Oldmabb

In 2019 our Brisbane unit was flooded when a pipe in the ceiling space burst, causing damage to walls, ceiling, carpets, rugs and underlay. The building manager contacted the Body Corporate insurer and work proceeded in quickly containing the problem and starting the drying and repairing process – all of which was subsequently completed satisfactorily. The company employed by the insurer determined that the carpets etc were damaged beyond repair. The body corporate contacted the body corp’s lawyer, who opined in writing that the body corporate was responsible for all damage. However, in spite of that advice, it decided at the next meeting to put a motion at the AGM asking residents to pay for our replacements by means of a levy. Not surprisingly, the motion was rejected, although we did argue strongly that the motion was out of order, especially in the light of the body corp’s legal advice, along with several other considerations.

We continued arguing our case but to no avail, so we then applied to the Commission to have the matter conciliated. An appointment was arranged and the secretary and chairman were appointed to attend. My wife and I are aged. Up to a day or two before the arranged meeting we had spent many, many hours in composing letters etc, as well as enduring several sleepless nights. The emotional pressure was intense, especially because we believed that our case had been misrepresented to the other residents. Their fallacious argument was that it was our responsibility to insure against such an event; in effect that the body corp was only partly liable !

Then, two days before having to front the Commission, the body corp’s insurer offered an ex gratia payment, an amount which covered our total costs. The latter were, of course, the financial costs only – we aged considerably in the drawn-out process.

What this farce illustrates is the play-off between insurance companies. Wall to wall carpets are really a FIXTURE, but home insurance policies do not usually cover claims such as ours, saying they are fittings. However, they often pay the claims and then, I suspect,  claim against the building insurer. Unit owners are encouraged to claim against their insurer and quite often the body corporate then refunds the owner’s excess paid. Al very neat and simple.

In the light of our experience, we urge any unit owner(s) who suffer flooding as a result of common property failure to resist being talked out of making a legitimate claim – the body corporate is responsible and has to pay for repairs, even if their cover is inadequate.