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.
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.