ATTACHMENT 1 SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS (BY … · Department of Justice and Attorney General –Report on submissions ... in contrast to the ‘relativity ... • Notes criticism of

Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 Department of Justice and Attorney General – Report on submissions

26 October 2012

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS (BY SUBMITTER)

No. Submission Key points

001 Stephen and Dorothea Baker

• Do not support Bill. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements. • Lot entitlements should not be adjusted retrospectively. • Changes to existing lot entitlements should only be by 100% agreement. • In determining lot entitlement disputes, consideration should be given to the market value of lots, size of lots, number of bedrooms

in each lot, and the height of a lot in the building. • States that QLD model for allocating lot entitlements is not used in other jurisdictions.

002 Erika Dickinson

• Does not support Bill. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements. • Lot entitlements should not be adjusted retrospectively. • Size and location of lot should be considered in determining lot entitlements, the same way council rates are determined.

003 Dennis Atkinson

• Supports the Bill. • Objects to the 2011 reversion process. • States that while his scheme’s lot entitlements have not been changed under the 2011 reversion process, if a change under that

process was to occur it would result in an unaffordable increase to his levies.

004 Michael Corr

• Does not support Bill. • Discusses policy considerations with respect to the allocation of body corporate expenses between lot owners with limited assets

and income, compared to wealthier lot owners with more financial capacity to contribute. • States it is unethical for wealthy purchasers to be able to seek adjustments of existing lot entitlements, which results in conflict and

aggression in the scheme.

005 Peter and Ena Bell

• Do not support Bill. • Discuss policy considerations with respect to the allocation of body corporate expenses between lot owners with limited assets and

income, compared to wealthier lot owners with more financial capacity to contribute. • State that QLD model is not used in other jurisdictions.


26 October 2012

2


006 Lynton Rose

• Supports the Bill. • Regulations under the Act should include a list of items (e.g. garden maintenance) for which the expenditure should be shared

equally between lot owners and a list of items (e.g. external painting) for which the expenditure should be distributed ‘equitably’ (e.g. based on area of external walls of lot).

• Discusses merits of the ‘equality’ principle, in contrast to the ‘relativity’ principle, for allocating lot entitlements. • Prior to 1997, some developers set lot entitlements to suit their commercial interests rather than to reflect a lot’s financial impact on

the shared body corporate expenses. • Notes criticism of the 2011 amendments by key stakeholders. • The 2011 amendments should be repealed entirely to provide for the 1997 Act to be restored. i.e. the relativity principle should be

removed from the Act and lot owners in all schemes should be provided with the ability to seek an adjustment of lot entitlements in accordance with the equality principle.

• Suggests amendments to the new process in the Bill for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements, including imposing stricter timeframes for the process.

007 Janet Heaton

• Supports Bill. • States that 2011 reversion process was flawed and unjust in that it allowed a single lot owner to effectively overturn orders of

specialist adjudicators, tribunals and courts. • Suggests amendments to the Bill to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements.

008 GJ Muller

• Supports Bill. • Expresses support for the ‘equality’ principle for setting contribution schedule lot entitlements (that is, lot entitlements should be

equal except to the extent that it is just and equitable for them not to be equal). • Notes that equality principle allows variations in lot entitlements within a scheme where those variations reflect differences in how

lots impact on body corporate expenses. • Suggests amendments to the Bill to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements.

009 John Hamilton

• Supports Bill • Suggests amendments to Bill to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements. • Notes the financial burden on some lots where ‘equality’ principle was not applied by developers when the scheme was established. • States that 2011 reversion process was grossly unfair, including due to a lack of appeal or review right for lot owners adversely

affected by the reversion process.

010 Peter Curtis

• Supports Bill. • Suggests amendments to Bill to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements. • Also questions whether Bill is sufficiently clear with regard to the obligation of a committee to undertake the reinstatement process

if a request is made by the owner of a lot. • Objects to 2011 reversion process.


26 October 2012

3


011 Ken McCarthy

• Does not support Bill. • Objects to no public consultation prior to introduction of Bill and requests extension to Committee consultation period. • Also requests a review of lot entitlements system under the Act to be conducted by independent review panel. • Objects to the ‘equality’ principle being applied as the basis for allocating contribution schedule lot entitlements; small lot owners

should not be paying the same contributions as large lot owners. • States the Bill will adversely affect the majority of lot owners, particularly owners of small lots. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements. • Considers there is an inconsistency in the application of the interest schedule and contribution schedule lot entitlements where a lot

owner can have a higher interest in the building but an equal contribution to the body corporate expenses.

012 George Friend OAM • Does not support Bill. • Objects to no public consultation prior to introduction of Bill and requests extension to Committee consultation period. • It is unfair for smaller lots to contribute the same amount to shared body corporate expenses as larger lots.

013 Dawn Beveridge

• Supports Bill. • Suggests amendments to Bill to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements. • Objects to 2011 reversion process. • Expresses support for the ‘equality’ principle for sharing body corporate expenses; notes owners all share same common areas.

014 Val Bristow • Does not support Bill. • Expresses concern about impact of uncertainty caused by numerous changes to legislation regulating contribution schedule lot

entitlements.

015 Audrey Jankowski and John Womersley

• Do not support Bill. • Raise concern about contribution schedule lot entitlements applying to amalgamated lots. • Lot entitlements should be allocated in accordance with lot size.

016 David and Margaret Nonamaker

• Do not support Bill. • Lot entitlements should not be adjusted retrospectively. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements. • Raise concern about contribution schedule lot entitlements applying to amalgamated lots. • Lot entitlements should be allocated in accordance with lot size, as is provided for in other Australian jurisdictions and similar to

the way council rates are calculated. • Discuss policy considerations with respect to the allocation of body corporate expenses between lot owners with limited assets and

income, compared to wealthier lot owners with more financial capacity to contribute.


26 October 2012

4


017 Mathilde Kingsley

• Does not support Bill. • Discusses policy considerations in allocation of body corporate expenses between owners of different sized lots. • Compares body corporate contributions with council rates. • States that purchasers who undertake due diligence are disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements.

018 Noel Thompson

• Does not support Bill. • Discusses policy considerations in allocation of body corporate expenses between owners of different sized lots. • States that current system disadvantages people who own smaller lots located on lower floors of a building and that the fairest

system would be for contributions to be based on the size and height of the lot.

019 Gunter Berhart

• Does not support the Bill. • Body corporate expenses should be shared on the basis of the size of a lot, with larger lots paying a higher proportion. • Raises concern about negative impact of Bill on levies and value of smaller and lower level lots, particularly those owned by elderly

people and pensioners. • Raises concern about how contribution schedule lot entitlements apply to amalgamated lots.

020 Rod Spooner • Supports Bill. • Suggests amendments to Bill to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements.

021 Murray Goodman

• Supports policy intention of the Bill. • Suggests that reinstating last adjustment order entitlements should be automatic, to avoid conflict in the scheme (particularly

animosity toward the lot owner who initiates the reinstatement process). • Suggests amendments to the Bill to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements.

022 James Catterall

• Does not support the Bill. • Objects to no public consultation prior to introduction of Bill and short Committee consultation period. • Objects to lot entitlement adjustment orders which benefit the minority and disadvantage the majority. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements. • Notes some recent purchasers of lots have been disadvantaged by a reversion under the 2011 amendments. • Raises concern about contribution schedule lot entitlements applying to amalgamated lots.

023 Jan Borradale • Body corporate contributions should be apportioned in accordance with the relative size of lots included in the scheme.

024 Phillip and Patricia Radcliffe

• Support the Bill. • Note that owners of slightly larger lots do not use common property and body corporate assets more than owners of smaller lots.

025 Herb Mandel • Does not support the Bill. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements. • Lot entitlements as set by developer should not be changed unless all owners agree to the change by resolution without dissent.


26 October 2012

5


026

Trafalgar Towers:

Mr and Mrs Schroder

Prof and Mrs McBride

Mr and Mrs Mohr

Mr and Mrs Edwards

Mr and Mrs Salisbury

• Support Bill. • Suggest amendments to Bill to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements. • Express support for the ‘equality’ principle for setting contribution schedule lot entitlements; any differences in lot entitlements

should only reflect a lot’s different impost on body corporate expenses. Give example that prior to applying the ‘equality’ principle, a 3-bedroom lot in the scheme was required to pay double the levies of a 2 bedroom lot and this was unfair because the 3-bedroom lots did not impose any significant additional cost on the body corporate.

• Suggests there needs to be a mechanism for bodies corporate to resolve disputes about lot entitlements other than by resolution without dissent to avoid one lot owner from being able to veto a decision agreed by the majority of other lot owners.

027 Marilyn Davis • Supports Bill • Suggests amendments to Bill to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements. • Objects to 2011 reversion process.

028 Anna Bronshtein • Does not support Bill. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements. • Argues that lot entitlements should remain in accordance with those set by the developer.

029 Donald Taylor

• Does not support the Bill. • Owners of larger lots (which can accommodate more people) should contribute more to body corporate expenses than owners of

smaller lots. • The Bill will discourage investment in smaller lots. • Lot entitlements should remain in accordance with those set by the developer.

030 Aaron Aldenton • It is inequitable for the original owner (developer) who established the initial lot entitlements for the scheme to later seek an adjustment of the lot entitlements.

031 Phyllis Hudson • Accepts that larger lots contribute more to some expenses than other lots, but considers difference in contributions can be too great.

032 Angelo and Mary Gissara • Support the Bill. • Previous lot entitlements were based on findings of qualified quantity surveyor. • Owners of larger lots do not necessarily use common property any more than other lot owners.

033 Bryan Paddy • Does not support the Bill. • Some lot owners struggle to pay body corporate contributions and should not have to subsidise wealthier lot owners.

034 Martin Clark • Supports the Bill. • Objects to the notion that larger lots on higher floors should contribute a higher proportion to body corporate expenses. • Suggests Bill include stricter timeframes for reinstatement process.


26 October 2012

6


035 Lesley and Jim Vasiliou • Do not support the Bill. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements. • Contributions should be in accordance with lot entitlements at establishment of the scheme, and not subsequently changed.

036 Melanie Robertson • Notes impact for lot owners when lot entitlements (and therefore body corporate contributions) are changed shortly after purchasing the lot.

037 Julanne Enright

• Does not support Bill. • Notes that larger lots can accommodate more people who use common property. • Notes original owner (developer) who set the original lot entitlements has benefited from capacity to adjust lot entitlements though

specialist adjudication process.

038 Pauline Ravaillion • Supports Bill • Suggests amendments to Bill to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements.

039 Rocco and Rosa Mileto • Support Bill. • Note most body corporate contributions are for meeting common property maintenance obligations which are not affected by the

size of individual lots included in the scheme.

040 Philip Long

• Supports Bill. • Suggests amendments to Bill to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements. • Notes limitations of argument that larger lots should contribute more to body corporate expenses; contends that most expenses

incurred by a body corporate and levied on owners to maintain a high rise building are fixed and incurred regardless of the size of the lot and presumptions of occupancy levels (e.g. lift maintenance, caretaker expense, pool and leisure facilities, administrative expense and legal and professional expense).

041 Peter Harford

• Does not support Bill. • Argues that owners of larger lots on higher levels of a building can afford to contribute more to body corporate expenses than those

who own smaller lots on lower levels of the building. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements. • Argues that lot entitlements should remain in accordance with those set by the developer.

042 Aloisia Mangan

• Does not support Bill. • Argues that owners of larger lots on higher levels of a building can afford to contribute more to body corporate expenses than those

who own smaller lots on lower levels of the building. • Contributions to body corporate expenses should be based on market value of property.


26 October 2012

7


043 Alan and Catherine Gill

• Do not support the Bill because it discontinues the 2011 reversion process and provides for last adjustment orders to be reinstated. • Adjustment orders are unfair because they disadvantage lower level and smaller lots. • Suggest five options for amending the Bill to assist those lot owners who were adversely affected by an adjustment order:

1. amend the 2011 reversion process to be ‘fairer’ 2. discontinue the 2011 reversion process but allow changes to lot entitlements under existing reversions to be retained. 3. apply the 2011 reversion process only to lots where the owner was adversely affected and remains the owner of the lot. 4. require the 2011 reversion process to be subject to a resolution passed by, e.g. 80-90% of lot owners. 5. the same as option 2 but when a lot with the ‘reverted’ lot entitlements is sold, the lot entitlements must be changed to what

was decided under the adjustment order.

044 Leo Kalokerinos • Supports the Bill. • Argues that owners share equally in the use of common areas, and the associated costs should also be shared equally.

045 Odile Guiller

• Supports the Bill. • Notes that body corporate contributions are not intended to be used as a wealth distribution tool. • Notes the purpose of body corporate contributions is to meet the costs of maintaining common property, regardless of the size of

lots or wealth of individual lot owners. • Contends that owner-investors should pay higher contributions than owner-occupiers because tenants cause greater impact on the

common property.

046 RB and NJ Armstrong

• Support the Bill. • Owners of larger lots pay more in purchase costs for the larger lot compared to a smaller lot, and also pay additional rates and

contributions for painting and insurance. It is not equitable for the owners of larger lots to pay more than other lot owners for the costs associated with common areas that are shared equally by all lot owners.

047 Ian Hansen • Does not support the Bill. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements.

048 Ginette Thomas • Supports the Bill as it will provide for an adjustment to the scheme’s lot entitlements decided by the Queensland Civil and

Administrative Tribunal to be reinstated. • Adversely affected by the 2011 reversion process after purchasing lot following an adjustment order.

049 Wayne Stevens • Questions the application of new section 411 in the Bill to lots that have been amalgamated. • Considers section 411 is discriminatory because it does not apply to all lots and should therefore be removed.

050 D J Ryan • Supports the Bill. • Objects to the 2011 reversion process. • Suggests amendments to the timeframes for the new process in the Bill for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements.

051 James Higgins • Supports the Bill. • Expresses support for the framework for setting and adjusting lot entitlements prior to the 2011 amendments.


26 October 2012

8


052 Nigel Neaves

• Supports the Bill. • Objects to the 2011 reversion process and notes criticism of the 2011 amendments by key stakeholders. • Expresses support for ‘equality’ principle, arguing it is not fair for owners of larger lots to pay more for the shared costs associated

with building managers, or the garden or pool maintenance costs etc. • Argues the developer set the original lot entitlements inappropriately and unfairly, including to make smaller lots more attractive,

and provides examples. • Suggests the 2011 amendments should be repealed entirely to provide for the 1997 Act to be restored, i.e. the ‘relativity’ principle

should be removed from the Act and lot owners in all schemes should be provided with the ability to seek an adjustment of lot entitlements in accordance with the equality principle.

• Suggests amendments to the timeframes for the new process in the Bill for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements.

053 Ian Leslie and other owners of lots at Magic Mountain Apartments

• Supports the Bill. • Discusses merits of the ‘equality’ principle, in contrast to the ‘relativity’ principle, for allocating lot entitlements. • Prior to 1997 some developers set lot entitlements to suit their commercial interests rather than to reflect a lot’s financial impact on

the shared body corporate expenses. • Notes criticism of the 2011 amendments by key stakeholders. • Suggests the 2011 amendments should be repealed entirely to provide for the 1997 Act to be restored, i.e. the relativity principle

should be removed from the Act and lot owners in all schemes should be provided with the ability to seek an adjustment of lot entitlements in accordance with the equality principle.

• Suggests amendments to the new process in the Bill for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements, including imposing stricter timeframes for the process.

054 Frank and Anna Melit

• Support the Bill. • Object to the 2011 reversion process which increased their levies and reduced the value of their lot. • Banks are requiring some lot owners in their building negatively impacted by the 2011 reversion process to sell their lots. • If the ‘reinstatement process’ in the Bill is undertaken by a body corporate committee, the contributions levied by the body

corporate should be back-dated to 14 September 2012, the day the Bill was introduced into Parliament.

055 Michael McCallum • Supports the Bill. • Objects to the 2011 reversion process. • Lot entitlement adjustment orders were based on expert evidence as to the impact of each lot on shared body corporate expenses.

056 I S Wilkey

• Supports the Bill. • Expresses support for the ‘equality’ principle for allocating lot entitlements. • Notes expenses of some schemes are considerable not because some units are bigger but because there are a number of community

services (pool, gym, function facilities etc) and common property. • Argues that while certainty of body corporate levies is important, it is equally important that levies are equitable.


26 October 2012

9


057 Fred Sorensen and Lyn Weight

• Support the Bill. • Object to the 2011 reversion process which allowed a lot owner to overturn a specialist adjudicator’s adjustment order and resulted

in an increase to their levies and a reduction in the value of their lot. • State the specialist adjudicator who ordered an adjustment to their scheme’s lot entitlements calculated the maintenance cost to each

individual unit and hence came up with fair and equitable contributions for all unit owners. • Purchased lot after specialist adjudicator made an order for an adjustment to the schemes lot entitlements.

058 John Lewis • Does not support the Bill. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements. • States the Bill will result in owners of lower level and smaller lots subsidising owners of higher level and more expensive lots.

059 Judith Hamilton

• Does not support the Bill. • States the Bill is unfair because it would provide penthouse and sub-penthouse owners with substantially lower levies at the expense

of smaller lot owners. • Raises concern about the impact of the Bill on the value and saleability of smaller lots.

060 Denis and Shirley Croft

• Support the Bill. • Suggest amendments to Bill to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements. • State that 2011 reversion process was flawed and unjust in that it allowed a single lot owner to effectively overturn orders of

specialist adjudicators, tribunals and courts. • Express support for the ‘equality’ principle in the Act as a fair and equitable principle for proportioning lot entitlements and sharing

body corporate expenses and suggests the ‘relativity’ principle should be removed from the Act. • Suggest a mechanism for adjustments to lot entitlements should be re-introduced.

061 John Rohrs

• Does not support the Bill. • Discusses policy considerations in allocation of body corporate expenses between owners of different sized lots. • Expresses concern about negative impact of Bill on levies and value of smaller and lower level lots owned by elderly people and

pensioners.

062 Selena Pearce

• Does not support the Bill. • Discusses policy considerations with respect to the allocation of body corporate expenses between lot owners with limited assets

and income, compared to wealthier lot owners with more financial capacity to contribute. • Expresses concern about negative impact of the Bill on levies and value of smaller and lower level lots.


26 October 2012

10


063 R V and A M Hanson

• Support the Bill • Bill will allow their scheme’s lot entitlements to be returned to what was decided was just and equitable by the tribunal. • Discuss policy considerations in allocation of body corporate expenses between owners. • Express support for the ‘equality’ principle for setting contribution schedule lot entitlements. • Dispute the notion that owners of identical units should pay different levies due to location of lot in scheme. • Note owners of smaller lots are often investors.

064 John and Margaret Bayles

• Do not support the Bill. • Raise concern about the negative financial impact the Bill could have on retirees and low to middle income earners (through an

increase to their levies and reduction in value of their lots). • The Committee consultation period is too short. • The Bill will result in smaller lot owners subsidising larger lot owners. • Compares body corporate expenses to a BHP investor with 100 shares paying the same overheads as an investor with 1000 shares.

065 R J Stewart

• Does not support Bill. • Notes that larger lots can accommodate more people who use common property. • Notes original owner (developer) who set the original lot entitlements has benefited from capacity to adjust lot entitlements through

specialist adjudication process.

066 D J Keating • Supports the Bill. • Expresses objection to 2011 reversion process in that it allowed a single lot owner to effectively overturn orders of specialist

adjudicators, tribunals and courts.

067 Jonathon Noonan

• Supports the Bill. • Expresses objection to 2011 reversion process. • Notes a change to their lot entitlements under the 2011 reversion process had a negative financial impact on levies and consequently

negatively impacted on the saleability of the lot. • Owners of larger lots/penthouses do not receive greater benefit or use of common property than other lot owners in the scheme and

therefore should not have higher contribution schedule lot entitlements.

068 John and Mary Nolan

• Support the Bill • Suggest amendments to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements. • Purchased after adjustment order and before 2011 reversion process introduced and argue that purchasers who undertake due

diligence are disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements. • Object to the 2011 reversion process. • Note a change to their lot entitlements under the 2011 reversion process had a negative financial impact on their levies and

consequently negatively impacted on the saleability of their lot.


26 October 2012

11


069 Sandra and Les St Ledger

• Do not support the Bill. • Committee consultation period is too short. • Of the lot owners who may be impacted by the Bill, the majority will be affected negatively (through increased lot entitlements and

therefore increased levies). • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements. • Some committees acted unlawfully by seeking adjustment orders without body corporate approval. • Discuss policy considerations with respect to the allocation of body corporate expenses between lot owners, stating that larger lots

and lots on higher floors should pay proportionally higher levies. • Bodies corporate which have had their lot entitlements reverted to the original setting should be able to vote on whether to reinstate

the last adjustment order entitlements.

070 June Basset

• Does not support the Bill. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements. • Suggests that the lot entitlements for current schemes should remain as they are and objects to the Bill applying to existing schemes

retrospectively.

071 Ron Mclean

• Supports the Bill. • Suggests amendments to Bill to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements. • States that 2011 reversion process was flawed and unjust in that it allowed a single lot owner to effectively overturn orders of

specialist adjudicators, tribunals and courts. • Expresses support for the ‘equality’ principle in the Act as a fair and equitable principle for allocating lot entitlements and sharing

body corporate expenses. • Suggests the ‘relativity’ principle should be removed from the Act. • Suggests a mechanism for adjustments to lot entitlements should be re-introduced.

072 Will and Lucy Lin • Support the Bill. • Own a penthouse and state they are prepared to pay higher levies than other lot owners in the scheme where it is reasonable and fair

for them to do so.

073 Neville and Helen Newnes

• Support the Bill. • Bill will provide for their scheme’s lot entitlements to be changed back to what was decided by a specialist adjudicator to be fair

and equitable. • The pre-2011 process for adjustments of lot entitlements was fair. • Discuss policy considerations with respect to the allocation of body corporate expenses between lot owners, arguing that larger lots

on higher levels do not receive greater benefits from common property and shared services (such as caretaking services) and should not contribute more to shared body corporate expenses.

• Discuss the impact of an adjustment order and the 2011 reversion process on different lot owners in the scheme.


26 October 2012

12


074 Greg Carroll

• Supports the Bill. • Expresses objection to 2011 amendments to the Act in their entirety, including the reversion process. • Lists key stakeholders who opposed the 2011 amendments and notes the former Scrutiny of Legislation Committee’s and the then

Opposition’s criticism of the Bill for the 2011 amendments. • Expresses support for the ‘equality’ principle for setting contribution schedule lot entitlements. • Suggests the Act should not be further amended in relation to adjusting lot entitlements following an amalgamation of two or more

lots or to require contributions to the sinking fund to be based on the interest schedule lot entitlements.

075 Glynn and Jeanette Dougherty

• Support the Bill. • Suggest amendments to Bill to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements. • Object to the 2011 reversion process for allowing a single lot owner in their scheme to effectively overturn an order of specialist

adjudicator for the adjustment of the scheme’s lot entitlements.

076 Helen Klaassen

• Supports the Bill. • Suggests amendments to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements. • Objects to the 2011 reversion process in that it allowed a single lot owner to effectively overturn orders of specialist adjudicators,

tribunals and courts.

077 Graeme and Robyn Armstrong

• Do not support the Bill. • Majority of lot owners will be adversely affected by the Bill. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements. • Raise concern about the impact of increased levies on elderly, low and fixed-income lot owners in smaller lots. • Express a view that larger lots have a higher impact on common property and therefore should contribute a higher amount to the

shared body corporate expenses.

078 Sidney Hunt • Does not support the Bill. • Will be adversely affected by the Bill through increased levies and reduction in value and saleability of the lot. • Objects to subsidising the wealthy through equalised lot entitlements.

079 Anthony Luck • Supports the Bill. • Objects to the 2011 reversion process which resulted in an increase in contributions.

080 Patrick Needham • Expresses support for the ‘equality’ principle, which was the basis for an adjustment to the scheme’s lot entitlements in 2006.

081 Jan Briggs

• Does not support the Bill. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements • Objects to ‘equality’ principle for allocating lot entitlements because large lots impose greater maintenance costs than small lots. • Raises concern about the impact of the Bill on levies and value and saleability of lots for elderly people, pensioners and owners of

small lots. • Objects to no public consultation prior to introduction of Bill and short Committee consultation period.


26 October 2012

13


082 Walter and Margaret McLaren

• Do not support the Bill. • State they conducted due diligence and budgeted for levies when purchasing their lot and it is unfair for penthouse owners to be

able to seek adjustments of lot entitlements after purchase. • Raises concern about the impact of the Bill on levies and value and saleability of small lots. • Questions why body corporate levies are not calculated in the same way council rates are calculated (i.e. by apartment size and

height in building).

083 George Francis and Barbara Anne Mc Veagh

• Do not support the Bill. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements. • Raise concern about situations where not all lot owners are entitled to use common property but are required to contribute to

expenses for the common property. • Express view that lot entitlement adjustments are unfair because they increase costs for small lot owners and decrease costs for

large lot owners.

084 David and Dixie Waite • Do not support the Bill. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements. • Raise concern about the impact of the Bill on levies and value and saleability of small lots.

085 Robert Christie • Supports the Bill. • Expresses support for the ‘equality’ principle for allocating lot entitlements and a process for adjusting lot entitlements. • Objects to the 2011 reversion process.

086 Brett Atkinson

• Does not support the Bill. • Discusses policy considerations with respect to the allocation of body corporate expenses between different size lots, expressing a

view that larger lots should pay much higher proportion of shared body corporate expenses than smaller lots because they can accommodate more people.

• States that more than 70% of lot owners in his building will be disadvantaged by the Bill through increases to body corporate levies and only the highest value lots will benefit from the Bill.

• Objects to short Committee consultation period and requests extension of 3 to 6 months. • Advocates for further review of the lot entitlements framework under the Act by independent review panel.

087 Natwarang Clark • Supports the Bill. • Objects to 2011 reversion process. • Notes the application of the ‘equality’ principle allows a fair, user pays approach to body corporate expenses.

088 Anne Kelly • Supports the Bill.


26 October 2012

14


089 Edgar and Judith Gold

• Support the Bill • Suggest amendments to Bill to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements. • Suggest if the ‘reinstatement process’ in the Bill is undertaken by a body corporate committee that the contributions levied by the

body corporate should be back dated to 14 September 2012, the day the Bill was introduced to Parliament. • Note criticism of 2011 amendments by key stakeholders. • State the lot entitlements set by the developer were “incorrectly based on marketing strategies… instead of actual common area

maintenance costs”. • Express a view that owners of penthouse and higher floor lots are not necessarily wealthy and able to subsidise the costs for lower

level lots.

090 Mike Harris • Supports the Bill. • Supports ‘equality’ principle; provides example of 2 lot owners who have equal access to common property but pay significantly

different body corporate levies.

091 Mabel Hall • Does not support the Bill. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements. • Raises concern about the impact of the Bill on levies and value and saleability of small lots.

092 Audrey Elliot • Supports the Bill. • Argues that larger lots should not contribute a higher proportion to the expenditure relating to common property.

093 Michael and Helen Morgan

• Support the Bill. • Suggest amendments to Bill to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements. • Object to the 2011 reversion process.

094 Michael Beeston • Does not support the Bill. • Questions why there should be a difference between the calculation of body corporate levies and council rates. • Raises concern about the financial impact of the Bill on “tens of thousands of smaller unit owners”.

095 Jeff and Noela Yates

• Support the Bill. • Object to the 2011 reversion process. • Discuss merits of the ‘equality’ principle, in contrast to the ‘relativity’ principle, for allocating lot entitlements. • Suggest the relativity principle should be removed from the Act and only the equality principle be used as the basis for allocating lot

entitlements. • Suggest amendments to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements.

096 Patricia and Peter Pickup • Express a view that lot entitlements should be allocated in accordance with the size and height of a lot in a building.

097 Z L Krawczyk • Supports the Bill • Raises particular concern with the application of new section 411 in the Bill to lots that have been amalgamated.


26 October 2012

15


098 Peter Rau • Supports the Bill. • Suggests amendments to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements.

099 Queensland Association of Body Corporates (QABC)

• Points 1 to 4, 6 and 7 of the submission do not relate to the Bill or lot entitlements, but rather other matters concerning the management and operation of bodies corporate.

• At point 5, QABC express a view that a scheme’s lot entitlements should not be adjusted unless approved by the majority of lot owners.

100 Penelope Reid

• Does not support the Bill. • Argues that adjustment orders are unfair; purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes

in lot entitlements. • Supports the 2011 reversion process which provides for the overturning of adjustment orders. • Suggests that if there are concerns about the 2011 reversion process in respect to the ability for a single lot owner to compel a body

corporate to change the lot entitlements to the pre-adjustment order entitlements, that a different, fairer process be adopted for returning a scheme’s lot entitlements to the pre-adjustment order entitlements.

101 Donald Avery • Does not support the Bill. • Suggests other Australian jurisdictions “have worked out this problem”. • Expresses concern about the “cost” and “worry” the Bill will have for lot owner and the impact on the sale of lots.

102 Kathryn and Garry Sugrue

• Support the Bill. • Suggest amendments to Bill to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements. • Object to the notion that owners of larger lots can afford to pay higher levies. • Express support for the ‘equality’ principle for allocating lot entitlements.

103 Ross Stevens • His body corporate levies increased from $66 per week to $137 per week and are now back to $66 per week and he does not want the levies to change again.

104 Geoff and Pam Cullen

• Support the Bill. • State the 2011 reversion process is flawed. • It is unfair that they have to pay a higher proportion of the shared body corporate expenses when all residents have equal access to

the common property such as the pool, gardens and roadways.


26 October 2012

16


105 Sam and Deborah Terranova

• Do not support the Bill. • Support the 2011 reversion process and argues that the Government should reconsider that process “so that the legislation does not

force owners of smaller lots into a situation that is financially untenable and grossly inequitable”. • The ability for lot entitlements to be changed by an adjustment order has caused major uncertainty and financial hardship for lot

owners. • Lot entitlements should not be able to be adjusted unless agreed to by all lot owners • The ‘equality’ principle is being applied inappropriately to the allocation of lot entitlements, particularly in mixed-use schemes; the

Act should provide clear principles for an adjudicator to consider when deciding an adjustment to a scheme’s lot entitlements on the equality principle such as, for example, lot usage type, size, amenities, and location of lot in the building.

106 Premysl and Eva Vanicek

• Do not support the Bill. • Smaller lots on lower levels should not pay the same contributions as larger lots on higher levels. • The Bill will reduce the contributions of larger lots at the expense of smaller lots and increase the value of larger lots while

decreasing the value of smaller lots.

107 Camillio and Jeanette Manricks

• Support the Bill. • Support the ‘equality’ principle for allocating lot entitlements, with variations to reflect number of people able to live in each lot. • Developer can set lot entitlements to assist sale; this is not a fair basis for sharing costs.

108 Peter and Sandra Cooper • Do not support the Bill. • The Bill will benefit a small number of penthouse/sub-penthouse and large lot owners at the expense of owners of smaller lots who

will be faced with substantial increases to their contributions.

109 Wolfgang Schroeter • Supports the Bill. • Supports the ‘equality’ principle for allocating lot entitlements. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements.

110 Daphne Tunbridge

• Does not support the Bill. • Requests an extension on the consultation period of 3 to 6 months to allow all lot owners, particularly interstate owners, to become

aware of the Bill. • The original lot entitlements set by the developer should remain as the lot entitlements for the scheme. • It is unfair for owners of larger lots on higher levels to seek an adjustment of the lot entitlements because it disadvantages the

owners of lots on lower levels.

111 John and Maria La Motta • Support the Bill. • Support the ‘equality’ principle for allocating lot entitlements.

112 Margaret Park • Does not support the Bill. • It is unreasonable for owners of small lots to pay the same contributions as owners of larger lots on higher levels. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements.


26 October 2012

17


113 John Pearce • Supports the Bill. • Suggests amendments to Bill to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements.

114 Jeff Maclean • Supports the Bill. • Objects to the 2011 reversion process.

115 M Summerville • Supports the Bill. • Suggests amendments to Bill to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements.

116 Peter Holland

• Does not support the Bill. • The Bill, which will provide for lot entitlements to be returned to what was previously decided by a court, tribunal or specialist

adjudicator, will “be a disaster for the bottom and middle end of the market”. • The Bill will result in the smaller lots subsidising the larger lots. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements.

117 William and Barbara Lea

• Do not support the Bill. • The Bill will adversely impact some lot owners through increased contributions and will result in the smaller lots subsidising the

larger lots. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements.

118 John Evans • Supports the Bill. • Contributions should be a calculated to express what should be the responsibilities of a particular lot and not to reflect size, situation

or value.

119 Tony Woolaston • Does not support the Bill. • Discusses the negative impact of an adjustment order for his lot. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements.

120 Lynh Du

• Does not support the Bill. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements. • The original lot entitlements set by the developer should be retained. • It is fair for lot entitlements to be based on lot size, aspect and value. • Raises concern that the Bill will have a negative financial impact.

121 KP and PJ Yarwood • Support the Bill. • Support the ‘equality’ principle. • Object to the 2011 reversion process.


26 October 2012

18


122

Erika Dickinson for Concerned Owners Group – The Pinnacle Apartments

• Do not support the Bill. • Small lots on lower levels should not be contributing the same amount to the shared body corporate expenses as large lots on higher

levels. • Lot entitlements should be allocated on the basis of lot size and height in building, rather than the ‘equality’ principle.

123 John Sutherland

• Does not support the Bill. • Argues that lot entitlements should be allocated on the basis of lot value in the way they were under the previous Act (the Building

Units and Group Titles Act 1980) and the way they are required to be allocated in other Australian jurisdictions. • Many lot owners purchased their lot under the previous (1980) Act, before the ‘equality’ principle and the ability to adjust lot

entitlements was introduced by the 1997 Act, and it is not fair that their lot entitlements could later be changed. • The 2011 reversion process imposed significant administrative burden and costs on some bodies corporate and it is not fair to

require them to undertake the reinstatement process to return the lot entitlement schedules back to the last adjustment order entitlements.

• Pre-1997 schemes should remain under the original lot entitlements set by the developer and post-1997 schemes should have contributions based on the interest schedule (i.e. lot value).

124 Ruth Bonnett

• Does not support the Bill • The reinstatement process should be removed from the Bill because it provides for lot entitlements to be adjusted ‘retrospectively’,

which is a breach of the fundamental legislative principles. • It is unfair that lot entitlements could be adjusted by an order of a specialist adjudicator, court or tribunal when the majority of

owners did not agree to the lot entitlements being adjusted. • Lot owners’ contributions to body corporate expenses should be based on lot size. • The Bill will disadvantage a greater number of lot owners, particularly small lot owners, than it will benefit.

125 Lyn and Paul Skews

• Support the Bill • Suggest amendments to Bill to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements. • Object to the 2011 reversion process. • Express support for the ‘equality’ principle, arguing that larger units do not necessarily impose greater maintenance costs for the

body corporate.

126 Alison and John Armstrong

• Support the Bill. • Reinstating last adjustment order entitlements should be automatic, rather than a process undertaken by the committee. • Object to 2011 reversion process. • Support for ‘equality’ principle.


26 October 2012

19


127 Jim and Mavis Boland

• Support the Bill. • Suggest amendments to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements. • Object to 2011 reversion process. • Support for the ‘equality’ principle. • Owners of larger units on higher levels are not necessarily able to afford higher fees than owners of smaller lots on lower levels.

128 Clare Ramsey

• Does not support the Bill. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements. • Legislative changes to the lot entitlements system should be prospective only. • Raises concern about the impact of the Bill on levies and value and saleability of her lot.

129 Michael Lowry and Peter Rule

• Do not support the Bill. • Argue that lot entitlements should be allocated on the basis of lot size and amenities.

130 Marcia Bounds • Supports the Bill. • If the Bill is not enacted, she and other lot owners will be forced to sell their lots due to high body corporate contributions.

131 Ian McColl • Supports the Bill • Suggests amendments to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements. • Objects to the 2011 reversion process.

132 E. Irwin • Supports application of the ‘equality’ principle for lot entitlements on the basis that each lot in the scheme equally enjoys the same services (for example, lawn mowing and garden maintenance).

133 Voice of Unit Battlers

• Does not support the Bill. • Committee consultation period is too short and should be extended to 12 months. • Advocate for consistency with other Australian jurisdictions. • Bill should amend (rather than replace) 2011 reversion process by requiring lot owners to vote on proposals to adjust lot

entitlements pursuant to the 2011 reversion process. • Concerned about financial impacts of Bill on smaller, lower value lots. • Concerns about impact of amalgamation of lots with respect to contribution schedule lot entitlements.

134 John Huthwaite

• Does not support the Bill. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements. • Legislation should not operate retrospectively. • It is reasonable for owners of larger, more valuable units to pay higher contributions than owners of smaller, less valuable units. • Comparison with council rates. • There was no consultation on the Bill prior to introduction into the Parliament.


26 October 2012

20


135 Robert and Eileen Craig • Support the Bill. • Support ‘equality’ principle on the basis that lot owners have equal use of common property.

136 Peter Fegan • Does not support the Bill. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements. • Any changes to lot entitlement provisions should not apply to existing schemes, and should only apply to new schemes.

137 M Dare • Supports the Bill. • Objects to the 2011 reversion process.

138 D E Hall

• Does not support the Bill. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements. • Tribunals, courts and specialist adjudicators should have taken into consideration all matters relating to lot entitlements, including

that all lot owners who purchased their lot in the scheme agreed to the lot entitlements at the time of purchase. • Original lot entitlements should not be changed retrospectively as all lot owners agreed to the lot entitlements at time of purchase.

139 T F Been

• Supports the Bill. • If the ‘reinstatement process’ in the Bill is undertaken by a body corporate committee, contributions levied by the body corporate

should be adjusted (‘back-dated’) to 14 September 2012, the day the Bill was introduced to Parliament. • Owners of lots used for holiday/short-term letting should contribute more to body corporate expenses because the tenants have a

greater impact on the common property and force the scheme to hire security. • Provides example of how the owners of two similar lots in the scheme pay significantly different contributions to the body

corporate expenses as a result of the 2011 reversion process.

140 V Rose • Supports the Bill. • Objects to the 2011 reversion process.

141 Alma Warren

• Does not support the Bill. • Owners of smaller lots on lower floors should not pay the same contributions to body corporate expenses as owners of penthouses

and other larger lots on higher floors. • People on pensions and fixed incomes cannot afford increases to body corporate contributions that will occur as a result of the Bill. • Requests extension to Committee consultation period by 3 to 6 months. • Also requests a review of lot entitlements system under the Act to be conducted by independent review panel and, in the meantime,

prevent any future reversions under the 2011 reversion process but retain the reverted lot entitlements in those schemes that have already undertaken the 2011 reversion process.

142 Marilyn McGregor-Davies

• Does not support the Bill. • Supports the 2011 reversion process. • Raises concern about how contribution schedule lot entitlements apply to amalgamated lots.


26 October 2012

21


143 C R Gibbins • Supports the Bill. • Raises concern about how contribution schedule lot entitlements apply to amalgamated lots.

144 KG and D Marland

• Do not support the Bill. • The period for submissions to the Committee is too short and should be extended. • Raise concern about contribution schedule lot entitlements applying to amalgamated lots. • The Bill will disadvantage small lot owners, particularly owners on fixed incomes.

145 John Webber

• Does not support the Bill. • Supports the 2011 reversion process. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements. • Notes the cost imposed on lot owners resulting from lot entitlement changes. • Larger lots should contribute more to body corporate expenses than smaller lots because a greater number of people can occupy

larger lots and they cost more to maintain.

146 Maliana Bernast

• Supports the Bill. • Objects to the 2011 reversion process. • Suggests amendments to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements. • Objects to the 2011 reversion process. • The ‘relativity’ principle should be removed from the Act. • A mechanism for adjustments to lot entitlements should be re-introduced.

147 Jill Kidd • Does not support the Bill. • Questions why body corporate expenses would be calculated differently from the way council rates are calculated. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements.

148 Mike and Rita Shawcross • Do not support the Bill. • Support the 2011 reversion process. • Owners of larger units on higher floors should pay higher body corporate contributions.

149 Don Worner • Does not support the Bill. • Supports the 2011 reversion process. • Owners of larger units should pay higher body corporate contributions.

150 Ian and Sarah Dreverman

• Do not support the Bill. • The Bill will disadvantage small lot owners. • Body corporate contributions should be based on lot value. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements.


26 October 2012

22


151 Gyliane Carver • Does not support the Bill. • Objects to adjustment orders; lot entitlements should only be changed where there is 100% agreement among lot owners in a

scheme.

152 Brenda Friend • Supports the Bill. • Objects to the 2011 reversion process. • Where lots in a scheme are identical they should pay equal contributions to the body corporate expenses.

153 Ailsa Higham • Supports the Bill. • Supports the ‘equality’ principle; the size and location of a lot has no bearing on the body corporate expenses.

154 Wendy Gao • Does not support the Bill. • Original lot entitlements set by the developer should not be changed unless there is 100% agreement among lot owners in a scheme. • Reinstating the last adjustment order entitlements (as provided for in the Bill) would increase her body corporate contributions.

155 Doug Brennan • Supports the Bill. • Objects to the 2011 reversion process. • The original lot entitlements set by the developer were inequitable.

156 Mark Holmes • Supports the Bill. • Objects to the 2011 reversion process. • The original lot entitlements set by the developer were inequitable.

157

Anthony Delaney of Anthony Delaney Lawyers (representing 203 lot owners)

• Supports the Bill in-principle. • Lot entitlements should be based on each lot’s individual impact on the body corporate expenses, not size, value, view, lot owner

wealth etc. • Adjustment orders were based on quantity surveyor reports which identified and quantified the difference in each lot’s impact on

the body corporate expenses. • The Bill should be amended to provide that adjustment orders made prior to the April 2011 amendments to the BCCM Act but not

given effect by the recording of a new community management statement, and deemed by the 2011 amendments to be pre-commencement adjustment actions that could not be given effect, may be given effect.

• Suggests amendments to the Bill to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements. • The Bill should be amended to remove section 47B(2)(a) from the BCCM Act to provide lot owners in all schemes with the ability

to seek an adjustment to their scheme’s contribution schedule lot entitlements, not just lot owners in schemes established after the commencement of the 2011 amendments to the BCCM Act.

158 Jan Van Zandwijk

• Supports the Bill. • The original lot entitlements set by the developer (and which were reinstated by the 2011 reversion process) unfairly required some

lot owners in the scheme to pay higher contributions to the body corporate expenses even though each lot is approximately the same size and has equal access to the scheme’s facilities.


26 October 2012

23


159 Peter Smith

• Supports the Bill. • Objects to the 2011 reversion process which resulted in the scheme’s lot entitlements being allocated ‘unequally’ between lots. • Provides several examples of how it is unfair for lot entitlements to be unequal, including the following: the front door of each lot is

being painted, however, due to unequal lot entitlements, some lot owners are paying a much higher contribution for the painting than other lot owners.

160 Shari Dempsey • Supports the Bill. • Supports the equality principle for allocating lot entitlements.

161 Mr and Mrs Todd • Support the Bill. • Object to the 2011 reversion process. • Support the ‘equality’ principle for allocating lot entitlements.

162 David Warren

• Does not support the Bill. • Owners of smaller lots on lower floors should not pay the same contributions to body corporate expenses as the owners of

penthouses and other larger lots on higher floors. • People on pensions and fixed incomes cannot afford increases to body corporate contributions that will occur as a result of the Bill.

163 Christina Schoenbaechler • Supports the Bill.

164 Richard Phillips

• Does not support the Bill. • Objects to adjustment orders which allowed one owner to seek an adjustment to the scheme’s lot entitlements without agreement of

all other lot owners. • Lot entitlements should be based on lot size and potential occupancy. • All lot owners agreed to the lot entitlements when they purchased and it is unfair for one lot owner to seek an order for the

adjustment of the schemes lot entitlements for their own benefit.

165 Ellen Claire Asher

• Does not support the Bill. • The Bill will require owners of small lots to subsidise owners of penthouses and other large lots. • The original lot entitlements set by the developer, and agreed to by lot owners when they purchased their lots, should be retained. • Objects to adjustment orders which allowed one owner to seek an adjustment to the scheme’s lot entitlements despite the majority

of lot owners voting against a change to the lot entitlements. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements and have justification

to claim compensation from the Government. • Notes the negative impact of the Bill for some lot owners, particularly elderly people and people on limited incomes.

166 Natalie and Noela King

• Do not support the Bill. • Object to the ‘equality’ principle; it is not reasonable for the owners of smaller lots to pay the same body corporate contributions as

the owners of larger lots in a scheme. • Bill will financially disadvantage smaller lots, including by negatively impacting on lot resale.


26 October 2012

24


167 Mr and Mrs McGrath • Support the Bill. • Support the equality principle for allocating lot entitlements. • Suggest amendments to the Bill to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements.

168 Ian and Carol Clark • Support the Bill. • Suggest amendments to the Bill to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements. • The relativity principle should be removed from the Act.

169 Alan Watson • Supports the Bill. • Objects to the 2011 reversion process. • Where the common property is shared equally by all lot owners, the lot entitlements should be allocated equally among lot owners.

170 Alan and Noela Harker

• Support the Bill. • Suggest the Bill be amended to require that if any modifications are necessary to the last adjustment order entitlements that this be

decided be an independent person, rather than the body corporate committee. • Where schemes have had adjustment orders reversed under the 2011 reversion process, there should not be a lengthy process for the

adjustment orders to be reinstated.

171 Jillian Brown

• Supports the Bill. • Where lots have equal access to common property (such as a pool) and body corporate services (such as security services), each lot

should pay equal contributions for the maintenance of the common property and the services. • Supports the equality principle which provides for lot entitlements to be allocated on the basis of each lot’s impact on the body

corporate expenses.

172 P Monari • Supports the Bill. • Suggests amendments to the Bill to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements.

173 Francis John Page

• Does not support the Bill. • The Bill will result in the owners of smaller lots subsidising the owners of larger lots. • Compares body corporate expenses to a BHP investor with 100 shares paying the same overheads as an investor with 1000 shares. • The majority of lot owners in the scheme did not agree to an adjustment to the lot entitlements and it was unfair for a single lot

owner to seek an adjustment order. • Raises concern about how contribution schedule lot entitlements apply to amalgamated lots. • All lot owners agreed to the lot entitlements when they purchased their lot and it is unfair for the lot entitlements to be changed. • Raises concern about financial impact for lot owners of adjustment orders being reinstated.

174 J D Hutchins • Supports the Bill. • Objects to the 2011 reversion process.


26 October 2012

25


175 Suguneswari Sathananthan

• Does not support the Bill. • Supports the 2011 reversion process, which advantaged and was supported by the majority of lot owners in the scheme.

176 Dean and Christine Prangley

• Support the Bill. • The 2011 amendments should be repealed entirely to provide for the 1997 Act to be restored. i.e. the relativity principle should be

removed from the Act and lot owners in all schemes should be provided with the ability to seek an adjustment of lot entitlements in accordance with the equality principle.

• Suggests amendments to the Bill to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements.

177 Stephen and Susan Hill

• Do not support the Bill. • The Bill will impact on their living costs considerably. • An adjustment order financially disadvantages the majority of lot owners. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements.

178 Daryl Bell • Supports the Bill. • Supports the equality principle for allocating lot entitlements. • Suggest reintroducing a mechanism for lot owners in all schemes to seek adjustment of lot entitlements.

179 Leo and Helen Dimos • Support the Bill. • Object to the 2011 amendments.

180 Patricia Savage

• Supports the Bill. • Objects to the 2011 amendments and discusses impacts, including personal impact in financial terms. • Notes criticism of the 2011 amendments by key stakeholders. • Lot entitlements should not be allocated solely on the basis of lot size, level or views. • Levies should reflect apportionment of costs for administering common property (gardening, pool and other amenities) and for

services (managers/caretaking fees, cleaning, security, electricity). • Expresses concern at any delay in enacting the proposed changes, particularly due to consideration of any changes to the Bill. • Suggests amendments to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements and to restrict committee

members from delaying reinstatement due to personal interests or outside influence.


26 October 2012

26


181 Ken Daiken

• Does not support the Bill. • Objects to adjustment orders and the removal of the 2011 reversion process. • The Bill will impact on his living costs considerably and describes personal financial impact of previous change to lot entitlements. • Owners of smaller lots on lower floors should not pay the same contributions to body corporate expenses as owners of penthouses

and other larger lots on higher floors. • Owners were aware of the lot entitlements when they purchased their lot and it is unfair for the lot entitlements to be changed. • The Bill will result in owners of smaller lots subsidising owners of larger lots. • People on pensions and low incomes cannot afford increases to body corporate contributions that will occur as a result of the Bill.

182 John Burge

• Does not support the Bill. • The Bill will impact on his living costs considerably and describes personal financial impact of previous change to lot entitlements • Supports the 2011 reversion process. • Purchaser were aware of the lot entitlements when they purchased their lot and it is unfair for the lot entitlements to be changed. • Lot entitlements should remain in accordance with those set by the developer. • Compares body corporate expenses to income tax and household rates, arguing that costs such as extra lift usage, plumbing and

electrical to higher floors, as well as exterior building maintenance, were appropriately taken into consideration by the developer when setting contributions for those lots on higher floors.

• Raises concern about negative impact of Bill on levies and value of smaller and lower level lots, particularly those owned by people on low and fixed incomes.

183 Damian and Mirella Kelly

• Support the Bill. • Identify changes to lot entitlements for own scheme and note support for changes authorised by the Court. • Original review process by the Court is a fair, balanced and justified sharing and apportionment of community costs. • Self-interest shown by developer in setting lot entitlements for lot retained by developer following original owner period. • Attribute the difficulty in resolving lot entitlement issues to five issues:

1. lack of understanding of the application of lot entitlements to sinking and administration fund 2. disregard for legal precedent and decisions of the Court 3. need for review of the “true cost” of the scheme by a qualified independent valuer 4. owner apathy and failure to participate in body corporate meetings/decisions and reversion applications 5. untruths presented by owners in support of reversion applications.

184 JI and D Harvey

• Support the Bill. • Support owners paying equally for common property expenses and services used equally, such as manager’s salary and swimming

pool maintenance. • Owners of low set lots should have different contributions to owners of penthouse and high level lots, who should bear the cost of

elevator maintenance.


26 October 2012

27


185 John Nicholson

• Supports the Bill. • Supports contributions being calculated on an equitable, mathematically validated basis. • Objects to the 2011 reversion process as being unacceptable and discriminatory, and raises concern as to absence of any mechanism

within the 2011 amendments to oppose reversion. • Suggests there needs to be a mechanism for lot entitlements to be able to be reviewed to rectify any inequities set by the developer.

186 Craig Chapman

• Supports the Bill. • Objects to the 2011 reversion process, raising concerns that it is in breach of the Legislative Standards Act 1992 for being

inconsistent with the principles of natural justice and for adversely affecting the rights and liberties of individuals retrospectively without recourse to challenge reversion.

• Supports the ‘equality’ principle for setting contribution schedule lot entitlements. • Supports the role of courts, tribunals and specialist adjudicators in reviewing lot entitlements. • Suggests amendments to the Bill to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements.

187

Alex Blair for the Body Corporate Committee for 181 The Esplanade CTS 518

• Does not support the Bill. • Does not support the ‘equality’ principle for setting contribution schedule lot entitlements, noting all ratepayers have the same

access to roads, parks, pools and other facilities but an owner cannot use these as an argument in Court to have their rates changed. • Changes to lot entitlements are too heavily influenced by legal interpretations over the application of common sense. • Refers to prior decision and implies that in determining lot entitlement disputes more consideration should be given to the size of

lots, demand on services, owner’s awareness of lot entitlements prior to purchase and impact on market value. • A “one size fits all” approach to legislation cannot satisfactorily remedy the lot entitlements issue. • Supports the committee finding a compromise solution to provide individual schemes with the flexibility to discuss and decide

contributions by majority vote, with the option of arbitration if consensus cannot be achieved.

188 Ian D McGregor

• Does not support the Bill. • Lot entitlements should not be adjusted retrospectively. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements. • Raises concern about negative impact of Bill on levies and value of lower level lots, particularly those owned by those on fixed

incomes. • Opposes a mechanism to change lot entitlements, suggesting owners should accept the original schedules set by the developer. • The QLD model for allocating lot entitlements is not used in other jurisdictions. • Lot entitlement disputes promote ill-will in community titles schemes • Constant change to the Act in relation to lot entitlements creates uncertainty in the investment market. • Objects to short Committee consultation period, suggesting that more time should have been given for public debate.


26 October 2012

28


189 Alexandra Stellas

• Does not support the Bill. • The Bill only benefits the wealthy. • Wealthy lot owners have more financial capacity to contribute and were aware of the applicable levies at the time of purchase of

their lots. • Market value should be the overriding principle in setting lot entitlements. • Some lot owners struggle to pay body corporate contributions and need to live according to their budget.

190 Chris Murphy

• Does not support the Bill. • Lot entitlements should not be adjusted retrospectively. • Opposes a mechanism to change lot entitlements, suggesting owners should accept the original schedules set by the developer. • Objects to lot entitlements adjustments which benefit the minority and disadvantage the majority. • The approach taken in the Bill is devoid of common sense and fairness. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements. • Wealthy lot owners have more financial capacity to contribute and were aware of the applicable levies when purchasing lots. • Constant change to the Act in relation to lot entitlements creates uncertainty in the investment market.

191 Patricia Tankey

• Does not support the Bill. • Objects to no public consultation prior to introduction of Bill and short Committee consultation period. • Objects to lot entitlements adjustments which benefit the minority and disadvantage the majority. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements. • Wealthy lot owners have more financial capacity to contribute and were aware of the applicable levies when of purchasing lots. • Wealthy lot owners with higher value lots have more financial capacity to successfully pursue applications to change lot

entitlements at the expense of lower-income owners in smaller units. • Discusses policy considerations in allocation of body corporate expenses between owners of different sized lots, particularly

external maintenance obligations of body corporate, demand on services, owner’s awareness of lot entitlements prior to purchase and impact on market value.

• The capacity to apply for an order to change lot entitlements should be removed. • Proposes that the legislation be amended to allow for changes to lot entitlements only where agreed to by the majority of lot owners. • Constant change to the Act in relation to lot entitlements and the intervention in the running of community titles schemes by

Government departments creates uncertainty. • The Bill will force some owners to sell their lots and relocate away from family, friends and support systems. • Suggests that the legislation be amended to prevent the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal or the Office of the

Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management from overturning any democratic vote taken by a body corporate.


26 October 2012

29


192 Pam Briggs, Gail Christensen and Lynn & Denis Wills

• Support the Bill. • Object to the 2011 reversion process. • Reinstating the last adjustment order entitlements should be automatic. • Propose separate capacity for owners in schemes established under the Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980 but which

transitioned to the BCCM Act to apply to QCAT or a specialist adjudicator for review of lot entitlements. Earlier transitional provisions were insufficient, mandating contribution schedule to remain in former terms without consideration of ‘equality’ principle.

193 D R and J M Barry

• Support the Bill. • Object to the 2011 reversion process. • Indecision and constant change to the Act in relation to lot entitlements creates uncertainty for owners and the investment market. • Object to lot entitlement adjustment orders which benefit the minority and disadvantage the majority. • Raise concerns about negative impact of 2011 reversion process on levies and market value of lots where reversion process was

followed. • Raise concerns that committee members may not be appropriately qualified or equipped to properly determine the appropriate

entitlements in accordance with the relevant principles or to take into account any necessary modification/s to the last adjustment order entitlements.

• Suggest that in the interests of timeliness and proper consideration, decisions regarding reinstatement should be reserved for experts and qualified decision makers not matters for bodies corporate or their committees.

• Suggest amendments to the new process in the Bill for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements, including: 1. to impose stricter timeframes for the process; and 2. to remove the requirement for modification of the last adjustment order entitlements; or alternatively

• to have regard only to whether the last adjustment order already took into account any subdivision, amalgamation or boundary change and to remove the requirement to take into account a material change.

194 Noel Barbi of NR Barbi Solicitors

• Supports the Bill. • The 2011 reversion process was flawed and unjust in that it allowed a single lot owner to effectively overturn orders of specialist

adjudicators, tribunals and courts, without any appeal or review right for lot owners adversely affected by the reversion process.


26 October 2012

30


195 John McDonald of Robinson & Robinson Lawyers

• Supports the Bill. • Objects to the 2011 reversion process, suggesting it to be in breach of the fundamental legislative principles by providing for

retrospective adjustment of lot entitlements and thus adversely affecting the rights and liberties of individuals. • States that 2011 reversion process was flawed and unjust in that it allowed a single lot owner to effectively overturn orders of

specialist adjudicators, tribunals and courts, resulting in schemes reverting to entitlements previously found to be unjust and inequitable.

• Argues that some reversals which occurred under the 2011 amendments may have been incorrectly determined by the adjudicator or tribunal but that inadequate provision was made in the 2011 amendments to seek review of those decisions or for the introduction of new evidence in support of a reversion request.

• Argues that the legislation should retain the requirement to include a community management statement with the contract of sale, principally because the standard contract does not provide for the nature of the property to be described.

196 Wayne Davis

• Does not support the Bill. • Objects to lot entitlements adjustments which benefit the minority and disadvantage the majority. • Objects to the ‘equality’ principle being applied as the basis for allocating lot entitlements. • States that constant change to the Act in relation to lot entitlements creates uncertainty for the real estate market. • Raises concern about negative impact on levies and saleability of lots where the ‘equality’ principle has been applied, particularly

when comparing low-rise versus high-rise schemes. • Suggests the reinstatement would provide penthouse and sub-penthouse owners with substantially lower levies at the expense of

smaller lot owners. • Objects to subsidising the wealthy through equalised lot entitlements. • Suggests QLD adopt a model for levies similar to that used in Sydney, where levies are claimed to be determined on the basis of the

ratio between individual lot values versus total value of all lots in the scheme.

197 Bill Owen • Supports the Bill. • Supports equal apportionment of costs on the basis that all lots benefit equally from services provided.

198 Not supplied


26 October 2012

31


199 Eleanor Woodforth

• Supports the Bill. • Objects to the 2011 reversion process. • The 2011 reversion process was flawed and unconstitutional in that it allowed a single lot owner to effectively overturn orders of

specialist adjudicators, tribunals and courts, without any avenue for appeal. • The 2011 reversion process resulted in own scheme being forced to revert to entitlements previously found to be unjust and

inequitable. • Objects to lot entitlement adjustments which benefit the minority and disadvantage the majority. • Objects to the perception that if a lot owner can afford to buy a larger or more expensive lot then they are therefore wealthy and can

afford to pay higher levies. • Supports the ‘equality’ principle for setting contribution schedule lot entitlements, suggesting that lot entitlements should be

equitable so that no lot owner subsidises another lot owner, regardless of their wealth.

200 Veer Charan • Does not support the Bill. • The Bill will result in an increase in their body corporate contributions, and will impact many pensioners who own lots in schemes.

201 David and Margaret Kelly • Support the Bill. • Object to the 2011 reversion process. • Lot owners should not pay different contributions because of a difference in the size or location of a lot or the lot owner’s wealth.

202 Judith Stephens

• Does not support the Bill. • For existing schemes, the original lot entitlements set by the developer should not be able to be changed. • For new schemes, developers should be provided with a specific formula for allocating lot entitlements (such as lot size and locating

in a building). • Lot entitlements should not be allocated equally between lot owners.

203 Joe and Debra Deffner

• Do not support the Bill. • Body corporate contributions should reflect the size of each lot. • The Bill will adversely impact the majority of small lot owners and will only benefit larger lot owners. • The original lot entitlements set by the developer should not be able to be changed.

204 Vince Fitzsimons

• Does not support the Bill. • The Bill will financially disadvantage thousands of lot owners. • People who purchase lots agree to lot entitlements at the time of purchase and they should not be later changed. • Changes to the BCCM Act which provide for changes to lot entitlements should be prospective (applying to new schemes only), not

retrospective (applying to existing schemes). • Requests the period for submissions to the Committee be extended by a further 90 days.


26 October 2012

32


205 Peter Rowell

• Does not support the Bill. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements. • Changes to the lot entitlements system under the BCCM Act should never have applied to schemes established under the previous

legislation (the Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980).

206 Elizabeth De Martini • Supports the Bill. • Notes the negative financial impact of an adjustment order being reversed under the 2011 reversion process.

207 Frank Higginson

• Supports the Bill. • Supports the ‘equality’ principle for allocating lot entitlements. • The relativity principle should be removed from the BCCM Act. • Suggests reintroducing a mechanism in the BCCM Act providing lot owners in all schemes with the ability to seek an adjustment of

lot entitlements in accordance with the equality principle. • The last adjustment order reinstatement process should be automatic and commence immediately following a lot owner’s request

for the reinstatement. • Suggest amendments to the Bill to provide stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements.

208 Edward Eadeh • Supports the Bill. • Suggests that the Bill be amended to provide that the process for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements should not take more

than 30 days.

209 Dorothy Fletcher • Does not support the Bill. • The owners of larger lots should contribute more to the body corporate expenses than owners of smaller lots.

210 David and Bernadette Van Hoof

• Do not support the Bill. • The Bill will advantage owners of larger lots at the expense of owners of smaller lots (who are often elderly). • Purchasers of smaller lots who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements. • Body corporate contributions should be calculated in the same way land, income and other taxes are calculated (based on wealth).

211 Doris and Eugene Jaa • Support the Bill. • Note the negative financial impact of a change to the scheme’s lot entitlements made under the 2011 reversion process.

212 Sue Bale

• Does not support the Bill. • Reinstating the last adjustment order entitlements will result in smaller lot owners subsidising larger lot owners which is unfair. • Contributions for each level/floor in a high rise building should be the same. • Queensland is the only Australian jurisdiction that allows for lot entitlements to be adjusted and that the Government should

investigate the way lot entitlements are allocated in other Australian jurisdictions.


26 October 2012

33


213 L M Albert

• Supports the Bill. • Objects to the 2011 reversion process. • Supports the ‘equality’ principle. • The relativity principle should be removed from the BCCM Act. • Suggests reintroducing a mechanism in the BCCM Act providing lot owners in all schemes with the ability to seek an adjustment of

lot entitlements in accordance with the equality principle. • Suggest amendments to the Bill to provide stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements.

214 Robert Kidd

• Supports the Bill. • Objects to the 2011 reversion process. • Supports the ‘equality’ principle. • The relativity principle should be removed from the BCCM Act. • Suggests reintroducing a mechanism in the BCCM Act providing lot owners in all schemes with the ability to seek an adjustment of

lot entitlements in accordance with the equality principle. • Suggest amendments to the Bill to provide stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements.

215 Cheryl Ellen Hawk • Does not support the Bill. • An adjustment order financially disadvantaged the majority of lot owners in the scheme. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements.

216 Betty Desmond

• Does not support the Bill. • Notes the negative financial impact on her body corporate contributions resulting from an adjustment order. • The Bill will result in owners of smaller lots on lower levels subsidising owners of larger lots on higher levels. • Purchasers who undertake due diligence are unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent changes in lot entitlements.

217 Mario and Lucy Nucifora • Supports the Bill.

218 Mara Kovacevic • Supports the Bill.

219 Greg van Zeeland • Supports the Bill. • Supports the ‘equality’ principle for allocating lot entitlements.

220 Giuseppe Natoli

• Does not support the Bill. • Small lot owners will pay higher levies so that penthouse owners can pay less. • Objects to no prior consultation being undertaken and short timeframe for making submissions to the Committee. • The Government has only presented superficial reasons for the proposed amendments.


26 October 2012

34


221 Atef Mousa

• Supports the Bill. • Objects to the 2011 reversion process. • If the Bill is not implemented quickly, he may not be able to continue to afford their body corporate contributions which were

increased by the 2011 reversion process. • Suggests amendments to the Bill to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements.

222 John Learmonth

• Does not support the Bill if it will allow the original lot entitlements set by the developer to be changed as a result of lot amalgamations.

• Owners of amalgamated lots, penthouses and sub-penthouses will receive a financial advantage over the majority of lot owners. • Contribution schedule lot entitlements for his building were reverted back to the original, resulting in a considerable reduction in his

lot entitlements and does not want the Bill to change this.

223 Reg Wallin, Colorose Pty Ltd

• Does not support the Bill. • Buyers are aware of their lot entitlements when they purchase a unit and there should be no grounds on which lot entitlements

should be amended. • Supports the 2011 reversion process. • The Bill will have unintended adverse consequences affecting owners of smaller units, units on lower levels, retirees living on fixed

incomes, and the overall property market. • There should have been more time for public consultation.

224 Lisa Tauber • Supports the Bill. • The 2011 reversion process undermined the purpose of QCAT and specialist adjudication.

225 Justin and Monika Mistry • Do not support the Bill. • Their levies will increase and owners of penthouses and sub-penthouses will benefit. • The capacity of units should be taken into consideration when allocating lot entitlements.


26 October 2012

35


226 Chris Mountford, Property Council of Australia (Qld branch)

• Support amendments in the Bill to remove disclosure requirements and to establish consistency in dispute resolution by adjudicators.

• Do not support the amendments to overturn the 2011 reversion process. • Amendments to the lot entitlements system will add further complexity and confusion. • The ‘equality’ principle is a flawed methodology and the proposed amendments will not result in a fair outcome. • Concerned about the potential impacts on the development industry – that developers of buildings constructed between 2003 and

2011 may be exposed to legal proceedings by owners who have suffered financial loss due to a change in their lot entitlements. Also, the reputation of developers may be damaged and potential buyers will face increased uncertainty.

• Disappointed that no prior consultation with the community or property industry was undertaken. • Any amendments to lot entitlements should ensure developers can include a mix of product in their developments and provide

confidence to purchasers that the entitlements set by the developer will not be subject to change in the future. • Supports continuation of the ‘relativity principle’ for future developments. • The last adjustment order reinstatement process in the Bill will affect commercial and retail property, not just residential. • The QCAT and specialist adjudication process in considering disputes about lot entitlements is flawed as QCAT or an adjudicator is

prevented from considering any knowledge (or lack thereof) or misunderstanding of the buyer about lot entitlements. • Does not support the equality principle as body corporate levies directly affect the value of the property at the point of sale, which

are factored into the purchase price. Additionally, setting levies more closely linked with the value of a lot reflects the allocation of financial risk/equity.

• Proposes the following amendments: 1. Any 2011 reversions should remain in place for the time being. 2. Courts be given jurisdiction over lot entitlement adjustments, overcoming the objection that single lot owners can overturn court

decisions. 3. Offending 2011 provision (section 379) allowing single lot owner to overturn court decisions should cease to apply. 4. QCAT and adjudicators should be given the ability to look at all factors, including knowledge of the buyer, in determining what

is just and equitable. 5. Courts should be granted power to overcome abuses by developers, such as setting reduced levies for penthouses that the

developer has retained. 6. Include a provision recognising the original owner was not obliged to set levies on an equal basis and that the levies set by the

original owner should remain unchanged in the absence of manifestly inequitable or unjust levies. 7. The Court, in deciding what is just and equitable, should be required to look at the equity and fairness of shifting levies from one

lot owner to another.


26 October 2012

36


227 Hynes Lawyers, on behalf of Mango Property Pty Ltd

• Mango Pty Ltd supports the Bill. • Describes the situation facing Mango Pty Ltd, where a QCAT order adjusting lot entitlements on a just and equitable basis was

made in 2011 but never came into effect as a result of the 2011 reversion process. Therefore, Mango Pty Ltd continues to pay higher levies.

• Concerned that the Bill does not apply to circumstances where an adjustment order was made but the 2011 amendments prevented the recording of a new CMS to give effect to the adjustment order.

• Suggests an amendment so that the Bill also applies to the above circumstance.

228 Anton Kardash, Real Estate Institute of Queensland

• Submission relates only to removal of disclosure requirements relating to the sale of lots in community titles schemes. • Supports removal of requirement for community management statement (CMS) to accompany disclosure statement for existing lots. • Supports removal of requirement for disclosure statement to specify the extent to which annual contributions are based on the

contribution and interest schedule lot entitlements, and that the lot entitlement schedules are set out in the CMS. • The requirement for sellers of existing lots to provide buyers with the CMS has resulted in additional expense for agents and

administrative complexity to the contractual process, with CMS being anywhere between 50 to 100 pages.

229 William and Jeanette Dale

• Support the Bill. • Object to the 2011 reversion process. • Suggest amendments to provide maximum specified timeframes to prevent delay. • The process in new sections 403 and 404 of the Bill appear to leave open the option of a committee to take no action. • Suggest amendments to sections 403 and 404 to clearly compel a body corporate to act in accordance with the provisions.

230 William Butson

• Does not support the Bill. • Owners of larger lots will pay smaller contributions, subsidised by an increase in contributions paid by smaller lot owners. • Objects to the retrospective nature of the amendments and submits that amendments should only apply to future properties. • Larger units require a greater proportion of external maintenance; developer determined lot entitlements should be supported by

independent calculations of an equitable apportionment of body corporate levies determined by the size of each unit.

231 Ray Asher

• Does not support the Bill. • Requests postponing the Bill for 12 months to allow proper consultation. • Many unit owners will subsidise penthouse and amalgamated lot owners, and there will be impacts on values, investor income and

obtaining finance.

232 I and HB Zimmermann

• Support the Bill. • Object to the 2011 reversion process. • Contribution lot entitlements should not be based on market value or size of apartments as there is no correlation with common

expenses. • Support the equality principle. • Suggest amendments to provide stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements.


26 October 2012

37


233 Peter Brooks, Salvatore Terranova and Deborah Terranova

• Do not support the Bill • Penthouse and large lot owners will gain significant financial advantage at the expense of smaller lot owners. • Do not support equality principle. • Initial contribution schedules should only be changed by resolution without dissent by the body corporate. • The status quo should remain and there should be a moratorium on further changes to lot entitlements.

234 (name withheld)

• Does not support the Bill. • Suggests that those community titles schemes which have been affected by an adjustment order be permitted to apply for a

reversion under the 2011 reversion process and for those that have had a reversion be permitted to have that reversion remain in place.

• Suggests that all community titles schemes be subject to the same fee scheme.

235 Dr Brad White

• Appears to not support the Bill. • Submission focuses on potential problems with the Bill. • Liability for body corporate costs should be linked to lot holders’ equity and the Bill does not do this. • The Bill is divisive as owners of smaller value units will have to pay more for their equitable proportion while the capital value of

their units will decrease. Higher value lots will pay less while midrange lots will only be marginally affected.

236 Norm Locke

• Supports the principle that each lot owner’s fees should be in direct proportion to the burden their lot has on the funds needed to meet the scheme’s annual expenses plus a provision for the sinking fund.

• Objects to the sharing of insurance premiums expenses based on the interest schedule lot entitlements, as provided in the BCCM regulations; premiums for lots (in BFP plans) should be based on floor area and premiums for common property should be based on contribution schedule lot entitlements.

237 Bob & Judith Pidcock • Support the repeal of the 2011 reversion process. • Suggest amendments to provide stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements.

238 Norma and Rolfe Boe

• Consider it unfair for owners of smaller units to pay almost the same body corporate fees as people in larger units as the larger units are more expensive to maintain.

• Do not support legislation providing an ability to change lot entitlements. • Concerned about financial impacts of the Bill.

239 Margaret White

• Suggests that the legislation not be retrospective. • For pre-2013 schemes, fees should remain as determined at development and no provisions for body corporate fee change by an

individual. For post-2013 schemes, fees should be determined by legislation, with no capacity for contributions to be changed by individuals.


26 October 2012

38


240 Leary & Partners Pty Ltd

• Supports the Bill. • Objects to the 2011 reversion process. • 2011 reversion process voided the consumer protection mechanisms in the Act provided for lot owners disadvantaged by developers

who failed to comply with the Act in setting lot entitlements. • Disagrees with the argument of those disadvantaged by adjustments that they purchased with a certain understanding of their levy

liabilities and should be able to rely on that understanding. This argument also no longer always supports the case made by the Bill’s opponents as the 2011 reversion process impacted on many lot owners not party to the original adjustment process.

• As owners in post-2003 registered schemes will be disadvantaged by whatever decisions Parliament now makes about lot entitlements, priority should be given to those lot owners seeking to obtain entitlements that are consistent with the requirements of the Act.

• The amendments in the Bill introducing a right to apply to QCAT or a specialist adjudicator for an order that changed entitlements decided by body corporate are inconsistent with the relevant deciding principle are unnecessary. However, if this right is retained in the Bill, suggests providing a timeframe for making the application and clarifying that the order is only to retain the pre-resolution entitlement schedule.

• Where a resolution without dissent to change the lot entitlements is passed by the body corporate and then overturned by a decision of QCAT or a specialist adjudicator (effectively meaning that the pre-resolution entitlement schedule is retained), the Bill reduces the right of a lot owner in a post-2011amendments scheme to seek an adjustment order under section 47B if the lot entitlements do not comply with the deciding principles in the Act.

• Suggests amendments to provide stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements. Suggests a note be included under section 408 of the Bill to clarify to general readers that no vote of the committee or body corporate is required to authorise the lodgement of the community management statement if it contains only order-based changes.

• Suggests including a solution for section 410 of the Bill where a lot entitlement cannot be divided into a whole number.

241 H J Greville • Does not support the Bill, in so far as it discontinues the 2011 reversion process.

242 Don and Lorraine McGrath

• Support the Bill. • Do not agree with larger lots paying higher contributions for common property shared equally by all lot owners in a scheme.


26 October 2012

39


243 Queensland Law Society

• Supports repeal of 2011 reversion process. • Notes the Government’s intention to set an adjustment mechanism for lot entitlements. • Opposes the amendments reinstating the last adjustment order entitlements because the amendments do not have sufficient regard to

the rights and liabilities of individuals, are inconsistent with the principles of natural justice and are an inappropriate use of criminal sanction. The amendments will simply lead to unnecessary costs being incurred and angst in schemes.

• Government should determine its final approach on the issue of lot entitlement adjustments before allowing any further changes to lot entitlements.

• Supports amendments to disclosure requirements. • Lot entitlements should be allocated using a new principle (as opposed to the equality and relativity) referred to as the ‘fairness

principle’.

244 May Scott • Provides an example of a commercial complex with unfair contribution schedule lot entitlements. • Lot owners should be responsible for extra expenses incurred in maintaining their area of the building. • The value of lot should not determine the contribution of owners to the body corporate expenses.

245 Success Law Pty Ltd

• Provides an example of a client whose contribution schedule lot entitlements were not just and equitable and were adjusted through specialist adjudication. A reversion of lot entitlements under the 2011 reversion process has resulted in the client suffering substantial financial detriment.

• Urges Government to urgently look at broader issues around contribution schedule lot entitlements. • Constant changing of contribution schedule lot entitlements provides no certainty for lot owners and the strata and property industry

generally.

246 Unit Owners Association of Queensland Inc.

• Supports repeal of 2011 reversion process. • One neighbour should not be responsible for the living costs of another neighbour. • The Bill will involve further expense to bodies corporate. • Opposes legislation that requires a ‘resolution without dissent’; achieving a resolution without dissent is almost impossible and all

legislation should be realistic and achievable. • Suggest amendments to provide stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements. • Supports transitional provisions relating to incomplete adjustment orders. • Supports amendments to disclosure requirements, and associated transitional provisions.

247 Committee for Acapulco Body Corporate

• Supports the Bill. • Objects to the 2011 reversion process.

248 Ann Corbett • Supports the Bill. • Supports the ‘equality’ principle for allocating lot entitlements. • Suggests amendments to the Bill to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements.


26 October 2012

40


249 David Armenores • Supports the Bill. • Supports the ‘equality’ principle for allocating lot entitlements. • Suggests amendments to the Bill to impose stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements.

250 Carla Lack • Does not support the Bill. • The Bill has potential to create hardship for approximately 95% of Gold Coast apartment owners who live in small apartments.

251 Aaron and Leann Webb • Support the Bill. • Object to the 2011 reversion process. • Support the equality principle.

252 Desley Free • Does not clearly indicate support or opposition to the Bill. • The relativity principle should be used in relation to her apartment building.

253 Marina Vit, Urban Development Institute of Australia – Qld

• Supports removing disclosure requirements. • Supports removal of ability of one lot owner to overturn court decision. • Suggests delaying enactment of the Bill until a wider review of contribution schedule lot entitlements and mechanisms for

adjustments take place.

254 Anne-Maree Sexton • Does not support the Bill. • Will be adversely affected, as an owner of a one bedroom unit as opposed to penthouse and sub-penthouse owners. • No suitable explanation has been given for the amendments and not enough time provided for consultation.

255 Belinda Sexton • Does not support the Bill. • Owners of smaller units will be adversely affected. • People are aware of body corporate fees when buying a unit and the Government should not make amendments.


26 October 2012

41


256 David Bowers

• Does not support the Bill. • The Bill poses significant risks to the development industry such as exposing developers to legal action, buyers losing confidence,

and the creation of class warfare. • The Bill offends the Legislative Standards Act 1992 and will reactivate the flawed 2003 amendments. • Suggests that the Bill be amended to allow courts to determine what is just and equitable without restriction, including the ability to

overturn previous court decisions and reversions pursuant to 2011 amendments. • Previous court decisions are flawed due to inability to consider disclosure and acceptance by buyers of lot entitlements at the time

of purchase. • Suggests the following amendments:

1. Any reversions should remain in place for the time being. 2. Jurisdiction over lot entitlement adjustments be returned to the Courts. 3. Offending 2011 provision (section 379) cease to apply. 4. Courts should be able to look at all factors in determining what is just and equitable, including knowledge and

acceptance of buyers of lot entitlements. 5. Courts should be given power to overcome abuses by developers. 6. Bill should contain a provision recognising that the original owner was not obliged to set levies on an equal basis and

in the absence of manifestly unjust levies, the guiding principle should be that the levies set by the original owner remain unchanged.

7. Courts should be able to look at the equity and fairness in shifting levies from one lot owner to another.

257 Philip Williams, Body Corporate Assistance

• Does not support the Bill. • Reinstatement of lot entitlements set by previous court decisions is based on flawed principle and the Bill is contradictory. • Requests an extension of time by minimum 12 months to consider impacts and develop solutions to problems. • Suggests the Bill be amended to provide that a 2011 reversion application must be put to and supported by a general meeting to

allow lot owners to exercise a vote.

258 Michael Merrin • Does not support the Bill. • Supports the 2011 reversion process, but suggests amendments to improve the reversion process and allow for applications for

reversion to be determined by the relevant authorities.

259 Evan Morrison • Does not clearly indicate support or opposition to the Bill. • Concerned with a fair and equitable distribution of lot entitlements. • As a penthouse owner, his contributions are unfairly high.

260 Franco Vicario

• The Bill should not apply to commercial properties as their value is directly and exclusively linked to the net return they provide. • It unfair for one owner to obtain a reduction of their lot entitlements in order to increase the value of their property at the expense of

other owners. • It is essential to respect the developer’s scheme on which the values of the lots and their purchase prices were based.


26 October 2012

42


261 Strata Community Australia (Qld)

• The provision of a community management statement (CMS) to potential purchasers ensures potential owner-occupiers are aware of by-laws for the scheme and can ensure the by-laws suit their lifestyle, which may reduce disputes in schemes.

• Supports the retention of the deciding principles in the Act. • Lot entitlements in many schemes have no apparent or equitable and appropriate deciding principle. There should be a means to

address lot entitlements in schemes that have not had their lot entitlements set or adjusted by reference to an apparent deciding principle or upon third party review before 14 April 2011. Suggest a more fulsome rolling back of the 14 April 2011 amendments.

• Suggests amendments to the Bill to provide a timeframe (of 3 months) for the making of an application to QCAT about whether changes to the lot entitlements by the body corporate are consistent with the relevant principle.

• Suggest amendments to provide stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements. • In reference to the requirement for the body corporate to lodge a community management statement within 90 days unless QCAT

makes an order under section 407, notes that a QCAT decision would not usually be obtained within 90 days.

262 Robert and Jacquie Adamson

• Support the Bill. • Support the repeal of the 2011 reversion process and reinstatement of the last adjustment orders in affected schemes. • If lots are larger or at a higher level this does not mean they consume most of the body corporate expenses. • Concerned that committees may delay the reinstatement process.

263 John Mills

• Does not clearly indicate support or opposition to the Bill. • Supports reversal of 2011 amendments but suggests provision be made for owners, who believe they have a valid case for

adjustment of pre 2011 entitlements to better reflect the equality principle to pursue their claim by way of an expanded but simplified adjudication process.

• Objects to any moves to not allow reversion of schemes already implemented to proceed as planned.

264 Gray Tovey

• Does not support the Bill. • The Bill is only aimed at reversing the 2011 amendments and does not address the 2005 (sic) (i.e. 2003) amendments and the

Fischer case. • Penthouse owners unfairly benefit from the Bill.

265 Grant James

• Does not support the Bill. • The purpose of the Bill is to appease a small minority and will have a negative impact on a majority of owners, which will result in

receiverships and therefore affect the tourism industry. • Supports the 2011 reversion process.

266 John Duncan, Sun City Resort

• Does not support the Bill. • The Bill will increase levies for 220 out of 268 units in his community titles scheme while 48 units would benefit. • The 220 units are smaller units and/or at lower levels and that their value would be adversely affected.

267 Not supplied


26 October 2012

43


268 Nina Psaltis, Australian College of Community Association Lawyers Inc

• Does not support amendments to overturn the 2011 reversion process, but supports other amendments in the Bill. • The 2011 reversion process was unjust and inequitable. • Undoing the reversion process does not resolve the underlying issues of setting lot entitlements and suggests a moratorium on

making the amendments until the Government looks at the broader issue. • Contribution schedule lot entitlements should be the basis for calculating contributions to the administrative fund while interest

schedule lot entitlements be the basis for calculating contributions to the sinking fund. • Contribution schedule lot entitlements should be calculated using the equality principle while interest schedule lot entitlements be

calculated on the basis of unimproved capital value.

269 Nannette Blair

• Does not support the Bill. • Indicates her community titles scheme was affected by an adjustment order which benefited penthouse owners and there was a

subsequent reversion. • Will be disadvantaged by the Bill if it were enacted and opposes retrospective application to 14 September 2012. • Amendments to BCCM Act should never have applied to buildings constructed under the Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980

(BUGT Act) as the BUGT Act did not contain the relativity or equality principles.

270 Stephen Moore • Does not support the Bill. • The Bill will benefit penthouse owners at the expense of owners of smaller units and/or units at lower levels. • The Bill is aimed at appeasing a small minority.

271 G R Muller • Does not support the Bill. • Many unit owners will have to subsidise penthouse owners and owners of amalgamated units. • Costs should be proportional to the investment.

272 Gordon and Trish Henry • Do not support parts of the Bill that relate to the reversion process. • If the adjustment order for their community titles scheme is reinstated, their fees would be higher than fees for sub-penthouses and

equal to penthouses.

273 A Waterford • Does not support the Bill. • Many unit owners will have to subsidise penthouse owners. • Costs should be proportional to the investment.


26 October 2012

44


274

Conor and Marlene Dwyer

Reginald and Gillian Warr

Anita Atkinson

Conceicao D’Costa

Bill and Nora Hoyer and Erika Schweiter

John and Shirley Dunn

Peter Carney

EM Purnell and PS Punell-Webb

• Support the Bill. • Support for the equality principle. • Object to the 2011 amendments. • Note debate on lot entitlements tends to focus on high-rise apartment buildings, while the community titles sector includes a diverse

range of other developments, including townhouse complexes established under standard format plans of subdivision. • Suggest amendments to provide stricter timeframes for reinstating last adjustment order entitlements.

Documents

ATTACHMENT 1 SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS (BY … · Department of Justice and Attorney General –Report on submissions ... in contrast to the ‘relativity ... • Notes criticism of