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

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT - where the body corporate invoiced lot owners for the cost of inspecting their fire door - whether the body corporate was empowered to pass on the cost - COSTS - whether costs should be awarded.

Act, ss 94, 100, 270, 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 inspection of the Lot 22 fire door on 14 April 2025, or associated administrative fees.
2. The Body Corporate for Thirty Four Riverwalk must cancel the invoice dated 8 May 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 invoice for an inspection at the applicants' Lot 22.
• [2] The applicants say that in 2018 they applied for, and were given without conditions, committee approval to install a digital door viewer on the fire door of Lot 22. They say the door was subsequently inspected by Gold Coast Fire Protection (GCFP) and passed. But in December 2024, GCFP inspected the door again. It reported a digital peep hole in the door and said if the hole was non-compliant, it would need to be replaced. So, it said certification of the peep hole was required before the fire door could be deemed compliant.
• [3] The body corporate wrote to the applicants on 14 January 2025 notifying that the viewer was unapproved and the door was deemed not compliant. It asked the applicants for information about the installation and said if the installation was not justified its contactors would rectify the door at the applicants' cost. It said not to alter the door in the interim.
• [4] However, in a letter dated 2 days before that, the applicants wrote to the committee indicating they were anticipating an issue with the door viewer arising from the inspection. So, they said they had removed the digital door viewer, and refitted the original glass and metal viewer.
• [5] On 19 February 2025 the applicants were given a notice for GCFP to enter Lot 22 on 6 March to assess the compliance of the fire door following the replacement of the door viewer and saying the applicants would be responsible for the cost. On 24 February the applicants saw the GCFP contractor at the scheme and asked that he check the fire door. They say the contractor advised it was compliant. The applicants told the committee that. However, the body corporate proceeded with the inspection (later postponed to 14 April).
• [6] The body corporate invoiced the applicants $204.05 on 8 May 2025, being the cost of the inspection and an administration fee. The applicants say a reasonable committee would have cancelled the inspection and the body corporate had no power to charge them for it. They challenged the invoice but say the committee refused to meet or discuss the issue.
• [7] The question in this application is the power to invoice the applicants. I have determined it concurrently with another about a different fire door inspection fee charged to the applicants.[1]

• [8] 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.
• [9] This application seeks the following orders:
  1. An Order that the body corporate cancels invoice dated 8 May 2025 containing references M0000209 and M0000210 to on-charge Lot 22 owners in the amount of $204.05 for a fire door inspection in relation to a digital fire door viewer when they have no statutory provision to do so.
  2. An Order that there has been no identified damage or deterioration demonstrated by either the body corporate or the Gold Coast Fire Protection (GCFP) Company to Lot 22 fire door therefore the body corporate cannot base their reasons for the issue of the invoice on the Accommodation Module section 170.

• [10] 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]
• [11] Prima facie, I am satisfied I have jurisdiction to decide this matter under the legislation.[3]
• [12] 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,[4] so there is a question as to whether part of this application is about a debt dispute.
• [13] 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.[5] 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.[6] 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.

• [14] The applicants initially applied for conciliation of the dispute in June 2025.[7] The parties participated in conciliation in July but did not reach an agreement.
• [15] This application was lodged on 7 July 2025.
• [16] The Commissioner invited submissions on the application from the committee and all owners.[8] Three submissions were received. The applicants did not avail themselves of the opportunity to inspect and respond to the submissions.[9]
• [17] A dispute resolution recommendation was made referring the file to department adjudication.[10]
• [18] I then investigated the dispute, including reviewing the application and submissions.[11]

• [19] 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 and the related application. It says the applicants give no legal basis to support the orders sought and must do more to discharge its onus of proof that to merely argue the body corporate has no statutory authority to do something. Its submissions most relevantly include:
  1. The applicants installed a non-compliant and unapproved digital door view in a common property fire door, then removed and replaced it with another unapproved viewer that they claim was installed when they acquired their lot. They have provided no cogent evidence to support their claims and it does not have record of the approvals.
  2. The applicants failed to provide details about the digital viewer including whether it met Australian Standards. They were asked not to alter the fire door when it was failed.
  3. The applicants admit interfering with the common property fire door without approval. They provided no evidence the reinstalled viewer would meet the Australian Standards.
  4. The applicants interfered with an authorised GCFP contractor who was working on another lot, likely to avoid the cost of the scheduled inspection.
  5. The applicants have provided no evidence to support their request for an order that no damage or deterioration of the fire door has occurred. It says it does not rely on section 170 of the Accommodation Module.
  6. It always acts in a fair and reasonable matter. It believes its decisions appropriately protect all owners and do not acquiesce to the unrelenting demands of the applicants.
  7. The applicants state, without reference to any specific legislation, that the body corporate does not have statutory authority to issue the invoices.
  8. The applicants breached the by-laws by installing an unapproved digital viewer, removing it, and installing another unapproved viewer. The contravention of the by-laws supports its view that damage was done to the fire door.
  9. It acknowledges that other lots have door viewers but says no other lot has a digital door viewer and none have failed post installation inspections.
  10. It does not assess compliance with fire doors. That authority rests with the contractor.
  11. Having regard to the reasons for a previous order, it requests consideration of section enabling an application to be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or without substance and to award costs.
• [20] Two owners who are committee members made submissions commenting on the conduct of the first applicant and the circumstances. They dispute assertions in the application and refer to issues in the related application. One disputes that the applicants had approval to install the digital door viewer or that there was previously a metal viewer. They argue the applicants breached several by-laws. Both submissions note the applicants were informed after the inspection in December 2024 that the door had failed the inspection and not to touch it. They note the further inspection was to confirm the compliance of the substituted door viewer, as the committee was not qualified to assess that. One says the applicant would have been aware of the compulsory need for the inspections and the penalty to the body corporate of not complying with the legislation. The other notes the return GCFP visits resulted in additional charges and refer to section 281 of the Act as a basis for the reimbursement of costs. They note that if GCFP had quoted to replace the digital door viewer, as had been intended, the cost to the applicants would have been higher. They say the applicants have provided no objective evidence to support their application. They argue the body corporate is not responsible for the cost of maintaining or removing non-compliant fixtures or fittings, but had an obligation to carry out the necessary work to effect compliance. They argue the application should be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, misconceived and without substance.

• [21] It is evident there is a history of conflict between the first applicant and the committee on a range of matters. But the only issue to consider in deciding the orders sought in this application is 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.

• [22] On 8 May 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 on 14 April (reference M0000209) and $22.55 for an 'invoice fee' (reference M0000210).
• [23] I consider it is immaterial to the substantive issue in this application whether there was an original metal and glass door viewer in the Lot 22 fire door that was ever approved by the body corporate, whether the body corporate authorised the installation of the digital door viewer in 2018, or whether the body corporate approved the installation or reinstatement of the metal and glass door viewer in January 2025. If the body corporate asserts the applicants breached the legislation or by-laws by any of their actions in relation to the fire door, it would need to pursue that separately. It is also currently immaterial whether the fire door was previously deemed to be compliant with the digital door viewer. The only current question is the invoice.
• [24] Where applicable my reasons in this regard reflect those in the related application.
• [25] 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.
• [26] The power of a body corporate and its committee to make decisions and take action is limited by its statutory functions.[12] 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.[13] And generally a body corporate cannot purport to impose fees and charges by way of a by-law.[14]
• [27] In this case, I am unable to identify any statutory basis for the body corporate to pass the cost of the April 2025 fire door inspection on to the applicants.
• [28] 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.[15]
• [29] Where the applicants informed the body corporate of an alteration to the fire door (being the replacement of the digital door viewer in January 2025), it was certainly open to the committee to arrange a contractor to inspect the fire door to ensure it was compliant. In doing so, the committee should have specifically resolved to engage the contractor, to authorise the contractor to enter Lot 22, and to issue an entry notice for the inspection time. Alternatively, it could have asked the applicants to obtain and provide a report confirming the door was compliant following the alteration to the door viewer.
• [30] When the applicants advised that GCFP had said the Lot 22 door was compliant, it may be understandable that the committee did not take their word for it. It was arguably open to the committee to decide to proceed with the scheduled inspection. That said, it is not clear to me why the committee did not simply contact GCFP to ascertain if the reported advice was correct rather that proceeding to incur what may have been unnecessary further costs. In any event, in the absence of any submissions to the contrary, I assume GCFP concluded the fire door is compliant at the April inspection.
• [31] 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 (such as repairs) from the applicants as a debt.[16] But while there may have been an unauthorised alteration to the fire door (and I make no finding on that point), I have been given no evidence of actual damage to it or of repairs to damage. Moreover, the body corporate specifically submits it did not pass on the cost of the inspection on that basis.
• [32] 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.[17] 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'..
• [33] 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.[18] 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 again no evidence that the fire door was actually 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.
• [34] Notwithstanding that the applicants altered the fire door to Lot 22 in January 2025, I am satisfied the body corporate had no legal basis to pass the cost of the April 2025 inspection of the fire door onto the applicants.
• [35] Moreover, even if the body corporate had some legal authority to charge the inspection 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.[19]

• [36] The applicants seek an order that the invoice of 8 May 2025 be cancelled. I am satisfied on the evidence that the body corporate had no power to invoice the applicants for this amount. I am satisfied that an order to that effect is warranted.
• [37] The applicants also seek an order that there is no identified damage or deterioration to the fire door identified by the body corporate or GCFP which would enable the body corporate to rely on section 170 of the Accommodation Module as a basis for invoicing them. Certainly, I have been given no evidence or deterioration of the fire door. However, the body corporate asserts that section 170 of the Accommodation Module was not the basis for the invoice. Accordingly, where I am satisfied that an order to cancel the disputed invoice is warranted, I do not consider that the further declaration sought by the applicants is necessary.

• [38] As discussed in a previous order,[20] the Act provides that an adjudicator may dismiss an application if satisfied the application is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or without substance.[21] If an application is dismissed on that basis, the adjudicator can award costs (up to a maximum of $2,000) incurred by a party for loss arising from the application.[22]
• [39] The body corporate appears to assert the applicants are trying to frustrate and obstruct it and refers to this provision. It appears to seek an award of costs although it does not indicate what losses it has incurred in responding to this application.
• [40] I do not consider an order under this provision is warranted in this matter. While the body corporate may feel frustrated by the applicants, I consider the substantive basis for this application is correct and the applicants have largely been successful. There is no basis to dismiss the application or award costs.

• [41] I am satisfied the body corporate did not have the power to pass onto the applicants the cost of the inspection of the Lot 22 fire door that it arranged on 14 April 2025. 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.
• [42] The body corporate should ensure in future that it only invoices owners and occupiers when it has the statutory authority to do so.

[1] Application 0516-2025; Thirty Four Riverwalk [2025] QBCCMCmr 348

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

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

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

[15] Section 170 of the Accommodation Module

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

[17] Section 202 of the Accommodation Module

[18] Pursuant to section 281 of the Act

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

[20] Thirty Four Riverwalk [2024] QBCCMCmr 29

[22] Sections 270(3) and (4) of the Act