Roma Court [2000] QBCCMCmr 7 (12 January 2000)

P G DanielsREFERENCE: 0590-1999

ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 10 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	14009
Name of Scheme:	Roma Court
Address of Scheme:	50 Railway Street SOUTHPORT QLD 4215

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

Frankie So, the Owner of lot 1

P G DanielsI hereby order that the application for an order:

To explain why my unit has been given a very high maintenance contribution, a letter was forwarded to the chairman of the committee (Mr. E Laughlin) and received no response, copy of letter enclosed.

is dismissed.1n

STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0590-1999

“Roma Court” CTS 14009

The applicant Frankie So, the Owner of lot 1, has sought an order of an adjudicator under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (the Act) that:

Explains why my unit has been given a very high maintenance contribution, a letter was forwarded to the chairman of the committee (Mr. E Laughlin) and received no response, copy of letter enclosed.

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)).

In the supporting grounds, the applicant states that he purchased lot 1 for investment purposes in 1995. He received a Notice of Contribution in 1998 in the sum of $480 with a discount applying if he paid by the due date. The contribution related to a six month period from 1 October 1998 to 31 March 1999. He subsequently received a Notice of Contribution dated 20 August 1999 that required payment of $600 with no discount for early payment. This notice related to the six month period 1 October 1999 to 31 March 2000. The amount of $600 is broken into $520 for the Administrative Fund and $80 for the Sinking Fund. The second notice required payment of $120 more than the first notice with no discount for early payment. The increase of $120 related solely to an increase in the administrative fund budget.

The applicant forwarded a letter to the Chairman of the Body Corporate seeking an explanation for the increase in the contribution. The applicant states he received no response to the letter. However, the Body Corporate Manager has provided me with a copy of a letter dated 9 September 1999 that was sent by the Manager to Mr So in response to his original letter.

The reason for the increase in the contribution is that the Administrative Fund budget for the year 1999-2000 has increased from the previous year. Contributions are set based on the Administrative Fund and Sinking Fund budgets. I have been provided with a copy of the Administrative Fund budget. It details the increase in cost of various items. I suggest that the applicant examine the budget. He will be able to see why the budget was increased.

The minutes of the Annual General Meeting on 22 April 1999 show that contributions were set based on the Administrative Fund and Sinking Fund budgets.

The applicant stated in his letter to the Chairperson that he pays nearly double the contributions that other lot owners pay. This is not correct. The amount of contribution that is paid by each lot owner in a Body Corporate directly relates to the contribution entitlement for each lot. The entitlements for each lot are provided in the building units plan that was registered with the titles office. The plan shows that each lot for this scheme has an entitlement of 3 except for the applicant’s lot which has an entitlement of 4. The applicant pays 1↓ the contribution of other owners in the Body Corporate.

I am enclosing with these reasons a copy of the annual general meeting minutes of 22 April 1999 and the administrative fund and sinking fund budgets that were approved. The applicant can examine these documents.

I will dismiss the application. The applicant has been provided with reasons for the increase in his contribution.1n