NIGHTMARE NEIGHBOURS

GOLD Coast unit owners dealing with nightmare neighbours face years of court battles and body corporate wrangling with little hope for a good outcome. Across the city, tower residents are fighting hellish owneroccupiers living in their midst – including noisy sex workers, overpowering pet urine odours, relentless drunks and more. But often the only result after years of battles are fines and having to live with it. A body corporate law expert says: “The most conventional path to evict someone from a scheme is to have them rack up such a debt they can’t afford to pay or refuse to and then bankrupt them. You’re talking years of litigation to reach that stage.”

NEIGHBOURS in a Coolangatta unit block are at loggerheads over a blunder made when their body corporate was established 23 years ago.

Two owners of one-bed apartments at Ocean Court Kirra (above) – which comprises nine two-bed and three one-bed units – took the body corporate to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) after discovering they were paying more in rates and levies than owners of larger apartments.

In a ruling last month, QCAT said the issue at the Coolangatta Rd unit block arose because apartments were incorrectly numbered when the Community Title Scheme (CTS) was established in the Community Management Statement lodged on July 7, 1998.

“The error has resulted in a situation where the owners of smaller units pay more for rates, body corporate levies and in special levy contributions, such as to a painting project for the building,” the judgment states.

“The situation is clearly unjust and inequitable.”

In its judgment, QCAT said the situation could be “easily fixed” by way of a body corporate resolution to correct the “obvious error”.

“Unfortunately, the applicants say the owners of the larger lots benefiting from the error refuse to pass a resolution to correct the situation.”

According to the judgment, the body corporate argued that owners had “the benefit of disclosure of existing entitlements” when they bought their units and should stick to them.

The two applicants to QCAT sought orders to adjust the lot entitlement schedule which would force the body corporate to change its position.

“The question in these proceedings is whether the tribunal has the power to adjust what the body corporate will not,” the judgment stated.

QCAT found that “the tribunal’s power to order an adjustment is quite limited”.

It said applying the “market value principle” was the “only ground” by which the application might proceed, and no evidence had been put forward regarding market values.

As a result, QCAT stated the application “must unfortunately be dismissed”.