Across strata forums, owner groups, and committee meetings, the same grievances come up: building managers who only respond after repeated complaints, and who point to their own remuneration when asked why. This page unpacks both sides of that argument, and shows how proof-based reporting settles it either way.
These themes turn up constantly in strata forums, owner Facebook groups, and body corporate meeting minutes across Australia.
Routine, preventative work gets skipped until a small issue becomes an expensive breakdown - then it's treated as unavoidable and urgent.
One request rarely gets a response. It takes two, three, or a formal complaint to the committee before anything visibly moves.
Duties clearly listed in the caretaking agreement get pushed back on as "extra" work, with pay used as the justification for not doing them.
Committees are told work is "handled" but have no schedule, no report, and no evidence trail to confirm it against.
Fixes are patch-jobs rather than permanent solutions, so the same defects and complaints return on a loop.
Without dates, photos, or written records, it becomes one person's word against another's when performance is questioned.
Remuneration disputes are real and can be legitimate. But using them to justify skipped duties, after voluntarily purchasing the role, is a different issue entirely.
"The remuneration doesn't cover what the committee expects, so I only do what I'm paid for."
Management rights are a commercial asset that's bought, not assigned. The remuneration, agreement term, and duties were disclosed in the contract and due diligence material before settlement. Accepting the deal was a voluntary, informed business decision - not something imposed after the fact.
"Nobody renegotiated my pay, so I'm entitled to do less."
Caretaking agreements typically include CPI or scheduled remuneration reviews, and the correct path for a genuine shortfall is a formal renegotiation put to the body corporate - not a unilateral reduction in service levels while continuing to collect full pay.
"I'm too busy to get to everything."
A reactive-only maintenance culture usually costs the scheme more overall, since small issues become expensive emergency repairs. That outcome undermines the manager's own argument about workload and margins - it's a scheduling and systems problem, not proof of an unfair wage.
"You can't expect perfection for what I'm paid."
Committees aren't asking for perfection - they're asking for the duties already defined in the agreement to be performed and evidenced. A pay grievance is a legitimate conversation to have with the body corporate; it is not a licence to quietly under-deliver on a signed contract.
Bottom line: an underperformance issue and a remuneration issue are two separate conversations, and neither should be settled by silently doing less work.
Get Independent, Provable RecordsThe platform doesn't take sides. It creates one shared, time-stamped record of what was requested, what was scheduled, and what was actually completed.
Routine maintenance runs on due dates with automatic reminders, so "I forgot" or "nobody told me" is no longer a valid explanation.
Caretaker site walks and maintenance close-outs are logged with photos, timestamps, and outcomes the committee can independently check.
The Caretaker Report gives committees a factual, period-based record of completed work - and gives conscientious managers hard proof of everything they delivered.
Every action is attributed to a real user with a timestamp, so performance conversations are based on facts rather than recollection.
Residents and owners log requests once, with full status visibility, removing the need for repeated chasing before anything moves.
If remuneration genuinely needs revisiting, the same reporting gives the manager an evidence-based case to bring to the body corporate - the right way.
Committees can raise performance concerns formally and, where a caretaking agreement allows it, pursue remedies for breach of duties. Independent records of missed or delayed work make that conversation far more effective, and any formal action should be guided by your strata manager or legal adviser.
No - remuneration concerns should be raised with the body corporate through a formal review or renegotiation, not resolved by quietly performing fewer of the duties already defined in the agreement.
Move maintenance requests, routine schedules, site walks, and completion evidence into one shared system. A consistent, time-stamped record removes ambiguity for every party, including the manager.
No. Good building managers and caretakers benefit just as much - the same reporting that holds poor performers accountable is exactly what a hard-working manager needs to prove the volume and quality of work they deliver.
Whether you're a committee wanting proof of performance, or a manager wanting to prove the work you do, My Complex gives both sides the same evidence.
Talk to My Complex.