Piccollo [2025] QBCCMCmr 165 | Case summary

BY-LAWS - whether the respondent is keeping a caravan on their lot in breach of the by-laws - whether the caravan must be removed.

The owner of Lot 84, Lauren Jones, must remove the caravan from Lot 84 within 6 months of this order, unless body corporate approval to construct a structure to screen the caravan is obtained within 3 months of the date of this order and the approved structure is then constructed within 6 months of this order.
If the owner of Lot 84, Lauren Jones, is required to remove the caravan under order 1, the caravan may not be brought back to the lot or common property in future without the prior written approval of the Body Corporate for Piccollo.

[1] This application is about compliance with the by-laws, which restrict recreational vehicles being visible on scheme land.
[2] The body corporate says the respondent, the owner of Lot 84, has kept a caravan parked in front of their lot since 2020, in breach of the by-laws. It says the respondent was given temporary permission to keep the caravan for 2 months in March 2020, but no further approval. It pursued the issue with the respondent in September 2022. In October 2022 the respondent indicated an intention to screen one end of the caravan. The applicant says the respondent did not apply for approval of a screening structure at the time and has not removed the caravan despite it subsequently issuing by-law contravention notices.
[3] The body corporate wants the caravan removed and not kept at the scheme unless an approved screening structure is installed.

[4] Piccollo community titles scheme 29694 (Piccollo) is a 66-lot scheme at Coomera. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Standard Module applies. The scheme is registered as survey plans 134552, 134554 and 141862.
[5] The application seeks the following orders:
1. That the Respondent remove the caravan from Lot 84 and the Scheme within 24 hours of the order;
2. The Caravan is not to be kept at the Scheme unless and until the Applicant applies for approval of a screening structure and installs an approved screening structure in compliance with the reasonable conditions set out in an approval of the Body Corporate.[1]

[6] 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.[2] I am satisfied I have jurisdiction to determine this matter under the dispute resolution provisions.[3]

[7] The body corporate initially applied for conciliation of this dispute in May 2023.[4] The parties participated in conciliation in September 2023 but were unable to reach an agreement.
[8] This application was subsequently lodged on 11 November 2024, authorised by a committee resolution passed on 12 November. The Commissioner's delegate sought clarification from the applicant on some aspects of the application,[5] which was then amended.[6]
[9] The Commissioner invited submissions from the respondent and all owners.[7] Two submissions were received. The applicant inspected and responded to the submissions.[8]
[10] The application was referred to department adjudication.[9] I have now investigated the dispute, including reviewing the submitted material and seeking further information.[10]

[11] The respondent says the vintage caravan has been parked at the property for several years. They say the project has provided therapy for them as part of their treatment for health issues, and they can provide medical evidence if required. They say they have screened the caravan to the best of their ability but cannot put a gate at the front because it could not open far enough. They say their property is otherwise well maintained. The submission includes correspondence indicating that an application to screen the caravan was rejected.
[12] Another owner wants the caravan removed. They say the by-laws are clear and others in similar positions had to build a garage to house their caravan or sell their caravan.
[13] The body corporate says the respondent's admission that the van has been parked for several years signifies an ongoing breach of the by-law and not a temporary or isolated issue. It acknowledges the potential therapeutic value of the van. It says if the respondent wants to continue using the van, they must do so in compliance with the by-laws. It says it has no record of receiving a medical report. It further says that, despite attempts at screening, the van remains visible from several angles of the common property. It says the caravan's exposure, and being stored outside and not within a garage, does not comply with the by-laws.

[14] At my request, a member of the Commissioner's office contacted the respondent to clarify whether they had applied for approval of a screen for the caravan. The respondent then provided a copy of an architectural and landscape code building assessment application form for 'shade sail & caravan screening' dated 19 January 2024 with annotated photographs for two proposed shade sails. A response from the Architectural Review Committee, apparently sent in January 2024, said the proposal could not be approved in its entirety. It referred to a decision of the principal body corporate in 2014 about the requirements for front shade sails and said, as result, only one shade sail (over the driveway) could be approved.
[15] I then wrote to the body corporate providing the respondent's emails and seeking further clarification. In response, it noted the history of the matter and cited the architectural and landscape code (particularly clause 10.7(e)). It said:
1. The application for shade sails was denied and only a sail over the driveway was approved. Even if that shade said was erected, the caravan would remain visible.
2. It would only consider approving screening structures that comply with the by-laws and architectural and landscaping code.
3. A screen must be safe, stable, of solid construction, fixed or anchored to a freestanding portable frame, large enough to screen the caravan from all directions, and consist of a screening product that is strong, durable, sustainable and firmly attached to the frame.
4. Shade sail structures must be architecturally designed, accord with the colour scheme of the property and the architectural code, be consistent with the architectural code, be engineered and certified to current wind ratings, be contained within the lot boundary with a minimum set back, and have posts of a minimum size. It notes the sails proposed by the respondent did not comply with those conditions.
5. It has not indicated that any caravans or other recreational vehicles are kept on other lots and so it cannot provide details of any structures approved for screening caravans.
[16] I note the respondent's submission referred to previously providing a medical report and that further medical evidence could be provided if required. The body corporate said it had not received a medical report. For the reasons outlined below, I do not consider it necessary to seek further detail of the respondent's health issues.

[17] The issue in this application is whether the respondent is keeping a caravan on Lot 84 in breach of the by-laws. I will note the by-laws and the submitted evidence.

[18] The current CMS for Piccollo,[11] includes the following relevant by-laws:

An Owner or Occupier of a Lot must not do anything to vary the external appearance of the Lot or vary the Common Property without the prior written consent of the Committee.

19.1. The Committee may in its absolute discretion by written Notice from time to time to the Owners, mortgagees and Occupiers of Lots within the Scheme Land nominate which car parking spaces situated within the Common Property may be used by the Invitees:

19.2. Occupiers must not park on those car parking spaces.

19.3. An Occupier of a Lot must use his best endeavours to ensure that his Invitees do not park or stand any Motor Vehicle upon the Scheme Land except within a car parking space which the Committee has nominated under this by-law but such lnvitee's Motor Vehicle must not be permitted to park overnight on the Common Property without the prior written consent of the Committee or a Security Officer.

19.4. Parking is not allowed on those parts of the side of the internal roads on Common Property which are designated by signage.

19.5. The Owner or Occupier of a Lot must not, without the prior written approval of the Committee:-

(a) park a vehicle, or allow a vehicle to stand, on the Common Property; or

(b) subject to By-Law 19.1, permit a visitor to park· a vehicle, or allow a vehicle to stand on the Common Property.

19.6. In order to maintain an attractive overall street scape the Owner or Occupier of a Lot must not park or permit to be parked, trucks and commercial vehicles, caravans, boats, trailers or recreational vehicles on a Lot unless they are completely housed within a garage or carport or otherwise satisfactorily screened from view from public areas.

19.7. An approval under By-Law 19.5 must state the period for which it is given.

19.8. The Committee may in its absolute discretion cancel any approval granted by giving seven (7) days' written Notice to the Occupier.

19.9. The Committee is empowered in its absolute discretion to secure the removal of all and any vehicles parked illegally on the Common Property by towing or any other available means.

(a) permit any Recreational Vehicle upon the Common Property or upon his Lot unless it:-

(i) is housed in a garage; and

(ii) is not visible from any part of the Common Property;

(b) permit any occupation of a Recreational Vehicle upon his Lot;

(c) drive or permit to be driven any Heavy Vehicle into or over the Common Property other than such Heavy Vehicles necessary to complete the construction of Improvements on the Scheme Land, and any Heavy Vehicles entitled to come on the Common Property by any statute and/or local authority ordinances.

21.2. For the purposes of this by-law "Improvements~· includes Lots, buildings, swimming pools, outdoor recreation. areas, entertainment areas, walkways, paths, driveways, landscaping, irrigation, drainage facilities and any other structures or improvements.

[19] In By-law 1.2, the term 'motor vehicles' in the by-laws is defined as including '...motor bikes but does not include motor vehicles in excess of three (3) tonnes weight loaded, caravans, campervans or mobile homes'. 'Recreational vehicle' is defined as including '...a caravan, campervan, motor home, Boat, trailer and any other recreational vehicle and each of the whether motorised or not' (sic). 'Public area' is defined to mean any street or road, any public park, canal or other common property including common property of any other scheme or land adjacent to the scheme land.

[20] By-law 4 relates to the appearance of lot and includes:

Suitably Screened means screening that consists of a safe, stable, solid construction, fixed or suitably anchored freestanding portable frame (eg steel or timber). Be large enough to scree the boat, trailer, caravan, jet ski, mobile home, motor home garbage bins etc from all directions with a strong, durable, sustainable screening product firmly attached to the frame (eg powder coated aluminium of timber slats) Tarps, canvas, fabric, shade cloth, rolls of bamboo sheeting or see through materials are unacceptable. Selected materials are to blend into the property façade and landscape. (sic)

[21] The CMS that was in force before the current CMS was recorded, when the respondent first brought the caravan to the lot, did not include the By-law 4.3 but otherwise the relevant by-laws are unchanged.

[22] All owners and occupiers must comply with the CMS, including the by-laws in the CMS.[12]
[23] As part of its general functions, the Act requires a body corporate to enforce the by-laws recorded in the CMS.[13] As with all of its functions, it must act reasonably in doing so.[14]
[24] Sections 182 to 188 of the Act provide the process for pursuing an alleged by-law breach. When a body corporate is pursuing a by-law issue, the first step is generally to issue a contravention notice. The contravention notice, which must state certain things including the nature of the breach, must be given to the person who the body corporate believes is breaching the by-law. If the issuing of a contravention notice does not rectify the matter, the body corporate can either commence proceedings in the Magistrate's Court or may lodge a dispute application in the Commissioner's Office.
[25] I am satisfied the body corporate has followed the statutory procedures for enforcing a by-law.

[26] It is not disputed that the respondent has a caravan parked at their lot and that they have done so for several years.
[27] The caravan is clearly a 'recreational vehicle' for the purposes of the by-laws.
[28] Under By-law 21.1, owners and occupiers cannot keep a caravan on their lot or on common property unless it is housed in a garage or is not visible from any part of the common property. The obligation in By-law 19.6 is slightly different. It says owners and occupiers cannot park a caravan (or permit a caravan to be parked) on a lot unless it is completely housed within a garage or carport, or satisfactorily screened from view from public areas.
[29] The photographs in the application show the caravan parked at the front of the lot behind a hedge. It is not in a garage or a carport. Depending on how low the hedge has been cut, the caravan appears to be either clearly visible or barely perceptible. However, it is evident from the photographs supplied that the caravan is clearly visible from each end. It is visible from the common property roadway. It is certainly not wholly or predominantly screened from view. The respondent did not refute the photographs in the application or provided alternative views.
[30] On the submitted material, I am satisfied the respondent's caravan is being kept on Lot 84 in a manner that does not comply with the by-laws.
[31] While the respondent applied for approval of two shade sails in January 2024, the sail to screen the caravan was not approved. There is no indication that the respondent challenged the decision not to approve that sail, amended the request to address the basis for rejection, or applied for something different. Moreover, it is not clear that the rejected sail would have adequately screened the caravan.
[32] The respondent says they have tried to screen the caravan but could not install a gate. However, no evidence of attempts to screen the caravan beyond the unsuccessful shade sail request have been provided. Moreover, the respondent has not demonstrated that it is not possible to install any compliant structure that would screen the caravan.
[33] I acknowledge the respondent's personal circumstances and their genuine interest in retaining the caravan. They should be considered by the body corporate, including in considering any request for approval of a screening structure. However, the respondent's personal circumstances do not override the obligation to comply with the by-laws. The respondent cannot simply disregard the by-laws. Moreover, regardless of the respondent's circumstances, the by-laws do not give the body corporate or its committee any discretion to permit the caravan to remain where it is clearly visible.

[34] I am satisfied the respondent is keeping a caravan on Lot 84 in contravention of the by-laws.
[35] The body corporate is entitled to require the removal of the caravan. But the applicant has not explained why they want the caravan removed within 24 hours. Given the history of the matter, the impact of the caravan, the circumstances of the respondent, and the time that may be required to make other arrangements for the caravan, the basis for urgency is unclear. Moreover, the respondent remains entitled to apply for approval to install a structure that will screen the caravan and that process takes time. Of course, the respondent has already had plenty of time to apply for approval of a screening structure or to make alternative arrangements for the caravan. However, the respondent may not have adequately understood their obligations or the consequences. They should no longer be in any doubt.
[36] Given all the circumstances, I will allow the respondent a further 3 months to apply for approval of a screening structure that will ensure the caravan is not visible from common property from any side. That structure would not need to cover the entire caravan; if the caravan is screened by the hedge at one side, it may be that only screens at each end would be required. The body corporate should act reasonably in considering any request for approval, including having regard to the respondent's personal circumstances. The fact that the caravan is currently being kept in breach of the by-laws is not justification for the body corporate not to consider the request on its merits.
[37] If the respondent does not apply for approval of a screening structure within 3 months of this order, or applies but does not receive approval within 3 months, they will need to permanently remove the caravan. I will allow further time for the applicant to remove the caravan if screening is not approved or to construct the screening if it is approved.

[1] The body corporate has confirmed its intention that the respondent (not the applicant) to apply for approval.

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

[5] Section 241 of the Act

[6] Section 245 of the Act

[7] Section 243 of the Act