The strata sector has similar hopes and we are proud to be part of the budget lockdown on 4 June when various stakeholders get the exclusive opportunity to be briefed on the budget before it is released to the public. This is the first time we have been invited to be a part of such a critical discussion and we will ensure that the needs of the strata industry are heard and that budget decisions have positive impact on strata communities.

Having the opportunity to discuss the budget with the treasurer and other stakeholders will not be taken for granted but it is expected when reflecting on the size of the sector in Queensland. Our industry is growing significantly every year, hence it is essential that the people living in strata are represented adequately and that we seek opportunities to connect. Approximately one million Queenslanders live in around 42,000 schemes in more than 390,000 lots. Over two thirds of these are under management of SCA (Qld) members which, in real terms, means we act as an advocate for hundreds of thousands Queenslanders.

There is an undeniable trend towards two main groups that live in strata communities: young people that are just starting their working life and want an easy way of living with low maintenance requirements and short travelling times to major hubs (work, enjoyment, shopping). At the opposite end of the spectrum are retirees who want to enjoy a community lifestyle where common facilities are shared, they are close to a more natural environment and again, – lifestyle options.

The Queensland budget needs to consider these two groups of strata title residents. What the younger generation seeks is proximity to where they work. However as city centres are developed, as is the case with Brisbane, they have to expand to the surrounding suburbs to provide for additional growth. It is great to see the Newman government’s commitment to support this growth, most recently with the ambition to build an underground rail system under the Brisbane CBD and river. The cross river rail project will connect the south with the north and enable faster travel times. This project will be funded by the state and federal governments and the private sector and will boost the economy and support suburban sprawl.

Another initiative that will have an impact on the future of Queensland’s housing sector is the proposed review of how to fund the many outstanding planned projects to flood proof critical infrastructure in many areas. While the current proposal of a flood levy will be without doubt a major burden for many Queenslanders who are already struggling with rising household bills such as electricity, rates and water, the levy bears the potential to help many owners and residents in the long-term.

The 2011 and 2013 floods in Brisbane as well as the cyclones in Northern Queensland have demonstrated the urgent need to prepare better for natural disasters. We cannot continue to face the risk of losing our homes or seeing significant damage. There are still many strata community schemes that are in need of an overhaul of the local infrastructure around them to protect them from natural disasters. Any flood, cyclone or storm causes damage to common property just as much as to the individual lot.

Property owners and residents have been under immense pressure to fund damage repairs and flood mitigation projects. We know of some schemes that had such substantial damage that each owner in the complex had to contribute a special levy above $10,000.00 as the sinking fund does not cover natural disaster expenditure. Consequently, there are most often special levies that have to be raised to put the strata scheme back into a good state of repair of which not every owner has the capacity to pay. This often leads to the delaying of repairs.

The best way to avoid this recurring cycle of costs and the inconvenience of common property being damaged is to take preventative measures. However, prevention comes at a price but the flood levy presents just one solution to mitigate the risk of flooding for future years.

We are excited to see what other positive initiatives the budget is providing for the strata title industry.

Articles are for information and do not necessarily reflect the view of Success Law.

Source: www.accomnews.com.au

QUEENSLAND’S peak organisation representing the body corporate and strata title sector is urging the State Government to take back to the drawing board proposed new legislation which it says will be an administrative nightmare and will cast a question mark over future land ownership and title provisions.

The Queensland Parliament’s Legal Affairs and Safety Committee has asked for feedback on the Liquor and Gaming (Red Tape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendments Bill 2013, which the peak strata organisation, Strata Community Australia, is providing.

The submission tendered by Strata Community Australia strongly opposes the proposed changes to the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 and the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 which seek to diminish the rights of bodies corporate when a constructing authority resumes part of an existing land holding.

The constructing authority is usually the state or local authority authorised by the Act to take land for any purpose, such as the Department of Transport and Main Roads.

“The proposed amendments will assist constructing authorities to finalise their resumption projects sooner, within a very restrictive four-month period,” Simon Barnard, president of SCA (Qld) said.

“The rights of the bodies corporate and unit owners whose land is being acquired will be further diminished. If the amendments are enacted they will disempower bodies corporate and unfairly advantage constructing authorities.”

Currently, when a constructing authority notifies a body corporate that it intends to resume part of the scheme land, the body corporate is required to obtain independent professional advice about how the resumption will affect the lot entitlements at the scheme.

“A tighter time period to obtain professional advice and include all committee members will mean many owners will not even be aware of these impending changes and may miss out on the right to negotiate at all,” Mr Barnard said.

“The amendments propose to remove the body corporate’s entitlement to obtain its own advice. Instead the advice will be provided by a person chosen by the constructing authority and the body corporate will have no opportunity to query or dispute that advice

“It’s our role to make sure bodies corporate are aware of the proposed provisions and understand how they apply. Bodies corporate need to be afforded opportunity to consider their own professional advice about the effect of the resumption on their lot entitlements. Time given to negotiate is essential to uphold bodies corporate rights.”

Articles are for information and do not necessarily reflect the view of Success Law.

Source: www.centraltelegraph.com.au

The state government changed the Anti-Discrimination Act late last year making it legal for accommodation providers to deny people accommodation who they reasonably are working in the sex industry. The legal prostitute, who had been earning $2000 a day, was seeking $30,000 compensation and won her case last year in QCAT. Drovers Rest Motel appealed to the Court of Appeal, which last week unanimously overturned the QCAT appeal decision.

Speaking on behalf of the industry, the Accommodation Association of Australia said the ruling is likely to have broad positive consequences.

“While the focus of the decision was a motel in Moranbah in regional Queensland, there is a strong possibility that a number of other similar claims against accommodation businesses will now no longer proceed,” said the association’s chief executive officer, Richard Munro.

“This removes a lot of uncertainty for operators of accommodation businesses in Queensland – particularly in regional areas – and it means they can return to their principal aim of providing a tourism product that is of the highest possible standard. It has always been the position of the accommodation industry that the responsibility for making the decision about who is able to stay in tourism accommodation businesses should rest with the owner, operator, licensee or manager of the business.

“Pleasingly, the Queensland government has a similar position which was demonstrated by the recent changes that were made to the state’s Anti-Discrimination Act. The swift action by the attorney-general was a significant outcome for tourism and was warmly welcomed by our industry.”

Articles are for information and do not necessarily reflect the view of Success Law.

Source: www.accomnews.com.au

John Chung Ching Chen, who has a level-34 apartment, engaged defamation specialist Julian Miles, QC, for his case in the High Court at Auckland against multimillionaire Peter Francis, Pumpkin Patch founder Sally Synnott, CBD retail businessman Roger Apperley, John Morris, John Carter and others.

Chen took action against residents on the body corporate committee in the 40-level block, considered one of the country’s best, as well as Crockers Body Corporate Management.

This year, he and a disgruntled group with 65 units became concerned about aspects of the tower’s management.
Justice David Collins said the group was aggrieved that the body corporate committee had extended a contract with the building manager for a further five years.

They complained about the budget, questioned fiscal management and the lack of a proper tender process and said the manager’s contract was illegal.

Claims were made that Metropolis residents were paying 33 per cent more than owners of apartments in any other building.

Chen also stood for the body corporate, but a letter circulated last month from the body corporate sparked defamation proceedings.

He claimed it contained untrue and defamatory statements and “false and spurious personal attacks on him”, the judge said.

His application for an injunction to prohibit the defendants repeating the statements was dismissed.

The body corporate said there was nothing defamatory and Chen was “obdurate and litigious”, the judgement said.

The judge outlined Chen’s extensive litigation history which included proceedings brought by his Theta business, which manages other apartment blocks in Auckland.

The body corporate committee members and the manager emailed Metropolis owners on April 12, saying they were having problems with Chen at a meeting.

“Very quickly it became obvious to all of us that Mr Chen’s only agenda is to advance his commercial aspirations which centre on a complete takeover of all aspects of the management of Metropolis …

“There was no interest in hearing anything we had to say. At the end of the meeting we were presented with legal proceedings,” wrote Apperley, Francis, Synnott, Morris, Carter and the manager.

“The issue of the proceedings can only be seen as the beginning of a divisive and litigious management style.”

If such a style became entrenched, Metropolis would be turned into “an undesirable address plagued by disputes” with a “reduction in the quality of life in the building. If this occurs, the likely negative impact on values is obvious”.

The judge said that if Chen truly believed he had been defamed, he had the option of seeking damages and he ruled the defendants were entitled to costs.

Articles are for information and do not necessarily reflect the view of Success Law.

Source: www.nzherald.co.nz