A body corporate has been forced to back down after banning doormats in common area hallways after a ruling by state’s watchdog. Picture: Supplied
A dispute between the owners of a unit and a body corporate over a doormat that needed the watchdog’s intervention has been labelled ‘trivial’ and a waste of valuable government money and resources.
The need for a Body Corporate and Community Management (BCCM) adjudicator to determine where a doormat can be placed at a Sunshine Coast unit complex has stunned the watchdog’s former boss Chris Irons.
A ban on doormats in common hallway areas was imposed by the body corporate for Cosmopolitan Cotton Tree at Maroochydore in June 2020, the BCCM ruling stated.
A body corporate ban on doormats at Cosmopolitan Cottontree at Maroochydore in common hallway areas caused friction with the owner’s of a unit opposite the pool area. Picture: Supplied
The body corporate informed owners that “in the interests of … avoiding” work health and safety (WHS) liability, common area hallways were to be free of floor mats as well as pot plants and shoe racks, according to the document.
“The doormat decision is the most trivial I have seen,” Mr Irons said.
“It takes the cake because if you go through the whole order, they got in experts to do slip assessments, so it would not have been cheap.”
The owners of a unit, opposite the pool area, challenged the ban on medical grounds.
They supplied a doctor’s letter and two WHS expert reports that stated heavy non-slip, non-curl mats were not a hazard.
Their attempts to overturn the ban was met with resistance, not only from the body corporate that refused to yield, but fellow tenants “with a number of submissions from owners”, the decision stated.
“Some owners believe that the mats are unsightly,” the report said.
Former BCCM commissioner Chris Irons called the doormat dispute trivial and a waste of money. Picture: John Gass
There were submissions in favour of the applicants, with one stating it was “not possible” to place mats inside a doorway and another pointing out there were no by-laws to regulate the use of mats.
The adjudicator found in favour of the unit owners, saying, “that the refusal of permission by the committee was unreasonable”.
However, the dispute should never have reached an adjudication stage, said Mr Irons who spent more than five years at the helm of the BCCM.
Unit owner’s are now allowed to place doormats outside their apartments following a BCCM ruling, experts say. Picture: Supplied
He said it was a trivial matter and that his former office, which he has previously stated is understaffed and runs “on the smell of an oily rag”, should not be tied up with these disputes.
“The BCCM should not be doing this and that’s not to denigrate the people who wanted the doormat, they had a problem and they needed it resolved,” he said.
“Looking at the salaries of the people involved and the time spent adjudicating it, as well as experts, you are looking at thousands of dollars over a doormat.”
Also labelling the matter trivial, was Stratum Legal’s body corporate expert Michael Kleinschmidt who said there needed to be an amicable outcome long before it reached adjudication.
“It was a waste of resources, but the right result was achieved,” Mr Kleinschmidt said.
“The real issue was that the body corporate was not prepared to make an exception when objectively it should have done so, even if only on a trial basis.”
Stratum Legal Michael Kleinschmidt said the right outcome was reached but the body corporate should have been more flexible top avoid a BCCM showdown. Supplied
The matter may be “petty” but it was important for applicants to have it resolved and an adjudicator to take the emotion out of a complaint, said the Unit Owner’s Association of Queensland spokesman Wayne Stevens.
“A reasonable decision was determined and … it may seem petty but clearly it was important to the applicants,” Mr Stevens said.
A BCCM representative said body corporates and owners or tenants needed to make reasonable attempts to resolve a dispute and that may include conciliation with the BCCM before an adjudicator is required.
“Disputes considered by BCCM adjudicators can relate to a range of matters that affect those living, working and investing in a community titles scheme including obligations to maintain and repair property within a scheme, management of body corporate finances, and issues affecting residents’ use and enjoyment of their homes,” they said.
The body corporate for the complex was contacted for comment.
The post A unit complex dispute over a doormat has been ridiculed and deemed a waste of government resources. appeared first on realestate.com.au.