Thirteen questions about how the building got here, answered only from the documents. Open any card in any order, or read it as a timeline. The full record sits underneath for anyone who wants to check a claim.
“It’s sucks to be a car stacker owner, but it is what it is.”
This page asks whether it has to be. Every answer below comes from a document, and every card links to where that document sits in the record.
Existing budget funds can pay the contractor while costs remain recoverable from owners under the agreement. The newsletter does not say recovery has been waived. It also moves the expected service window to four to eight weeks and raises a Schedule 2 by-law proposal.
Read the agreement and newsletter comparison Read all clauses and the proposals → Questions owners can askCards you have opened fill their ring. Nothing here is legal advice. It is owner research from the documents, shared so that every owner can read the same record.
Public planning records list 54 public parking bays among the community benefits supporting the extra height.
The car stacker (CS) and the related working parts are common property.
Every purchase since has been made against that sheet.
Phoenix, in 2026: the strata manager, on behalf of the Council, entered into a Service & Maintenance Agreement with us immediately
. Servicing and insurance run through the strata company from here.
Owners are told the bi-annual service and maintenance for the car stackers at The Precinct is scheduled for Friday, 21st February 2025
.
The Residential Stage 2 accounts show a $23,500 car stacker budget and an actual of $0.00. A separate $5,282 stacker cost is charged to the General schedule, across all 254 lots.
The Stage 2 increase is put down to expenses that include Car Stacker maintenance
, and to the discovery on Cygnet West’s arrival that regular maintenance had not been undertaken
. Ongoing service agreements are said to be in place.
While the car stacker infrastructure forms part of the common property, the obligation to fund an induction does not arise from the strata company’s statutory duties.
The car stacker platform is not on common property.
The strata company’s position is described as clear and final
. Maintenance will be borne by the Strata Company
, inductions and keys are the owner’s cost, and the letter should not be taken as open to further interpretation or debate
.
The application asks one narrow question: whether the induction fee could lawfully be charged to an individual lot.
The Strata Company has engaged legal representation
, with costs recoverable from all owners through the normal levy contribution process
.
The Strata Company has not directly engaged legal representatives or passed a resolution to do so
. No Council meeting was held and there are no minutes.
No by-law allows induction charges. The stackers appear
to be lot property. The strata company should stop paying, and should first obtain the Phoenix contract, take advice on ending it and negotiate with Phoenix, then tell owners.
The strata company does not directly mandate inductions
. The on-site signage is Phoenix’s request. The legal advice obtained indicates the car stackers are lot property.
Standard inductions are to be a strata company cost. Owners without stackers are described as having been subsidising
. A stacker cost centre is foreshadowed for the AGM.
The Strata Plan described the car stackers as common property.
Lots with car stackers carry no identifiable premium in their entitlements.
The insurance company has confirmed that the car stackers fall within the existing strata insurance policy.
The motion would levy the 25 stacker lots by entitlement, before any by-law authorising it exists.
As there is an active SAT case, I am not able to provide any further information on this point at present.
The Tribunal refers the matter to mediation, then records that the applicant has leave to withdraw. Nothing about ownership, the notation or the charges is decided.
Each car stacker forms part of the individual lot and is not common property.
The strata company is unable to undertake or fund
collective maintenance. Motion 14 is withdrawn. A sub-committee is invited, and never formed.
The car stacker itself is common property.
Expressed as his opinion on this specific plan, not a ruling.
A car stacker levy notice was issued in error due to a processing mistake within our accounts department.
It was our understanding that the stacker units were to be common property.
He now thinks the wording may conflict with the Act, and recommends by-laws.
Owners are told we’re all in a safe period
. A one-off service is offered with owners paying Phoenix directly. A by-law is the gold standard
but it’s not going to pass
.
The first written notice to stacker owners that servicing is theirs to arrange. Asked which legislative change it relies on, the strata manager does not say.
The Genie is out of the bottle.
Stackers without a service agreement will be referred to Work Safe to investigate.
It’s sucks to be a car stacker owner, but it is what it is.
The same day, Phoenix says the stackers are overdue.
Our insurer will not allow us to service equipment that it not contracted, therefore if we were to do a one-off service our compliances state that we cannot provide documentation.
The Council will proceed unless and until contrary advice or a binding determination is produced
. The same day a Council member tells stacker owners no referral has been made because the COO also don’t want to have added complications
.
Some owners report receiving personalised service agreements. The copy reviewed on 21 September continues until either party gives 30 days’ notice and includes ongoing costs, repairs and an indemnity. It does not itself transfer ownership. Others, including at least one who said yes, report nothing. The same day a Council member asks stacker owners to stop discussing the matter in their existing group, and a new Council-run group is proposed.
The newsletter says existing budget funds will cover the next service where access consent is provided. The agreement still permits recovery from owners and includes ongoing repairs and an indemnity. Servicing is now expected in four to eight weeks, and a Schedule 2 by-law route is under consideration.
Dates are taken from the documents themselves. Where a letter is undated, the month it was received is used.
The complete evidence page as owners have built it since June: the ten points to challenge in the Council’s notice, the Council’s 8 September response assessed question by question, the shared-structure model, the registered plan, Landgate’s view, the March advice tested against the documents, what owners have asked for, and the sources. It is long. Open it when you want to check something.
Owners now have a ten-clause Car Stacker Service Agreement and a September Quarterly Community Update circulated on 21 September. The agreement is assessed from an unsigned copy. Its owner details and DocuSign audit record are not published here. The newsletter is dated September, and its PDF was created on 21 September.
Existing funds do not mean the service is free to the owner. The newsletter says existing budget funds will cover the next service where access consent is provided. Read alongside clauses 4 and 6, that can mean the strata company pays the contractor and recovers costs from owners. Nothing in the newsletter expressly waives recovery. The budget used, allocation, recovery timing and treatment of administration or repair costs still need to be stated.
Clause 2 appoints the strata company as coordinating agent. Clause 4 says the owner remains responsible for the stacker and all related costs. Clause 6 permits recovery of contractor charges, call-outs, repairs and reasonable administration expenses within 14 days. No price schedule or administration rates are attached.
Clause 5 requires written owner approval for non-emergency repair or replacement outside routine servicing. Immediate safety work may proceed without that approval. The document does not define routine servicing, cap urgent expenditure or allocate costs for shared components.
Clause 8 covers losses, claims and expenses arising from ownership, operation, condition or failure. It is not confined to owner fault. It excludes the protected party’s negligence, breach of duty or wilful misconduct and applies only to the extent permitted by law. No cap, insurance confirmation or claims-handling procedure is attached.
Clause 10 expressly says the agreement does not transfer ownership or alter obligations imposed by law or the by-laws. Signing is therefore not itself a transfer of title or an express surrender of the ownership challenge. Separate contractual payment obligations may still matter. There is no express adjustment or reimbursement process after a later determination.
Clause 3 starts with annual servicing but allows another interval required by the contractor. Phoenix’s correspondence and a Council member’s 7 September message describe six-monthly servicing. No revised manufacturer or contractor recommendation has been supplied. The annual wording does not establish that Phoenix has changed the schedule.
Either party can terminate on 30 days’ written notice under clause 9. Authorised work, incurred costs and accrued rights survive. If an owner cancels without replacement servicing, that decision could become relevant to responsibility for a subsequent gap. Cancellation does not automatically transfer every legal duty or responsibility for the earlier interruption.
Read the September Quarterly Community Update · Compare the 8 September notice · Copy the new owner questions
Service-history qualification. A February 2025 notice scheduled servicing for 21 February. An owner reports that date as the last service in their records, but completed contractor reports are still needed. The separate $5,282.25 General-schedule stacker expense could relate to servicing or other work. Nil spending on the Stage 2 line cannot establish that no later service occurred.
The 31 August Council notice does more than report a legal opinion. It treats a disputed ownership interpretation as established, then uses that premise to predict consequences for servicing, safety, insurance, personal liability and cost. Owners are being asked to reorganise a shared mechanical system around that chain of conclusions.
This section does not assume that the opposite ownership position has already been proved. It separates what is known, what remains disputed and what supporting evidence is still missing before responsibility or risk is shifted.
Each of the ten points uses the same test: what was presented, why it should be challenged, and what owners should ask for before acting on it.
The Council notice says the past common-property approach was incorrect and that ignoring individual ownership would mean ignoring a “legal fact”.
The registered Plan expressly says the stacker and related working parts are common property. Landgate’s scheme-specific response and the original surveyor support that treatment. No binding ruling or registered correction has displaced it.
Provide the full title analysis and identify the formal legal step that will resolve the conflict between the current opinion and registered record.
The strata company has legal advice that the plan cannot override the Act, the surveyor also identified an inconsistency, and Landgate is an administrative body whose response is not a judicial determination. Without contrary advice or a binding determination, the Council has accepted the advice. Owners contemplating SAT should obtain independent advice, and the strata company reserves its position on recovering costs.
It explains why the Council prefers its lawyer’s view. It does not supply the full title analysis or say how the conflict with the registered Plan will be resolved. Accepting advice is still not a transfer, a correction or a declaration.
The notice says the law changed, the earlier approach became wrong and the current Act must be used.
The relevant re-subdivision was registered on 26 March 2020, when the official 07-g0-03 consolidation was in force. The substantial amendments commenced on 1 May 2020. The supplied advice does not explain what the Plan legally created on registration or what Schedule 5 preserved.
Identify the exact former and current provisions relied on, explain the transitional effect and provide supplementary advice addressing the law on the registration date.
Strata Plan 67688 was first registered on 12 October 2015. The Council’s focus is the current legislation and the practical servicing issue, not responsibility for any historical inconsistency. Owners may obtain their own advice.
The question was about the re-subdivision registered on 26 March 2020 and what the 1 May 2020 transitional provisions preserved. The original 2015 registration date does not address that, and no former or current provision is identified.
The notice calls removal of the “CP” notation a housekeeping exercise because the notation is said to be meaningless.
The same notice acknowledges an updated Plan, a unit-entitlement review and a vote without dissent may be required. The change may affect maintenance, levies, disclosure, insurance and the property position owners purchased.
Provide Landgate’s accepted pathway, survey and valuation work, voting requirements, purchaser-disclosure consequences and the proposed treatment of affected owners.
Formally updating the plan and by-laws may be desirable but may need valuation advice, unit-entitlement amendments and a resolution without dissent, which some owners may oppose. Entitlements may not need adjusting because owners with and without stackers have historically paid the same levies. A by-law amendment may provide a formal solution, with a cost centre in the interim subject to owner approval and lawful charging authority.
The notice now treats removing the notation as more than housekeeping. It does not identify Landgate’s accepted pathway, the voting requirements or the consequences for affected owners and purchasers.
The notice says the facts have not changed from the “last SAT appeal”, predicts a similar outcome and refers to costs against a losing participant.
In context, this appears to mean CC 105/2026. That application concerned induction fees and charge allocation. It was withdrawn after mediation and produced no losing party, adverse merits ruling or ownership decision.
Confirm the case number, explain how the issues and orders are said to be the same, and correct any implication that the earlier matter failed or decided ownership.
The Council confirms the matter was CC 105/2026 and acknowledges it was withdrawn without a determination of ownership. It says the lawyer considered ownership principles when advising on induction fees, and that if a further application is made without independent legal advice the Council may proceed to determination rather than mediation and may seek costs where available.
The case number and the withdrawal are now on the record, which the 31 August notice did not provide. The notice does not explain how a withdrawn charge-allocation matter could predict the outcome of an ownership application. The costs warning is now qualified as “where available”.
The notice says it is commonly understood that WorkSafe will lock unmaintained stackers down and that owners without a service agreement will be referred for investigation.
Phoenix says WorkSafe may prohibit equipment where safety or satisfactory maintenance records are in issue, while also saying overdue servicing does not trigger an automatic attendance or prohibition. Phoenix is the service provider, not the regulator. There has still been no clear determination that WorkSafe is involved in resident use of this particular residential or mixed-use setup, who the relevant duty holder would be or what activity could be restricted. A shared leg or control may affect a whole bank, so even the possible scope cannot be allocated by lot without engineering evidence.
Obtain a written, scheme-specific response from WorkSafe identifying whether the legislation applies, the relevant duty holder and the factual basis for any intervention. Also provide any inspection report or notice, the facts supplied to WorkSafe, an engineering risk assessment and the legal basis for restricting one platform or an entire bank.
Phoenix is a contractor, not the regulator. WorkSafe has issued guidance on car stackers under the Work Health and Safety Act 2020. The Council recommends approaching any regulatory enquiry carefully while servicing is overdue, and refers to a West Perth property where a whole bank was reportedly shut down when some units were not serviced.
General guidance and a reported event elsewhere do not answer whether the legislation applies to resident use here, who the duty holder would be or what could be restricted. No WorkSafe correspondence, inspection or notice about this scheme is identified.
The notice says defending a SAT matter with lawyers is an insurance condition, while proceeding differently may void the policy and expose Council members personally.
No policy wording, broker advice or insurer confirmation has been circulated. Ceasing servicing does not automatically void a policy. The actual effect depends on the contract, disclosures, risk controls and insurer response. Section 141 also generally redirects civil liability for a Council member’s good-faith act or omission to the strata company.
Provide the relevant policy clauses and written insurer or broker advice addressing legal representation, maintenance, cover, claims and personal liability. Confirm whether the insurer has been told that ownership and the servicing model remain disputed.
The strata company will seek and circulate written confirmation from the insurer or broker on the cover and on what may compromise it, including lack of servicing, misuse, negligence or inadequate maintenance. Until then owners should not assume all circumstances are covered.
Confirmation about servicing is promised. The claims in the 31 August notice about compulsory legal representation, self-representation voiding the policy and personal Council liability are neither substantiated nor withdrawn.
The notice says providers will not service owners individually, while a separate cost centre is the cheapest, easiest and best solution.
Phoenix’s later correspondence now supports coordinated servicing as the simplest and most economical operational model. It says 25 separate agreements may be needed and a shared-system fault can affect other owners. That evidence does not establish lot ownership, make a cost centre lawful or show that a provider would refuse every individually contracted owner. The March advice still identifies no current by-law or agreement authorising compulsory induction or individual recovery of those charges. A cost centre is an accounting tool, not charging authority.
Provide the current signed contract, Phoenix’s proposed collective and individual agreement models, its insurer’s written contracting requirement, the proposed service model and the by-law, agreement or contribution power relied on for owner-specific charges.
A dedicated cost centre may be established in accordance with the by-laws and any required owner approval. Phoenix is expected to coordinate works across participating stackers, with individual records kept. A single template agreement will appoint the strata company as each participating owner’s agent for coordinating servicing.
Coordinated servicing is now the Council’s own proposal, and the need for approval and charging authority is acknowledged. The agreement, costings, applicable by-law and voting requirements are not supplied, and no current signed contract is identified.
Owners are told the strata company has independent legal advice and should obtain their own professional opinion if they disagree.
The Council may rely on advice to choose an interim operational course. That does not make the opinion binding, amend the registered Plan, transfer ownership or extinguish any statutory duty. The advice was commissioned about induction-fee responsibility, and owners have not received the complete brief or an explanation of why its broader ownership conclusion outweighs the Plan, Landgate, the surveyor and six years of professional administration.
Obtain an independent specialist review. If the historic position was professionally wrong, identify what failed and preserve rectification, insurance and recovery options. If it was not wrong, explain why the current opinion is preferred.
A legal opinion is not a tribunal or court determination. The advice was obtained while considering induction fees and, in addressing that, the lawyer advised the stackers were not common property. The Council considers it reasonable to rely on that advice unless contrary advice or a binding determination is produced.
The acknowledgement is useful. The independent specialist review, the complete brief and an assessment of the contrary Landgate and surveyor material remain missing. The same advice is also being read two ways. On induction fees, the question it was asked, it found no authority to charge owners individually, and the Council accepted that. Its lot-property view, reached along the way, is now treated as settled enough to stop servicing and move the whole maintenance cost onto 25 owners, while Step 2 proposes a cost centre to recover induction expenses subject to charging authority that has still not been identified.
The current opinion is treated as sufficient reason for the strata company to stop arranging maintenance and require owners to make their own arrangements. At the 16 July owner discussion, attendees recorded that the strata manager would arrange a one-off bulk service with owners paying Phoenix directly. The supplied record does not establish that this depended on all 25 owners agreeing.
Phoenix said on 31 August that its records showed the stackers were overdue. That establishes that scheduled servicing had stopped in practice and the due service had not occurred. On 1 September Phoenix said its insurer would not permit an undocumented one-off service without a contract. The March advice had already recommended obtaining the current signed agreement and liaising with Phoenix about termination before owners were notified of ongoing responsibility. The supplied record does not disclose when routine servicing stopped, whether Phoenix agreed to the July proposal, when any Council decision took effect or whether owners were told before the service became overdue.
If the stackers or shared components are common property or strata-company property, s 91 requires maintenance, repair, renewal and replacement. If they are lot property, the shared legs, controls and operating space still require a workable coordinated model. A service gap can create safety, loss and insurance questions even though it does not automatically void cover.
The only certificate supplied to owners expired on 13 June 2026 and is not the full policy wording. A Council that says resident safety matters should not create an unmanaged servicing gap while it cannot show owners the current cover or the insurer’s requirements. It would be irresponsible to put the scheme’s insurance position at avoidable risk and leave residents to discover the consequences only after an incident.
Restore servicing without prejudice to either ownership position. Provide the 16 July service proposal and any conditions attached to it, the formal Council resolution, the last completed and next due service dates, the date Phoenix’s instructions changed, the current contractor status, insurer responses, engineering risk assessment, component responsibility schedule and the proposed funding and reimbursement terms.
Based on the advice, the strata company cannot arrange work to lot property without the owner’s authority. The proposed agreement will provide that authority and record the owner’s acceptance of the costs, without prejudicing any owner’s right to obtain independent advice. Quotes and costings are due by 16 September, and coordinated servicing of participating bays is targeted for 30 September, subject to signed agreements and contractor availability.
This explains the authority for future work. It does not say who stopped the previous arrangement, when, why the July one-off service did not happen or what became of the existing contract. The reservation is narrower than owners asked for: it preserves a right to advice, not both ownership positions, ultimate liability or reimbursement. Owners who do not sign “may need to arrange their own servicing”.
Owners who disagree are told to obtain their own professional advice, while the strata company may defend its position with lawyers funded through scheme money or insurance.
The Act does not require the Council to agree with every owner or answer every email. However, s 119 requires the strata company to consider the merits of proposals and reasonably available options. Council members also owe duties of good faith, care and diligence under s 137. A refusal to consider an interim service proposal or contrary title evidence may therefore be reviewable even though there is no general duty to maintain an email debate.
Request a substantive written decision and minutes showing the evidence, alternatives and conflicts considered. Ask for the authority, budget and any insurer contribution for further legal work. If there is no meaningful response, owners can propose an ordinary resolution and consider a targeted SAT application under ss 197 to 201.
The Council says it has considered the correspondence, met several stacker owners, and remains willing to make a representative available to meet a lawyer appointed by stacker owners. Unless contrary advice or a binding determination is provided, it will continue with the proposed pathway.
There is no dedicated response. The decision record, the alternatives considered, any conflicts, the legal budget and who funds the strata company’s position are not addressed. A willingness to meet a lawyer is not the same as answering the contrary evidence.
The Council of Owners has issued a four-page notice, Car stacker governance, servicing and next steps. It restates nine of the ten points above, responds to each, and sets out a three-step pathway, with dates for the first step only. It is the Council’s reply to the questions owners raised after the 31 August notice, and it is assessed here against the questions as they were asked. Where the notice answers a narrower or different question, that is noted rather than treated as an answer.
Counts cover the 52 key questions below. Each question carries its own label and a short note on what the notice said, and the owner requests further down are labelled the same way. “Not addressed” means not answered in this notice. It is not a claim that the information does not exist.
Three steps, described in the notice as “a staged and practical approach”. Only the first has dates. Everything below is proposed, not agreed or completed.
Template service agreement circulated to stacker owners.
Alternate quotes received and costings issued to owners.
Coordinated servicing of participating bays, subject to signed agreements and contractor availability.
Owners who have not signed “may need to arrange their own servicing” until an authority and cost-recovery mechanism is in place.
The 8 September notice did not attach the template. The agreement now supplied expressly preserves ownership and legal obligations in clause 10, but also includes ongoing costs, repairs and an indemnity. It contains no express reimbursement mechanism following a determination. The 21 September newsletter adds budget funding and a later servicing window. Read the current document comparison.
The question is not whether a lawyer is permitted to hold the individual-lot view. The question is whether the supplied material establishes that view strongly enough to disregard the registered Plan, change six years of administration and stop coordinated management.
Individual lot ownership might ultimately be found to have existed as a matter of law despite the Plan wording. Before the strata company presents that as settled, it should show the complete boundary and registration analysis below. If the conflict remains, it should obtain an authoritative determination rather than creating practical finality through service withdrawal.
Apply the complete Plan and the legislation operating on 26 March 2020, not only the current wording of s 10.
Identify each platform, post, foot, control, carriage, connection and working part, including shared and outside-lot components.
Address the common-property notation, the surveyor’s intent, the scheme-specific Landgate view, former s 21 and Schedule 5.
If the evidence still conflicts, seek a SAT declaration, accepted Landgate correction or registered scheme amendment. The correct route depends on whether the issue is interpretation, error or a proposed boundary change.
The documents circulated to owners do not identify a particular breach of the Act at registration that has been determined by SAT or a court. They contain an opinion that the Plan notation appears incompatible with the current definition of common property. That is an important issue to test, but it does not itself authorise the Council to classify every stacker component as individual lot property.
Whether intentionally or not, the current presentation combines different legal, technical and operational questions. Answering one does not automatically answer the others.
Which person or entity legally owns each component under the registered scheme documents and applicable law?
Where does each component physically sit relative to the cadastral lot volumes and common property?
Who must inspect, repair, renew and replace each component under the Act, by-laws and any valid agreement?
Can one platform actually be serviced independently where legs, controls, access and safety systems are shared?
What lawful contribution, by-law or contract permits a particular owner or group to be charged?
What do the engineer, contractor, WorkSafe, policy wording and insurer require while the ownership question remains disputed?
These questions collect the requests made throughout this page. Choose a topic to narrow the list, or keep All questions selected to see the complete set. They ask for finite documents, decisions and reasons. A general invitation to inspect the strata records does not answer them.
Each question now carries a label showing how the Council’s 8 September notice dealt with it, and a short note on what the notice said. The second row of buttons shows only the questions with a particular label, which is useful when writing a follow-up.
No questions match this topic and label. Choose another topic or label.
The registered Strata Plan records the car stacker and related working parts as common property. A March 2026 legal opinion says that notation appears defective because the machinery sits within stacker part-lot volumes. A June 2026 scheme-specific Landgate response and the original surveyor’s July 2026 report confirm that common-property treatment was the intended and registered arrangement. The August Council notice nevertheless presents the private legal interpretation as settled fact.
The issue is real, but it is not resolved. The supporting legal advice was principally about induction fees and does not analyse the complete title question under the law applying at registration and the 2020 transitional provisions.
A separate recent SAT application, CC 105/2026, concerned induction fees and the allocation of stacker-related charges. It was withdrawn after mediation and produced no adverse ruling or decision on ownership. It is not the same as a possible new application about the stacker notation and ownership.
The Plan says the stacker and related working parts are common property.
The advice questions whether the notation is legally effective.
No binding ruling or registered correction has settled the conflict.
This page was prepared by owners from the documents themselves: the Strata Titles Act, the registered Strata Plan, Landgate’s published guidance and correspondence, and the strata company’s legal advice. It is owner research shared in the interest of transparency, not legal advice. Where documents are quoted, they are quoted exactly.
Five relevant records have now been circulated: the March legal advice, the original surveyor’s July report, the Council’s August notice, Phoenix’s servicing correspondence and the Council’s 8 September response. They do not all answer the same question. Phoenix adds important operational evidence, but does not determine ownership, charging authority, insurance responsibility or WorkSafe’s involvement. The September response is assessed question by question above.
The advice was requested in the context of induction fees. It says the Plan notation appears defective under the current lot and common-property definitions. It does not provide a complete opinion on what the relevant plan amendment legally created on 26 March 2020 or what Schedule 5 preserved when the amended Act commenced.
It also found no existing by-law or identified agreement supporting mandatory induction or individual induction charges. The servicing agreement supplied to the lawyers was unsigned and undated, and the affected owners were not parties to it.
What it establishes: there is a serious legal interpretation to test, plus immediate gaps in the induction and contracting arrangements.
RM Surveys says common-property treatment was deliberate and the stackers were intended to be serviced together. Its later legal concern does not analyse the law at registration or Schedule 5.
What it establishes: the Plan wording was intentional, not an owner’s later interpretation.
The notice describes individual responsibility as a legal fact, then adds predicted consequences involving negligence, insurance, WorkSafe and servicing.
What it does not establish: those additional consequences need separate evidence from the insurer, regulator, providers and registered record.
The notice responds to nine of the ten challenge points. It acknowledges that CC 105/2026 did not determine ownership, that the legal opinion is not a binding determination, that a cost centre needs lawful authority and that insurance must be confirmed in writing. It proposes an agency agreement, coordinated servicing by 30 September for owners who sign, an EGM disclosure and, later, legal, survey and valuation input.
What it does not establish: the legal effect of the March 2020 re-subdivision, who stopped servicing and when, whether a bank can safely mix signed and unsigned owners, or the insurer’s actual requirements. See what the response does and does not answer.
The current provider’s correspondence separates useful operational evidence from legal conclusions it was not asked or equipped to determine.
Its records show the stackers are overdue for scheduled servicing.
That the equipment is unsafe, illegal or automatically subject to a WorkSafe prohibition.
Last service dates, defects, present safety status and the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule.
A fault or safety issue in a shared group may affect other owners’ parking.
That each platform and its shared components can be owned, serviced or restricted independently.
An engineering dependency schedule identifying every platform affected by each shared component.
A coordinated arrangement for all 25 owners is the simplest and most economical model.
That the registered machinery is lot property or a stacker-only cost centre has lawful charging authority.
The proposed agreements, contracting parties and the legal basis for allocating charges.
Its insurer will not allow it to service uncontracted equipment or document a one-off service.
That the strata company’s building policy will be voided, or that legislation itself requires an ongoing Phoenix contract.
Phoenix’s policy clause or broker confirmation, the current signed service contract and the exact statutory provision relied on.
Owners and the strata company should urgently establish an ongoing servicing structure.
That Council can leave the shared system unmanaged while ownership remains disputed.
A temporary without-prejudice arrangement, decision chronology and clear responsibility pending determination.
The legal advice recommends obtaining the current signed Phoenix agreement and addressing termination before owners are notified.
Attendees record the strata manager offering to arrange a one-off bulk service. Any minimum participation condition is not recorded.
An owner tells Phoenix that the strata manager has advised that individual owners must now arrange servicing.
The Council notice is circulated. Phoenix says later that day that its records show servicing is already overdue.
Phoenix says it cannot complete and document a one-off service without a contract.
This chronology establishes that scheduled servicing had lapsed and that the change of position was already being described to Phoenix before the full Council notice. It does not identify the date or authority of the Council decision, who instructed Phoenix, or whether the March termination steps were completed.
The notice does not identify the “last SAT appeal” by case number. In context, it appeared to mean CC 105/2026 because the notice later says the cost-centre proposal was removed “due to the SAT process”. The Council confirmed on 8 September that it meant CC 105/2026.
Why the comparison is unsupported: CC 105/2026 ended by withdrawal after mediation. It produced no losing party, no adverse merits decision and no ruling on stacker ownership. A new ownership application would involve different legal questions, scheme documents, survey evidence and orders. The notice should identify the case it meant and explain how a “similar outcome” can be predicted from a matter that did not decide this issue.
8 September update: the Council has now confirmed the matter was CC 105/2026 and acknowledged that it was withdrawn without a determination of ownership. It has not explained how that matter could predict the outcome of an ownership application. It adds that if a further application is made without independent legal advice, it may proceed to determination rather than mediation and may seek costs “where available”.
What legal effect did the relevant registered plan have on 26 March 2020 under the legislation applying that day, and what did the 1 May 2020 transitional provisions preserve? That question must be answered before the registered notation, the scheme-specific Landgate view and six years of common-property administration can be displaced as mistakes.
The 8 September notice does not repeat the claims that the insurer requires litigation counsel or that WorkSafe will prohibit use, and it now presents coordinated servicing as the Council’s own proposal. It does not withdraw the earlier statements, so they stay listed as not yet established.
The March advice is an important professional opinion, but the documents supplied to owners do not explain why it should outweigh the registered Plan, the scheme-specific Landgate response, the original surveyor’s account and about six years of common-property administration.
No conclusion about professional negligence or compensation can be drawn from the supplied documents. The inconsistency is substantial enough that owners should receive the full reasoning and an independent specialist review before they bear the consequences of either position.
Sheet 6 of Strata Plan 67688 (the registered title document every purchase in this building was made against) states:
“The car stacker (CS) and the related working parts are common property.”
For about six years the building operated on that basis: the strata company arranged servicing and the building’s insurance included the stackers. Past practice and insurance do not conclusively determine ownership, but they are relevant context for the scheme’s settled administration before this dispute.
The relevant re-subdivision was registered on 26 March 2020. The official Act consolidation applying that day remained in force until 30 April 2020. The substantial amendments commenced under the official commencement proclamation on 1 May 2020. The transitional provisions continued existing lots, common property and registered plans. The reform did not automatically reclassify the machinery. It preserved whatever legal position the registered scheme documents had validly created.
The registered notation therefore remains important evidence. It does not become legally conclusive merely because it appears on the Plan. Equally, it does not disappear because a private adviser considers it defective. If the parties cannot agree on its legal effect, an authoritative answer requires a binding SAT or court determination, or a formal Landgate correction or registered scheme amendment.
The way costs are shared is part of the same purchase. Every lot’s levies are set by its unit entitlement, a figure fixed when the scheme was created from the capital value of each lot (as the strata company’s lawyer confirmed at the 16 July owner discussion). Prices were paid, and levies have been paid since, on that registered basis, with the stackers inside it as common property. The practical effect of the proposed change is that a cost comes off the building’s shared budget and lands on 25 owners. This would re-divide the scheme’s costs in a way the registered documents did not. The Council of Owners’ own update letter confirms that “lots with car stackers carry no identifiable premium in their entitlements”.
The March 2026 advice reasons that each car bay is a cubic part lot, the stacker sits inside that volume, and the Plan’s statement therefore appears defective. That is a serious boundary argument. It is not the complete analysis. Owners reviewing the same documents have noted:
None of this establishes that the advice is wrong. It establishes that the opinion identifies a contested legal issue rather than an obvious defect.
The order of authority matters. The Act, Regulations and binding decisions supply the legal standard. The complete registered Plan supplies the scheme-specific boundary evidence. Landgate’s guides show cadastral practice but are not legal advice. The March advice is a private legal interpretation. The 15 June response is a direct scheme-specific interpretation from Landgate’s Assistant Registrar of Titles, but it is expressly framed as his opinion. Neither interpretation binds SAT. If the strata company intends to stop performing what may be a s 91 duty, the most reliable next step is a properly briefed survey and legal opinion followed, if disagreement remains, by a targeted SAT declaration.
The supplied response was signed by Paul Asphar as Assistant Registrar of Titles and Acting Principal Consultant (Titling Services). Unlike a generic example, it expressly names Strata Plan 67688.
“The car stacker itself is common property.”
The response materially strengthens the common-property case. It does not eliminate the statutory boundary issue identified by the legal advice. Its immediate significance is that common-property treatment is supported by a verified, scheme-specific Landgate view and cannot reasonably be described as relying only on an owner’s reading of a notation.
Landgate’s live STP-19 plan-example catalogue still lists Example 47, Plan 51092 as its car-stacker example. The underlying lodged plan is older, so it is not a new 2026 precedent. Its continued inclusion in the current official catalogue makes it relevant guidance about accepted plan architecture.
An exclusive-use by-law does not create common property. It presupposes that the relevant area or asset is common property, then grants special rights over it and may transfer maintenance, insurance and cost obligations under s 43.
Common property is identified by the parcel and lot boundaries under ss 3, 9 and 10. The presence or absence of an exclusive-use by-law is not part of that definition.
If the machinery is common property, s 91 requires the strata company to maintain, repair, renew and replace it. Section 43(3) moves that duty to special-lot owners only subject to the terms of a valid exclusive-use by-law.
The legal opinion says no registered by-law presently authorises compulsory inductions or individual recovery of those charges. That conclusion is consistent with Landgate’s older expectation that use and maintenance rules would accompany this plan design.
A Landgate copy of the consolidated by-laws searched on 1 December 2022 expressly identifies Schedule 1 by-laws 4, 13 and 22 as exclusive-use by-laws. The scheme’s drafters knew how to grant exclusive use, shift maintenance and create owner-specific charges. No car-stacker provision appears in the 52-page set.
Whichever view you take on ownership, the March advice and the 16 July owner discussion between them settled several things the building can use right now.
The servicing agreement on file is unsigned, undated and made with a different strata management company. On the advice’s reading, it does not bind any owner and arguably does not bind the strata company either. The last six years of servicing have run on that paperwork.
If the Plan notation is effective, servicing is the strata company’s duty under s 91. The manager’s refusal does not itself remove that duty. It creates a dispute about whether the duty applies, with potential repair, safety and compensation consequences if the common-property interpretation is later upheld.
Even on the advice’s own terms, the strata company may contract with owners to keep servicing running under s 116(g). The advice calls this “a commercial decision for the council”. There is no reading of the documents under which the machines need to sit unserviced.
Attendees at the 16 July discussion recorded that the strata manager undertook to arrange a one-off bulk service, with stacker owners paying the contractor directly, as a goodwill arrangement outside the strata company. The available record does not say that all 25 owners had to agree. Phoenix later said the stackers were overdue, which establishes that the due service did not occur, and that its insurer would not allow it to complete and document a one-off service without a contract. Owners therefore need written confirmation of the July proposal, any participation condition, whether Phoenix accepted it and why it did not result in a completed service.
The decision chronology also remains missing. The March advice recommended obtaining the signed current Phoenix agreement and negotiating any termination before telling owners to take over ongoing responsibility. The record does not show when the Council or manager stopped arranging ordinary service, whether that occurred before the 31 August notice, or what interim protection was put in place.
Stackers installed in banks of three share support legs. The middle unit stands on half a leg from each neighbour. Owners raised this twice at the 16 July discussion because it affects how repair costs could be split and what happens if a neighbouring owner stops servicing their unit. The strata manager agreed the point needed answers from the servicing contractor and the insurer. Until those answers exist, a lot-by-lot reading has no workable way to divide the hardware between owners.
The advice identifies no registered by-law or other agreement that allows the strata company to require inductions and charge owners for them individually. A valid future arrangement can be considered whatever the ownership answer, but it should not be treated as already compulsory.
The strata management company’s own portfolio, as described at the 16 July discussion, includes a Subiaco building where the stackers are lot property and owners arrange servicing, and a Perth building where the stackers are common property and the strata company maintains them. Which arrangement applies depends on each scheme’s documents. Here the Plan points to common property, while the private opinion disputes whether that notation is legally effective.
Every lot owner, including every stacker owner, is a member of the strata company. The Council is elected to perform the strata company’s functions. It is not a separate opposing body that can take a disputed shared system off the strata company’s agenda simply because the consequences are difficult.
The Council does not have to accept the owners’ interpretation. It does need to engage with the registered Plan, the contrary Landgate and surveyor positions, the law at registration, the shared physical installation and the safety and insurance consequences of changing course. Obtaining one opinion is an input into that process. It is not a substitute for the process.
It would be questionable to treat “we obtained one opinion” as ending the Council’s need to engage with these matters. Leaving shared machinery unmanaged while ownership remains genuinely disputed would be a serious governance failure if reasonable interim options were available.
Section 119 requires the strata company to consider the merits of proposals and the reasonably available options. Council members also owe duties of good faith, care and diligence under s 137. A direction to inspect the records does not explain what decision was made, what evidence was considered or why a service vacuum is reasonable.
This approach preserves safety and services without conceding either ownership position.
Record that ownership remains disputed and that no interim arrangement is an admission, transfer or amendment of legal responsibility.
Keep the existing contractor arrangement operating where safe and practical, with temporary funding and later adjustment expressly reserved.
Set out emergency approvals, contractor access, keys, controls, breakdown response and the effect of each shared-component failure.
Ask the broker and insurer how each proposed service model affects cover, claims, notification duties, premiums and risk controls.
Obtain the cadastral component overlay and independent advice addressing the registration-date law, Schedule 5 and all contrary evidence.
Agree dates for the evidence, independent review and, if still disputed, a targeted SAT application for declarations and interim orders.
The strata manager’s position changes who is arranging the work in practice. It does not finally determine who has the legal duty. The consequence depends on the classification ultimately upheld.
Section 91 requires maintenance, repair, renewal and replacement of common property, relevant fixtures and strata-company personal property. In the absence of an exclusive-use by-law transferring that responsibility, a continuing refusal may be a failure to perform a statutory function.
The strata company could still offer a coordinated service arrangement under s 116(g), but the legal and contractual basis, access, shared hardware, insurance and cost recovery would need to be documented.
Owners should request the contractor’s current safety and service status in writing, ask whether any unit must be taken out of use, and seek an interim coordinated service without prejudice to either side’s ownership position. Anyone paying personally should preserve invoices, reports and correspondence. Reimbursement is not automatic, but the evidence may be relevant to a later SAT claim.
The Act requires the strata company to maintain the scheme’s required insurance under s 97. It does not say that a maintenance dispute or self-representation at SAT automatically voids the policy. Coverage consequences depend on the policy wording, disclosures, risk controls and the insurer’s response.
The certificate supplied to owners covered 13 June 2025 to 13 June 2026 and has expired. It records property, machinery breakdown, general liability and management committee cover for that former policy period, but it is not the full wording and expressly does not guarantee that the policy remained in force. It cannot establish the current insurance position.
That uncertainty is a reason to obtain written insurer or broker advice before changing the service model. Owners should ask whether the insurer has been told about the disputed ownership, shared components and proposed cessation of coordinated servicing, and what effect each fact has on cover, premiums and claims.
There is no general statutory rule requiring a response to every owner email. Section 119 is more specific and useful. The strata company must consider the merits of any proposal put to it and the options reasonably available, with the objective of avoiding unfairly prejudicial, discriminatory, oppressive or unreasonable outcomes. A clear proposal for interim servicing, disclosure and independent review should therefore receive a real decision rather than a direction to inspect records.
Sections 197 to 200 allow an owner to bring a scheme dispute about the scheme documents, a failure to perform a statutory function, an alleged contravention, or a Council or strata-company decision. SAT can declare a decision invalid and require the strata company to take or refrain from action. If the circumstances are urgent, s 201 permits an interim order for up to three months, with possible renewals. A private opinion cannot provide those remedies.
Ask the strata company to identify its formal decision, the precise legal basis for stopping maintenance, the current safety status of every stacker, the proposed interim service arrangement, and whether it will seek a binding declaration. Request that the answer and the dispute be recorded in council or general-meeting minutes so all owners and future buyers receive a consistent account.
A private opinion can guide an interim decision. It cannot amend the register or bind owners, Landgate or SAT. The route should match the problem actually identified: interpretation, an apparent drafting error, a real boundary change, or missing governance rules.
The strata company can preserve safety and service continuity while reserving its legal position. If the notation is valid, that is performance of s 91. If it is not, s 116(g) permits a service arrangement with owners. The agreement should state who instructs the contractor, who pays initially, how urgent repairs are approved and how reimbursement will be handled after determination.
A current plan search and every registered notification or management statement are needed to establish the current boundaries and by-laws. A licensed cadastral surveyor should then apply the whole Plan and former registration rules to the physical installation. Independent counsel should receive the same complete record.
An owner or the strata company can ask SAT to resolve a scheme dispute under ss 197 to 200. SAT can make a declaration, require the strata company to take or refrain from action, order compensation for pecuniary loss and require a scheme document to be amended.
The Commissioner of Titles may direct correction of an error in the Register. Landgate’s STP-12 guide says this discretionary route is for an error that can be established from adequate evidence. It is not a shortcut for transferring disputed cubic space between lots and common property.
If the intended outcome actually changes lot or common-property boundaries, Landgate says the usual path is a Type 4 re-subdivision. It requires a unanimous resolution, notices, a licensed surveyor, an amended plan and schedule of unit entitlements where necessary, and consent evidence from designated interest holders across the whole parcel. Planning approval may also be required.
If the Plan is effective but use, maintenance or cost allocation is incomplete, an exclusive-use by-law can address those matters without changing ownership. It requires a resolution without dissent and written consent from every proposed special-lot owner. A governance by-law that does not confer exclusive use has its own validity and voting questions and should not be assumed to achieve the same result.
A by-law can allocate future governance and costs, but it cannot retrospectively make an invalid boundary valid or conclusively decide the ownership dispute.
A private opinion does not remove the words from the registered Plan. If SAT or a court declares the notation ineffective, that ruling can settle the legal position even before the register is visually changed. If the scheme wants the registered documents to express the opposite boundary position for future transactions, it should then use the correction or amendment route that Landgate accepts. Until one of those things occurs, the notation remains on the register and the dispute remains unresolved. Its continued appearance is important evidence, but it is not immune from a binding declaration of invalidity.
Section 156 requires every seller to provide the current scheme plan and by-laws, the lot’s exact location and definition, recent general-meeting minutes, accounts and contribution information before contract. If this dispute and the maintenance refusal are recorded in minutes, buyers should receive them through that statutory pack.
The Act does not expressly list every existing dispute as a separate disclosure item. However, WA Consumer Protection stated in January 2026 that sellers are expected to disclose material facts to their agents and agents must make reasonable efforts to discover and pass on information that could affect a buyer’s decision or price. A known dispute about ownership, maintenance liability, safety and potentially substantial future expenditure could be material. Each seller should obtain conveyancing advice rather than assume that supplying the Plan alone is enough.
If a registered plan or by-law change occurs after contract, or rights over common property change, it may be a notifiable variation under s 157. The seller must then give written particulars within the statutory time. Depending on material prejudice and timing, ss 158 to 162 can give the buyer postponement or avoidance remedies.
This affects all owners even though only some lots contain stackers. Scheme-wide legal and rectification costs affect shared funds. Minutes and accounts enter every seller’s disclosure pack. A continuing mismatch between the registered Plan and the scheme’s operational position creates a question that agents, buyers, lenders and valuers may raise until a binding determination or registered correction resolves it.
If the stackers are lot property, moving the maintenance bill is only the beginning. The scheme would need a workable account of the ownership rights, restrictions and shared risks that follow.
Landgate’s Example 47 pairs its part-lot arrangement with reciprocal parking easements. The complete Strata Plan 67688 and registered notifications must be checked before stating whether The Precinct has equivalent easements. Sheet 6 alone cannot answer that question.
Until those matters are documented, stopping collective maintenance shifts immediate risk without supplying a complete alternative governance model.
A legal opinion is a risk assessment purchased by the strata company (which is all owners collectively). It is not a court ruling, and the Act gives owners direct ways to decide what happens next.
The first step is not necessarily another proceeding. Owners can direct the council, request the precise material relied on and ask for a properly scoped opinion. If the dispute remains, SAT can make a binding declaration that a private opinion cannot.
The strata company must consider the proposal’s merits and reasonably available options. A useful proposal would preserve coordinated servicing, seek written insurer and engineering advice, obtain an independent title review and set a timetable for a binding determination.
The council performs the strata company’s functions subject to a restriction or direction given by ordinary resolution. Owners can direct a lawful interim and determination process, although an ordinary resolution cannot require the council to contravene the Act.
SAT can resolve a scheme dispute, make declarations through a legally qualified member and order the strata company to take action or amend a scheme document. A targeted application can put the classification and maintenance questions before the body authorised to decide them. Owners may self-represent. SAT’s ordinary position is that each party pays its own legal costs, although costs orders can be made in some circumstances.
Any owner with a proper interest can inspect the strata company’s records. The immediate request is narrower: identify and provide the finite documents relied on for the Council notice, including the complete Landgate thread, surveyor file, current service agreement, insurer advice and any WorkSafe or provider correspondence.
These are requests for the documents and reasoning already relied on to change the building’s position. An invitation to inspect the whole strata record may satisfy an access process, but it does not answer the substantive questions or identify the evidence behind the Council notice. Each request shows how the Council’s 8 September notice dealt with it.
Establish what the Plan legally created before deciding who pays.
Establish why this opinion should displace the registered and historic position.
Identify the authority before treating participation or charges as compulsory.
Separate genuine safety requirements from unsupported predictions.
Keep the system safe and the decision traceable while title remains disputed.
Ask for an index identifying each responsive record by date, author and description, together with electronic copies of the documents already relied on for the notice. If copies are refused, request the first available inspection appointment, the exact file locations, permission to photograph or copy the records and a written response to every substantive question. Access to a filing system does not replace an explanation of the Council’s reasoning.
Every claim on this page traces to one of the documents below. Where a document is public it is linked directly. Where it is not, this is where to see it.
If you would like to know more about this matter, or have information that should be reflected on this page, please get in touch.
The whole amount in dispute is about $10,000 to $15,000 a year for all 25 stackers, on the Council’s own figure. Shared the way everything else in the building is shared, that is $50-$75 per lot a year.
Against that, the strata company has spent about $5,000 on a television that sat in storage for months, paid consultants $49,287 in one year without saying what for, commissioned a metering audit in 2023 whose report owners have never seen, let owners’ funds fall by $101,663 in a year through “overspend on unplanned items”, left owners without a verified account of the servicing gap, threatened owners with a WorkSafe referral, and told them to buy their own advice, quoted at $2,000 to $3,300 for the owners as a group.
The whole amount in dispute, for all 25 stackers.
A Council member’s figure to stacker owners on 7 September was “circa $200-300 per stacker” every six months. Phoenix’s own rate is $185 plus GST. Across 25 stackers that is $10,000 to $15,000 a year, or $50-$75 per lot a year if it is shared by entitlement like everything else in the building.
For scale. The same budget, the same year.
Money the building did find. Spending owners have asked about, and what came of it.
And on the stackers.
The question this leaves. Fifteen thousand dollars a year keeps 25 machines serviced in a car park every resident drives through. Against the budget it is 1.2%, the size of the allowance kept aside for consultants with no project attached. The dispute stopped being about the money some time ago. What is left is whether the Council’s route or the process the law sets out decides who pays. And for what?
The owner record identifies a service scheduled for 21 February 2025. An owner reports it was completed, but the contractor’s service sheets are still needed. The Stage 2 accounts show nil against a $23,500 stacker budget, while a separate $5,282.25 expense appears in the General schedule.
Phoenix confirmed overdue servicing on 31 August 2026. The exact last completed date, the work behind the General-schedule expense and the instruction history remain unverified. The 21 September update now expects servicing in four to eight weeks.
February 2025 to September 2026. Tap a marker. The shaded stretch runs from the February booking to Phoenix reporting overdue servicing. It is not a verified period without any completed service.
The money was voted. Owners adopted $23,500 for stacker servicing at the August 2025 AGM. In December the Council told owners that figure was there for “Car Stacker maintenance” and that ongoing service agreements had been put in place. None of it was spent on that line. If the Council holds resident safety as highly as its notices say, why was money owners voted for exactly that purpose left unspent, and why was the question answered with the SAT case?
The question this leaves. Which services were actually completed, what did the $5,282.25 expense pay for, and when did the instructions to Phoenix change? The accounts and booking notice alone cannot establish the start or full length of the servicing gap.
Every owner bought against a registered plan that says the car stacker and its working parts are common property. For six years the building was run, serviced and insured on that basis, and levies were set by entitlement with no premium for stacker lots. Everyone paid the same.
Since 12 March 2026 the Council has held a legal opinion that the plan is wrong. The plan has not changed. Sellers have kept handing it to buyers.
What a buyer was handed, and what the Council believed. Tap a period to open it.
The question this leaves. Every seller must hand a buyer the registered plan. Since March the Council has held that the plan is wrong, and since August it has said so to owners. Whichever side is right, a buyer in that window was given one answer by the register and another by the Council. Who told them, and when?
The site’s planning control allowed 15 storeys. The Precinct was approved at 22. Public planning records list 54 public parking bays among the community benefits that supported the extra height.
The developer has told owners the stackers were needed to make the parking numbers work inside the building’s height and podium limits. The extra floors went to the whole building. The stackers went to 25 lots.
What the planning control allowed against what was approved.
The usual objection: “only 25 lots use them, so why should everyone pay?” Common property is not a right to use. The lift motor rooms, the plant on the roof and the pipes inside your walls are common property that nobody else touches. The plan draws the stacker the same way: the parking bay is yours, the machine that serves it is common property. Nobody else can use your bay without entering your lot, which is why the shared cost does not come with a shared key. What the objection does show is that no by-law was ever written for the stackers, when the scheme wrote one for the Sky Lounge and one for EV chargers. The developer’s explanation is that none was thought necessary because the stackers were part of how the building met its planning obligations and their upkeep was already in everyone’s budget.
What this does and does not show. The public record ties the public bays to the extra height. The link from the bays to the stackers is the developer’s account, which the original surveyor’s report supports. The original parking drawings would settle it, and a request for them has not yet been made.
The Council asked its lawyer who should pay for inductions. The answer was that nobody could be charged for them, because no by-law allows it. On the way, the lawyer said the stackers “appear” to be lot property and set out five steps to take, in order, before telling owners anything.
The Council took the ownership line. The steps are not in the record.
The lawyer’s “Way Forward”, in the lawyer’s order. Tap a step to see what the record shows.
In fairness to the advice. It did recommend that the strata company stop paying. It also said how, and in what order, and it warned what could go wrong if the order was ignored. The record shows the recommendation adopted and the order not followed.
Six positions in eight months, and each time owners were told the matter was settled.
The registered plan did not change in that time. The Act did not change in that time. The people reading them did not change. Only the answer did.
Where the strata company and the Council said the stackers sat, month by month. Tap a dot for the words used.
The question this leaves. Each time, owners were told the matter was settled. If the position could change five times in six months on the same plan and the same Act, what makes the sixth one final?
The ten-clause agreement gives the strata company authority to arrange servicing and repairs, and creates payment obligations for the owner. Clause 8 also contains an indemnity extending beyond the service bill. The newsletter calls it an interim authority, but the document continues until either party gives 30 days’ notice.
Clause 10 preserves ownership and obligations imposed by law or the by-laws. Signing does not itself transfer title. The financial concern is that an owner may separately agree to pay while ownership and maintenance responsibility remain disputed.
What the clauses actually cover.
If you later cancel. Cancelling without replacement servicing could make your decision relevant to responsibility for a subsequent gap. That is the concern with treating cancellation as an easy exit. It does not automatically make you responsible for the earlier interruption or remove another party’s legal duties. The replacement contract and treatment of shared equipment should be clear first.
Budget funds can still be recovered. The 21 September newsletter says existing funds will cover the next service. Clauses 4 and 6 still permit owner charging. The newsletter does not expressly waive recovery or amend those terms.
The question this leaves. If the concern is permission to access the bay and service the equipment, why would access consent need to include an indemnity and ongoing acceptance of all related costs?
Without signatures, this particular agreement cannot provide the proposed contractual charging authority. That does not decide ownership, maintenance duties or the safety of continued use. The Council would still need a workable servicing response.
Owners can support coordinated servicing and ask why access consent is bundled with ongoing costs and an indemnity. The 21 September newsletter’s budget funding does not remove the agreement’s recovery provisions.
Two decisions to distinguish.
Non-participation needs a plan. No signature is not proof that the machinery is safe or that every potential liability sits with one party. Ask how a bank with participating and non-participating owners will be inspected, maintained and funded.
The question this leaves. Can owners authorise access for coordinated servicing while separately reserving the disputed ownership, cost allocation and liability questions?
The Council has deferred a longer-term by-law solution while pursuing voluntary agreements. The 21 September newsletter now says it is assessing Schedule 2 by-laws as an alternative to comprehensively rewriting Schedule 1. No draft or specified voting process accompanies it.
The proposed rule needs to say whether it governs safe use, maintenance responsibility, cost allocation or exclusive use. A service contract can bind its signatories without changing the scheme’s registered by-laws. It does not automatically bind non-signers or future purchasers.
The classification matters. The Act distinguishes governance and conduct by-laws, with different voting requirements. Exclusive-use arrangements also require the affected owners’ written consent. Calling a proposal Schedule 2 does not by itself establish that it can shift maintenance duties or costs.
The question this leaves. What exact rule is proposed, which costs or duties would it change, and what approval and registration process applies?
Owners have been warned, in writing, of lawyers already engaged, of WorkSafe referrals, of voided insurance and of a losing side at SAT.
Each warning has since been walked back, contradicted by the Council’s own members, or left without a document behind it.
Four warnings owners were given in writing. Tap a card to turn it over.
The question this leaves. Four consequences were described to owners as facts. Not one has been backed by a document. How many more should owners act on before asking for the paper?
The answer depends on the activity, workplace, management and control of the equipment, and the applicable duties. WorkSafe’s guidance identifies multiple possible duty holders. It does not establish that only the strata company could have duties at this scheme.
No scheme-specific WorkSafe assessment has been supplied here. Signing or cancelling an agency agreement does not itself determine who holds a statutory duty. The same uncertainty does not establish that overdue equipment is safe to use.
What is supported. Phoenix says overdue servicing does not mean automatic WorkSafe attendance or prohibition. If the WHS regime applies, the condition of shared equipment and the relevant legal thresholds matter. A residential-strata exclusion also needs to be assessed against the actual use, employment and work arrangements.
The question this leaves. Which duty holder, activity and provision does the Council rely on, and will it obtain a scheme-specific written assessment while arranging safe servicing?
The practical proposal is coordinated servicing with clear access, contractor instructions and funding, while the ownership and final cost questions are resolved. Those questions should be recorded separately so that arranging a service does not depend on treating the dispute as settled.
Three choices to understand. Tap each.
A binding answer needs a defined process. The Council has said it will act on contrary advice or a binding determination. An application fee quoted in correspondence is not the total cost of obtaining a decision, and the procedure, evidence, timing and any orders must be considered.
Ask practical questions about the agreement before deciding what to accept. Request the current document, contractor terms, service schedule, fees and insurance confirmation. Keep access consent, final cost allocation and liability clear.
The questions below arise from the agreement and the 21 September update. They are separate from the historical 52-question assessment of the 8 September notice.
Questions arising from the agreement and latest update. Ask for the clause, document or practical arrangement that answers each one.
If the concern is permission to access the bay and service the equipment, why would access consent need to include an indemnity and ongoing acceptance of all related costs?
If a repair fails or an invoice is disputed, who follows it up with the contractor? If Cygnet West handles it, is that included in its management fee or charged to the owner as an administration expense? What rates and limits apply?
Phoenix and the Council previously described six-monthly servicing. Has Phoenix changed the required interval? If not, why does clause 3 start with annual servicing, and can owners see the actual maintenance schedule?
Which existing budget will pay for the next service, and how and when will those costs be recovered from owners? Will administration, repairs and call-outs be itemised separately?
Is the simple interim letter of authority described in the 21 September update the same document as the ongoing Car Stacker Service Agreement sent through DocuSign? If there is a revised version, will all owners, including those who have signed, receive it?
If a post, control or other shared component needs repair, which owners pay and how is the cost divided? What happens if one owner approves the work and another does not?
If an owner signs and later gives 30 days notice, what replacement servicing arrangement is available? Has a contractor confirmed it can service that platform and its shared components under the replacement arrangement?
Has the insurer or broker confirmed whether the liabilities an owner assumes under clause 8 are covered? Can owners see that confirmation and the cover applying to shared components and overdue servicing?
Please provide the completed service dates, reports and job numbers for each bank from January 2025, explain the $5,282.25 General-schedule stacker expense, and confirm the next booking. What changed from the 30 September target to four to eight weeks?
If a binding determination changes the ownership or maintenance position, how will amounts paid under this agreement be adjusted or reimbursed? Where is that process recorded?
What would the proposed Schedule 2 by-law regulate: use and safety, maintenance responsibility or who pays? Can owners see the draft, the required voting threshold and the advice supporting that route?
Keep the evidence. Photograph the equipment number and service sticker. Request completed job sheets as well as invoices. Keep your agreement, notices and payment records. An individual repair or a service booking is not proof that a full scheduled service was completed.
Choosing a course. Owners can request records, put a concrete proposal to the strata company and obtain independent advice on the payment and indemnity terms or a targeted determination. Continuing safe servicing and resolving the legal dispute both need a workable plan.
Question