After both the Opal and Mascot Towers defective building scandals most people thought the legislation had been tightened to protect buyers, but a Sydney woman bought an apartment off the plan at a new development in Kellyville.
This was a major city apartment complex which would include three hundred individual units and she put down a ten percent deposit on her $625,000 new home. She noted that the developer was based in Shanghai, China and that building work had been contracted with local companies, and in due course a private certifier had signed the all important " Certificate of occupancy " and she was now obliged to complete the purchase.
This buyer attended the pre-settlement inspection accompanied by a registered architect, a qualified engineer and a licensed builder. The summation of their verdict was stark. This building did not comply with the National Construction Code. Laser measurements showed the fire escape and parking space did not meet sufficient minimum size requirements and there was insufficient balcony drainage. These findings were backed by the Hills Shire Council's fire safety coordinator.
This buyer demanded the defects be fixed or her deposit refunded, but the developer would not budge. Legally, she was obliged to settle the sale and she threatened to take the matter of that private certifier to the disciplinary authorities.
She used freedom of information to obtain details of that " Occupancy Certificate " from the council and perusal was illuminating.. It was obvious that some signatures were by subcontractors whose work varied from what they were licensed to perform.
The cladding certificate was signed by a bricklayer with an expired license, working for an unregistered company. The formwork certificate was signed by a man whose license had been cancelled by Fair Trading, and the electrical certificate was signed by a person without an electrical license who appeared to be a carpenter.
The buyer contacted the private certifier who provided his own copies of these licenses, which showed that certification was signed by a different person who was actually licensed, but the contact number and email address were unchanged.
This matter was taken to Fair Trading, who advised the buyer to take legal action because her complaint was about a contractual matter. It is now reported that her complaint against the private certifier was being reviewed " as a priority ".
This woman is being legally pressed to finalise the sale and take possession of her new apartment despite its construction not meeting the building code. The only other option would be to walk away from the sale and lose her ten percent deposit.
It seems painfully clear that the government has made little progress in protecting home buyers from shoddy building practices and having this work certified by a person chosen by the building contractor. It is obvious that certification must be returned to the relevant council engineers to ensure that building standards are met.
No comments:
Post a Comment