As reported last week, Victoria’s state government has finally responded to its “expert” panel’s report on strata.

As Kate Yeowart of Victoria-based advice service Strata Savvy says, the proposed reforms are a welcome step forward for apartment, townhouse and unit owners – but new laws will not be enough.

Although Strata Savvy – a paid-for service –  is based in Melbourne, much of the advice about good governance is relevant everywhere. Here is Kate’s first contribution to Flat Chat:

For too long, many owners have been expected to make complex decisions about insurance, building maintenance, levies and legal matters without always having the information, confidence or independent support they need.

The first tranche of changes, including a clearer right to hardship payment plans and a lower threshold for owners corporations to take legal action on non-monetary matters, recognises a basic reality: strata living is no longer a niche part of the housing market. It is now how a significant number of Victorians live, invest and retire.

Further proposed reforms, including stronger enforcement powers, a licensing scheme for owners corporation managers (strata managers in NSW and Qld), stronger protections from poor conduct and more transparency over strata money and decision-making, are also encouraging. But reform alone will not protect owners if they remain passive.

Sure about insurance?

The most important shift still needs to happen at the building level. Owners need to understand what is being recommended, who is being paid, what risks are being carried by the building and whether decisions are being made in the long-term interests of the owners corporation.

One of the clearest examples is insurance.

Insurance is often one of the largest expenses an owners corporation will approve, yet many owners do not fully understand how the policy has been selected, whether alternatives have been properly considered or whether any commission or fee is being paid as part of the arrangement.

Disclosure matters, but disclosure alone is not always enough. A commission may be declared in a set of meeting papers, but owners still need to understand what that means in practical terms.

Has the owners corporation been shown more than one option? Has the policy been selected because it is the most appropriate cover for the building, or because it is the easiest option to place? Are there defects, maintenance issues or risk factors that are pushing up the premium? Has the committee received clear advice on what can be done to reduce future risk?

These are not minor administrative questions. They can affect whether a building remains insurable, whether owners face unnecessary levy increases and whether the owners corporation is exposed when something goes wrong.

Wrongly billed for $24k

The same applies to maintenance, repairs and responsibility for damage.

In one recent Victorian case, an apartment owner received an unexpected invoice for water damage repairs that he was told was his responsibility.

The first bill was close to $15,000. There had been no prior warning, limited explanation and no clear evidence showing why he was personally responsible. When he inspected the damage, a neighbouring property appeared to have extensive water damage, while his own apartment showed only minor signs of mould.

The owner considered paying the invoice simply to avoid further disruption.

Then a second invoice arrived, bringing the total to around $24,000. Soon after, the issue escalated further, with the owner told bathrooms in both apartments may need to be demolished and rebuilt. The insurance claim connected to the damage was accepted at $174,000, with a further $26,000 excluded from the claim, though the claim had not yet been settled.

Concerned the liability position needed closer review, the owner sought specialist strata advice.

After reviewing the plan of subdivision, invoices, correspondence and available documentation relating to the claim, the documents indicated the source of the leak was not private property, but a common property pipe located within a shared wall.

That distinction was critical to understanding responsibility for the repairs.

Rather than commencing costly legal action, the owner prepared a detailed letter setting out the facts, referencing the subdivision plan and setting out why responsibility appeared to sit with the owners corporation and its insurer, rather than with him personally.

Within approximately one to two months, the owner was no longer being treated as personally liable for the claim.

According to Kate Yeowart, Director of Strata Savvy, cases like this show why owners should not accept major repair bills at face value.

“This kind of case comes down to understanding the plan of subdivision and identifying where the issue actually originated,” Kate said.

“In strata, the difference between private property and common property can completely change who is responsible for repairs. Owners should never assume an invoice is correct simply because it has been issued to them.”

Challenging decisions

The case highlights a broader issue affecting apartment owners: many strata disputes are not just about repairs, but about legal responsibility, documentation and whether owners know when to challenge a decision.

In many buildings, committees are made up of volunteers who are doing their best. They may be experienced professionals in their own fields, but that does not mean they are experts in insurance, compliance, building risk or owners corporation law.

That is why stronger regulation should be seen as a baseline, not a complete solution. Committee training also has an important role to play, helping owners understand their responsibilities before decisions become disputes.

Before major decisions are approved, owners and committees should be asking:

• What problem are we trying to solve?
• What options have been considered?
• Who provided the advice?
• Is anyone receiving a fee, commission or other benefit from this recommendation?
• Have conflicts of interest been clearly declared?
• What are the short-term and long-term cost implications?
• What happens if we defer this decision?
• Do we need independent advice before voting?

Good strata governance is not about making life difficult for managers. It is about making sure decisions are transparent, properly understood and in the best interests of owners.

Most owners corporation managers do important and often difficult work. But the sector has grown quickly, the issues facing buildings have become more complex and the financial consequences for owners are significant.

That is why the Victorian reforms matter.

They send a clear signal that owners deserve better protections, clearer information and stronger accountability.

But owners should not wait for every reform to be finalised before taking a more active role in their building.

Read the meeting papers. Ask how insurance was selected. Query unexplained increases. Consider training to better understand committee responsibilities. Review your building’s maintenance history.

The buildings that will be best protected under Victoria’s changing strata landscape are not necessarily those with the lowest levies or the quietest meetings.

They will be the buildings where owners ask informed questions, committees understand their responsibilities and decisions are made with transparency rather than assumption.

Victoria’s reforms are a positive step. But for owners, the real protection starts with knowing what to ask before they vote.

You can read the expert panel’s report here, the government’s response here and contact Strata Savvy here.