Owner refuses to remove camera

I have to preface this by pointing out that the following is my opinion and doesn’t constitute legal advice. If the NCAT member wants legal arguments, you should employ a strata lawyer and seek related costs at the tribunal.

In my view, there are two issues here, and I’m assuming the spy-hole is a recent addition.  The first is the unapproved changes to common property, the other is the  installation of the camera covering an area where privacy is expected and, more critically, employees may be working.

Section 108 of the Act requires special resolutions to be passed by the owners corporation before changes are made to common property.  This clearly hasn’t happened in this case.

Even if the spy-hole was there before, the inside of the door is common property so attaching a camera to it could be a breach.

Section 108 also states that without a by-law saying otherwise, responsibility for maintenance of the changes rests with the owners corporation.

Section 110 allows for minor alterations to be approved without needing a special resolution (just a general resolution) but they have to be approved by the owners corporation.

Camera and spy-holes are not listed among the permitted changes and, in any case,  section 7(c) excludes changes to the external appearance of a lot (which a spy hole in a door would be).

More specifically, section 111 of the Act states

An owner of a lot in a strata scheme must not carry out work on the common property unless the owner is authorised to do so:  (a) under this Part, or (b) under a by-law made under this Part or a common property rights by-law, or (c) by an approval of the owners corporation given by special resolution or in any other manner authorised by the by-laws.

In terms of building surveillance, your common property will at times be a workplace, for cleaners and the occasional tradie.  This website says that, under the NSW Surveillance Act 2005, notices must be placed in work areas covered by cameras.

It is a subtle point whether or not this only applies to employers but, since the owners corp might be the employer and the owner is a member of the owners corp, it may be applicable.

I think you have enough legal leverage to require this owner to remove the camera and repair the door.

There is also the question of the external appearance of the spy-hole (if it is a recent addition) giving people the sense that the building is insecure, alarming residents and putting off potential purchasers and tenants, thereby affecting the value of the entire block.

Again, I would talk to an experienced strata lawyer and hope you can recover the costs.

There’s not much to add further, given the quality of the advice so far.  In addition to the obvious laws quoted previously, no changes can be made to the integrity of the Fire-rated Door. Spy holes that have been installed must be approved fire rated products that won’t
compromise the fire rating of the door.  Even if this was the case, the legislation has been breeched in regards to Strata Law.  A compromise would be that they have an intercom professionally fitted with the permission of the OC, which does not need a camera but enables vetting, and therefore does not breech privacy of residents.  I’m assuming they don’t have one.  In terms of a ruling, the NCAT member does not bring the law to the argument.  That is the job of the parties.  You need to quote the relevant sections that support your argument.  Then the Member will review both written arguments in terms of the identified law and make a ruling.  Members must follow statutory law.  Statutory law takes precedent over common law.  Make the Member’s job easy and present the relevant strata law sections clearly and logically with your argument of how it is relevant to the situation.  This is exactly what a lawyer will do, but you may not have the funds for a lawyer.  NCAT is set up for lay people to resolve grievances, without having to pay unaffordable legal fees.

JonathanR wrote:

NCAT is set up for lay people to resolve grievances, without having to pay unaffordable legal fees.

It WAS set up that way, that’s true, and you have to apply for permission to be legally represented, but it is becoming more common as (I’m told) Members find that they are having to instruct unrepresented plaintiffs and defendants on basic strata law, just so they can hear cases on their merits.

Here’s an NCAT fact sheet on representation, either by supporting parties or by lawyers.

While I don’t know the specifics of your situation, everyone seems to think that the existence of security cameras is the end of the world and privacy forever. However, often security cameras are installed specifically to improve the security of the premises (either via deterrence, or via prosecution after the fact). Have you considered whether the owner might be willing to fund the purchase and installation of a OC owned security camera on common property to help with all owners of the building (or area of the building)? Doing it this way causes the OC to be responsible for future maintenance/repairs, but also adds benefit to other owners, in addition, it limits the loss of privacy given the added restrictions the OC can impose on access to the recordings.

I really want a lot more CCTV installed through the car park and other common areas, but costs are such that it really isn’t a priority. However, if someone else wanted to fund it, then I’d be very happy with that result.

Just my 0.02c….

If you really want to prevent this current issue, then I would go with the fire rating of the device, I know more than one lot in my OC that has been forced to replace the door due to installing these peepholes for this reason.