Stop the Insanity

Dear Strata Owners:

PLEASE STOP letting lawyers, insurers, property managers, strata councils, the CRT, CCI, or CHOA confuse the strata's bylaws or s.72 duty to repair with it's Part 9 duty to insure strata lots and fixtures at full replacement value.

When Stratawest owned by the CRT's Garth Cambrey was our PMC the structural damage to our strata lot from a flood in the unit above in 2003 was not reported to the insurer, and the repairs the strata started were never completed. This is just one of thousands of examples of the BS that has been leaving strata buildings in BC increasingly dilapidated over time.

 

It was only a matter of time before insurers eventually got sick and tired of stratas interfering with, delaying, or offloading responsibilities, tampering with claims, and thwarting statutory repair obligations. They finally raised premiums and deductibles just as unreasonably, proving that two can play that game. Change strata-insurance-premiums

The strata corporation is not the insurER - the strata is the insurED, and so are the owners. The amount of the deductible is NOT a self-insured retention; if an owner makes a claim on the strata's insurance, the insurer must pay the claim and seek reimbursement of the deductible from the strata. The strata, not the owner, is responsible for reimbursing the insurer for the deductible. Then, the strata must prove to a court that an owner was responsible for the loss if it wants to chargeback anything to an owner's account.

Please put a stop to the insanity.

Thank you.

Self-insured retention (also known as SIR) is defined as a dollar amount specified in a liability insurance policy that must be paid by the insured before the insurance policy will respond to a loss. In contrast, under a policy written with a deductible provision, the insurer would pay the defense and indemnity costs associated with a claim on the insured’s behalf and then seek reimbursement of the deductible payment from the insured.

alignedinsurance.com

Self-Insured Retention In Canada - ALIGNED Insurance Broker

Insurance, Strata Property Act, Regulation, Bylaws

I honestly believe the strata corporation has an ongoing double duty to provide the replacement cost repairs to our strata lot's water damaged doors, walls, and floors that we paid strata fees to insure, and to finish the repairs that it started in 409, and promised,  just as other units were repaired, or to compensate us for the cost of doing so.

Pursuant to section 149 of the Strata Property Act, it is mandatory that the strata property insurance cover not just the buildings, but also the fixtures installed as part of original construction - even when they are owned by the strata lot owner:

Strata Property Act
Part 9 — Insurance

Property insurance required for strata corporation
149 (1) The strata corporation must obtain and maintain property insurance on
(a) common property,
(b) common assets,
(c) buildings shown on the strata plan, and
(d) fixtures built or installed on a strata lot, if the fixtures are built or installed by the owner developer as part of the original construction on the strata lot.
...
(4) The property insurance must
(a) be on the basis of full replacement value, and
(b) insure against major perils, as set out in the regulations...

****

Strata Property Regulation
B.C. Reg. 43/2000 O.C. 130/2000

Part 9 — Insurance
Definitions for section 149 of the Act
9.1 (1) For the purposes of sections 149 (1) (d) and 152 (b) of the Act, "fixtures" means items attached to a building, including floor and wall coverings and electrical and plumbing fixtures, but does not include, if they can be removed without damage to the building, refrigerators, stoves, dishwashers, microwaves, washers, dryers or other items.

(2) For the purposes of section 149 (4) (b) of the Act, "major perils" means the perils of fire, lightning, smoke, windstorm, hail, explosion, water escape, strikes, riots or civil commotion, impact by aircraft and vehicles, vandalism and malicious acts.
[am. B.C. Reg. 265/2000.]

All of the water damaged building structure and fixtures in unit 409 were built or installed by the owner developer as part of the original construction on the strata lot.

Strata Property Act

Part 5 — Property
Division 1 — General Property Matters

Repair of property
72 (3) The strata corporation may, by bylaw, take responsibility for the repair and maintenance of specified portions of a strata lot.

***
Bylaws, Strata Plan NW 2671- Sunridge Estates
The following extract is taken from the bylaws filed in the Land Title Office on February 5, 2002, under number BT41643, and a consolidation of all amendments up to and including Dec/08 as filed on Jul 18/05, Mar 9/07, and Apr 28/08:

Powers and Duties of Strata Corporation
11 Repair and maintenance of property by strata corporation
11.1 The strata corporation must repair and maintain all of the following ... (d) a strata lot, but the duty to repair and maintain it is restricted to ... (i) the structure of a building ...


***

WHAT IS ALL THIS SUPPOSED TO MEAN??

Well based on looking up the key words in a dictionary, structure of a building seems to include doors, repair seems to refer to damage, and sound condition is what unit 409 is not in.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/
door
A movable structure used to close off an entrance, typically consisting of a panel that swings on hinges or that slides or rotates
repair
To restore to sound condition after damage or injury
damage
Harm or injury to property or a person, resulting in loss of value or the impairment of usefulness
Black's Law Dictionary
damage
Loss, injury, or deterioration caused by the negligence, design, or accident of one person to another, in respect of the latter's person or property

We do not understand how repairs of extensive damage to Unit 409 caused by an accident in the unit above us became our responsibility when damage to Unit 227 caused by an accident inside of their own unit solely was fully repaired by the strata - especially when we have paid for mandatory strata insurance for over 20 years in a total amount more than most, if not all, other owners - including units 227 and 510, the sources of the water damage and subsequent unfairness.

http://www.accountingglossary.net/
insurance
Insurance is a way to make an individuals financial losses more affordable by transferring them to a large group of people through an intermediary called an insurance company and a legal contract called a policy
full replacement value
Coverage that pays the full replacement value for a covered loss rather than just the initial cost less wear and tear or depreciation

****

Strata Property Act[SBC 1998] CHAPTER 43

Division 2 – Records
Strata corporation records

35 (2) The strata corporation must retain copies of all of the following:
... (g) written contracts to which the strata corporation is a party;

Access to records
36 (1) On receiving a request, the strata corporation must make the records and
documents referred to in section 35 available for inspection by, and provide
copies of them to ... an owner ...
(3) The strata corporation must comply with a request under subsection (1) or (2) within 2 weeks unless the request is in respect of bylaws or rules, in which case
the strata corporation must comply with the request within one week.

(4) The strata corporation may charge a fee for a copy of a record or document
provided under this section of not more than the amount set out in the regulations
and may refuse to supply the copy until the fee is paid.

The strata manager did not file an insurance claim for the water damage to unit 409 before the time to do so expired and since then repeatedly obstructed and refused my requests to access the written contract for the relevant insurance cover in spite of my writing for a copy, providing a cheque in payment at the rate of $.25 per page as set out in the regulations, and attempting to attend at the strata records office pursuant to the Strata Property Act, raising an apprehension that the strata was not insured at the time of loss on July 23, 2003.

******************

 

It is hard to tell what the strata's current position is based on besides the negligence of professionals, but as far as I can tell it might have something to do with setting aside the insurance and disclosure issues and making allegations that floors and doors and walls are not part of the structure of a building. 

Unit 409 is part of the building, and but for the structure of the walls, floors, and ceilings of our strata lot, Unit 510 and its burst toilet tank would have fallen straight into our garage.

In Oldaker v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR 1008, 2010 BCSC 776 (CanLII) at [37], the Court said

Present day statutory interpretation recognizes that insofar as the language of a provision allows, interpretations which are consonant with and which promote a clear legislative purpose should be adopted. This is not to say that a statute’s intended purpose can overwhelm the language of a provision. Instead, one seeks to ensure consistency between language and purpose and to achieve a result which is harmonious.

Although it may not be clear, it is possible that the obligation to repair the structure of the building is included in standard strata bylaws because the structure is a collective and integrated system.  If so, it does not say it excludes floors, walls, and doors as structural components of a building and it does not require damage to create such an immediate danger that it poses a structural problem before being repaired.

At the time of loss no insurance investigator or member of council inspected the changes to the structure and fixtures in our strata lot but the strata's engineer reported that unrepaired damage in Unit 409 was consistent with water damage. Although from an engineering perspective he didn't consider the damage that he reported on to be a problem structurally he expressly excluded reporting on our floors and the substrate in our strata lot and refused to inspect the (apparently water soluble) type of concrete used in the supporting column in the garage below.   

With respect to the Strata Property Act protective fairness provisions, in Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, 5^th ed. (Toronto: LexisNexis Canada, 2008) at p. 360, the author states: 

Related provisions. In adopting a contextual approach, the courts focus on any provision or series of provisions that in their opinion is capable of shedding light on the interpretive problem at hand. Looking to other provisions is useful because courts make certain assumptions about the way legislation is drafted. As Lord Reid wrote in Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Hinchy:

... one assumes that, in drafting one clause of a bill, the draftsman had in mind the language and substance of other clauses and attributes to Parliament a comprehension of the whole Act.

More specifically, it is assumed that language is used consistently, that tautology is avoided, that the provisions of an Act all fit together to form a coherent and workable scheme.

Statutory provisions which purport to limit or restrict rights are generally construed narrowly: Sullivan at pp. 476-478. 

Something is very wrong when prohibitively high costs and systemic barriers cultivate corruption and effectively prevent people from accessing minimum protections enshrined in law.

Rant

Hopefully this blog will provide new owners and members of council with the facts they need to make informed decisions - as repair and maintenance obligations of the strata have been avoided by council members and strata agents contrary to the best interests of Owners for years, and we would like this to change. 

This is important. The strata is shirking and offloading more and more of its responsibilities onto vulnerable owners. It has reached the point that it has become normalized, as it is cheaper, faster, and easier to take care of it yourself than to sue the strata corporation. That is why we pay strata fees to cover maintenance and repairs that are the strata's responsibilities and end up paying for those things ourselves, effectively paying twice. The strata acts negligently, or corruptly, causes foreseeable damage, and unfairly offloads the predictable costs and devastation onto us. It is costing tens of thousands of dollars for Unit 409, and it is costing me my health and welfare.

Defective Crane toilet tanks

Defective building structure and tub installation

 

Defective electrical installation

 

 Destruction of landscaping

Destruction of trees and landscaping 

Flood damage to water soluble concrete

Water damage to building substrate
 

Destruction of common property

 

Destruction of trees

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Geotechnical damage 

 

 

Geotechnical damage

Material defects

Voided warranties

 

Destruction of trees 

I am not talking about our own conduct or our own repair and maintenance responsibilities. The maintenance of common property and repairs of strata insured losses or defective building materials or labour that the developer, strata, or other owners are responsible for, or that the strata covers for units other than 409, fall under legislated protections and responsibilities, not the least of which is the duty to act honestly, in good faith, and in the best interests of Owners.

Legislation requires owners to pay strata fees - and in return requires the strata corporation to provide repairs and maintenance of buildings and common property and insurance against major perils such as water escape at full replacement value. We are continually paying strata fees for 25 years and the strata corporation is continually failing to provide the corresponding benefits to us. The strata has been repeatedly diverting strata funds to special interests, many corrupt and destructive, while we keep living with warped doors, damaged walls, and sinking floors. We are persistently subjected to retaliation and harassment for complaining about the damages caused to us by others, negligently, or maliciously.

The bylaws of Sunridge Estates require owners to pay strata fees - and in return requires the strata corporation to repair and maintain the common property - and the structure of the strata lot. We pay strata fees for benefits we are continually deprived of by significantly unfair actions of the strata corporation - including failure to provide insurance coverage or file an insurance claim before the time to do so expired, failure to complete repairs to damaged structures in our strata lot, failure to reinstate trees we paid a special levy to reinstate, failure to reinstate the function of our strata plan patio, and failure to treat us fairly. Council has been breaching duties specified in our bylaws for more than 10 years.

For more than 25 years we paid in good faith for benefits which we are deprived of by the strata corporation's unfair allocation of funds and failure to honour its legal obligations. Our lives should not be made miserable while the use and enjoyment of our property is spoiled for years while we wait for structural problems to create an immediate danger to safety or life before problems are remediated. It is council's duty to order replacement value repairs to the structural areas of our strata lot. Take away our sinking floors, and cracked walls that are the structure of our strata lot and unit 510 would fall straight into our garage.

The unrepaired damage to unit 409 remains. Such repairs are under the sole control of the strata corporation, which forbids individual owners from making repairs on their own. The strata's obligation is a LEGAL one, which is ongoing and unmet, creating over 10 years of disruption in our lives.

*******************************

We wanted to replace our carpets with laminate to relieve my allergies, but couldn't do it until the substrate was repaired. It is still not repaired.

I used to load our patio with plants and flowers every summer, lock the doors to our bedrooms and get a neighbour to come in to water, while we went away on vacation, but we were unable to do that because our warped doors would not stay latched while we waited for the strata for 10 years. We are still waiting, in a living nightmare that never ends.

We can't even screw our hose onto our taps anymore despite paying exorbitant premiums for the Willis warranty on the building envelope. We pay strata fees for insurance but do not get the benefits.

*******************************

The water damage in our unit was caused by the negligence of our former neighbours in Unit 510 above us, and we face the risk of further damage by the negligence of another former neighbour in Unit 411 next to us who eliminated the water shut off access from that strata lot. Although this may not worry anyone else, we would like the strata to provide confirmation that the original water shut off in that strata lot is restored before there is an accident.

*******************************

Repairs that the strata started in 2003 for water damage to our unit from an accident in unit 510 have not been completed; leaving our strata lot with warped doors, cracked walls, and sinking floors for more than 10 years. I have never been able to access to a copy of the relevant strata insurance or the information contained in it; so as usual I'm working as well as I can while wearing a blind fold, without access to material factual data.

I have no way of knowing whether the repair benefits of the insurance policy in effect at the time were incident-based or claim-based; and since the insurance policy was changed at some point in 2003, I don't even know for sure how much the deductible was on July 23, or even if there was strata insurance; however, I do know with certainty that:

• no insurance investigator ever inspected the water damage to the interior of our strata lot;
• strata management allowed the time period for making a claim for this accident to expire;
• access to information I was legally entitled to was denied continually without legitimate reason;
• the 2003 cost of the water damage to unit 227 was approximately $28,000, and
• repairs of similar or greater damage to unit 409 are still not completed.

We would like these repairs completed. PLEASE. We would also like a reasonable explanation for the unfair allocation of funds to repair unit 227 and not unit 409; including the roles of Al MacLeod as a real estate professional and member of council, Gloria McGee as a commercial insurance sales professional and owner of unit 510, and their relationship with each other in the subsequent sale of unit 510 to city councillor and realtor, Mae Reid, who acted in a conflict of interest and diverted strata funds to demolish and reconstruct extra decks, which were added illegally to the common property, but are now cemented in concrete just as Unit 409 is glued in oppression.

Instead of filing the insurance claim strata management made us wait, alleging that the structural portion of the damage to our strata lot's walls, doors, and floors (damage which showed up suddenly just after, and right below, the accident) might be related to settlement and could be part of the building envelope and better included with that project if there was no immediate danger.

*******************************

This proved to be an unreasonable delay tactic and false diversion; the damage was obviously triggered by the accident - but for the accident none of our walls, doors, and floors in that area were cracked or warped or sinking. In 2003 our strata lot had not had a problem with settlement for 15 years - settlement did not become a problem again until about 2006 when the whole complex seemed to start settling after half the trees and most of the plants, all of which had all been planted pursuant to geotechnical restrictive covenants that run with the land, were removed and not replaced.

In any event geotechnical problems provide no protection or remedy for damage known to occur from water. We waited for repairs of the rest of the water damage - but the interior of our strata lot is not part of the building envelope - the water damage repairs to our unit were not completed with that project - or at all.

*******************************

I am unaware of any evidence in the minutes, or otherwise, that members of council ever voted to provide full replacement repairs to unit 227, unit 510, or unit 409 - either when we reported the loss, in the year after, or at any time at all. Council members inexplicably claim to know "nothing about it", and as stated so clearly by the councillor who owns unit 227, "don't want to know" anything about it, in spite of my prompt and repeated reports of damage and ongoing requests for repairs.

 The disparity here fits more into a noticeable pattern of arbitrary strata management, including misrepresentations, unfair allocation of funds, and a history of punitive and oppressive actions against the owners of unit 409.

 

*******************************

 

Property managers enabled by members of strata councils did not abide by the Strata Property Act and penalized Unit 409 for trying to expose their conduct.

Even though the minutes reported on the delays and the strata engineer reported in writing that the unrepaired damage in Unit 409 is consistent with water damage, councils are presumably fueled Unit 409's history of sinking and fear arising out of over $50,000 for repairs over a decade ago to Unit 407 for structural damage and to Unit 227 for water damage, and no evidence of strata insurance on July 23, 2003.

Persistent failure to provide insurance records and generally accepted practices in trades and professions with intent to control discount the word of law. Worst of all, strata lawyers abusing strata legislation and defending unfair treatment and libelous character assignation provides continual support in a chain of abuse that we have never been able to control.

Despite professionals through the strata agency, insurance, construction, and legal industries holding out interpretations of convenience that conflict with the Strata Property Act and Interpretation Act, the word of law is not a guideline, it is LAW, and if it is not true, it is at least 

 

 SUPPOSED TO BE THE LAW!