Accessibility and discrimination within Owners Corporations:
The topic of discrimination within strata properties is a complex one. Private property does not need to comply with the provisions of antidiscrimination legislations, such as the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (EO Act). Owners Corporations however, despite being private property, cannot be treated in the same way as a standalone house due to their shared nature, and the range of persons who may require access to and use of the property. This access is a fundamental right of those who privately own or lease within the property.
While more legislative guidance in this area would be welcome, a ruling in the 2018 case OC1-POS539033E v Black has helped clear things up, by irrefutably defining an Owners Corporation as a ‘service provider’ under the EO Act. In this case, the Supreme Court found that sections 44 and 45 of the EO Act – which state that a service provider ‘must not discriminate against another person’ and ‘must make reasonable adjustments for a person with a disability’ – do apply to Owners Corporations.
This is an important ruling, as these sections do not expressly refer to Owners Corporations and differ from Section 56 (which does) in that it is not only the responsibility of the OC to ‘allow’ the alterations, but rather to ‘make’ (and therefore, it can be inferred, ‘fund’) the alterations.
So, we now know that an OC, as a service provider, must accommodate reasonable requests of owners or tenants with a disability. But should Committees wish to future-proof, and secure their property’s position as a valuable and desirable place to live, consider taking things a step further?
A variety of factors – including housing affordability and an aging population – are resulting in an exponential increase in the number of people living in strata-titled properties. As our strata population grows, so too does the likelihood of accessibility request which the Owners Corporation may be required to pay for.
An Owners Corporation which plans for this, taking a proactive, rather than reactive, approach is not only going to become more attractive to a wider range of residents, but also minimise the chance of special levies being raised if a resident with accessibility needs requests modifications to common property. Committees may consider adding a budget amount each year towards the sorts of retrofits which may be required for people with disabilities. These works could include installing or upgrading handrails, installing automatic doors, or even installing a lift where one is not present. Read More…
0
