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

ENTRY TO A LOT - where an attempt to enter a lot for a fire door inspection was refused - whether the body corporate complied with the statutory requirements for entry - whether valid notice was given - FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT - whether the body corporate was entitled to charge the owners for rescheduling the inspection.

Act, s 94, 100, 163, 281; Accommodation Module, ss 170, 202

1. The Body Corporate for Thirty Four Riverwalk is not entitled to charge the owners of Lot 22 for the attempted inspection of the fire door at Lot 22 on 14 November 2024, or the rescheduled inspection on 10 December 2024, or associated administrative fees.
2. The Body Corporate for Thirty Four Riverwalk must cancel the invoice dated 10 January 2025 for $204.05 that was issued to the applicants and remove any debt for that amount from the account for Lot 22.
3. The application is otherwise dismissed.

• [1] This application is about an attempted entry to the applicants' Lot 22 and a resulting invoice.
• [2] The minutes of a committee meeting on 23 October 2024 referred to annual fire safety requirements and maintenance checks and noted a discussion, under 'general business', on "Compulsory Fire Door Inspections - 15 November 2024". It appears there were then public notices about fire door inspections on 14 November.
• [3] On 14 November a Gold Coast Fire Protection (GCFP) contractor attended the applicants' Lot 22 to inspect the fire door. The applicants say that because the person had not identification or licence, they were denied entry. The secretary then wrote to the applicants stating that as the contractor had been refused entry, a new inspection had been scheduled for 10 December, and they would be invoiced for the call out and an administration fee.
• [4] On 10 January 2025 the applicants were invoiced $204.05. The applicants say the body corporate has no statutory power to charge them that amount. They have challenged the invoice but say the committee has refused to meet or discuss the issue.
• [5] The questions to decide in this application are the requirement to give notice to enter a lot and the power to invoice the applicants. I have determined this application concurrently with another by the applicants about a different fire door inspection fee charged to the applicants.[1]

• [6] Thirty Four Riverwalk community titles scheme 34520 (Thirty Four Riverwalk) is a 22-lot scheme at Robina. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Accommodation Module applies. The scheme is registered as survey plan 165606.
• [7] This application seeks the following orders:
  1. An order that the body corporate committee must follow the BCCM Act section s163 and s375A also the Accommodation Module section 208 (b) (i) to issue an s163 Notice directly to Lot 22 when entry is required;[2]
  2. An order that the body corporate cancels invoice dated 10 January 2025 containing references M0000203 and M0000204 in the sum of $204.05 raised against Lot 22 for "Reinspection Fire Door carried out 10.12.2024 and Invoice Fee";
  3. An order that the body corporate remove Lot 22 owners as Second Debtors for invoice M0000203 and M0000204 in the sum of $204.05; and,
  4. An order that the body corporate cannot raise an invoice to Lot 22 for the non s163 notified entry of Lot 22 for a fire door inspection on the 14 November 2024 when entry was denied.

• [8] 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.[3]
• [9] Prima facie, I am satisfied I have jurisdiction to decide this matter under the legislation.[4]
• [10] An issue arises where the applicants are disputing an invoice from the body corporate. An adjudicator does not have jurisdiction to determine a debt dispute,[5] so there is a question as to whether part of this application is about a debt dispute.

• [11] A 'debt dispute' is defined in the Act as a dispute between a body corporate and an owner about the recovery, by the body corporate from the owner, of a debt under this Act.[6] For there to be a debt dispute, there needs to be an amount owing under the Act. If an amount claimed is not owed under the Act, a dispute about the amount will not be a debt dispute.[7] If the body corporate cannot lawfully invoice the applicants for the disputed amount, there will be no amount owing under the Act. Accordingly, to determine if I have jurisdiction to decide this dispute, I must consider if the invoiced amount was validly owing under the Act.

• [12] The applicants initially applied for conciliation of the dispute in March 2025.[8] The parties participated in conciliation in May but did not reach an agreement.
• [13] This application was lodged on 3 June 2025.
• [14] The Commissioner's delegate sought clarification from the applicants on some aspects of the application.[9] The application was subsequently amended.[10]
• [15] The Commissioner then invited submissions on the application from the committee and all owners.[11] Four submissions were received. The applicants did not avail themselves of the opportunity to inspect and respond to the submissions.[12]
• [16] A dispute resolution recommendation was made referring the file to department adjudication.[13]
• [17] I then investigated the dispute, including reviewing the application and submissions.[14]

• [18] A submission made on behalf of the body corporate opposes the application and refutes various assertions in it. It discusses the history of dispute with the first applicant. Also:
  1. In regard to the entry to Lot 22, it asserts the applicants evicted the GCFP contractor on 14 November after identifying him and allowing him entry to their lot. It asserts that the applicants' reliance on section 163 is flawed because they evicted the contractor because he did not provide a licence or identification rather than the non-existence of an entry notice. It says that the unlawful conditions put on the issue of an entry notice made it unworkable for the body corporate to carry out a mandatory fire door inspection or future mandatory or health and safety inspections.
  2. In regard to the invoice, it asserts that the applicants have contravened the by-laws. It believes it has the right to 'on charge' costs charged for a return visit. It says owners and occupiers were advised of this via the community notices.
• [19] An owner who is a committee member, and escorted the GCFP contractor on 14 November, gives details of the events. They assert the second applicant allowed the contactor in, but he was 'evicted' when he could not produce identification and a licence. They say all residents were given ample notice and reminders of the fire door inspections. They say residents were aware that if the inspection was not permitted, they would be liable for the cost of a revisit. They say the first applicant wants notification but did not do so when on the committee.
• [20] Another owner who is a committee member comments on the conduct of the first applicant.
• [21] Another owner says the applicants owe the amount for failing to allow access for the scheduled inspection. They do not feel it is fair that others have to pay the cost. They say the body corporate must check the fire doors each year for compliance. They assert the applicants are 'playing stupid games' and wasting everyone's time on trivial matters.

• [22] It is evident there is a history of conflict between the first applicant and the committee on a range of matters. But the only issues to consider in deciding the orders sought in this application are the requirements for notice to the applicants before entry to Lot 22, and whether the body corporate validly invoiced the applicants for inspection charges. So, I will only have regard to the submitted material that is directly relevant to that matter.

• [23] Section 163 of the Act gives a body corporate the power to enter a lot or an exclusive use area, by persons authorised by the body corporate, for the purpose of inspecting the need for or undertaking work that the body corporate is required or authorised to undertake. The authorised persons can then enter and remain on the property while reasonably necessary to carry out the inspection or works.
• [24] Except in an emergency, notice of intended entry to a lot must be 'given' to the owner, or to the occupier if the owner does not occupy the lot. Entry can then be 'at a reasonable time' after at least 7 days written notice is given.
• [25] The legislation explains what it means for documents or information such as an entry notice to be 'given'.[15] It can be delivered personally or sent to the person's address for service.[16] Or, if there is an agreement with the body corporate in which the person has nominated some other way for documents or information to be given to them, it can be given to them in accordance with that agreement.
• [26] An owner or occupier may choose to allow entry to their lot or exclusive use area without being given an entry notice in accordance with section 163 of the Act. But except in an emergency, the body corporate has no legal right of entry without an entry notice.
• [27] The power of entry is a statutory right that does not need an adjudicator's order to be effected. An affected owner or occupier is not required to consent to the entry or entry arrangements and cannot impose conditions on the entry. It is an offence to obstruct entry exercised under a valid notice. But a body corporate must act reasonably when exercising its power of entry.[17]
• [28] Where entry is sought to conduct work the body corporate is responsible for (such as the maintenance on common property), or an inspection to ascertain the need for work (for example, to check the condition of something the body corporate is responsible for) the body corporate would normally need to have passed a valid resolution resolving to undertake that work or inspection. In addition, the body corporate should have passed resolutions authorising the persons intended to enter the lot and to issue the required entry notices.
• [29] The legislation does not specify what must be included in an entry notice. But having regard to its statutory obligation to act reasonably, ideally a body corporate would include as much information as possible to inform the owner or occupier of the details of the entry.

• [30] A contractor, purportedly authorised by the body corporate, sought to enter Lot 22 on 14 November to inspect the fire door. It is not disputed that no specific entry notice was given directly to the applicants about that entry.
• [31] There does not appear to be any dispute that the body corporate needs to have fire doors routinely inspected to meet its statutory maintenance obligations. However, it cannot rationally be said that a routine fire door inspection constituted an emergency. The fact that the check is mandatory and may have been overdue does not of itself amount to an emergency.
• [32] I have not been given evidence of the body corporate's resolution to engage GCFP, or that it explicitly authorised GCFP or its staff to enter Lot 22 (or any other lot), or that it resolved to issue an entry notice to the owners or occupiers of Lot 22 (or any other lot).
• [33] The body corporate appears to believe fire door inspections do not require an entry notice. That is incorrect. It is immaterial to the operation of section 163 of the Act that the body corporate has an obligation to undertake the inspection or work. In fact, the power of entry only exists for work or inspections the body corporate is required or authorised to undertake.
• [34] The body corporate also appears to believe that placing notices or reminders on notice boards or other public places, or referring to inspections in meeting minutes, is sufficient. It is not. There is no reason a body corporate cannot put notices in such places. But to enliven the statutory power of entry (except in an emergency) a notice must be given to the owner or occupier. And that requires it being given directly to the person or to their address for service unless the person has explicitly agreed to some other means of receiving notices. The fact that public notices may have been used or accepted in the past is immaterial.
• [35] The body corporate refers to a by-law that applied at the time of the attempted entry which required notices placed on common property to be observed. But by-laws cannot conflict with or override the Act.[18] The inclusion of any such by-law does not override the statutory obligation on the body corporate to give notice if it wants to exercise a power of entry.
• [36] I am satisfied the body corporate did not give the applicants a valid notice of entry to Lot 22 on 14 November 2024. It follows that while the applicants could have chosen to permit entry to their lot on that date, there was no statutory right to enter the lot. In those circumstances, refusing entry, or requiring the body corporate's contractor to leave Lot 22, could not constitute an obstruction of the contactor under the Act or the by-laws.
• [37] If they had been given proper notice of the inspection on 14 November, the applicants could not have denied entry to the GCFP contractor because they did not have identification or a licence. But where they were not given a proper notice, they were entitled to do so (either immediately, or after initially allowing entry). It is immaterial that the purported reason for the refusal of entry at the time was the lack of identification and licence rather than the lack of notice. Because there was no valid notice, there was simply no right of entry.
• [38] I note the applicants cannot dictate the time when an entry to Lot 22 can occur, or otherwise impose conditions of entry. But entry must be 'at a reasonable time'. And if the applicants make requests about the entry arrangements to accommodate genuine needs, and can substantiate the basis for those requests, the committee must consider whether there is a reasonable basis (and not just the history of conflict) to warrant refusing those requests.

• [39] On 10 January 2025 the applicants were given an invoice in the amount of $204.05 (including GST). This included the amounts of $181.50 for the fire door reinspection (reference M0000203) and $22.55 for an 'invoice fee' (reference M0000204).
• [40] The body corporate appears to believe it can recover any of its costs from owners and occupiers where it considers that appropriate or the cost attributable to the actions of the owner or occupier. However, that is not correct.
• [41] The power of a body corporate and its committee to make decisions and take action is limited by its statutory functions.[19] Regardless of what it considers fair or justifiable, a body corporate is only empowered to impose fees or pass on costs to owners or occupiers if there is a specific legislative power to do so.[20] And generally a body corporate cannot purport to impose fees and charges by way of a by-law.[21]
• [42] In this case I am unable to identify any statutory basis for the body corporate to pass the cost of the original or rescheduled fire door inspections in 2024 on to the applicants.
• [43] The inspections were apparently sought pursuant to the body corporate's statutory maintenance obligations.[22] Prima facie, the body corporate is responsible for the costs of maintenance it is required to undertake and inspections it considers are needed to ascertain whether something it is responsible for is in good condition.
• [44] If the applicants had caused or contributed to damage to or deterioration of a fire door on their lot, necessitating the body corporate to incur expenditure to ensure the door was maintained in good condition, the body corporate could have recovered the reasonable cost of the required maintenance from the applicants as a debt.[23] But there is no suggestion that the original or rescheduled inspections were organised because of any damage or deterioration of the fire door attributable to the applicants. Rather, it is clear they were routine inspections.
• [45] If the applicants had an obligation under the legislation, CMS or a statutory notice or order to undertake work on the fire door and had failed to do so, the body corporate could potentially have resolved to undertake that work and recover the reasonable cost of doing so as a debt.[24] But there was no statutory notice or order requiring the applicants to do anything in this case, and no identified obligation on the applicants under the legislation or CMS to obtain an inspection of the fire door. And it is questionable if an inspection would constitute 'work'.
• [46] If the applicants had breached their obligations under the legislation or the CMS, and that breach had caused damage to common property, an adjudicator could make an order that the applicants repair the damage or reimburse the body corporate for the cost of the repairs.[25] But aside from any question of any breach of the legislation or by-laws (which it is not necessary for me to decide here), there is no evidence that the fire door was damaged. The amount charged by the body corporate was not for repairs. In any event, the body corporate did not obtain an adjudicator's order that the applicants pay the invoiced amount.
• [47] Given my findings above, the need for the inspection of the Lot 22 fire door arose because of the body corporate's failure to give the required notice and not a failure of the applicants to meet their statutory obligations. But even if the applicants had unlawfully obstructed entry to their lot, I am satisfied the body corporate had no legal basis to pass the cost of the rescheduled inspection onto the applicants.
• [48] Moreover, even if the body corporate had some legal authority to charge the reinspection fee of $181.50, I do not consider it could charge the administrative fee of $22.55. The fee presumably arises from the cost of the body corporate or its body corporate manager (BCM) arranging a contractor, issuing an entry notice, and/or issuing the invoice. A body corporate's administrative costs are met by contributions levied on all owners. It may be the BCM's contract of engagement allows it to charge a fee for additional administrative tasks of that nature. But that engagement is between the body corporate and the BCM. Owners and occupiers are not party to that engagement. The fees for services delivered under the BCM's engagement are the responsibility of the body corporate. The body corporate and its BCM have no authority to pass such administrative charges onto individual owners and occupiers.[26]

• [49] The applicants first seek an order that the committee must follow the legislation and issue an entry notice directly to Lot 22 when entry is required. I agree that if the body corporate seeks entry to Lot 22 it must issue a proper entry notice directly to them in accordance with section 163 of the Act unless it is a genuine emergency. The applicants will be entitled to refuse entry if a proper notice has not been issued and it is not an emergency.
• [50] I do not consider there is any difficulty with the committee being named in the order sought. The applicants have appropriately named the body corporate as the respondent.[27] But it will necessarily be the committee, as the administrative arm of the body corporate, who is responsible for giving entry notices when they are required.[28]
• [51] However, the first order sought appears to be simply a declaration of the body corporate's obligations under the legislation. Where the order sought only states what the body corporate must do in any event, the applicants have not established the utility of the order. The applicants suggest that the body corporate has regularly failed to give entry notices in the past, and that its published statements suggest it may fail to do so in future. However, it appears the body corporate has given the applicants entry notices for subsequent inspections. In any event, the body corporate should be in no doubt now from the reasons for this decision that it must continue to give notices in every instance if it seeks to enforce a power of entry. Accordingly, I am not satisfied the first order is required.
• [52] The second order is to cancel the invoice issued on 10 January 2025. The third is to remove the applicants as second debtors for the invoice. The applicants do not clearly explain the need for two orders. I am unclear why they need to be removed from the invoice if the invoice is cancelled. I consider it should be sufficient to require the body corporate to cancel the invoice and remove the improperly invoiced amount of $204.05 from the applicants' account.
• [53] The fourth order sought is essentially that the body corporate cannot invoice the applicants for the denied entry on 14 November 2024. Although that should be apparent from these reasons and the cancellation of the invoice, for the avoidance of doubt I will make an order that the body corporate is not entitled to charge the applicants for the cost of the attempted entry to Lot 22 on 14 November 2024 or the rescheduled entry.

• [54] I am satisfied the body corporate did not give the requisite notice of entry to the applicants to enable its contractor to enter Lot 22 on 14 November 2024. Given the lack of proper notice, the applicants had no obligation to allow entry to their lot on that date. Moreover, even if a valid notice of entry had been given, the body corporate was not entitled to invoice the applicants for the cost of the original or the rescheduled the fire door inspection. As the amount charged was not an amount owing under the Act, this application is not about a debt dispute. I will make orders confirming that the body corporate was not entitled to pass on the costs of entry and requiring the issued invoice and any associated debt to be cancelled.
• [55] It is unfortunate that all owners will bear the cost of the rescheduled entry. However, that is a consequence of the body corporate's failure to comply with the legislative requirements for entry to a lot. The body corporate must ensure it follows the statutory procedures for future inspections and if it otherwise seeks access to lots, although I do not consider an order to that effect is currently necessary. More broadly, I would encourage the body corporate to take care only to act within its statutory powers.

[1] Application 0667-2025; Thirty Four Riverwalk [2025] QBCCMCmr 349

[2] It is tolerably clear from the submitted material that the reference to 's375A' of the Act was a typographical error (there being no such section) and that the intended reference was to section 315A of the Act.

[4] See sections 227, 228, 276 and Schedule 5 of the Act

[7] The Body Corporate for The Grove CTS9356 v Comerford [2019] QCATA 172

[15] Section 315A of the Act and section 208 of the Accommodation Module

[16] See section 206 of the Accommodation Module for an address for service.

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

[20] See for example Chevron Renaissance [2020] QBCCMCmr 358

[22] Section 170 of the Accommodation Module

[23] Section 170(5) and (6) of the Accommodation Module

[24] Section 202 of the Accommodation Module

[26] See the discussion in Lenvilla [2018] QBCCMCmr 146

[28] Noting, pursuant to section 100 of the Act, that a decision of the committee is a decision of the body corporate unless it is on a restricted issue.