Bodies Corporate in Queensland are required to maintain their common property in good conditions. Often that maintenance will extend to taking preventative steps to prevent water ingress, and maintaining air circulation, particularly in car parks  – but does that maintenance requirement extend to keeping a common property garage 100% free of damp or mold?

In Alouette Residences [2025] QBCCMCmr 189, the owner of a lot in the scheme to which an exclusive use car park area attached, brought an application against the Body Corporate for failing to maintain the carpark which, he alleged, resulted in significant mould damage to his vehicle.

The lot owner further alleged the Body Corporate’s failure caused him to relocate his vehicles, incur cleaning costs and to take independent steps to assess the contamination level.

The lot owner sought the Body Corporate reimburse him $9,400.00 to cover mould reports, mould cleaning, vehicle storage, car cover and car carpet cleaning.

The lot owner’s evidence included a mould report which identified heightened levels of fungal hyphae, bacterial growth on the common property garage wall and aspergillus/penicillium-like spores in the air samples taken in the car park. The mould report recommended individuals entering the car park wear no less than a P2 respirator.

When the conciliation between the Body Corporate as to the mould and alleged damages failed, the matter was put before an adjudicator who found:

• the applicant’s car park was an Exclusive Use car park, making the owner responsible for maintaining that car park;
• the Body Corporate was required to clean the car park by hosing or sweeping on a regular basis;
• the Body Corporate was not required to ensure the air quality in the car park does not post a health or safety risk to residents;
• there mere presence of mould does not necessarily constitute a maintenance failure on the part of the Body Corporate;
• given recent weather and more humid weather, it would be sensible for owners to look after their own property by taking steps to reduce the chance of mould growth;
• the lot owner’s other car, parked in the same car park, was not impacted by mould – only his 1971 Valiant  Chrysler collector car;
• evidence provided by other residents was that their vehicles had not suffered mould damage;
• the Body Corporate was not required to maintain and operate an exhaust ventilation system; and
• any claim regarding the Body Corporate’s obligation under workplace health and safety was beyond the scope of the application

Relevantly, the Adjudicator distinguished an earlier case in which an owner was granted damages due to a water leak damage their vehicle paint work due to the Body Corporate’s failure to maintain a water pipe which leaked onto the owner’s car, noting the Adjudicator had not found sufficient evidence that the Body Corporate had failed to carry out maintenance – resulting in the damage.

Ultimately, as with many cases, the Applicant’s lack of connection between the damage and a specific maintenance requirement on the Body Corporate sunk his case. 

https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr/2025/189.html