Most caretaking relationships in a body corporate scheme run smoothly for years. But every now and then, an owner has concerns about how the caretaker is performing, whether that’s cleaning standards, how maintenance requests are handled, or something else. When that happens, both owners and committees benefit from knowing what the law actually expects. A recent adjudicator’s decision from a Surfers Paradise scheme gives a useful, practical illustration of exactly that.
The case didn’t involve any finding that the caretaker had done anything wrong. Instead, it was about process: what a committee has to do when it receives a detailed complaint, and what options are available to owners who want that complaint properly looked into. It’s a helpful read for anyone wanting to understand how these situations are meant to work.
In Seacrest [2026] QBCCMCmr 291 (27 August 2026), two owners in a 54-lot scheme in Surfers Paradise submitted a lengthy, detailed complaint to their committee in April 2026 about the caretaker’s performance. Their concerns covered a range of issues, including the caretaker’s leave and residency arrangements, how the caretaking and letting arrangement operated day to day, cleaning and presentation standards (including some negative online guest reviews), the cleanliness and upkeep of common property such as pools, the foyer and the basement, and how maintenance issues were being reported and followed up.
Along with their complaint, the owners put forward a motion asking the committee to get quotes for an independent professional to carry out a formal performance audit of the caretaker. The committee discussed the motion and voted it down, 5 against with 2 abstentions, recording that a full audit was “a significant step for a lone complaint” and that it could manage most complaints itself unless there were repeated, confirmed breaches, which it didn’t think was the case here. A later committee meeting acknowledged the concerns hadn’t been fully addressed yet and that the committee still intended to review them.
Separately, the caretaker had put forward their own motion for the upcoming annual general meeting (AGM), proposing to extend the caretaking agreement with a further 5-year option starting in 2046. The two complaining owners asked the committee to leave this motion off the AGM agenda until their complaint had been properly assessed, but were told, correctly, that a validly submitted owner’s motion can’t legally be left off the agenda. The owners then applied to the Commissioner’s Office for final orders requiring an independent (or committee-run) assessment of the caretaker’s performance, and an order stopping the body corporate from signing any deed extending the agreement until that assessment was complete. Pending that final decision, they asked for an urgent interim order (a temporary order made quickly to prevent harm before a full hearing) to stop the deed being signed if the extension motion passed at the AGM.
The adjudicator made clear that a committee isn’t legally required to get quotes for an independent audit just because an owner complains about a caretaker. The legal test is simply whether the committee acted reasonably in how it responded. The adjudicator’s preliminary view was that it’s a relevant factor for a committee to consider whether similar complaints have been made before (here, apparently none in the caretaker’s roughly two years in the role), though that factor alone wouldn’t decide the matter either way.
On timing, the adjudicator noted there’s no set legal deadline for a committee to act on general correspondence or complaints, unlike a formal motion, which does have a decision timeframe. The only requirement is that the committee act reasonably, and given how detailed and lengthy the owners’ complaint was, taking some extra time to consider it properly wasn’t necessarily unreasonable.
Helpfully, the adjudicator also flagged that the legislation already provides a specific tool for concerns about a caretaker’s conduct: a remedial action notice (a formal notice giving the caretaker a set period, at least 14 days, to fix an identified problem), which a committee can issue if it considers that reasonable. The adjudicator also pointed out that any owner remains free to submit their own motion to a general meeting proposing a performance audit or a remedial action notice, something these owners hadn’t yet done. On the urgent interim order, the adjudicator wasn’t persuaded there was enough urgency or practical benefit to grant it: delaying only the signing of the deed wouldn’t change the outcome of the AGM vote itself, and since the proposed extension wouldn’t even start until 2046, any current performance concerns would likely already be resolved one way or another well before then. The interim order was dismissed, though the separate application for final orders about the performance assessment remains to be decided.
If you’re a lot owner with concerns about a caretaker’s performance, it helps to put your concerns in writing clearly and specifically, ideally grouped by issue rather than as one long combined complaint, so the committee can consider and respond to each point. If you feel a complaint alone isn’t getting the response you’d like, remember you can submit your own motion to a general meeting asking for a performance audit or a remedial action notice, both are legitimate, well-established options. You’re also welcome to raise concerns by contacting your body corporate committee directly by email, or by contacting BCsystems, who can pass your concerns on to the committee.
If you’re a committee member, this case is a good reminder to document how you’ve considered a complaint, even where you decide not to take the specific action requested. Recording your reasoning (as the Seacrest committee did) helps show you’ve acted reasonably, which is exactly what the law requires. It’s also worth knowing that a remedial action notice is available as a proportionate, formal response if concerns about a caretaker’s conduct are confirmed, without needing to jump straight to a full independent audit.
Complaints about a caretaker or other service contractor can be sensitive to manage well. BCsystems can help committees keep clear records of how they’ve considered an owner’s complaint, including the reasoning behind any decision, so there’s a solid paper trail if questions come up later. We can also help owners put together concerns about caretaking performance in a clear, well-organised and well-supported way, making it easier for the committee to understand and respond to each issue raised.
Complaints about service standards are a normal part of running a scheme, and this case shows that the system already has sensible, proportionate tools for handling them, from a straightforward committee review through to a remedial action notice or an owner’s motion. Knowing these options in advance helps everyone respond calmly and constructively when a concern does come up.
“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.