159. What does strata building insurance cover?


This week, Reena and I enjoy a wide-ranging discussion covering these essential topics:

  • a lot owner instructs a strata manager to apply their payment to levies only and not to interest or expenses. Does that instruction have to be followed?
  • what does strata building insurance cover and how do you know you’re covered for the right amount?
  • the Supreme Court confirms that, as long as 2 years have passed, exclusive use by-laws are validly repealed, even if lot owner consent was never provided.

Links mentioned:

 

 

 

 

Related Posts

No results found

5 Comments. Leave new

Hi Amanda,
Podcast 159 is a repeat of podcast 158. Podcast 159 did not address the subject matter ‘ What does strata building insurance cover”.
I look forward to receiving & listening to your podcasts & pick up much usefull info & facts. Keep up the good work.
John

Reply

The strata roll matter.
Two things. The real disgrace is the licencing authority (FT) who let these people loose and who have over a long, long time done nothing to address this problem, and peak groups (like SCA) who also have no real interest in agents acting in a compliant fashion.

I have a case where the NCAT member says that a search of the books and records is not a fishing exercise. Not that anyone ever said it was a fishing exercise but it seems the respondent used that term as the applicant wanted to see all the correspondence.

“17. The entitlement to inspect the documents and take extracts or copies of documents is not for he purpose of conducting a fishing exercise of the records of the owners corporation or to take an opportunity to create a personal duplication of the Owners Corporations records.”(unreported SCS 15/10405)

Love the reference to the ‘veto clause’ (Sch 2 cl9 (3)) in the podcast.
Personally I feel a decision of the SC only has force in the absence of a veto and so any failure to give notice that ‘robs’ the owner of that veto power should be invalid.
I would reference s 9 of the Act and argue that Sch 2 cl 9 (3) preserves the meaning of that section and any failure in the procedural requirements for a SC meeting that circumvents Sch 2 cl 9(3) actually undermines s 9 of the Act as principal responsibility is then in the hands of the SC without any means of control of that group; making the SC a true EC as executive committees typically do not answer to a higher body. I believe one of the reasons ECs became SCs were because they were not actually an executive committee in the regular sense of what a EC is; also the name change made it easy for the plebs to understand what was being talked about.
The ‘veto clause’ is something the NSWCA seems to not understand as on many occasions they have reduced the veto clause to meaningless in decisions which circumvent that clause.

I notice the Khadivzad case is a Darke J matter; he is a ‘bad boy’ that one, some of his decisions in strata matters leave a lot to be desired.
So glad I am not beholden to The Bar Ass. or the like. I prefer to be able to call a bad decision a bad decision.

Reply

Hi Amanda
I am concerned about insurance of our common property swimming pool where a public citizen committed suicide, where this private pool in built on public green space at the NT DARWIN Waterfront Precinct run by the DWC Board as am NT statutory board, no-one is communicating with Parkside owner ie North Management body corporate or PFM PTY LTD Caretaking Managers?

Reply

    Hi Jane, what an awful situation. That’s not something I can comment on generally. I am sure there are a number of documents/legal instruments – and perhaps specific legislation – that governs the rights and responsibilities of each party involved in the use of that unique space. Advice specific to your situation is required.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Fill out this field
Fill out this field
Please enter a valid email address.

Menu