21st Avenue Apartments [2001] QBCCMCmr 141 (8 March 2001)

P J HANLYREFERENCE: 0703-2000

ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 10 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	4661
Name of Scheme:	21st Avenue Apartments
Address of Scheme:	140 Bundall Road BUNDALL QLD 4217

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

Nevenka Kevic, the owner of lot 32



I hereby order that, within 1 month of the date of this order, the body corporate shall pay to Nevenka Kevic, the owner of lot 32, the sum of $160.00 to reimburse her for the cost of work performed on the tiled balcony of her lot.




STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0703-2000

“21st Avenue Apartments” CTS 4661

The applicant, Nevenka Kevic, the owner of lot 32, has sought the following order of an adjudicator under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (the Act), quote -

To advocate for me - reimburse payment for balcony tiles

Claim is now still total $160.00

Section 223(1) of the Act 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 she had body corporate approval to seal and tile her balcony floor. The applicant further states that after she had had the work carried out, a tradesperson employed by the body corporate carried out work on her balcony to seal it. The applicant was away on holidays at the time the work was performed. The applicant contends that this work was unnecessary as she had already had her balcony sealed and tiled. The applicant confirms that she was informed in writing by the body corporate that all of the unsealed/untiled balconies were to be sealed, however, she naturally assumed that this did not apply to her balcony as it did not fit that description.

The body corporate committee was invited to respond to the application. No response was received. On 5 March 2001 a member of the Commissioner’s staff contacted the body corporate manager to enquire if the committee intended to lodge a submission. Mr Nicholson stated that the body corporate was simply awaiting the outcome of the adjudicator’s decision.

I can only assume, in the absence of a reply from the body corporate committee, that the information contained in the application is not challenged. In these circumstances, it would appear that work was carried out on the applicant’s balcony at the behest of the body corporate when it was unnecessary to do so. The applicant has now been put to additional expense to remedy that work. She is out of pocket to the extent of $160.00. I have therefore ordered that within 1 month of the date of this order, the body corporate shall reimburse the applicant in the sum of $160.00.

2n