Marlin Coast Industrial Units [2000] QBCCMCmr 10 (13 January 2000)

P G DanielsREFERENCE: 0569-1999

ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 10 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	17170
Name of Scheme:	Marlin Coast Industrial Units
Address of Scheme:	MacPeak Crescent SMITHFIELD QLD 4878

TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to an application made under the abovementioned Act by

Michael Corbell, the occupier of lots 4 and 5

P G DanielsI hereby order that the Body Corporate must remove from the common property a yellow van registration number 705OUX and mazda vehicle that are parked next to each other within two (2) months of the date of this order.1n

STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0569-1999

“Marlin Coast Industrial Units” CTS 17170

The applicant, Michael Corbell, the occupier of lots 4 and 5, has sought an order of an adjudicator under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (the Act) that:

The mazda and yellow van be removed from the premises along with all rubbish left by the previous tenants.

Section 223(1) provides that an adjudicator may make an order that is just and equitable in the circumstances (including a declaratory order) to resolve a dispute, in the context of a community titles scheme, about –

a) a claimed or anticipated contravention of the Act or the community management statement; or

b) the exercise of rights or powers, or the performance of duties, under this Act or the community management statement; or

c) a claimed or anticipated contravention of the terms, or the termination of, or the exercise of rights or powers under the terms of, or the performance of duties under the terms of an engagement contract or an authorisation contract.

An order may require a person to act, or prohibit a person from acting, in a way stated in the order (section 223(2)). An adjudicator’s order may contain ancillary or consequential provisions the adjudicator considers necessary or appropriate (section 230(1)).

The applicant has provided photographic evidence of an old yellow van that is parked on the common property carpark. I am informed by the applicant and the Secretary Pamela Griffiths that the vehicle has been there for at least 1 year.

Both the applicant and Ms Griffiths inform me that there is a mazda vehicle parked next to the yellow van, although I have not been provided with photographic evidence in respect of this vehicle. It appears that this vehicle has been left on the common property for 2 or 3 years.

I am informed that both vehicles are wrecks and have no value.

The applicant has provided no evidence to substantiate his allegation that there is rubbish left on common property. I decline to make an order in respect of this matter without evidence.

I accept that there is a yellow van and an old mazda on the common property and that they have been there for a substantial period of time.

In my view the presence of these vehicles on the common property contravenes section 109(1) of the Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 1997 which provides as follows:

Duties of body corporate about common property—Act, s 114

109.(1) The body corporate must maintain common property in good

condition, including, to the extent that common property is structural in

nature, in a structurally sound condition.

I will make an order that the Body Corporate remove these vehicles. I suggest that the secretary call a Committee meeting so that a decision can be made about what process the Body Corporate will use to remove the vehicles. If there is rubbish on the common property, I also highly recommend that the Committee consider what should be done in respect of its removal. It seems to me that the accumulation of rubbish will be a recurring problem in a commercial Body Corporate. The issue should be addressed by the Committee. Lot owners and occupiers can ask that the Committee consider the matter whenever the problem arises.