- This topic has 2 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
[This post was moved from THIS TOPIC which was running last year-JT]
interesting reading – our Strata Plan has been ‘billed’ $199.00 for someone in the Risk Dept of the Strata Manager to go through our accounts to see if we need to have (icare workers comp policy) – the Risk Dept has decided we do – so they billed our Strata Plan (and took the money 199.00) – then we see we have a bill from icare for $175.00 for Workers Compensation Policy.
the risk dept says we have had more than 7,500 in bills from contractors (?) to our property… So the committee has just sent an email asking for ‘proof’ that there is ’employees / contractors’ to the property.
i would have thought that most of our ‘contractors / trades’ would have been vetted by our Strata Manager for Pub Liability and Workers Comp as we 95% of the time take their recommendations of trades people. To put it mildly we are most annoyed. As we believe that our trades supplied have the right credentials.
Where in the Strata Management Act does it say we have to have work cover??
-
Replies
-
You don’t, they’re not your employees.
Tell them to cancel the policy and refund you both lots of money immediately.
Thank you scotlandax – so we were in a position of knowledge I called icare and explained to the Customer rep the above her advice and those of her supervisor no our strata plan is not an ’employer’ they sent to me a link which you put in very simple details and the algorithm tells you yes or no – said link was for the State Insurance Regulatory Auth. So called them again was told no – workers comp not needed. Sent email to SM and other persons of authority at the SM- explaining the above contact and enclosing the links, the emails received from ‘the powers that be’ mentioned above. The person of authority after 2 days send the committee an email apologising for the error and refund of monies and policy cancellation. I could elaborate on the SM taking such a ‘blanket’ approach’ to the necessity of WC – but won’t.