Apartments Riviera [2008] QBCCMCmr 34 (1 February 2008)

Number of Scheme:	26953
Name of Scheme:	Apartments Riviera
Address of Scheme:	177 - 179 Mitchell Street NORTH WARD QLD 4810

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

I hereby order that the body corporate may spend the sum of $6,479 inclusive of GST for the work described in the quotation no. 2168SW Part B dated 21^st January 2008 from Contract Building Services and to be performed by that company.

This is an application dated 21^st January 2008, but amended and received at this Office on 24^th January 2008, by the body corporate for Apartments Riviera CTS 26953 (the body corporate) for an order that the body corporate might be allowed to spend the sum of $5,890 plus GST ($6,479.00) for emergency waterproofing work.

“Apartments Riviera” Community Titles Scheme 26953 is a community titles scheme governed by the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (the Act) and the Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 1997 (Standard Module). There are 15 lots in the scheme created under a Building Unit Plan of subdivision.

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)).

Section 103(1)(c) Standard Module gives an adjudicator power to authorise the committee to spend above its relevant spending limit if the adjudicator is satisfied that the spending is required to meet an emergency.

The body corporate advises that there was an extraordinary general meeting held on 14^th December 2007 at which a quotation from Contract Building Services (CBS) for rectifying waterproofing work to the blockwork and roof at a cost of $22,583.00 inclusive of GST was approved by a vote 5 – 1. The work covered the front and the side of the building.

Representatives of CBS inspected Lot 15 in mid-January and found on further inspection, there was evidence of water penetration also to the rear of the building. Whilst CBS can see where the water is getting in at the front and sides of the building, “it can only envisage that the water is entering the same as the front” at the rear of the building. This was not apparent until the recent heavy rains. There was an on-site meeting on 21^st January 2008 between representatives for CBS and lot-owners Bob Vane, Lee Millar, Darren and June Ginns, and Kerry and Lesley Walls, as well as the body corporate manager.

CBS propose that, at the same time as effecting waterproofing to the front, it seals the floor and wall junction and floor and wall of the blue balcony at the rear at an additional cost of $5,890 plus GST.

Because of the large sum of money involved and the fact that there are only 15 lot-owners in this scheme, I sought submissions from lot owners, albeit that the time for making submissions was necessarily brief in the circumstances. I asked all lot owners to make any submissions by Tuesday 5^th February.

Robert Vane, Secretary and Karen Vane, co-owners of Lot 2, approve the additional spending, saying that whilst the work is on progress, the second stage should also be done since with a multi-storey building and workplace health and safety issues involved, it will be more expensive to call the builders back again.

Kerry and Lesley Walls, and Melissa Walls, co-owners of Lot 9 strongly support the application whilst they have a contractor “ready to go.”

John Newman, owner of Lot 15 strongly supports the further expenditure, and says that it is paramount that the repairs are completed urgently to avoid further damage to the building. He believes the cost of the additional works is advantageous since the contractor is already on site and ready to begin.

I spoke by telephone to CBS representative Sonia Wilson on 29th January 2008, who advised that CBS intended to start work on the original contract on Monday 4^th February 2008, and that since scaffolding would need to be erected, it needed to know if the spending for the second stage was approved by that time.

This is an application for the authorisation of “emergency spending”, that is, the committee of the body corporate is seeking that it might press ahead with repairs when the cost of those repairs is such that they should be authorised by a general meeting of the body corporate.

The body corporate has already approved the spending of $22,583 at a general meeting held on 14^th December 2007, and the contractor discovered some time during the week 14^th – 18^th January 2008 that further repairs were required, the cost of which would also be above the committee spending limit of $125 x the number of lots in the scheme, being $1,875. The body corporate lodged the application with this Office on 24^th January.

I am somewhat concerned that at the general meeting on 14^th December 2007, there was only one quotation put to the body corporate for the work to be done. In matters where “major spending” is envisaged, that is the cost is going to be more than $250 times the number of lots ($3,570) then section 104(2) Standard Module requires that “at least 2 quotations” for carrying out the work are supplied to lot owners. The exception to this is if it is not practicable to obtain 2 quotations, for example, because there is only one company which performs the services or can do the work. However, if this was the case, then this should have been mentioned in the motion which was put to the meeting.

I understand from the body corporate manager that the contracted company is the only company in Townsville which is capable of performing the specialised work, and no lot owner has objected to the failure of the body corporate to supply at least two quotations.

The current spending also requires two quotations in accordance with the legislation.

However, in the circumstance whereby lot owners have approved the original expenditure, I accept that CBS would now have the best knowledge of the work to be performed and being on-site, would now be able to offer the best price for the second part of the job in hand.

I am concerned that since CBS wish to start on 4^th February that more expense might be caused to the body corporate if I wait for any further submissions to be received. I have received 4 favourable submissions and Mr and Mrs Ginn were at the meeting at which it was decided the additional work must be done. In the light of the fact that I have received no negative submissions to this emergency spending, I am making the order prior to the weekend. I am of the view that any lot owner vehemently against the expenditure would have advised me as soon as hearing of the proposal.

I accept the emergency of the situation, and approve the additional expenditure by the body corporate of $6,479 inclusive of GST for the work described in the quotation no. 2168SW Part B dated 21^st January 2008 from CBS to the body corporate manager.

Queensland Body Corporate and Community Management Commissioner - Adjudicators Orders

Apartments Riviera [2008] QBCCMCmr 34 (1 February 2008)