Owners corporation ordered to pay $178 after telling a unit owner to repair his own mailbox (ACAT, 2026)

What happened

The applicant had owned a unit in an ACT units plan for many years, and his sister lived in it and acted as his representative. Over several years there was disagreement between her and the strata manager and owners corporation about insurance, roof repairs, and the mailbox. Two related applications were brought: one under the unit titles legislation and one as a civil dispute. They were heard over two days in February 2023, with written submissions lodged afterwards.

After the 2020 hail storm, many roofs in the complex were damaged and a claim was made on the owners corporation's insurance. The applicant used his own insurance and had his roof repaired promptly. Other owners said the repairs done under the owners corporation claim were inadequate, so the 2020 annual general meeting voted to commission a report on whether the repairs had been done properly. The report that arrived was not what the owners corporation had asked for: instead of an opinion on the earlier repairs, it was an inspection, an opinion about future work, and a quote. There was no written brief or quote for the report, and the firm said it had provided what was requested. In November 2021 the executive committee resolved to pay the $1,914 invoice from the general fund. The applicant's share was about $30.

The applicant also objected to a long-standing practice in the complex: where repair costs were less than the insurance excess, the owners corporation paid the unit owner directly instead of claiming on the policy. He pointed to four such payments made before April 2021, withdrew one after further information, and sought his share back for the other three.

On the mailbox, the tribunal accepted that in 2012 the unit's mailbox fell into disrepair and the strata manager of the day told the occupant that the inside of the mailbox was the unit owner's property and the owner should fix it. The applicant's sisters repaired it themselves then, and again in 2018 and 2019 after it was vandalised or damaged. The applicant's representative later learned the owners corporation had paid for repairs to another mailbox in the same structure. By the hearing, the owners corporation agreed the two mailbox structures were common property and not owned by individual unit owners.

What each side wanted

The applicant asked the tribunal to rule that the mailboxes were common property and to order the owners corporation to repay what he had spent repairing his, claiming negligence for the incorrect advice given by the strata manager. He sought either the cost of a locksmith or the cost of materials plus the time his two sisters spent on the repairs. He also sought a refund of his roughly $30 share of the roof report because he said he had been left out of it, a ruling that the executive committee had gone beyond its powers in paying that invoice, his share of three 'under excess' payments made before April 2021 on the basis that they were unlawful or negligent, and reimbursement of $243 in filing fees. Earlier parts of the applications about office bearers liability insurance and the wording of an insurance motion were abandoned on the second day of the hearing after the issues were talked through. The owners corporation argued the roof report invoice had to be paid to avoid reputational damage and enforcement, that it had followed what was understood to be the law when making the 'under excess' payments, that it could not be held responsible for advice it did not know the strata manager was giving, and that $50 in total was fair compensation for the mailbox.

What the tribunal decided

In the unit titles application (UT 29/2022) the tribunal ordered that the mailbox structure containing the mailbox for the unit, located on common property, is common property, and that the owners corporation pay the applicant the $165 filing fee within 28 days.

In the civil dispute application (XD 580/2022) the tribunal ordered the owners corporation to pay the applicant $178, made up of $100 for repairs to the mailbox and $78 as reimbursement of that application's filing fee.

The claim for the $30 share of the roof report failed, the challenge to the executive committee's decision to pay the report invoice failed, and the claim for a share of the pre-April 2021 'under excess' payments was dismissed. The tribunal also apologised to both parties for the delay of more than three years in delivering the decision, saying there were reasons for it but they were no excuse.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

On the mailbox, the tribunal looked at the registered units plan, photographs and the legislation. The structure was on common property and was not itself drawn on the registered plan, so under sections 13 and 17 of the Unit Titles Act 2001 both the structure and the mailboxes in it were common property. Section 24(1) of the Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 makes maintaining common property the owners corporation's responsibility. The tribunal said the answer to that question was clear, not a point on which reasonable minds could differ, and there was no apparent basis for the strata manager's interpretation. The owners corporation was liable for its strata manager's actions: it had a legal duty to maintain the common property, failed to do so, and through the strata manager required the unit owner to repair common property himself. On the amount, the tribunal found the cost of materials plus skilled labour would have been about $50 on each occasion. Although more may have been spent on materials and the sisters spent many hours labouring, a person claiming compensation has a duty to mitigate (keep down) their loss, so $50 was allowed for each of the 2018 and 2019 repairs.

On the roof report, the tribunal was satisfied the applicant in the end wanted his roof included, that the strata manager intended it to be included, and that it was included to some extent, probably by a distant visual inspection. So the claim that he had been left out and should get his share back failed. On the decision to pay the invoice, section 35(3) of the Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 says the executive committee must exercise its functions as the owners corporation directs by resolution at a general meeting or, if there is no resolution, as the committee thinks appropriate. Paying the invoice was within the committee's remit, and the tribunal noted the decision was effectively ratified at the next annual general meeting when the financial statements were accepted.

On the 'under excess' payments, the tribunal set out how the law had changed. Section 100 of the Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 has always required the owners corporation to insure all buildings on the land against risks including storm damage. Before April 2021 a unit owner claiming directly on the insurer had to pay the excess themselves, an owners corporation claiming for an owner's benefit had to pay the excess under the policy terms, and there was no express legal duty on an owners corporation to make a claim at all. Section 100A, which commenced in April 2021, now requires the owners corporation to lodge any insurance claim and pay any excess on it. The tribunal rejected the argument that a claim for less than the excess is not a 'claim', because the policy before it did not define a claim that way. It accepted that the owners corporation had not been negligent when it made the earlier payments, because it was following what was thought to be the law at the time, and that it was always open to an owners corporation to take a generous approach to repairs if authorised by resolution, which the long practice plus yearly approval of the financial statements satisfied. The tribunal also said paying small repair costs directly from the general fund is consistent with the legislation and tends to keep future premiums down.

On costs, section 48(2)(a)(i) of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 allows the tribunal to order the other party to pay the filing fee if it decides an application in the applicant's favour. An application does not have to succeed entirely; partial success is enough to enliven that power. The applicant succeeded on the mailbox in the civil dispute and on the common property question in the unit titles application, and the tribunal held those successes were not trivial. It accepted there was some force in the argument that talking further with the strata manager could have resolved issues, but found communication between the parties had broken down and a circuit breaker was needed, so it ordered both fees reimbursed.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position as a lot owner, this decision shows how a tribunal works out who owns and must maintain a structure in a strata complex. It is not decided by what the strata manager says or by what everyone has assumed for years. The tribunal reads the registered plan together with the unit titles legislation, and anything on common property that is not shown as part of a unit is likely to be common property, which the owners corporation must maintain. It also shows that an owners corporation can be held responsible for incorrect advice its strata manager gives, even where the committee says it did not know the advice was being given.

The decision also shows the limits of claiming back what you spent. Even where the owners corporation was in the wrong, the tribunal allowed a modest figure for materials plus skilled labour on each occasion rather than the hours family members put in, because a person claiming compensation is expected to keep their loss down. And where an owners corporation acted in line with what the law was understood to be at the time, decisions made back then are unlikely to be reopened as negligent, particularly where a general meeting has approved the accounts since. Partial success can still be enough for the tribunal to order your filing fees back.

In this kind of dispute, most people start with a written complaint or request to the strata committee, body corporate or owners corporation that sets out the problem, what the plan and the legislation say about who is responsible, and what they are asking to be done or repaid. If that does not resolve it, the next step people usually take is an application to the tribunal.

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

Source: FENG v THE OWNERS – UNITS PLAN NO 840 (Unit Titles) [2026] ACAT 38 [2026] ACAT 38 (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.