6] and 3 were received. The body corporate obtained but did not comment on the submissions.[7]

[12] The application was referred to department adjudication.[8] I have now investigated the dispute, including reviewing the application and submissions and seeking further information from the body corporate.[9]

[13] The respondent provided a brief submission saying the breach had been rectified. They provide a photograph which they say confirms the removal of the washing line. The submission does not comment on the storage of items in the car space.

[14] Two owners make submissions in support of the application. They comment on the disregard of the by-laws by the respondent and generally.

1. One says the clothesline is visible with laundry and detracts from the building. They say the car space is a mess.
2. The other notes the history of the issues and attempts to resolve them. They say the clothesline is clearly visible from common property and the street. They say the respondent has not proposed motions to amend the by-laws to allow clotheslines and has not applied to install a storage locker in their car space. They would like the body corporate to be able to remove the items at the respondent's expense.

[15] The questions in this application are whether the respondent has contravened the by-laws about either issue raised by the body corporate and, if so, whether orders are warranted.

[16] The CMS for Mercantile-Dalgety Place includes several by-laws relevant to this dispute.[10]

[17] By-law 10.1 says an occupier must not, without approval, hang washing, towels, bedding, clothing or other article or display any sign, advertisement, placard, banner, pamphlet or like matter on any part of the lot if it is visible from the common property or any other lot.

[18] By-law 39 provides for owners to have exclusive use of car spaces as detailed in schedule E and Plan A in the CMS. Lot 26 is allocated car space number 26. By-law 39.3 says:

The owners shall use the car spaces for car parking only and shall not litter the space or use them to create a nuisance. An occupier may only store cars, bicycles, canoes/kayaks in the car space and all other items can only be stored inside an approved storage locker.

[19] By-law 39.4 then goes on to provide, notwithstanding By-law 39.3, for the installation of a storage locker in an exclusive use car space with the committee's written approval. By-law 39.5 similarly provides for the installation of a canoe or kayak storage device in an exclusive use car space with the committee's written approval.

[20] By-law 44 provides for exclusive use of courtyards and terraces on common property. Schedule E records that Lot 26 is allocated area 26 which is shown on the attached Plan B as comprising a balcony on the eastern side of the lot and another on the southwestern corner of the lot. By-law 44.4 provides for certain improvements to exclusive use courtyards, but By-law 44 does not authorise improvements to exclusive use terraces.

[21] By-law 48 imposes conditions on balconies, courtyards, and terraces. By-law 48.1 says:

In addition to by-law 44, an owner or occupier of a lot must not use a balcony, courtyard or terrace of a lot for storage or to erect any temporary structures or the like and, further, any such items deemed to detract from the amenity of the building by the Committee must be removed immediately.

[22] The respondent does not challenge the validity of the referenced by-laws.

[23] By-laws are binding on all owners and occupiers.[11] It does not appear to be disputed that the respondent is the occupier of Lot 26, as well as its owner.

[24] The Act imposes a duty on the body corporate to enforce the CMS, including the by-laws, albeit that it must act reasonably in doing so.[12] The legislation sets out the processes for pursuing an alleged by-law breach.[13] I am satisfied the body corporate has complied with the by-law enforcement processes in regard to both issues.

[25] The body corporate alleges the respondent has stored items in the exclusive use car space for Lot 26, in breach of the by-laws. It sent a by-law contravention notice about this in November 2024, citing By-law 39.3. The respondent advised in response that they would address the car park items, but it seems this did not occur. The body corporate wrote again in June 2025 noting the storage of items in the car park remained a concern.

[26] The body corporate has confirmed multiple items continue to be stored in the car space.

[27] The correspondence in the application included photographs showing a small motorcycle or moped parked in the back corner and a variety of different loose items against the rear and side walls of a car space marked with the number 26. The body corporate provided a further recent photograph showing the motorcycle or moped and a somewhat greater number of different items in the same car space.

[28] The items in the car space appear neat and to be arranged so as not to impede a car being parked in the space. However, they are clearly not in a storage locker.[14] There is no suggestion that the respondent is not the person responsible for storing the items in the car space. I am satisfied the current storage of items in this car space contravenes By-law 39.3.

[29] The body corporate alleges the respondent has installed a clothesline on an exclusive use balcony for Lot 26, in breach of the by-laws. It sent a by-law contravention notice about this on in early November 2024, citing By-law 48.1. In response, the respondent asked if it was possible to apply for approval of the clothesline. The body corporate sought details of what was proposed but heard nothing further from the respondent at the time.

[30] In June and August 2025 the body corporate sent further contravention notices, this time citing By-law 10.1, and requiring that the clothesline be uninstalled. After the first of those, the respondent sought approval of the clothesline and provided photographs of it. The body corporate responded indicating concerns with the visibility of the clothesline and that its installation and use would be inconsistent with the appearance standards at the scheme. After the August contravention notice the respondent said the clothesline would be removed within 14 days but it was still evident in a subsequent photograph.

[31] I do not consider By-law 10 is relevant here. That by-law is about hanging washing and other items on a lot. But any washing hung on the exclusive use area allocated to Lot 26 is on common property and not the lot. And the by-law does not of itself prevent a clothesline.

[32] I am not convinced that By-law 48.1 prohibits the clothesline, having regard to the precise words of the by-law. The by-law forbids 'storage' as a use of a balcony or terrace. But I do not consider temporarily hanging clothes on a clothesline to dry is 'storing' them. The by-law probits 'temporary structures',[15] but if the clothesline was intended to be permanently affixed to the wall, it would arguably not be 'temporary' even if it fell within the meaning of a 'structure'. And the requirement to remove items only relates to stored items and temporary structures that the committee deem to detract from the amenity of the building.

[33] Notwithstanding that, the regulations govern alterations to common property and take precedence over the by-laws. The installation of the clothesline on common property constitutes an improvement to common property.[16] In the case of an area of common property that is subject to a grant of exclusive use, an improvement to common property requires body corporate approval unless it is authorised by the exclusive use by-law.[17] If the value of the improvement is more then $3,000, it can only be approved be approved by ordinary resolution at a general meeting. Otherwise, committee approval would be sufficient.

[34] By-law 44 does not authorise the installation of the clothesline on an exclusive use area. So, this installation required explicit body corporate approval. Approval has clearly not been given. The respondent has not challenged the body corporate's refusal to give approval. Accordingly, the respondent was not entitled to install the clothesline.

[35] The question now is whether there is a continuing dispute on this matter. The respondent says the clothesline has been removed, apparently in early October 2025. The body corporate acknowledges that. However, it says a 'black box/bracket and associated fittings' remain affixed to the wall. It says it is concerned the presence of this fixture enables the clothesline to be readily reinstated without approval. It maintains its request for orders regarding the clothesline.

[36] A recent photograph provided by the body corporate shows a black item on the wall above the location where the clothesline was previously installed. No other 'associated fittings' are discernible. The same black item is evident in all photographs of the clothesline included in the application, but it is not attached to the clothesline in those photographs and appears unrelated to its use. Moreover, in the photograph provided by the respondent evidencing the removal of the clothesline, it appears the black item is actually a light fitting. I am not satisfied the body corporate has established that any part of the clothesline remains, and it has not evidenced that the respondent is likely to attempt to reinstall the clothesline.

[37] If the body corporate considers the apparent light fitting has been installed without requisite body corporate approval, it can pursue that matter separately. I could not determine that question in the context of a dispute about the clothesline.

[38] I am satisfied on the submitted evidence, and in the absence of submissions to the contrary, that the respondent is storing items in the exclusive use car space allocated to Lot 26 in contravention of By-law 39.3. I consider it appropriate to make orders requiring the removal of the contravening items, and that such items not be stored in the car space except pursuant to the by-law. The respondent should be aware that it is an offence to contravene an order and the body corporate can enforce this order if it is not complied with.[18]

[39] I am not satisfied that the installation of the clothesline, or its use, breached the by-laws. But I do consider its installation required approval under the regulations and that its installation was not approved. However, I am satisfied on the submitted evidence that the clothesline has been removed. The body corporate has not established that any part of the offending clothesline remains or that the respondent is likely to reinstall it without approval. Accordingly, I consider the dispute on this point has been resolved. It follows that I have dismissed the application in that regard.

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

[10] Recorded 16 March 2022, Titles dealing number 721547833

[12] Noting sections 94(2) and 100(5) of the Act

[14] No storage locker is evident in the space, and it does not appear that a storage locker has been approved.

[15] I am unclear what 'and the like' is intended to mean in relation to 'temporary structures'.

[16] Noting the definition of 'improvement' in schedule 6 of the Act

[17] Section 183 of the Accommodation Module

[18] www.qld.gov.au/law/housing-and-neighbours/body-corporate/disputes/dispute-services/enforce-orders