A Responsibility Change !

Following the Opel Tower and Mascot Tower disasters, we now have another major faulty building for the owner occupiers to contend with on the Sydney skyline.  Once again the apartments were bought off the plan and when construction was complete the necessary " occupation cerificate " was signed off by a private certfier.

That  "Occupation certificate "is a critical document because it allows the developer to force the buyers to  settle on their purchase and move into the tower.  The new state Building Commissioner now declares this new building riddled with fire hazards and defects.  Much of the work is incomplete and there are glaring faults such as one of the lifts being permanently unusable because the lift shaft is too small for the lift fittings to be installed.

Theoretically, the developer and the builder can be called upon to fix these faults, but should they find it impossible to fund the work and declare bankruptcy the onus falls back on the individual apartment owners.  This is the financial nightmare that awaits prospective unit buyers and which an update of building regulations was proposed to eliminate.

The Building Commissioner has been given new powers, but the weak link in the building code is the ability of the builder and the developer to choose a certifier of their own choice to sign off on that important occupation certificate.  At worst, the certifier could have his or her right to issue such certificates cancelled and that leaves building rectification on the shoulders of the unfortunate apartment owners.

Before the permit for private certifiers, the responsibility rested with the council involved.  It was the job of the council to supervise the building construction and when they signed off on that occupation certificate the rescources of the entire council was guaranteeing the structural integrity of the building.   There was no doubt who had the responsibility to fix any faults that developed.

The building industry whinged that councils were too slow to sign off on work and so private certifiers were permitted.  Unfortunately, they were not backed by any financial liabilities and all too often a close relationship developed between the certifier and the people paying for their services.  That has become too apparent in the spate of faulty buildings awaiting rectification.

The answer is abundantly clear.   We need to  dispense with private certifiers and again rest responsibility for buildings with the councils.  It is council inspectors who should check the building work at each stage of construction and have the ability to issue stop work orders where faults are found.  When a council issues an occupation certificate they are taking responsibility for the safety of the buiilding and the cost of any necessary repairs.

It is quite clear that authorising private certifiers has been a failure.  What is required is for the government to take the necessary steps to put responsibility where it belongs and ensure that apartment buyers are getting what they pay for.   A building free of defects that will serve for the purpose for which it was constructed !