Current Page

[Jan Shaw]

Hi, our strata has a special resolution that the Canvas awning installed to lot owner is not common property because our strata plan registered before 1st July 1974 any wall between the lot and the balcony enclosure is lot property and as such is the lot owner’s responsibility.

Our strata manager wants to claim the damage of Canvas awning from Owners Corporation Insurance with the reason that items belonging/affixed to a lot that are maintenance for the owner, is not the same when it comes to who insures it.

In her opinion, even though OC is not responsible for the awning, the awning still falls under the OC’s Insurance Policy.  Is this correct, as we don’t think that the claim should be from OC’s Insurance?

Topic

[Jimmy-T]

As it is a special resolution, you only need 25 per cent of the owners voting at the general meeting to say “no” for this to be rejected.

And what was the incident that might trigger an insurance claim?  Insurance doesn’t cover normal wear and tear.

If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.

Quote

[Jan Shaw]

Can I please get further clarification about having a special resolution to say “no” for this to be rejected?  Does it mean that we can have a special resolution to formally reject the interpretation or direction provided by Strata Manager (SM)? However, would a special resolution requires at least 75% of owners voting?

The owner wanted to claim for storm damage, although the awning cover was old and already torn, prior to the storm.  As this was not maintained by having it opened during the storm, so it has ripped off the structure.  The statement about the condition of the awning can be certified by residents at the building.

In this instance, can the Strata Committee argue with SM that eventhough the awning is covered by the building’s insurance whilst not considered to be common property, however, when an owner has failed to take maintenance responsibility for the awning , so the consequential loss falls on to the lot owner, not the OC.

Do you mean that we can hold a special resolution to reject Strata Manager’s direction that the awning still falls under the OC’s responsibility?  As some of our committee members (whose unit would benefit from removing lot owner’s responsibility) want to challenge the special resolution that we already have about lot owner’s responsibility for the awning.

For this incidence, the awning cover was old and damaged, already torn, prior to the storm. As this was not maintained it has ripped off the structure.  The claim was for the damage due to the storm.

This post combines two separate posts – JimmyT

Quote

[Jimmy-T]

Jan Shaw wrote:

Can I please get further clarification about having a special resolution to say “no” for this to be rejected?

My point is that this might need a special resolution by the lot owner to have the awning repaired under strata insurance if it is not part of common property.  They would have to get 75 percent of owners voting at a general meeting for that to be approved.

If the OC has already said no, it’s up to the lot owner to challenge that, not incumbent on the OC to reiterate its decision.  I’m curious to know how the strata manager can decide that lot property is covered by strata insurance, unless it is deemed to be a fixture.

And yes, failure to maintain the awning should be a contribution factor in paying for its repair or replacement. But has anyone contacted the insurer about this? If they are prepared to pay, and there is no impost on the other owners, why fight it?

If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.

Quote

[twosailram]

Most insurance policies have an excess, so any claim will have some cost, not to mention any impact claim history has on future premiums.

Quote

[Author]

Replies