The " Meat in the Sandwich " !

The owners of high rise apartments must be wondering how they would cope if they encountered the experience of those living in such a building in Lidcombe.   Back in January, one of Sydney's notorious summer wind storms blew the roof off their building - and it looks like the owners will have to pay the repair cost to get it fixed.

When that wind damage occurred the owners were forced to move out and they expected the insurance company to quickly restore their property.  Instead, it developed into a war between the insurer and the council over the $ 2.4 million repair cost.   It was alleged that during construction the roof design had been changed without the builder obtaining a certification certificate.  As a consequence, the roof did not meet the required structural standard to achieve insurance cover.

Months of dreary argument have followed with the two hundred and fifty unit owners either renting or staying with friends.  Then came the recent mega storm to hit the city, and a deluge of water cascaded through the building, ruining whatever furniture remained and starting the rapid growth of mould on walls and ceilings.   The water added another million to the damage bill - and that now stands at $ 3.5 million.

The residents find themselves the " meat in the sandwich " in a major dispute between Auburn Council and the insurance company - and they are seriously out of pocket.  They must still pay the mortgage on an apartment they can not use and find the rent for wherever they are now living - and no end to this dispute is in sight.

What is disheartening is the escalating costs that will continue to accrue if this dispute is allowed to wend its way through a turgid court system  The building has been allowed to stand for six months with its roof exposed to the elements and the deterioration must eventually bring restoration to be abandoned in favour of demolition.

There are rumors of an incestuous relationship between the developer, the building company and the council and the council claims that failure to obtain a certification certificate was " an honest mistake ", but that is little cheer to residents who are deprived of their homes and face financial ruin.

The disquietening spectre hanging over unit owners everywhere is that a similar disaster could arise if there are short cuts in the construction of the building they occupy.   Protocols are in place which are supposed to certify each stage of construction and the finished building needs the licensing authority - usually the council - to sign off that it is cleared for residency.

There is very clearly a need for the state government to step in and guarantee the rights of the buyers of residential property that their titles are clear and they are assured that a statuary body will intervene should a dispute occur.

We have such a body which is supposed to provide a quality guarantee on workmanship and building stability, much as applies to all manner of manufactured goods.   What is needed is clear lines of responsibility.   In many cases, building companies that run into trouble quickly fold and seek bankruptcy protection.   That should not shield the council because the ultimate responsibility for each stage of construction rests with their building inspectors.  When that " certificate of habitation " is signed, it is a guarantee that procedures have been followed.

The moment this dispute between the council and the insurer stopped repairs proceeding on that Lidcombe building the whole matter should have become subject to arbitration by such a statutory body.    The dispute was between two organizations of substance - a council and an insurance company - and the statutory authority should have the power to authorise repair work, pay for it - and collect from whichever litigant got saddled with the bill when the matter processed through the courts.

The law is lacking when - through no fault of their own - individual home owners are forced to suffer  financial misery !