Why Strata Repair Decisions Feel So Hard (and How I Help Make Them Clear)

This morning I spoke with a proactive owner representative from a 15-year-old residential strata building in Perth. The conversation was familiar in the best and worst ways: the building has real issues (courtyard tiling and water getting into the car park underneath), and the council is trying to make good decisions — but the advice and quotes they’ve received over time haven’t made that job easy.

As someone who works in defect diagnosis and remediation every week, I see the same decision-making pressures play out across strata schemes.

The real problem isn’t “lack of effort” — it’s lack of certainty

Most councils aren’t short on motivation. They’re short on reliable, shared information. When you’re not a construction expert, and you’re getting widely varying recommendations from different trades, it’s hard to know who’s right — and even harder to get all owners aligned.

That owner rep said something I hear often: “I’m trying to do the right thing, but it’s hard when the advice is all over the place.”

They’re not wrong.

Why quotes vary so much for what sounds like “the same work”

A quote is only as accurate as the assumptions behind it. And with water ingress issues — especially under tiled courtyards — there are usually too many unknowns for anyone to price with true confidence unless the problem has been properly investigated.

Typical unknowns include:

• whether the waterproofing membrane is present and continuous

• how the membrane terminates at perimeters, upturns, and penetrations

• whether the screed has become waterlogged and unstable over time

• how the drains are performing (and whether blockages are part of the story)

• where movement is occurring and how that affects cracking and tile failure

When those things aren’t confirmed, each contractor “fills in the blanks” differently — hence the wildly different scopes and prices.

Why patch repairs rarely deliver the outcome strata actually wants

I’m not anti patch repair — they have a place. But I’m honest about the limitations.

Small reactive repairs (the “$5k–$10k fixes”) often don’t come with meaningful warranties because the underlying failure mechanism may still be active. A durable, warrantable outcome typically comes when the scope matches the root cause — and that’s exactly what we need to establish first.

The way I guide strata through this: evidence first, then scope, then works

In that meeting today, I explained CONSPAR’s three-stage process because it’s designed to solve the decision problem before it becomes a budget problem:

1. Initial Site Meeting – we review the priorities, map the symptoms, and agree what needs to be proven.

2. Remediation Plan – evidence-based investigation (including targeted destructive checks where needed), coordination with the right contractors/consultants, and a project-specific scope and specification that can be priced properly.

3. Execution – the work is delivered against that specification to achieve a durable outcome and the best possible warranty position.

It gives councils a clear pathway and lets owners remain in control at every step.

If you’re on a council, here’s what “good” decision-making looks like

When it’s done well, you end up with:

• one agreed “problem statement” backed by evidence (not opinions)

• priorities that owners can understand and vote on

• scopes that are measurable and comparable across quotes

• fewer surprises during works

• a much better chance of real warranties and long-term performance

Call to action

If your strata scheme is stuck between recurring patch repairs and uncertainty about what the “right fix” is, I can help you move forward with a clear, staged pathway — starting with a structured initial site meeting. Visit CONSPAR