Occupant’s bid for CCTV rules against an owners corporation and strata manager dismissed (ACAT, 2026)

What happened

The applicant was an occupant of a unit in a complex in the Australian Capital Territory. He was not an owner of a unit. His motorbike was stolen from the complex.

The complex is run by an owners corporation (the body made up of all the unit owners, set up under the Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011) for units plan 4693. The owners corporation had engaged Vantage Strata Pty Limited to provide strata management and building management services to help it carry out its functions under that Act.

The dispute concerned how the CCTV footage was handled after the theft, including the review of the footage, whether it was kept or deleted, and what the strata manager told police about it. The applicant said police had lawfully asked for the footage and that the strata manager had made the footage conditional on an occupant paying, and had told police no footage could be provided before properly reviewing it.

This case was heard together with a separate proceeding (XD 1350 of 2025) in which the same applicant sought compensation from the same two parties, including for the value of the stolen motorbike. In that other proceeding the tribunal found there was no evidence that the strata manager was negligent in reviewing the CCTV footage. The reasons in this case are short because they are meant to be read with the reasons in that other proceeding, which are not part of this text.

What each side wanted

The occupant asked for declarations that the owners corporation had failed to exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence in administering common property, specifically in preserving and reviewing the CCTV footage after a lawful police request, and that the strata manager had acted unreasonably by conditioning the release of footage on payment by an occupant and by telling police no footage could be provided before properly reviewing it. He also asked for four directions, each to be carried out within 60 days: a written CCTV preservation policy; a written protocol stopping footage being conditional on a fee where police request it; a written protocol making the owner and managing agent of the CCTV system responsible for reviews, with a trained person elected to do them; and a written protocol preventing fees from impeding police requests for footage. The owners corporation brought a cross claim, asking for an order under section 31 of the Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 for the legal costs it had incurred in defending the application.

What the tribunal decided

The tribunal dismissed the application. None of the declarations or the four 60-day directions were made.

The tribunal also dismissed the owners corporation's cross claim for an order under section 31 of the Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 for its legal costs.

No money was ordered to be paid either way. The orders were made on 15 July 2026 by Senior Member J Francis.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The tribunal dismissed the application for the same reasons it had dismissed the negligence allegation in the related compensation case. It was not satisfied that the respondents were negligent in the review, storage or deletion of the CCTV footage, and it was not satisfied that there had been a breach of relevant legal standards. The tribunal observed that the orders sought looked like suggestions for the respondents to improve their policies and operations, rather than matters established as breaches. Because no breach was made out, there was no basis for the declarations or for directions requiring new written protocols.

On the cross claim, the tribunal looked at section 31 of the Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011. That section allows an owners corporation to recover the cost of work it has to do because of a wilful or negligent act, but the way it works is that the cost is recoverable from the member — that is, the unit owner — as a debt. The applicant here was an occupier of a member's unit, not the member. The member was not a party to the proceeding.

The tribunal said that even if it had decided that section 31 applied because the owners corporation incurred legal expenses due to an act of the occupant, the recovery under that section runs against the member. As the member was not before it, the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to make an order for recovery against the occupant, so the cross claim was dismissed.

These reasons are brief and adopt the findings made in the related proceeding, and the reasons in that related proceeding are not set out in this text.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position — living in a unit complex and unhappy with how the owners corporation or the strata manager has handled something — this decision shows that a tribunal will not make declarations or order new policies just because better procedures would be sensible. The tribunal looks for a failure to meet a legal standard, proved by evidence. Asking for a written policy to be adopted is asking for an order, and an order needs a finding of breach behind it.

The decision also shows that who is named as a party matters. Strata legislation often works by making a unit owner, as a member of the owners corporation, the person liable for certain costs. Where a cost-recovery section is written that way, it does not reach an occupant who is not a member, and the tribunal cannot make an order against someone the section does not cover, or against a person who is not a party to the case.

In this kind of dispute, most people start by putting their concern to the strata manager or the owners corporation in writing, setting out what happened, what they say went wrong and what they want done about it, and only then make a tribunal application if that written complaint does not resolve it.

How to apply: our step-by-step guide to a ACAT application. More decisions: ACAT cases and strata and body corporate.

Source: SCHMIDT v THE OWNERS – UNITS PLAN 4693 & ANOR (Unit Titles) [2026] ACAT 44 (read the full decision). This summary was prepared from the published decision for general information. It is not legal advice, and the tribunal’s own reasons are the authoritative record.