Nexus Place [2025] QBCCMCmr 212 (18 June 2025)

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

MAINTENANCE of UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE - whether body corporate or owner responsibility.

Act, ss 20, 166; Standard Module, ss 180, 211

1. Within 7 days, the body corporate must reimburse the owner of lot 19, Eric Raymond, $1,870, being the costs he incurred in replacing a failed cold tap seat for a shower within the lot which was common property utility infrastructure.

• [1] Eric Raymond, owner of lot 19, brings this application against the body corporate, seeking reimbursement of $1,870, being the costs he incurred in repairing a damaged tap seat for a shower within the lot:
  1. Plumbing as per invoice 5196 from Crystal Waters Plumbing $990;
     1. Wall repair as per invoice HJ2023-328 from D R Construction $880
• [2] The applicant also seeks reimbursement of his adjudication application fee of $110.30.

• [3] On 27 May 2024 the applicant sent an email to the body corporate manager advising of a damaged valve seat and requesting body corporate advice, as the work involved pipework within a boundary structure (wall). On 30 May 2024 the applicant sent a follow up email clarifying the location and that it was in the boundary wall between units 18 and 19.
• [4] The applicant says the request was not passed on to the committee. As the issue was urgent, he authorised the work to be done. On 17 July 2024 the applicant sent an email to the new body corporate manager requesting reimbursement. On 26 July 2024 the applicant received a reply from the body corporate manager that reimbursement was not approved by the committee. On 30 July 2024 the applicant sent an email to the body corporate manager clarifying that the work was within a boundary structure and hence under the Act, the responsibility for repairs appeared to be with the body corporate. On 5 September 2024 the applicant received an email from the body corporate manager advising that the committee did not approve reimbursement of costs.

• [5] Nexis Place was established on 25 March 2003 with the registration of Survey Plan 148317, a building format plan of subdivision. The scheme contains 39 lots in 2, 3-storey buildings. Lot 19 is located on Level B of Building B. It comprises 81m2 and has 3 bedrooms, each with an ensuite containing a shower. The shower in question is located in a corner of lot 19 and shares walls with a kitchen and another ensuite bathroom, both of lot 18.
• [6] Submissions in response to the application were sought from all owners and the committee. 1 submission, from Nathan Zaetta, on behalf of the committee, was received. The applicant inspected the submission and provided a written reply.

• [7] The committee submits that, in its opinion:
  • The boundary wall consists of the besser block, with all infrastructure contained within the lot there to service that single lot only and therefore is the owner's responsibility.
  • If the tap seats were the responsibility of the body corporate, owners would not be able to replace washers in the taps without body corporate approval.
  • False gyprock panelling does not form part of the boundary wall. If the gyprock were to form part of the common boundary wall there would be restrictions on owners being able to paint, hang paintings, tile etc.
  • Gyprock panelling extends into the living areas of apartments away from the besser block walls. These form internal walls, robes, kitchen benches and other bathrooms/showers. Are these zones to also form part of the boundary or where would the boundary be defined given there is no clear end in the walling?
• [8] The email of 22 October 2024 from Quantity Surveyor John Lowry[1] states it is the owner's responsibility.
• [9] In many of the apartments, including lot 19, previous plumbing repairs (ie replacing tap washers) had been carried out by the owner's chosen rental agent (onsite manager) who is not a plumber. The (lack of) quality of these repairs, as well as the absence of actual repairs, has led to cracked tap seats in many of the 114 showers across the building.
• [10] Eric was a member of the committee up until June 2024. At this point in time there were many other emailed topics and conversations that Eric was a direct part of, and clearly had direct communication with other members of the committee. He was aware of communication issues with then strata manager, Challenge Strata Management, and yet made no mention of this plumbing issue to other committee members.
• [11] Eric knowingly tampered with (in his opinion) body corporate utility infrastructure in contravention of section 166 of the Act, which prohibits interference with utility infrastructure or services within community titles schemes, imposing penalties for non-compliance.
• [12] Photographs provided show a crack in brass nut from shower supply of unit 19.
• [13] The committee was provided with photographs and invoices for the first time on 19 July 2024 via Strata Influence, 3 months after Eric had been made aware of the problem.
• [14] The date on the photographs is 15 March and 20 June. This is a long window of time and there is no indication of 'urgency' given the water was dripping into the shower. Eric was a member of the committee during this time and had and continues to have, direct communication via phone and email to the committee.
• [15] There was no mention of the issue to the committee and certainly any 'urgency' between March and June was not made apparent to the committee.
• [16] The section of piping replaced is inside the boundary of the lot and services only unit 19, which contains 3 showers/toilets and kitchen. It shows local supply pipes dropping from the roof cavity (from nearby CWR14), and a supply running off on the right to an adjacent toilet in same bathroom. The apartment is separately metered for hot water, with meters and hot and cold water returns coming up through a riser in each apartment as noted on the plan (CWR14 & HWR14).
• [17] The committee attached a series of previous adjudicator's decisions, which it says support its view.

• [18] The applicant replies that:
  • There is no dispute as to the location of the valve seat in question. It is located behind the gyprock/plasterboard of the shower wall. The location is clear from the photo.

• The only issue to determine is the thickness extent of the wall as a boundary structure. The committee contends that the boundary structure is only the concrete blockwork concealed within the wall. This was the argument used by the body corporate in Admiralty Towers[2]. The body corporate lost the argument in that matter. The determination was for a situation exactly the same as this. Namely, the pipework in question was in the gap between the plasterboard and the concrete blocks. The determination was that this was within the boundary structure.
• The committee provides no basis to substantiate its claim that the wall is only the concrete blocks inside. It simply claims it is not within the boundary structure, without any supporting argument or evidence. It ignores the Admiralty Towers decision.
• The committee seems to want to raise a series of irrelevant grievances.
• Some of the committee's comments show a confusion between the responsibility for the wall and the responsibility for infrastructure. This is not relevant.
• The committee makes reference to timing and communication issues. These are irrelevant. The location of the valve seat is the same regardless of how quickly the applicant proceeded with his claim.
• The committee appears concerned that someone changing the washer may have somehow damaged the valve seat, presumably thinking the person who did that is responsible. Changing a washer cannot damage the valve seat. And even if it did it would not change the location of the valve seat. The claim is not relevant. The only relevant issue is that the valve seat is located within the boundary structure.
• The email of 22 October 2024 from John Lowry Quantity Surveyor was referring to the responsibility of waterproofing the wall, not pipework in the wall. These matters are quite independent. The Quantity Surveyor made no comment as to the extent of the boundary structure.
• The committee supplied copies of several earlier determinations. These were supplied by the conciliator as they related to utilities and had the words 'boundary structure' in the text. Examination of the determinations shows that none of them considered the issue of the thickness extent of the wall. None of them are relevant.

• [19] The Act[3] and the Standard Module[4] make provision for the maintenance of common property and lots. Basically, the body corporate must maintain the common property and owners of lots must maintain their lots, in good condition.
• [20] It is not the case that common property for a scheme only comprises land and fixtures on land that is not part of a lot.
• [21] Utility infrastructure, which includes pipes and drains by which lots or the common property are supplied with water reticulation or supply, is treated as common property, unless the infrastructure:
  1. Supplies a utility service to only one lot; and
  2. Is within the boundaries of the lot; and
  3. Is not within a boundary structure for the lot[5].
• [22] Utility infrastructure is treated as common property if any one of the three elements is not satisfied.
• [23] I am satisfied that the cold tap seat referred to in tax invoices from Crystal Waters Plumbing & Drainage dated 15 March 2024 and 20 June 2024 is 'utility infrastructure' supplying a 'utility service' to a lot, as defined in Schedule 6 of the Act. This is not disputed.

• [24] It is not disputed that the cold tap seat in question supplies a utility service solely to lot 19.

• [25] The scheme was created by the registration of Survey Plan 148317, a building format plan of subdivision. The boundaries of lots in building format plans of subdivision are determined by reference to the Land Title Act 1994 (LTA). A building format plan of survey defines land using the structural elements of a building, including, for example, floors, walls and ceilings.[6] The boundary of a lot created under the plan, and separated from another lot or common property by a floor, wall or ceiling, must be located at the centre of the floor, wall or ceiling.[7]
• [26] I am satisfied from the material that the relevant boundary of 19 is at or about the centre of the block wall and that the cold tap seat that had failed was located within the lot. This also, is not disputed.

• [27] This dispute is essentially about whether the cold tap seat is within a boundary structure for lot 19.
• [28] Section 20(3) of the Act defines boundary structure for a lot included in the scheme to mean a floor, wall or ceiling, other than a false ceiling, in which is located the boundary of the lot with another lot or common property.
• [29] The Act defines 'wall' to include a door, window or other structure forming part of the wall. While this definition does not state fibre cement board or tiling over it, it does not exclude material of this nature. I consider that both are part of the wall, as that term is defined in section 20(3).
• [30] The adjudicator in Admiralty Towers referred to the Concise Oxford Dictionary (seventh edition) definition of 'wall' as a continuous and usu. vertical and solid structure of stones, bricks, concrete, timber, etc., narrow in proportion to length and height, serving to enclose (partly) or protect or divide off town, house, room, field etc.; surface of inner side(s) of room, esp. as place for display of pictures etc to determine that the plaster wall sheeting mentioned in that application constituted an inner side of the laundry wall and enclosed or divided off the lot. He held further that the ordinary meaning of 'wall' supports the view that plaster wall sheeting is part of the wall.
• [31] In the more recent decision of Metro[8], the adjudicator found that, although the damaged downpipe in question may have been entirely within the boundaries of one lot applying the requirements of the LTA, it was located within a boundary structure, being the boundary wall between 2 lots in the scheme.
• [32] I consider that the wall between the lot 19 shower in question and lot 18 includes the fibre cement board and tiling over it. The cold tap seat which had failed was located within a boundary structure for lot 19. As such, the cold tap seat is common property.
• [33] As in the case of Admiralty Towers, the fact that the work was authorised and completed without the body corporate's authority does not diminish its maintenance responsibility. There has been no suggestion that the costs incurred were excessive or unreasonable.
• [34] The committee's suggestion that the applicant has interfered with utility services and contravened section 166 of the Act is without any substance. Section 166 prohibits interference with utility infrastructure or services in a way that may affect the supply of utility services to another lot, or common property. Both parties agree that the utility infrastructure in question only services lot 19 (and only 1 of 3 showers within lot 19) and the work done did not affect the supply of utility services to any other lot or common property.
• [35] In my view, the body corporate is responsible for the invoiced cost of the work.
• [36] Like the applicant in Admiralty Towers, Eric Raymond also seeks reimbursement of the costs of making this application. As the adjudicator stated in Admiralty Towers, an adjudicator may order costs of a nature and for reasons mentioned in section 270(3) and 280 of the Act. There is no power for an adjudicator to order the reimbursement of application fees in the circumstances of this application. The body corporate did participate in conciliation. The application is dismissed in this regard.

• [37] I am satisfied that the cold tap seat which services 1 of 3 showers in lot 19 and failed, is common property utility infrastructure the body corporate is responsible for maintaining in good condition because it was located within a boundary structure for lot 19. The body corporate is responsible for the invoiced cost of the work to access and replace the failed part and to repair the wall which was damaged to do so.
• [38] I have ordered the body corporate to reimburse the applicant $1,870.

[1] Mr Zaetta says the conciliation outcome was that they would seek an independent opinion from a knowledgeable party. They chose a quantity surveyor.

[2] [2011] QBCCMCmr 13

[4] See sections 180(1) & 211, Standard Module

[8] [2022] QBCCMCmr 157 @ [36]- [39]