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

MAINTENANCE; PROPERTY DAMAGE - whether a weep hole is defective and caused water ingress to the applicant's lot; whether the body corporate must repair the weep hole and reimburse the applicant's expenditure on an engineer to investigate the problem.

Accommodation Module, s 170(1).

[1] A small patch of mould appeared on an internal bedroom wall of Ms Milla's lot 8 in the wake of Cyclone Alfred in March 2025. An email to Merlion Cove's body corporate manager by Ms Milla's property manager indicates this was "reported", presumably to the body corporate, who advised Ms Milla "to contact mouldmen for leak detection & remediation works".

[2] However, Ms Milla or her property manager subsequently noticed cracks around the window in that wall and contacted the body corporate again, suggesting "structural movement in the building is the source of the issue". The body corporate manager passed on the committee's recommendation to "engage an appropriate contractor to perform investigations and supply report to the body corporate" and the committee would then arrange repairs to any elements found to be the body corporate's responsibility.

[3] Ms Milla engaged a structural engineer who found the cracking not to be of structural concern and blamed the mould on a defective weep hole in the external wall outside the affected bedroom:

It was the assessment of our Engineer, however, that mould growth to the South-Eastern bedroom wall of U8 is the result of a defective weep hole drainage/internal damp proof course defect, permitting wind-driven rainfall to bridge the void between the outer and inner 110-series masonry wall line and create (infrequent) conditions that facilitate the aforementioned mould growth to occur, between the inner load-bearing masonry wall and the applied plasterboard (internal) lining.

[4] Ms Milla asked the body corporate to reimburse her expenditure on the structural engineer and repair the weep hole. The committee refused on the following grounds:

• A structural engineer was not a suitable contractor to engage for exploratory works. A leak/moisture detection expert should have been engaged.
• All Lots that have south facing windows would have had water flowing over their windowsill and into the Lot during the cyclone.
• Other Lots that experienced this issue during the cyclone made efforts to minimise the impact via placing towels and removing excess water during the event which eliminated any occurrences of mould.
• The Committee agrees that the tenant lacked preparation leading up to the cyclone and response action during the cyclone that have led to the mould issues being experienced.
• Within the engineering report, it states that the tests performed were non-invasive, which means that they did not utilise any equipment to test for moisture, search behind the plasterboard or into the brick cavity. Their findings were determined by viewing externally from the walkway. If the weephole were deficient, it would always be wet inside the room every occasion it rains.
• The engineer's report outlined that the mould is reducing. Since the cyclone, there has been a considerable amount of rain, more than the average rainfall over this period. This suggests that there is not a problem with water ingress through the external wall and making its way internally due to faulty weep holes.
• The Body Corporate deems that the occurrence of mould is due to the cyclone causing water to ingress through south facing windows. Poor preparation and action leading up to and during the cyclone by the occupant and owner of the Lot led to prolonged exposure to water and development of mould within the Lot.
• The Lot owner remains responsible for rectifying the mould issue and for the costs of the engineer's report.

[5] The committee went on to engage a leak detector who found no moisture in or around the affected wall. The committee says there has been no further moisture or mould since March 2025 and it expects the issue was caused by inadequate ventilation in the room and a bedside table sitting against the wall in that location. It concludes "there is no problem to be fixed".

[6] Ms Milla seeks orders in the following terms:

Order 1 - Repair of the defective weep hole

That the adjudicator orders the Body Corporate to arrange and pay for the inspection, repair and/or replacement of the defective weep hole identified in the engineering report, to ensure it functions in accordance with building standards and no longer allows water ingress.

Order 2 - Reimbursement of costs already incurred

That the adjudicator orders the body corporate to reimburse the full cost of the engineering invoice previously provided, $1034.00 from SRB Consulting Engineers.

Order 3 - Prevention of future damage

That the adjudicator orders the body corporate to take any further reasonable action required to prevent future moisture or mould caused by the defect.

Order 4 - Compliance timeframe

That the adjudicator orders the body corporate to complete all repair work and reimbursements in a reasonable timeframe.

Order 5 - Compliance with entry requirements

That the adjudicator orders the body corporate and its contactors to comply with legislative requirements when accessing a lot, including providing the proper notice to the lot owner or their property manager, as required under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act and the Standard Module.

[7] The weep hole is on the external wall of the building, which is common property. The body corporate must maintain the common property in good condition.[1]

[8] The evidence that the weep hole was the cause of the mould is thin though. Ms Milla's engineer said:

This is a first impressions report, the scope of which is limited to cursory observation and non-invasive investigation(s). As such, the contents should be regarded as indicative, rather than definitive, at this time.

[9] The engineer said in July 2025 that the patch of mould had been progressively shrinking since it appeared in March. The leak detector was unable to detect any moisture in the wall by October 2025. It appears that no expert has been able to observe the water ingress as it occurs, or even when it is still wet, and no one has opened up the wall to inspect the weep hole or damp-proof course to confirm the engineer's hypothesis. There has been no spray testing to simulate the wind-driven rain thought to give rise to the problem.

[10] That is not to suggest that the engineer is wrong. He said the right conditions to allow water to enter the building in that way would arise infrequently. The body corporate should remain alert to the possibility that the weep hole is defective if the problem reoccurs.

[11] But I must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the weep hole is the cause of the problem before I can order the body corporate to repair it. The current evidence does not support that level of confidence.

[12] The application fails at that point. If I am not satisfied the body corporate must repair the weep hole, I cannot reasonably order it to pay for the investigation that concluded the weep hole may be defective. If the body corporate was not responsible for the moisture and mould in March 2025, there is no basis for ordering it to prevent future moisture or mould. If the body corporate will not be ordered to carry out repairs, there is no need to specify a timeframe or notification requirements.

[1] Accommodation Module, s 170(1).