This is the first part in in our practical problem-solving series, in which each month we will provide readers with an example of a difficult problem which owners have overcome and details of how they have got their complex back on track.

We start with Scheme X.

Scheme X is a 6-lot scheme which received an Enforcement Notice from the Brisbane City Council directing the body corporate for Scheme X to comply with original development approval conditions, specifically the disposal of storm water leaving the Scheme X which the Council sad had not been complied with.

When the problem first raised its head by the Council writing to the previous body corporate manager for the scheme in 2022, the Committee at that time asked their body corporate manager (not Hartley’s by the way) to go back to the original developer and have that developer rectify the issues at his cost.

As you might expect – those requests did not yield a response, and the Council continued to write to the Committee about the Enforcement Notice. The Committee, at that time, wrote back to the Council attempting to send Council after the developer.

Of course, that is not how the Council works and readers would know the original development approval conditions go with the land and require the body corporate’s compliance for as long as the body corporate exists. The Council has no legal requirement to chase the original developer and every right to look to the body corporate which occupies the land, to make good any defects.

Scheme X came to Hartley’s, and we began the process of resolving their Enforcement notice, given, by that time, Council were threatening to fine the body corporate for non-compliance which was concerning to the Committee.

After reviewing the records handed over by the previous management company, we noted we had not received the original Enforcement Notice. As we had by that time made ourselves known to the Council in order to resolve the issue, we were able to get a copy of the Enforcement Notice, read it and confirm the details of its contents to the Committee. We also noted the original development approval had been litigated in the Planning and Environment Court and so we sought a copy of the judgement for the records.

At Scheme X’s next AGM (which was our first AGM) we sought to understand the history of the development and the backstory to the Enforcement Notice known by the owners. Based on that information, we sought the Committee’s instructions to seek a report from an engineer’s report as to the current stormwater drainage and what the costs might be to undertake any rectification works.

We were quite fortunate in that one of the owners knew the developer who had attended site and checked the installed drainage was working (which it was) but could not explain how the installed storm water solution did not match the Council plans.

At this time, the Committee were still of the belief that they did not need to do anything with the Enforcement Notice – they could sit on their hands and wait for the developer to answer Council’s call without any penalty to them.

Unfortunately, we sometimes had to be the bearers of bad news, and this was one of those times.

After reading over the Enforcement Notice, reviewing previous Council correspondence, engineering and architectural reports, we confirmed to the Committee that the body corporate had two options:

Which outcome did the Committee think was best for the owners? You will have to wait for our next installment.