Keys, fobs, swipe cards and garage remotes affect security and access throughout a body corporate property. When a device is lost, deactivated or restricted, owners and occupiers need to know who is responsible.
This article explains how Queensland body corporate legislation applies to access devices, lock changes, entry to lots and replacement costs.
What are the rules for body corporate keys, fobs and security access?
The relevant rules cover common property, lot boundaries, maintenance, improvements, by-laws and access.
Owners collectively own the common property, and an owner’s interest in their lot is inseparable from their interest in that common property. If an occupier is not the owner, the occupier enjoys the owner’s right under the Act to use and occupy common property.
An access device should therefore be considered in context. Start by asking:
- What area does the device provide access to?
- Is that area common property, part of a lot or subject to exclusive use?
- Who is responsible for the related door, lock, gate or security system?
- What do the scheme’s recorded by-laws say?
- Has the body corporate made a relevant decision or adopted an access policy?
- Does a residential tenancy agreement also affect the arrangement?
The by-laws recorded in the scheme’s community management statement are generally the by-laws that apply. Exclusive use of common property can only be granted through a by-law included in that statement, subject to different arrangements that may affect some older schemes.
You can read more about how these rules work in our guide to body corporate by-laws.
Rental properties may also be affected by tenancy requirements. Tenants must comply with body corporate by-laws and should receive a copy when their lease starts.
Owners, tenants and committees should avoid assuming that possession of a lot automatically creates an unrestricted entitlement to every type of access device. The purpose of the device and the rights it controls are what matter.
Who is responsible for locks, keys and access devices?
Responsibility usually follows the property or system connected to the access device.
Start by checking the scheme’s survey plan and applicable regulation module. The survey plan identifies lot and common property boundaries, while the community management statement identifies the regulation module. Building format and standard format plans define boundaries differently, so responsibility cannot be decided from the appearance of a door or lock alone.
A body corporate must maintain common property in good and structurally sound condition, while an owner must maintain their lot in good condition. Maintenance is different from making an improvement.
The same approach applies to electronic systems. Consider who is responsible for:
- the entrance door or gate
- the lock or electronic reader
- the control panel and programming system
- the wiring and other infrastructure
- the physical key, fob, card or remote.
If work on a body corporate lock or security system means devices need to be reissued or reprogrammed, the project records should explain how this will be managed. This practical step does not create a universal entitlement to a set number of keys.
Garage remotes should also be considered alongside responsibility for the garage door, the access system and the reason a new remote is requested.
Owners and committees should record why a device is being issued. Noting whether it is an original device, a replacement needed because of system maintenance or an optional extra can help prevent later disagreements.
Can a body corporate limit or deactivate keys and fobs?
A body corporate may use access controls to protect residents and common property. This can include registration processes, limits on optional devices and deactivation of devices reported as lost.
Any policy should be documented, applied consistently and checked against the scheme’s by-laws and the rights attached to the affected property. A security objective does not remove the need to consider how a decision affects an owner or occupier.
Requests for extra devices should be considered individually. Relevant circumstances could include:
- the number of lawful occupiers
- the size and use of the lot
- access needed by a letting agent
- disability or mobility requirements
- whether the device is required temporarily
- the security risks and cost involved.
A blanket policy can create practical problems. For example, a larger lot occupied by several people may have different access needs from a smaller lot with one resident. The body corporate can ask for enough information to understand the request without treating one fixed number as suitable for every situation.
Existing access should not be removed without carefully considering the affected person’s rights. This is particularly relevant when a fob controls access to lifts, foyers, recreational facilities or other common property.
Owners and occupiers have rights to use common property through their interest in the scheme, while occupiers enjoy the owner’s statutory right to use it.
Programming a lift or fob so that a resident cannot enter certain common-property areas may raise questions about the scheme boundaries, by-laws and any exclusive-use arrangement. Exclusive use must be checked against the scheme’s recorded documents rather than assumed from an access-control setting.
Can an owner change a lock or install a non-master-keyed lock?
An owner should check the lot boundaries, maintenance responsibilities and recorded by-laws before changing a lock.
Replacing a lock like for like may be maintenance, while changing its type or configuration may be an improvement. A change can include adding, removing or swapping something, although using a different product does not automatically make work an improvement when the original is unavailable.
If the lock is attached to common property, changing it may be an owner improvement to common property. An owner can make such an improvement with approval from the committee or body corporate at a general meeting, depending on the circumstances and the approval required. The owner must comply with the approval conditions and maintain the improvement.
Conditions may address compatibility with the building’s access system or relevant safety requirements. They should relate to the proposed work and the circumstances of the scheme.
Owners should also check whether the recorded by-laws affect alterations to the lot or common property. Even where a change does not require approval under a by-law, its effect on other owners and occupiers should be considered.
Our article on owner improvements explains the approval process in more detail.
Each proposed lock change should be assessed by considering:
- whether the lock is part of the lot or common property
- whether the work is maintenance or an improvement
- whether approval is required
- what the by-laws say
- whether another lawful access obligation applies.
When can the body corporate or caretaker enter a lot?
Holding a key does not itself authorise entry to a lot. The person entering still needs authority for the particular visit.
Where a statutory easement allows the body corporate to enter a lot to carry out work, it must give the lot owner reasonable written notice before entering. That notice requirement does not apply when the need for the work is, or is in the nature of, an emergency.
A statutory easement must not be exercised in a way that unreasonably prevents or interferes with the use and enjoyment of a lot or common property.
In practice, the body corporate should clearly identify:
- why entry is needed
- the authority relied on
- who will enter
- the work to be completed
- the proposed access arrangements.
Outside an emergency, access should follow the required notice and authority. A master key or a key held for convenience is not a substitute for that process.
Where there is an immediate risk to a person’s safety, contact emergency services rather than relying only on a building access arrangement.
Tenants can contact the body corporate directly about matters affecting them, with the body corporate manager, onsite manager or a committee member identified as possible contacts.
For more detail on the statutory process, see our guide to entry rights in a community titles scheme.
Who pays for lost, damaged or additional keys and remotes?
There is no universal rule making the body corporate responsible for every key, fob or remote associated with a lot.
Responsibility depends on why the device is required and who is responsible for the related lock, door or access system.
A useful written request should explain:
- which lot the device relates to
- who needs the device
- the area it must access
- whether the previous device was lost, damaged or deactivated
- whether an additional or replacement device is requested
- whether the need is permanent or temporary.
The body corporate can then make a decision based on the circumstances rather than applying an inflexible rule.
Clear records, consistent access policies and careful attention to boundaries, by-laws and authority will resolve most questions about keys and security devices.
If your committee needs help reviewing an access request or security policy, contact StrataCare at reception@stratacare.com.au.
