› Flat Chat Strata Forum › The Professionals › Insurance valuation frequency and qualifications › Current Page
05/04/2016 at 5:15 pm
#24722
LGA – I think that the original requirement for 5 yearly valuations by a Registered Valuer in the current Act was repealed (at sect 85?), but nonetheless the original “exposure draft” of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Bill (2015) released around July 2015 stated at Sect 163:
163 Valuations to be obtained for the purposes of insurance(1) A valuation of a building that is required to be insured under this Division must be obtained at least once every 5 years by the person or persons required to take out a damage policy for the building.(2) The valuation must be carried out by a person who has the qualifications prescribed by the regulations.(3) The proportion of the cost of a valuation that is payable by an owners corporation or other person is the same as the proportion of the premium for the damage policy that is payable by the owners corporation or person in respect of the building concerned.
However the currently available release of the Bill (2015) states at Sect 161, and with reference to the requirement at the preceding Sect 160 regarding compulsory building insurance;
161 Requirements for Damage Policy(1) General requirementsThe damage policy for a building must be with an approved insurer, be in the name of the owners corporation, and any other person required to insure under section 160 and provide for the following:(a) the building is to be insured for at least the amount determined in accordance with the regulations.
So like you, I assume that a requirements within the original “exposure draft” of the Bill are to be reflected in the Regulations that are currently being drafted, or perhaps that it’s intended for “approved insurers” to prescribe at what frequency valuations are to be conducted, and by whom.
PS – I’ve done a bit more research on this and have confirmed that Sect 85 has indeed been repealed, that the draft Regulation (2016) will not prescribe periodic valuations, and that the insurer of our Plan, who is oblivious to the situation, would only comment upon the dire impacts of under-insurance about which I’m already aware.
Call me a cynic, but it seems to me that this is yet further evidence of Governments’ desire to get out of everything “regulatory” unless it generates net revenue, and to instead permit self-regulation and private certification, thereby facilitating the free-for-all that will surely result — this time by some Owners Corporations not arranging regular valuations of their properties, because they won’t have to!