If you’re thinking about buying an apartment in Victoria, here’s a question worth asking before you sign anything: what can you do if you have a problem but your owners corporation committee decides to ignore you?

The answer, it turns out, is not much.

A recent decision from the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has laid bare one of the most significant gaps between Victoria’s strata laws and those of the states that have been quietly but comprehensively reforming theirs.

A long-time Flatchatter applied to VCAT seeking two seemingly reasonable things – the right to have a motion included on the AGM agenda, and the right to attend committee meetings. Both rights exist in other states, both applications were dismissed.

The tribunal member’s reasoning was blunt and, frankly, hard to argue with given the current state of the law:

“I am of the view that there is no requirement upon the OC to include an item on the agenda of an AGM that has been proposed at the request of a lot owner … There is simply no provision in the Act, or elsewhere that requires the OC to do so, and the Tribunal cannot make the order as sought.”

On the question of committee meetings, the member was equally clear: “There is no requirement to provide any notification to lot owners of committee meetings. Likewise, there is no legal requirement placed upon the OC requiring it to permit lot owners to attend committee meetings.”

The tribunal member framed this as having “logic” – committees are elected to act on behalf of all owners, after all. And in theory, that’s true. But theory and practice in strata are two very different animals. Committees can be captured by factions, dominated by a single powerful owner, or simply badly informed. The ability of lot owners to raise issues formally at an AGM or observe how their elected representatives conduct business is not an abstract democratic nicety – it’s a practical safeguard against poor governance and, in the worst cases, corruption.

The reform gap widens

What makes this particularly pointed is the context in which the decision lands. Victoria is now measurably behind its eastern state neighbours on strata law reform, and the gap is getting uncomfortable.

In NSW, a comprehensive staged reform program has been rolling out since 2024, with changes taking effect in February 2025, July 2025, October 2025, and again on 1 April 2026 under the Strata Schemes Legislation Amendment Act 2025. These reforms – covering everything from capital works fund transparency to original owner obligations and common property maintenance enforcement – represent one of the most active periods of strata legislative change in that state’s history.

Victoria, by contrast, commissioned an expert panel review of the Owners Corporations Act 2006 in mid-2025, chaired by former Consumer Affairs Minister Marsha Thomson. The panel conducted public consultations through Engage Victoria, received submissions from industry bodies including SCA (Vic), the Law Institute of Victoria, and community legal centres, and delivered its final report to the government by December 2025.

That is where the public timeline stops. As of mid-2026, no draft bill has been tabled, no exposure draft has been released, and no commencement date has been announced for any of the panel’s recommendations. The report is, as far as anyone outside government knows, sitting with Consumer Affairs Victoria.

The issues the review was tasked with examining – hardship arrangements for lot owners struggling with fees, voting structures, unethical conduct by OC managers including hidden commissions, short-stay accommodation rules, and collective sale thresholds that currently require 100% agreement – are all serious and long-acknowledged. The panel knew what needed fixing. Whether the government will act on it, and when, is another matter.

The appeal problem

What makes the VCAT decision especially significant is something that rarely gets mentioned in polite strata circles: in Victoria, there is effectively no appeal pathway from a VCAT decision in OC matters other than to the Supreme Court. That is an enormously expensive and practically inaccessible option for the average apartment owner whose committee has decided their motion isn’t welcome on the AGM agenda.

In NSW, the strata dispute resolution system – imperfect as it is – has been progressively strengthened, with NSW Fair Trading gaining new enforcement and regulatory powers from October 2025. Victoria’s Dispute Settlement Centre of Victoria, by contrast, has been described in submissions to the review panel as “rarely used and generally regarded as ineffective,” with mediators often lacking expertise in OC legislation, unenforceable outcomes, and wait times that can stretch beyond a year.

What it means for buyers

None of this means Victorian strata is a complete disaster. The 2021 reforms introduced a tiered system of strata scheme sizes with slightly different regulations, and tightened governance requirements that were genuine improvements. Many owners corporations are well-run by diligent committees and professional managers.

But the VCAT decision is a reminder that the law as it currently stands leaves lot owners in Victoria with fewer formal rights than their counterparts elsewhere. You can be locked out of committee meetings. You can be denied a voice on the AGM agenda. And if you want to challenge either of those outcomes, you are probably wasting your time and money.

If the Allan Government doesn’t introduce legislation this year to close the gap — starting with something as basic as the right of financial lot owners to put lawful motions to an AGM – Victoria risks becoming a jurisdiction that strata-savvy buyers quietly steer away from.

The expert panel did the work. The submissions were made. The problems are documented. The question now is whether anyone in Spring Street cares enough to even read the report let alone act on its recommendations.

UPDATE:
The report was tabled today, June 3, and can be accessed here. The Victorian government’s response supports 17 recommendations in full, three recommendations in part and 26 in principle. Three recommendations are under review and will be given further consideration , and two recommendations are not supported .The response can be accessed HERE.

We will cover the report and recommendations in greater detail once we have digested them.