• This topic has 4 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 6 months ago by .
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
  • #39200
    (from NSW)

    Every apartment in our building will be affected by major remedial building work which will begin shortly.  Most of the work is for waterproofing and fire safety.   When we began our home owner’s warranty claim more than 10 years ago for this work, we were told that all costs would be covered in the payout.  The EC are now saying that owners have to pay their own costs for their alternative accommodation and storage when they are required to vacate their apartment for the builders.  And apartments with large outdoor areas will have to pay for all their plants and outdoor furniture to be removed and stored as well.

    Who is liable for alternative accommodation costs during remedial building?

    • This topic was modified 6 months ago by .

    What you were told 10 years ago isn’t necessarily going to hold water (no pun intended) when it takes a decade to get a result.

    To be clear, I have never heard yet of a defects settlement that has covered the full amount of the cost of remediation etc.  That’s not fair but it’s how these things work.

    So let’s accept there is a short-fall of some kind but the OC still has to fix the defects.  But the money for emergency accommodation and storage has to come from somewhere. If everyone is affected then everyone will pay, one way or another, either directly or through their levies.

    Getting individual owners to pay for their own emergency accommodation is actually quite smart because it gives you the opportunity to limit your spending if you want to, by not having to contribute through your levies to the cost of accommodation for a larger family, for instance, or one with more expensive tastes.

    As for the storage and removals issue, I think you would have a case to take to NCAT that the Owners Corporation still has a duty of care, regardless of the level of the pay-out it received, and that your additional needs should be covered.

    I’m not saying you would win, that’s a roll of the dice, but I’m pretty certain of one thing; making additional demands on the owners corp at this time will make you pretty unpopular with most of your neighbours.

    AvatarFlame Tree

    Would your own home contents insurance etc cover help here?


    This happen to us last year, the entire top floor lost all tenants due to major remedial works. None of the insurance policies covered alternative accommodation due the ” necessary remedial works to building “.

    The OC’s Insurance only covered unlivable situations caused by the usual weather, fire, flood bomb,flooding, water pipes bursting etc incidents but not remedial works.  landlords insurance only covered ” unlivable ” conditions which were arguably as the apartments were ” livable” the works were predominantly on the balcony.

    However, the noise , dust, removable of balcony doors ( in winter ) and builders in and out all day proved too much for the tenants.  I did remember reading somewhere that some Strata Insurance may cover alternative accommodation for owners living in the apartments but not tenants ( don’t hold me to that though ).

    We checked with our broker and it was denied. So after paying $20k each in a special levy to raise $300k on top raising the standard sinking fund levy by $400 a qtr for 2 years. The owners of the top floor also lost rent for 5 months.

    We spoke about getting some compensation at the EGM but nothing has come of it. I’m all for governments making it statute that Strata Insurance must cover all loss attributed to ” remedial Works “.

    This may be a recommendation after the disasters of the Opal, Mascot, Cube and Honeycomb and other towers needing significant remedial / repair works, especially after warranty periods. You could try asking your insurer they might just surprise you.

    • This reply was modified 6 months ago by .

    Strata insurance generally doesn’t cover expenses caused by building work that is due to repairs and maintenance and not the result of an “event” or accident.

    However, regardless of whether or not there was insurance coverage, the owners corp as a whole should have contibuted to the cost of relocation of residents  during the building work.  Everyone was benefitting – why should only a few residents suffer financially?

    If I were one of the evacuated owners, I’d be hitting them with a bill right now.

    • This reply was modified 6 months ago by .
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.