Body corporate maintenance quotes: what QLD law actually requires.

The law's three requirements for every maintenance quote

The legal anchor for the third requirement sits at the heart of the BCCM regime. Under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), lot owners are entitled to inspect the body corporate's records. That right is reinforced by section 205AAB (inserted by the Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2023, effective 1 May 2024) which expands record-inspection rights in layered community titles arrangements. Quotes and maintenance correspondence fall squarely within the records a body corporate is required to keep and provide access to.

Why the obligation matters

Three reasons the maintenance quote obligation is more consequential than most schemes treat it.

The strata manager is not the decision-maker

A widespread misconception in Queensland community titles schemes is that the strata manager chooses the contractor. That is not what the law says. The strata manager's role is to:

Source quotes from reputable contractors with appropriate insurance and licensing. Distribute quotes to the committee for review. Provide administrative support throughout the engagement. The committee makes the decision — via committee meeting resolution, VOC, or, for spending above the committee's limit, by general meeting resolution.

When a manager presents one quote and a recommendation, the committee retains the right (and indeed the duty) to consider whether further quotes should be sought before deciding. When a manager presents three quotes, the committee should be able to see all three side by side.

"Major spending" rules require two quotes

For expenditure above the body corporate's committee spending limit, the BCCM regulation modules require two written quotes for the motion. This is in addition to — not instead of — the general requirement to table and record quotes. Schemes that bypass the two-quote rule for major spending decisions create direct compliance exposure that can be raised by any lot owner with the Office of the Commissioner.

Lot owner inspection rights are real

A lot owner who suspects that a contractor selection process has been opaque can formally request access to the body corporate's records — including all quotes received in connection with the relevant works. The body corporate is required to provide that access (subject to the prescribed inspection process and fees). If the body corporate cannot produce the quotes, the absence is itself evidence of poor record-keeping that can be raised in conciliation or adjudication.

How most schemes handle this badly

From observation across the industry, the most common failure modes are not deliberate breaches — they are administrative gaps that compound over time. Five patterns recur.

Quotes sent by email and never recorded centrally

The strata manager emails three quotes to committee members for an upcoming repair. Committee members reply with their votes. The works are approved by VOC. But there is no central record of the quotes themselves — they live in committee members' email inboxes. Six months later, when a lot owner asks to inspect the quotes, no one can find them.

VOC voting without proper records

A vote outside committee is a legitimate decision-making mechanism, but it requires the same record-keeping discipline as a meeting. The quote considered, the resolution voted on, and the result must be recorded. "Several committee members agreed by email" is not a VOC.

Only the winning quote is kept

Once a contractor is engaged, the unsuccessful quotes are discarded. This is the most common failure. The committee made its decision by comparing quotes — but the comparison evidence no longer exists. If the decision is challenged later, the body corporate cannot demonstrate that other options were considered.

Verbal scope of work, no written quote

For smaller repairs, the manager may have asked the contractor verbally what they would charge, the contractor responded with a verbal estimate, and the work proceeded. No written quote was ever produced. There is nothing to put in the records, and nothing for owners to inspect — because the law's premise (that quotes are tangible documents) was never met.

The same three trades, no comparison quotes

When a manager consistently engages the same three contractors without seeking comparison quotes, the records often show only single quotes from each. This is a separate issue from record-keeping — it goes to whether the body corporate is being given the choice the law assumes it has. Committees are entitled to ask for comparison quotes before approving any non-trivial work.

What good compliance looks like

The schemes that handle this well share four characteristics.

Every quote received is captured the same day. Whether the manager obtains the quote or a committee member sources it directly, it is uploaded to a central repository within hours. There is no question of "where did the third quote go" three months later — it is in the system.

Quote comparisons are visible to the committee before voting. Side-by-side comparison of price, scope, warranty, and timeline is the basis of the committee's decision. The comparison itself is part of the record. This is also the antidote to single-quote decisions that drive owner suspicion of preferred-supplier kickbacks.

The recommendation reasoning is written down. The committee (or the manager, if making a recommendation to the committee) records why a particular quote is preferred. "Cheapest price" is fine. "Best warranty terms for the relative price" is better. "Recommended by manager without comparison" is a problem. The reasoning protects the committee if the decision is later questioned.

Records are exportable. When a lot owner requests inspection, the body corporate can produce the relevant records within reasonable time. When the body corporate produces a Form 33 for a sale, the supporting records on past works are available. When a dispute escalates to the BCCM Commissioner's office, the documentary evidence already exists rather than being reconstructed.

How this connects to broader 2026 reforms

The maintenance quote obligation does not exist in isolation. It connects to several other Queensland strata reforms.

The 2021 BCCM disclosure changes require body corporate managers and caretaking service contractors to disclose the dollar amount of any commission or benefit received in connection with a contract. If your manager is receiving payments from a preferred contractor, the regulation requires written disclosure. The quote record is where that disclosure should be visible.

Form 33 (from 1 August 2025) requires accurate disclosure of approved improvements to common property when a lot is sold. Schemes with clean quote-and-decision records can produce accurate Form 33s on demand. Schemes with patchy records create sale liquidity problems for owners.

NSW's parallel reforms from February 2025 impose penalties up to 500 penalty units on strata managers for disclosure failures. Queensland has not yet adopted the same penalty regime, but the regulatory direction is clear: disclosure of contractor relationships and accurate record-keeping is becoming the baseline expectation across all Australian strata jurisdictions.

What this means for committees

If you sit on a body corporate committee in Queensland, three practical actions follow.

Ask to see every quote, not just the recommended one. You are legally entitled to see the full set of quotes received for any work being considered. If your manager is presenting only the recommended quote, request the others. The request itself is reasonable and supported by the regulation modules.

Ensure the meeting record captures the comparison. Meeting minutes (or VOC voting records) should reference the quotes considered, not just the resolution passed. This is what makes the decision defensible later — and what makes the body corporate's records useful when Form 33 needs to be produced.

Periodically request inspection of the maintenance records. Even if you are a committee member, the formal record-inspection process is the test of whether the body corporate's records are actually in order. If you cannot produce the quotes that supported a decision from twelve months ago, the records aren't where they need to be.

Frequently asked questions

Does this apply to small repairs or only major works?

The general obligation to keep records of maintenance decisions applies regardless of size. The specific "two quotes required" rule applies to expenditure above the committee spending limit (major spending). For all expenditure, however, the records of what was approved and on what basis must be kept.

What about emergency repairs?

Emergency repairs are subject to different decision-making rules — typically allowing the committee or the chairperson to authorise urgent work without the usual quote-comparison process. However, even emergency work should be documented after the fact: what was done, what it cost, why it was deemed emergency, and on whose authority. The record requirement does not disappear; the timing simply differs.

Can the strata manager choose the contractor?

No — the strata manager's role is to source quotes, present them, and facilitate the decision. The actual contractor selection is a body corporate decision, made by the committee within its spending authority or by general meeting resolution for major spending.

What if my body corporate cannot produce historical quote records?

The first step is to raise the issue with the strata manager and committee. If records have been lost, that itself is a governance issue. The Office of the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management can provide guidance on the body corporate's record-keeping obligations. Persistent failures may justify formal action.

Does this apply in NSW or other states?

This article focuses on Queensland. NSW has parallel but distinct obligations under the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 and the strata manager disclosure regime introduced in February 2025. The general principle — that contractor decisions must be documented and records must be accessible to owners — applies in every Australian strata jurisdiction.