Mattress row put to bed

Watchdog says exclusive tower can’t issue fine

A RESIDENT accused of dumping an abandoned mattress and couch at an exclusive Gold Coast tower has had a $500 fine overturned by the state watchdog.

The body corporate at the Surfers Paradise Chevron Renaissance – home to 716 individual lots that pay up to $10,000 in fees a year – slugged the resident $500 for disposing of the two unwanted items in the car park.

It alleged photos showed an employee of the accused with the couch and mattress.

The resident, who also acts as the real estate agent for properties in the building, denied it was them and fired off a complaint to the Body Corporate Community Management Commissioner, arguing that the body corporate had no power to make such demands.

The resident also alleged

“racial discrimination” and a personal vendetta by the committee were behind the invoices.

In response, the committee argued that there were clear instructions on how unwanted furniture could be disposed.

It also claimed the dumped mattress and couch posed work, health and safety issues to all owners and affected the enjoyment of common property. The committee said the invoices were not fines but invoices for reimbursement of charges from the body corporate contractor, who must employ staff to drive around the complex with a tractor and trailer to pick up discarded items and take them to the basement area.

Despite the claims, the adjudicator dismissed the dispute outright, saying the committee had no authority to issue the charge. The adjudicator said there was no evidence to support claims of discrimination put forward but suggested the applicant “may wish to seek private legal advice or contact the Queensland Human Rights Commission”.

This is not the first time a dispute at the towers has come before the state body.

In December last year, the commissioner ended a months-long impasse over a vote for the new body corporate committee.

In mid-2019, the members of one committee complained that it had been voted out at an unapproved annual general meeting.

After the complaint, the commissioner froze any action by the new committee until he could determine who was rightly in control.

Ultimately, the election of the new committee was found to be void. They were voted in again at a legitimate AGM.