Number One Armina [2003] QBCCMCmr 13 (9 July 2003)

Number of Scheme:	26544
Name of Scheme:	Number One Armina
Address of Scheme:	1 / 19 Mulberry Parade TUGUN QLD 4224

TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to an application made under the abovementioned Act by Francis Hugh Smith and Terais Mae Smith, the Owners of lot 1

I hereby order that the owner of lot 2, Herbert Grahame Wicks, shall within 2 months of the date of this order, pay to the applicants, Francis Hugh Smith and Terais Mae Smith, the sum of $466.40 being his share of the building insurance for the years ending 16 December 2001 and 16 December 2002.

STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0029-2003

"Number One Armina" CTS 26544

The applicants, Francis Hugh Smith and Terais Mae Smith, have sought the following order of an adjudicator under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (the Act), quote:

Order for lot 2 to pay his half share for house insurance for both years.

Section 276(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 the Act or the community management statement; or

(i) the engagement of a person as a body corporate manager or service contractor for a community titles scheme; or

(ii) the authorisation of a person as a letting agent for a community titles scheme.

An order may require a person to act, or prohibit a person from acting, in a way stated in the order (section 276(2)). An adjudicator's order may contain ancillary and consequential provisions the adjudicator considers necessary or appropriate (section 284(1)).

In the supporting grounds, the applicants stated that a meeting was held in November 2000, at which the owners of lots 1 and 2 reviewed the insurance policy and agreed to insure with RACQ. The cost of the premium was paid equally by the owners of lots 1 and 2. However, the applicants stated that since that time, the owners of lot 2 have refused to pay their half of the insurance as and when it has become due, and therefore the applicants have paid the whole amount themselves, and now seek reimbursement of half of those costs by the owners of lot 2. The applicants provided background information in support of their claim, including copies of the renewal notices for each of the years in question.

The owners of lot 2 were invited to respond to the application. Mr Wicks lodged a submission in which he stated that he had no objection to paying his fair share of the outgoings, but complained that he had not been given the opportunity to fully discuss the insurance issue with the applicants. Mr Wicks further stated that he had been given an insurance quote which was lower than that obtained by the applicants, but the applicants were not prepared to consider insuring with that company.

The applicants replied to Mr Wicks’ submission.

I conducted a teleconference with Mr Smith and Mr Wicks on 3 July 2003. Mr Wicks confirmed that his wife had recently passed away after a long illness. I note that Mr and Mrs Wicks had jointly owned lot 2. In light of Mrs Wicks’ passing, Mr Wicks is now the sole owner of that lot.

During the course of the teleconference Mr Wicks acknowledged that it was necessary for the building to be insured, and agreed that, although he had not paid his share of the premium for the past two years, he would have accepted any insurance monies payable to him had an insurable event occurred to the property during the period in question. I advised Mr Wicks that I intended to order that he reimburse Mr Smith for his share of the premium paid by Mr Smith for the previous two years, but stated that I would allow him two months within which to do so. I also recommended that Mr Smith and Mr Wicks allow sufficient time before the next insurance renewal was due in December 2003 to make their own enquiries as to more suitable insurance. They both agreed that they would do so, and liaise with each other as to their findings.

The issue of body corporate meetings was also raised. I pointed out that the body corporate is required to hold an annual general meeting, at which budgets must be approved, body corporate levies must be set, and any other motions proposed by owners within the requisite time frame must be considered. I have attached to this order copies of information pamphlets which may be of assistance to the parties in this regard.

Further information may also be obtained from the Information Service offered by the Commissioner’s office, on FREECALL 1800 060 119.

Queensland Body Corporate and Community Management Commissioner - Adjudicators Orders

Number One Armina [2003] QBCCMCmr 13 (9 July 2003)