💧 When “Patchwork Repairs” Aren’t Enough – A Wake-Up Call for Owners Corporations
- leigh_oliver
- Oct 11
- 4 min read
No matter where you are in Australia, maintaining and repairing common property isn’t just good practice — it’s the law. A recent decision from NSW caught my attention because it illustrates exactly what can happen when that responsibility is overlooked. There are some great takeaways here for anyone involved in strata management.
Note that in the case below 106 (1) relates to the SSMA, which is NSW legislation 🧱For WA, Section 91 – Duty of Strata Company to Maintain and Repair Common Property. Under s.91(1) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA):
“The strata company must — (a) properly maintain the common property; and (b) keep it in good and serviceable repair.”
This is a strict statutory obligation, not a discretionary one. The duty extends to all common property, including structural elements, roofs, walls, gutters, driveways, and any other shared areas within the scheme.
The recent NCAT decision in Water World Pure Drinking Water Pty Ltd v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 69536 serves as a sharp reminder that owners corporations can’t afford to ignore deteriorating common property — or rely on makeshift repair work.
In this case, the Tribunal found that the owners corporation failed to meet its strict statutory duty under section 106(1) of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) to “properly maintain and keep in a state of good and serviceable repair the common property.”
As a result, the owners corporation was ordered to pay the lot owner $81,669.52 in damages.
🔍 The Background
The applicant, Water World Pure Drinking Water Pty Ltd, owned a commercial lot in a mixed-use strata scheme in Caringbah. Over several years, the premises experienced repeated water ingress due to a deteriorating roof and inadequate patchwork repairs performed by the owners corporation.
Despite multiple reports and correspondence from the owner dating back to 2020, the roof remained in poor condition. The Tribunal found that repairs undertaken by the OC were makeshift — involving “excessive use of silicone, sealant, and isolated patchwork” — and fell well short of industry standards for waterproofing and maintenance.
In both February 2023 and February 2024, significant water penetration events occurred, causing extensive damage to the office and factory areas, including furniture, flooring, equipment, and electronics.
⚖️ The Tribunal’s Findings
The Tribunal had little difficulty concluding that the owners corporation breached its duty under section 106(1).
Some key findings included:
The roof was in a state of disrepair and had been for some time.
The temporary repairs carried out were inadequate and non-compliant with Australian Standards.
Gaps in the roof sheets and box gutter installation directly allowed rainwater to enter the lot.
The situation worsened over time because the owners corporation failed to take meaningful action.
In the words of the Tribunal, patching the roof “only perpetuated further damage and disruption.”
💸 The Damages Awarded
NCAT ordered the owners corporation to pay $81,669.52 to the lot owner, covering foreseeable losses resulting from the breaches. These included:
Repainting after both flooding events
Replacement of damaged office furniture, flooring, computers, and CCTV systems
Data recovery and electrical safety works
Labour costs for cleaning up after flooding
Importantly, the Tribunal rejected the owners corporation’s argument that the owner’s insurance should cover the losses, noting that an OC cannot rely on a private insurance policy to escape liability under section 106(5).
🧩 Key Takeaways for Strata Managers and Councils
This case reinforces several crucial principles that every owners corporation and strata manager should understand:
1. The duty to maintain is strict, not flexible.
Section 106(1) doesn’t allow for “reasonable efforts” or “budget limitations.” Once common property is no longer in good and serviceable repair, the OC is in breach.
2. Preventative maintenance is part of the duty.
Waiting until a roof leaks is too late. Ongoing inspection and timely renewal are essential to comply with the law.
3. Patch jobs and silicone are not maintenance.
As this case shows, quick fixes don’t meet the standard required under the Act — and can actually worsen liability exposure.
4. Foreseeability matters — but not much.
If water ingress occurs from common property, damage to flooring, furniture, computers, and similar items will almost always be considered reasonably foreseeable by the Tribunal.
5. Insurance isn’t a shield.
Even if a lot owner has their own policy, the OC remains responsible for breach of statutory duty.
🧠 Final Thoughts
The Water World decision is yet another reminder that proactive, well-documented maintenance is far more cost-effective than reactive crisis management.
For strata councils, this means budgeting realistically for major capital works and acting promptly when defects are reported. For strata managers, it means guiding your clients to understand that “band-aid” repairs often lead to tribunal orders — and hefty damages awards.
In strata, prevention isn’t just better than cure — it’s a legal requirement.
Citation:Water World Pure Drinking Water Pty Ltd v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 69536 [2025] NSWCATCD 83
Notebook LM case discussion link below ↓
Comments