In December 2022 the respondents noticed a large water leak on their driveway and called their plumber to check on whether the water leak was their responsibility by commissioning a pressure test of their lot.

The respondent’s plumber advised there was no loss of pressure to their lot and suggested that the water leak was from downstream, below the isolation valve and using this, the respondents claimed it was the body corporate’s responsibility to repair the leak.

The applicant body corporate commissioned its plumber to investigate and repair the leak.

The body corporate’s plumber cut a hole into the respondent’s driveway, exposed and repaired the ruptured pipe, noting the pipe serviced only the respondent’s lot and that it was within the boundary of their lot. The body corporate’s plumber’s advice to the body corporate was that the pipe was a lot owner responsibility.

The body corporate requested the respondent lot owners to cover the cost of their plumber’s works. The respondent lot owners refused to cover the cost, arguing that the repair was the responsibility of the body corporate as it was “downstream” of their isolation valve.

The respondent lot owners continued to deny responsibility and the applicant body corporate paid its plumber.

The body corporate eventually issued a letter of demand to the respondents and lodged an application to seek an order for the respondent lot owners to pay for the repairs as well as the letter of demand and costs of commencing the adjudication application.

Following the lodgment of the application, the respondent lot owners variously claimed:

1. That the body corporate ought to have provided them an opportunity to appoint their own plumber (some 5 months after repair work was carried out); and
2. The body corporate failed to communicate effectively with the lot owners; and
3. The body corporate failed to provide any updates before undertaking the repairs; and
4. That the leak was from a downpipe.

Adjudicator Ananda found that:

1. The respondent lot owners, whilst claiming the pipe was body corporate responsibility, did not adduce any evidence to support their claim;
2. Generally, any utility infrastructure that is solely related to supplying a utility service to a lot and is located within the boundaries of that lot (but is not within a boundary structure) will be a lot owner’s to maintain;
3. Regardless of the positioning of isolation valves, taps, valve boxes or the water flow structure, section 20(1)(b) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 is pretty clear on what is an owner’s responsibility and what is a body corporate responsibility;
4. The pipe was the responsibility of the respondent lot owners to repair;
5. The applicant body corporate had the ability to carry out the work and record the costs of doing so from the owner as a debt;
6. The body corporate’s decision to repair the pipe was not unreasonable – it had already provided the respondents with ample opportunity to fix them pipe themselves;
7. The body corporate made very reasonable efforts to explain the applicable law to the respondents to justify their claim for the cost of the works.

Readers would recall that Adjudicators have no jurisdiction to determine an action for the recovery of a debt under the Act or to issue an order for the repairs – however the Adjudicator could declare that the debt was payable, which would then allow the body corporate to recover the debt by way of QCAT or the Magistrates Court. You can read the entire case here: https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr/2024/264.html