Question: How can a body corporate confirm which units have installed deadlocks when insurers request this information?
I am seeking insurance quotes for our small complex of 8 units. Insurers want to know if we have deadlocks fitted. The body corporate manager stated that, as deadlocks would have been considered ‘improvements’, any units with deadlocks should have been approved. How can I confirm whether each unit has them without having to door knock?
Answer: You could always approach your neighbours directly, however, there are other options.
Installed deadlocks may not necessarily be improvements, as they could have been part of the original construction. Start by examining your own door lock and make an informed guess about whether it was part of the original construction. If it looks original, all other units were likely fitted the same way, and you can respond to the insurer confirming that deadlocks have been fitted.
If there’s evidence that deadlocks weren’t original and were installed later by individual owners, technically, they should have been approved as improvements to common property. In most cases, if the scheme is registered as a building format plan, the entry doors are on the lot boundary and therefore form part of the common property. You can check the schemes community management statement registered with the QLD Titles Office to determine the regulation module that applies.
A record of any approved lot owner improvements to the common property should be kept in the body corporate records as a Register of Common Property Authorisations. You can read more on keeping body corporate records here: Records a body corporate must keep | Your rights, crime and the law.
If no records exist, the committee may consider writing to all owners to ask whether they have installed deadlocks. Where appropriate, the committee can grant retrospective approval and update the records accordingly. This will make it easier to respond to future insurance queries and clarify who is responsible for maintaining any improvements made by lot owners.
The Queensland Government has a good outline of the common property improvement approval process here: Improving common property and lots.
Another consideration where retrospective approval is required for deadlocks is whether or not any fire regulations will be affected by the installations. This will depend upon the building classification. The approval should include conditions to satisfy any fire compliance requirements specific to the property, particularly if the door is a fire door. More can be read on fire compliance here: Building occupiers, owners, lessees and bodies corporate | Queensland Fire Department
And yes, you could always approach your neighbours directly if you prefer. This may even be a nice opportunity to introduce yourself if you haven’t already, and let them know you’re helping to organise the insurance renewal, which might be of interest to them.
Grant Mifsud
Archers the Strata Professionals
grant.mifsud@abcm.com.au
This post appears in the October 2025 edition of The QLD Strata Magazine.
How should the cost of Body Corporate building insurance be apportioned among owners? In SFP model, each owner currently pays according to their entitlement share. However, a new approach proposes that payments be based on each owner’s lot floor plan size, given that building insurance primarily covers the individual lot itself. Is it advisable and common practice to base building insurance payments on floor size, or is this method generally not recommended?
Monies owed by each lot are determined by the share of entitlements allocated as per the record in the CMS. Sometimes there are separate entitlements for insurance. This is the only means by which you could administer the totals each lot owns. As such I’m a bit confused about your comment on a new approach. Are you suggesting that the levy schedule for the entire scheme be recalculated? This does happen sometimes but not usually in the way you seem to be suggesting as it is unlikely a motion to propose such a change would pass given that it would probably be to the detriment of some owners. There is probably more behind your question than meets the eye but if this is something your scheme is considering I would suggest a review with a body corporate solicitor to advise on the practicalities and possibilities for the proposal.
Also, is temporary accommodation provided by the body corporate insurance for the period during repairs?
HI Illia – Temporary and floating floors are usually the responsibility of the lot owner to claim under contents insurance. Notwithstanding some insurers offer a “floating floors” benefit where they will cover them. I would check with your insurer on this specific issue and if they do not provide cover then refer the matter to the contents/landlords insurer. The policy that covers the flooring will be the policy that responds to the accommodation costs as well.
Further to my response, if the body corporate are liable for the damages, you can submit a letter of demand to the body corporate which may result in the public liability section of the policy responding. You may point to the body corporate responsibility to maintain their property in good condition that applies in legislation across Australia.
Insurance premium in the community title scheme (Building format) consists: of sums: of $ Premium,
$ U’writer Levy, $ GST, $Stamp Duty, and $ Broker Fee. The BC pays total SUM of premium.
How does the BC calculate contribution to be levied when there are $ U’writer Levy, $ GST, $Stamp Duty, and $ Broker Fee as well in a total sum of premium?
The AGM is in May every year, but renewal of insurance is in November, so a new premium can not be known. before the AGM. Would be contribution calculated as estimated and next year the contribution will increase or decrease for a difference between previously calculated contribution and premium already paid for renewal of policy?
If you have a separate levy calculation for your insurance contribution this will be calculated by taking the total of the amount paid for insurance and dividing between owners by unit entitlements. The breakdown of the insurance costs then informs you of how the premium is calculated but it is only the total that affects the amount you pay.
How the amount of the insurance levy is determined may vary from scheme to scheme. Many will use the known figures but as you indicate if the timing of the AGM and the renewal are quite far apart this could cause a problem if there is a significant variance in the next premium. Some schemes may budget ahead to help accommodate this.
Is a sinking tiled shower base, where there is now insufficient fall to the floor waste, causing water to pool against the back wall, covered by strata insurance.
Hi Brian
We will get back to you with more information, however, in the meantime, we strongly suggest you watch this video: NAT WEBINAR: Water Damage Insurance Claims + Q&A Webinar
Hi Brian
Strata insurance is designed to cover sudden and accidental damage.
There are also exclusions for defects.
Given these two points it is my view there are low prospects of a successful claim against the strata insurance policy.
Tyrone Shandiman
Strata Insurance Solutions
We have sustained water damage as a result of burst water under kitchen sink. A claim has been lodged and approved by the Body Corps Insurer. Restoration of our home was approved and documents sent to us to sign, return and pay the excess to the restorer chosen by the Insurer. The Insurer appointed two companies to provide quotations.
We were happy to proceed, however, the Committee for our body corporate have notified the Broker that no repairs are to commence as the committee wish to appoint another company to come to our home to inspect the damages and review the insurance policy.
The Broker has informed that they must take instruction from the committee and not myselft as a lot owner.
I was of the understanding that as a lot owner we are an interested party of the insurance policy and that also as a lot owner we are a party to the contract with the Insurer.
Does the committee have the right to stop the repairs from commencing as approved by the insurer.
Can you please help with some advise.
Hi Anna
Thank you for your comment.
Unfortunately, this situation is too specific to be addressed via this forum.
Ok so we have a rather large issue and the Strata managers are not taking responsibility. The problem is that the waterproofing has failed in our Townhouse in Loganlea QLD. The tiles have cracked in 2 bathrooms due to sinking of the floor and possible rotting of the beams in the ceiling. The strata management are saying they are not responsible for any of it other than the ceiling of the ground floor. Apparantly there has been a few untis that have suffered the same issue so is a known issue but unfortunatley the other owners fixed and sold.
Please let me know where we stand as we feel as if we are not being told the whole truth.
Hi Glen
There is an important distinction to be made here. The strata manager is not ever going to be responsible for maintenance of a building. The strata manager is contracted to provide administrative and secretarial duties – not to maintain the building or keep it free from defects.
The responsibility for a failure of waterproofing is going to depend on a number of things – including whether your lot is created in a building format plan or standard format plan, if the membrane is in a roofing structure, if any damage was caused to the membrane or if there is a builder who is liable for any defects.
I would suggest your best step would be to engage a builder to provide a report on the cause of the damage. A lawyer can then provide you with advice on who would be responsible for repairing the damage and cause.
When owners and tenants wash their car on the car park, the cable of their vacuum cleaner leads overs the car park, the hose as well and the pathway, when some of them wash tyres on the pathway that stays wet, how can other owners or tenant manage these situations, when the committee leaves people to do what they want? There are also tenants, who water plants and the footpaths stay wet., there is no approved any voluntary work. Who will be responsible for any injury on the common property, because the BC has statutory obligation to maintain the common property.
Any help would be appreciated.
Hi Helen,
This can be a tricky one. Many surfaces are treated with non-slip coatings or additives to assist in slip resistance when wet and may be the case within your scheme (parking areas, pathways etc).
In regards to the vacuum lead being a trip hazard, this is difficult to assess unless at the time of an inspection it is in use but in an ideal world, no loose leads should be left across a path of travel.
If however you believe the surfaces are dangerously slippery when wet, the owners may vote to have an independent slip test conducted (usually termed a pendulum slip test) to determine the resistance of the surface when wet.
If shown to be dangerous, the owners may wish to look at installing drainage options to ensure adequate water management directing water safely out of the building.
We have seen many Bodies Corporate create a dedicated carwash bay in the carpark equipped with nice, suitable box drains around it to capture all water run off, soap etc. It also solves the issue of the vacuum lead crossing common paths of travel and being a tripping hazard. This is always a recommended endeavour and adds to the service offering a BC has for its residents and potential new owners.
To answer your query on responsibility after an injury, in most (not all) instances, the body corporate will have a claim made against it for the liability. Personal injury claims can be very costly to a BC and we have seen many result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation.
It is this reason why we recommend an annual safety audit to try and prevent many of these incidents occurring or at least limit the BCs liability by taking some reasonable measures to minimise injury (e.g. signage, designated bays etc).
Re article by Todd Garsden(Mahoneys) and Tyrone Shandiman(Strata Insurance Solutions),and Todd’s point that… “Adjudicators have held that fire related infrastructure which only relates to one lot can actually service the entire scheme if it links back to a building wide notification system – making the body corporate responsible for its maintenance.” This distinction hilights the difficulties experienced by mug amateurs like me when trying to understand our strata law in Queensland.
I often advise colleagues to ‘First…read the instructions’ ie read the legislation. Good point, but you cannot stop there; and if you do, you may get a completely inadequate understanding of what those instructions mean, and don’t mean.
For example, the legislation about utility infrastructure and that part of it which services only one unit and is situated within the boundary structures (and therefore is the owner’s responsibility) does not go on to add that it remains a BC responsibility if it connects back to a building-wide system. To know this distinction requires awareness of the relevant Adjudications, and there is nothing in the legn to even alert you to the possibility of this distinction… so why would you go looking for it in austlii in the first place.
No wonder we have so much angst and frustration in our strata world arising from ignorance of the law.
Hello. Our tenanted unit is in QLD. The supplied washing machine, valve failed and resulted in a leak that caused damage to the units ceiling below. Our landlord insurance policy was denied. Two appeals were also denied. Strata manager advised building insurance excess for water damage is $5000. Initial quotes were just under $5000. However this included repairs to damaged ceiling, from a fire that had previously occurred, this information was initially hidden from us. The “new” quote to pay to repair water damaged ceiling is just under $2000. We are being pressured into paying it. Who is responsible to pay this, please? Kind Regards Robert
Hi Robert
The following response has been provided by Tyrone Shandiman, Strata Insurance Solutions:
The owner of the washing machine may be found legally liable for damage to the ceiling of the lot below, whether that be the tenant or the lot owner.
If the owner has landlords insurance (or contents insurance for tenants), there will be a section under that policy for Legal/Public Liability. While the strata insurance policy may have a $5,000 excess, it is unlikely the landlords insurance will have the same excess applying.
In this case we would recommend submitting the demand for compensation to your landlords/contents insurer – make sure you specifically ask them to lodge the claim under the legal/public liability section. In the question, they advise the claim was denied, this may be because the claim is under the property section when it should be under the liability section.
The insurer will then review the demand and determine whether they believe the owner of the washing machine is liable. If they believe they are, they will make a settlement to the lot owner with the damaged ceiling or alternatively they will deny liability in circumstances where they do not believe the machine owner is liable.
If there is no landlords/contents insurance the owner/tenant will be responsible for dealing with the demand by the lot with the damaged ceiling.
I am happy to take further questions offline and assist with the claims process.
Tyrone Shandiman
Strata Insurance Solutions
W: https://www.stratainsurancesolutions.com.au/
E: tshandiman@iaa.net.au
P: 07 3899 5129
This information is of a general nature only and neither represents nor is intended to be personal advice on any particular matter. Shandit Pty Ltd T/as Strata Insurance Solutions strongly suggests that no person should act specifically on the basis of the information in this document, but should obtain appropriate professional advice based on their own personal circumstances and the specific coverage afforded under their policy wording. Shandit Pty Ltd T/As Strata Insurance Solutions is a Corporate Authorised Representative (No. 404246) of Insurance Advisernet Australia AFSL No 240549, ABN 15 003 886 687.
Hi, I am confused. Does the BC need Work place Health safety Insurance for its contractors or for volunteers who are some owners or tenants?
Thank you.
I accidentally broke my shower screen and my Strata Manager said that Strata will provide a replacement screen, it was beyond fixing and so old. I was going to have my bathroom renovated in a year so we agreed to replace the screen then. Strata paid on average $500 and this came from the funds, not through our insurance company. Our new Strata Manager has decided this is illegal and will not accept my request for a replacement screen, despite having no formal insurance policies in place with her company, our Insurer and the COO.
She is also not allowing me to have my walls fixed after they were water damaged by my own bathrooms unsealed tiles. Our Strata Manager back then said I have to pay to for the waterproofing, tiling and all of that expense, however, internal hallway water damage Strata will pay for. One insurer called it resultant damage.
My concern beyond my own self is why this new Strata Manager wants to include our Insurance Excess Policy in our By-laws. I haven’t seen that before!
Regards
Ianthe
The strata corporation can not pay for repairs and maintenance to property inside your lot unless you can demonstrate a legal responsibility – for example there is damage to your property due to negligence from the strata corporation. Repairs to your lot is your responsibility.
The requirement for the strata corporation is to arrange insurance, however a broken shower screen for the value of $500 may fall below the policy excess, in which case the lot owner is responsible for the costs.
In relation to the water damage claim, we recommend you request the matter is referred to the insurer for a formal response on the claim. Any matters not covered by insurance that are inside your lot are your responsibility to maintain.
Tyrone Shandiman
Strata Insurance Solutions
http://www.stratainsurancesolutions.com.au
07 3899 5129
tshandiman@iaa.net.au
This information is of a general nature only and neither represents nor is intended to be personal advice on any particular matter. Shandit Pty Ltd T/as Strata Insurance Solutions strongly suggests that no person should act specifically on the basis of the information in this document, but should obtain appropriate professional advice based on their own personal circumstances and the specific coverage afforded under their policy wording. Shandit Pty Ltd T/As Strata Insurance Solutions is a Corporate Authorised Representative (No. 404246) of Insurance Advisernet Australia AFSL No 240549, ABN 15 003 886 687.
Hi Richard – Is that in Queensland? None-the-less they are covered as part of owners contents insurance.
Shop around, there is at least one insurer (they do not deal with brokers) who covers individual apartment air conditioners