The New South Wales government is busily wording a new law to protect home buyers from shonky building firms that build substandard buildings. The present law is hopelessly inadequate and leaves many owners locked in battle with the people who built apartment complexes to have defects fixed. These industry people have deep pockets and repeatedly take matters to appeal to delay an outcome.
This new law will require developers to lodge a 2 percent bond with NSW Fair Trading when the construction contract is signed. The safety aspect revolves around two inspections, the first of which will take place between 15 and 18 months after completion. The final inspection happens between 21 and 24 months and the bond will not be released until there are no defects remaining after that inspection gives the all clear.
Industry insiders warn that a two percent bond will be inadequate to cover rectification of defects and a five percent bond should be written into the law. Anecdotal evidence also indicated that the timing of those inspections cannot hope to disclose defects that are not immediately evident. Many building shortcuts lay dormant for years and only appear as the building ages. The purchase of any sort of dwelling is usually the biggest money transaction that the average person makes in a lifetime. The integrity of what is purchased is of critical importance.
There are also loop holes in this new law. It only applies to buildings that are intended to become strata buildings on completion. A building intended to become an office block can be converted for home strata use if demand for office space dwindles - and so avoid the rectification onus of this act. It would not be unreasonable to require this guarantee of structural integrity to apply to every new building, irrespective of its intended purpose.
The other anomaly is the restriction of what amounts to a guarantee of work compliance to just two years - and only applies to buildings under construction. It is not uncommon for existing older buildings to be converted into modern apartments and it seems that such conversions are not covered by this new safety law.
Both the legal industry and the entire construction spectrum seem to be whistling in the dark over another aspect of building safety that remains unresolved. In June of this year London had a tragic fire when Grenfell Tower's burning transfixed viewers on television screens and scores lost their lives.
This building was owned by a council and had been recently renovated, but the cladding on the exterior violated the law because it was flammable. This enabled an easily contained unit fire to escape and move up the outer face of the building, until it became a blazing torch. To our consternation, we find that tis same flammable material is present on many high rise buildings here in Australia.
Half a year later - and nothing has changed. We have scores of buildings capable of replicating that Grenfell Tower fire and work should be processing in removing that fatal cladding and installing a safe replacement - but that is not happening.
The " Who pays " issue is the impediment, and that remains to be decided in a court. It is complex. This material is not legal and yet councils have signed off on the work, compounding their share of the blame. Many of the building firms that installed the material lack the financial strength to survive rectification cost, and blame may also spread to the importers who brought this problem into Australia.
Perhaps a very good time to go back to the drawing board and plan a comprehensive responsibility regimen that covers both construction and renovation for the lifetime of apartment buildings. This new proposal falls a long way short of that objective !
No comments:
Post a Comment