Aurora doubles body corporate fees

Published: 16 August 2007.

Story courtesy of City News

An attempt to more than double body corporate fees at Brisbane’s tallest residential tower has outraged apartment owners, with many fearing they will be forced to sell.

A vote to approve the raising of mid-level apartment fees from $2500 to $5600 at Aurora Towers on Queen St will be taken at its annual general meeting this month.

In a letter to residents, Body Corporate chairman Ralph Donnett said the rise reflected $700,000 in costs that had not been budgeted for this financial year including building insurance, lift and air–conditioning maintenance.

“Low levies in 2006-07 have resulted in the sinking fund being under-provided by almost $400,000,” Mr Donnett said.

A group of 60 apartment owners have banded together to fight the increase, which would see their weekly body corporate fee payments rise to more than $110 a week.

“I’m going to have to sell and potentially it’s going to affect my selling price,” resident Claire Barratt said.

Aurora is represented on the City Treasurers Guild which was formed early this year to fight escalating body corporate fees amid claims of rip-offs and rorts.

Spokesman Paul Cassels said Aurora’s body corporate chairman had no choice but to increase the fees to reflect the true cost of maintaining the building.

The guild is gathering evidence to “prove” to the State Government that under-quoting of body corporate fees is rife to help secure sales on new apartment blocks.

Reply from: Susan

8:47am Sunday, 10 June 2007

From my point of view, result this maybe lack of good management by the Body Corporate, may we need thinking to change this Body Corporate.

Reply from: Lindsay Mann

7:38am Monday, 16 July 2007

$5600 sounds about right to me.Anybody with a little nouse should know you cant run a building on $2500/unit/year. Their solcitor should have quieried it inthe first place. Owners should be happy for a cheap year

Reply from: Simon Hudson

9:37am Monday, 16 July 2007

Its not rocket science. BC Managers want the business from the developer. They quote cheap to get the business on a contract.They then set the 1st yr budget in conjunction with the developer who pays the 1st years BC levies when everything is under warranty.

A committee is formed. When they have to set a second years budget which includes insurance, lift , aircon maintanence and asinking fund that reflects the future needs of the building and generally the things not catered for in year 1 to keep fees down and made to look attractive to buyers.

What do you know, the cheap fees you had when you bought are now at the level they should have been from the start. They aren't expensive now they were under priced when you bought. Talk to the minister they set the legislation. Meantime get your cheque book out.

Reply from: Nick

10:45am Monday, 16 July 2007

Our building's Levy sit at about $2500 PA - have done for quite a few years now without any trouble at all. Teneriffe woolstore style building - about 4 years old: 100 units, onsite managers, 2 elevator's, insurance, gym, spa, sauna & games room, etc.

We've even had a sinking fud building with enough to get some cool upgrades (new remote gates, video cameras, replaced gardens, etc)

I've also owned a place in small complex (10 units) where BC management was the same sort of money for nothing more than insurance and a couple of meetings! No gardens, no facilities, no real common areas to speak of.

Comes down to prudent management I think - And a vigilent comittee to keep a close eye over them. SSKB are the BC management firm here - I think they're doing a pretty good job. The comittee are a bunch of fuddy duddys too which is actually a good thing because the BC GM is the highlite of their year - so they watch it like a hawk. I wouldn't really be happy paying any higher fee's than $2500 PA

Reply from: Lorraine

12:23pm Tuesday, 21 August 2007

While I agree that buyers maybe should have been more astute, it is likely that the sellers are guilty of deceptive conduct in marketing the units, as they should have ensured information supplied about body corporate contributions was accurate, and not based on artificially low contributions in the first year.

Overall, unit owners in Queensland get a raw deal. The legislation is disgracefully slanted towards developers, sellers, and contracted managers - with owners having very little protection and copping excessive and unjust costs in many areas - including, in Brisbane, Council rates which are very unfairly calculated for owners of very small serviced units.

Owners of units in Aurora should demand an inquiry to determine if representations made to them were in compliance with law - then monitor financial management very closely and ensure you see clear explanations of all budgets and evidence of expenditures. You do have some rights, and you should demand that those rights are respected.

Reply from: nick

24 August 2007

When the State Treasurer, can resigne overnight and walk into a job as a senior exec at Devine it can't help but make you consider the integrity of state legislation, can it?

Reply from: Lorraine

23 August 2007

I don't wonder, Nick. I know! State legislation is anti-unit owners and pro developers and managers. There is only one protection available - DON'T EVER BUY INTO A BODY CORPORATE ARRANGEMENT. Here's yet another example of the failings of legislators. A building with about 150 units in it has a massive building fault - exposed a few years after completion. BSA won't protect the owners because the building is "too large" to be covered under the usual building guarantee legislation. The owners are struggling to sue the builder because the developer (a $1 company) is buddies with the builder and won't release copies of the contracts to the owners' lawyers. The BC Authorities simply say "It's not an issue we can help with." Other unit buyers beware.