Ducking for Cover !

The practice of " buying off the plan " to secure a new apartment at the price the developer is offering comes with many hazards.   The finished apartment may differ from the configuration  shown on the plan and may lack many of the features designated, but the biggest obstacle is whether the new building has been constructed in accordance with the building laws.

The experience of a Sydney woman who bought a $625,500 apartment off the plan in a three hundred apartment complex at Kellyville illustrates the lack of security  that is associated with the integrity of the building.

The crucial document at the completion of any new building is the issue of  the " Occupancy Certificate " which ensures that the building complies with the necessary building code.  Originally, these were signed by the relevant council building inspector, but because the volume of work was causing delays private certifiers were licensed by the government.

From a legal point of view, once that occupancy certificate is signed, the developer has the right to demand the buyers complete the contract and release the mortgage money.  If later building defects become apparent, fixing the problem then becomes the responsibility of the new owner, as Sydney learned with the experiences of Opal and Mascot Towers.

That can run to millions of dollars and it caused the state government to appoint a new building commissioner, but the powers invested in this post seem inadequate for the task.  The woman who bought this Kellyville apartment took an architect and a qualified builder with her on her inspection and laser measurements revealed the apartment did not meet fire regulations or drainage requirements, and these deficiencies were corroborated by the relevant council engineer.

The new Building Commissioner has chosen to walk away from involvement in the dispute, claiming  it is " not within his jurisdiction ".  The woman buyer must either complete the contract and take possession of her unit - or lose her life savings deposit by refusing to complete the sale.

It seems that this building work was done by a number of unlicensed sub contractors and many changes in the relevant documentation were noted.  The choice of the independent certifier rests with the developer or the builder and hence the only penalty for error is a fine imposed by the government.

The licensing of private certifiers has been a disaster.  The body charged with upholding the integrity of  building practice lays with the council and the building inspectors who need to be constantly checking the materials used and the work application.  It is imperative that they have the power to issue stop work orders where faults are detected to ensure safety and guard the interests of the ultimate people who will reside in these towers.

We have had ample warning that all; is not well in the Sydney building industry with a spate of buildings clad in the same external cladding that resulted in the Grenfell Tower fire disaster in London. All this will continue until the parliament decides to bite the bullet and make the necessary changes to protect the buying public !