Every so often, a scheme has some quirky, decades-old feature that nobody quite remembers approving, but which has simply always been there. A recent decision about a very ordinary roller door offers a genuinely useful and rather charming lesson in who is responsible for sorting these things out when they cause a problem.
In Bramble Place [2026] QBCCMCmr 315, (click here to read decision) a small six-lot scheme had a roller door installed across the entrances to two neighbouring lots’ garages, more than 20 years ago, well before either current owner had bought their property. One of those owners discovered that her titled storage area, tucked behind the roller door, was effectively inaccessible: she had no key or remote to open it. She asked the body corporate to remove or relocate the door. The committee, understandably, viewed this as a private disagreement between two neighbours and largely left them to sort it out themselves, exploring a few informal compromises that ultimately went nowhere.
The adjudicator took a close look at exactly where the roller door sat and found that a significant part of it was actually attached to, and supported by, common property, not solely to either owner’s private lot. That meant the roller door was properly an “improvement” to the common property, which put the decision about its future squarely in the body corporate’s hands, not something the two neighbouring owners could simply be left to fight out between themselves.
Rather than ordering the door removed outright, which would have stripped the other lot owner of the security it provided, the adjudicator opted for the simplest, most proportionate fix: the body corporate was ordered to arrange a key and a remote control for the owner who could not access her own storage area, so she could get in and out whenever she needed to. The bigger question of whether the door should ultimately be approved, altered or removed was left for the body corporate to decide properly, at a general meeting, rather than being dictated from the bench.
If your scheme has a structure that straddles the line between two lots, or between a lot and common property, and it is causing friction, it is worth checking exactly where it physically sits before assuming it is simply a private matter between two owners. If any meaningful part of it is attached to or supported by common property, the body corporate has a genuine role to play in sorting it out, whether that means formally approving it, adjusting it, or in the right circumstances, removing it.
For committees facing a dispute like this, a proportionate first step, such as ensuring reasonable access for everyone affected, can resolve the immediate problem while the bigger picture is worked through properly at a general meeting.
Working out whether an existing structure counts as common property, a lot improvement, or something in between, is exactly the kind of practical question BCsystems helps committees untangle, so a longstanding quirky feature does not turn into a longstanding source of tension.
Not every dispute between neighbours needs to end in a demolition order. This case shows that a body corporate can, and should, step in to sort out shared responsibility, and that a sensible, practical fix is often the fairest way through for everyone.
“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.