When something goes wrong on a rooftop, it rarely stays a rooftop problem for long. A recent decision from the Queensland Body Corporate and Community Management Commissioner’s Office shows how a waterproofing issue that started small can grow into a longer-running dispute if repairs are delayed too many times. It’s also a useful reminder of how maintenance responsibilities are worked out between owners and the body corporate, and what happens when access to a lot is needed to get repair work done.
The good news is that the case ended with clear, practical guidance that any scheme can use, whether you’re dealing with a leaking roof or simply planning routine maintenance of your own.
In Pharos on Kirra Hill [2026] QBCCMCmr 292, a lot owner whose lot spans two levels of the building, including most of the rooftop, had been dealing with water getting into his lot since December 2023. He believed the main cause was the rooftop’s waterproof membrane (the waterproof layer sitting under the roof surface that actually keeps water out) breaking down. He also raised several related problems: cracking in structural rooftop walls, tree roots pushing through a masonry wall near a fire door, poor drainage causing water to pool on the roof, and loose or missing rubber seals on the rooftop’s glass safety railing.
The body corporate had known the membrane was in poor condition since February 2024, when its own insurer’s builder flagged it, and several other contractors agreed afterwards. In 2024, the committee told owners at a general meeting that the membrane had been breached and confirmed fixing it was the body corporate’s responsibility, but owners voted for a cheaper temporary fix (re-grouting and sealing the existing tiles over the damaged membrane) rather than the full replacement needed for a permanent fix. The committee then obtained legal advice in mid-2025 confirming the body corporate did need to replace the membrane, but when the owner put a motion to do so at the December 2025 AGM, it was voted down again.
The adjudicator found the body corporate had been failing in its duty to properly maintain the membrane ever since it started deteriorating, and that it couldn’t keep putting off a permanent fix. Because there was a real risk of further delay if the matter went back to another general meeting vote, the adjudicator ordered the body corporate to replace the membrane within three months, at its own cost. This order also covered fixing the rooftop drainage, since contractors had found that pooling water was speeding up the membrane’s decay, and a maintenance duty includes taking reasonable steps to prevent future damage, not just fixing things once they’ve already broken.
The tree roots were ordered removed from the common property side of the wall, with the owner responsible for the portion within his own lot (the adjudicator suggested both parties use the same contractor to keep costs down). The glass balustrade seals were also found to be the body corporate’s responsibility and were ordered fixed. However, the cracked rooftop wall was not covered by these orders, because that particular wall belongs to the lot itself rather than common property, and there wasn’t clear evidence it was a load-bearing structural element that would otherwise trigger the body corporate’s separate duty to maintain essential supporting framework.
The adjudicator also clarified two practical points that are useful for any scheme planning similar works. The owner only needs to clear his own private items from the rooftop before works start; any fixed items belonging to the body corporate (such as pylons or gazebos) are the body corporate’s own responsibility to move. And on access, once the body corporate properly authorises the repair works and gives at least seven days’ written notice of a reasonable time, the owner must allow access under section 163 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act (the section dealing with entry to a lot for authorised repairs), and can’t hold that up by demanding more information about the contractor’s qualifications or instructions.
If you’re a lot owner noticing water damage, cracking, or other maintenance issues, document what you see with photos and dates as soon as you notice them, and put your concerns in writing. This creates a clear timeline that can matter later if repairs take longer than expected to get approved. If you want to raise something, you can contact your body corporate committee directly by email, or contact BCsystems and we’ll pass it on to the committee.
If you’re a committee member weighing up a temporary fix versus a permanent one, it’s worth getting written advice on which option actually satisfies the body corporate’s maintenance obligations before putting it to a vote. A cheaper short-term fix can feel like the sensible, budget-friendly choice at the time, but if it doesn’t resolve the underlying problem, the same motion may need to come back to owners later, sometimes with added cost or a formal dispute along the way.
It’s also worth remembering that once proper notice has been given for necessary works, access to a lot must be provided. It’s fine for an owner to ask reasonable questions, but access shouldn’t be withheld while waiting on answers once the legal notice requirements have already been met.
Major maintenance projects like waterproofing repairs often involve several moving parts: getting the right reports, preparing motions, and keeping the approval process moving between meetings. BCsystems can help committees keep projects like this on track through the proper approval process without unnecessary delay, and can also help owners understand their obligations to provide access once proper notice has been given for authorised repair works.
This case is a good example of how body corporate maintenance issues can be worked through with clear guidance, even when they’ve taken a while to reach a resolution. With good documentation and open communication between owners and committees, most maintenance matters can be sorted out well before they need to go anywhere near an adjudicator.
“Act reasonably” is a phrase that appears throughout body corporate law. It’s a legal standard that applies to almost every decision a committee makes – enforcing by-laws, approving or refusing applications, spending scheme funds, engaging contractors, and resolving disputes between owners.
A contravention notice is the formal step a body corporate takes before it can pursue further enforcement action against an owner or occupier over an alleged by-law breach. Under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), it’s a legal prerequisite, not a warning letter, and the requirements around what it must contain and who it must be given to are specific.