How should maintenance requests flow from report to approved work order?

Ask any strata secretary what consumes the most committee time, and maintenance requests usually come up in the first three answers. A leaking roof. A broken intercom. A cracked pathway that's a trip hazard. Lift that's been 'making a noise' for six weeks. These aren't glamorous — but they're the daily reality of running a building, and handling them well is fundamental to owner satisfaction and committee credibility.

The difference between a committee that handles maintenance well and one that struggles isn't usually budget or expertise — it's process. A clear, consistent workflow that every request follows means nothing gets lost, accountability is visible, and owners get updates without having to chase.

Why ad-hoc request management fails

Most committees start with ad-hoc systems: a committee member receives an email, forwards it to the secretary, who texts the treasurer, who mentions it at the next meeting three weeks later. By then, the owner has either fixed it themselves (and is annoyed), the issue has worsened, or everyone has forgotten the specific details.

Beyond the operational frustration, poor maintenance tracking creates legal and financial risk. If a contractor dispute arises, or if an owner is injured because a known hazard wasn't addressed, the committee needs to be able to demonstrate that it was informed, that it responded appropriately, and what decisions were made and when. An email chain in someone's personal inbox doesn't provide that.

Step 1: capture requests with enough detail to act on

When a request is logged — whether by an owner, a tenant, or a committee member who spots an issue — it needs to contain enough information to triage and act on without back-and-forth.

Essential request fields:

- Location: building and specific area (Level 2 corridor, roof terrace, car park bay 14)

- Description: what the issue is, not just 'it's broken'

- Priority: urgent, high, normal, low

- Reporter details and contact information

- Photographs if available

For common areas, the question of responsibility is usually clear (OC responsibility). For requests that might be lot-owner responsibility — a window seal failure that affects only one lot, for example — note this in the triage and communicate clearly to the owner.

Step 2: triage and assign with urgency awareness

Triage is where requests get prioritised, assigned, and scheduled. A good triage process is quick, consistent, and has clear escalation rules for urgent items.

Urgency categories and typical response expectations:

- **Urgent:** immediate risk to safety or property (water ingress, fire safety equipment failure, structural hazard) — contact contractor within hours, not days

- **High:** significant inconvenience or risk of escalation (lift failure, gate security issue, pool pump failure in summer) — 24–48 hours

- **Normal:** standard maintenance that doesn't present immediate risk — within one to two weeks

- **Low:** cosmetic or low-priority items — schedule for the next routine maintenance visit

Assign an owner to each request. This person is responsible for following up with the contractor, updating the status, and keeping the reporter informed. Without a named owner, requests drift.

Step 3: quotes, scoping, and approval thresholds

For anything beyond routine minor maintenance, you'll need quotes. Most committee by-laws and state legislation specify thresholds — works above a certain value typically require two or more quotes and formal committee approval.

Common thresholds (check your specific by-laws and legislation):

- Under $1,000–$2,000: single quote or direct engagement may be acceptable

- $2,000–$10,000: typically requires two quotes and committee decision

- Over $10,000: may require a general meeting resolution or special approval

When requesting quotes, use the same scope for every contractor. This is a common failure point — if contractor A quotes on repairing the crack while contractor B quotes on replacing the entire section, you cannot make a fair comparison. Consistent scoping produces comparable quotes.

Attach all quotes to the request record before the committee decision is made. When the decision is recorded, note which quote was approved and why — especially if it wasn't the lowest quote. Documented rationale is important for governance and for owner trust.

Step 4: issuing the work order and managing execution

Once a quote is approved, create a work order. The work order links the original request, the approved quote, the contractor, and the authorised scope. It's the document that officially engages the contractor and authorises the spend.

During execution, update the work order status as the job progresses: confirmed start date, work in progress, work complete, inspected and approved, payment processed. These status updates don't take long — a few seconds each — but they create a real-time view of where every job stands and prevent the committee being ambushed by 'whatever happened to that roof repair?' questions.

For larger jobs, conduct a completion inspection before authorising final payment. Note any defects or incomplete items. Ensure the contractor addresses these before the job is closed and payment is fully processed.

Step 5: close with evidence and record retention

When a job is complete, close the request with:

- Completion date

- Final cost (and any variation from the quote, with explanation)

- Post-completion photos

- Invoice and receipt

- Any warranty documentation

- Notes on any defects identified and how they were resolved

This completion record is your evidence that the work was done, what it cost, and when. It's valuable for insurance purposes, future similar works, owner queries, and regulatory reviews. Jobs that are 'completed' in someone's memory but not formally closed in your records create recurring confusion.