Another Sydney apartment building fiasco.
2 Likes
NSW is working to improve.
As I read the government response to their enquiry the amount of fluffy puffery was breath taking with âimprovementsâ that should have been common sense even prior to Federation.
4 Likes
Much of the report displays Time Wasting, Committees on Committees on top of Committees including Implementation Committee tasked with reporting the progress of Implementation. Nothing like multi layers to obfuscate the lack of any real progress and aid in dispersal/eradication of any responsibility for lack of that progress or implementation.
âThe Building Reform Expert Panel, consisting of one steering committee group and six key working groupsâ
PLUS
"In February 2020, the NSW Government announced recruitment for a team to deliver on the workplan and complementary building reform agenda. This includes recruitment for a Transformation Management Team with up to 15 operational staff dedicated to the delivery "
PLUS
âNSW is supporting the progress of the response to the Report recommendations at the national level under the direction of the Building Ministersâ Forum. As part of this, in July 2019, Building Ministers across Australia agreed to the establishment of an Implementation Team to develop and publicly report on a National Framework for the consistent implementation of the recommendations of the Reportâ
Nothing to worry about itâs only a re-run of âYes Ministerâ on TV, well it seems like it anyway. I count at least 11 groups/committees just from those few paragraphsâŠ7 + 2 + 2âŠI may have missed a few in my excitement to hit those gophers popping up out of their holes.
4 Likes
The saga of Mascot Towers continues.
All notwithstanding there continue to be ongoing quality issues with every other class of building where shonky and dodgy has been defended as good enough unless the victim takes the company(s) to court and prevails. Not cheap or quick.
I stumbled onto this businessâs page (no endorsement or referral intended). Other than paying for reports like this is there any other straight forward way to discover âwho and whatâ your builder might be?
5 Likes
Nothing about oversight in this report, just about âoverheadâ photos showing what is âallegedlyâ happening. Will the owners be more collateral damage?
1 Like
An article regarding a Perth family being drastically affected by a collapsed retaining wall.
The only good thing is that there was no one in the pool at the time.
1 Like
Doubtless it is also drastically affecting the neighbour above the wall as well. There are two sides to every story, or in this instance possibly a third if the wall was constructed by the developer of the estate.
Insurance cover for retaining walls has numerous exceptions. When, how and why the wall failed may result in an exception (not covered condition) in the policy.
Eg from one common PDS (AAMI)
âDo Not Coverâ includes loss or damage to retaining walls due to Flood, Storm, Earth Quake, Escape of Liquid.
Other exclusions depending on policy may include failure of foundations or design/construction deficiencies. The latter are assumed to be covered by the Builders Insurance.
Unfortunately the Nine News team (text version) does not clarify further, although with council and the developer and builder all being mentioned it is open ended for us to all guess.
There is an inground pool immediately below the collapsed wall. The downside most affected neighbour may have contributed to the failure. No commentary other than the mess in the back yard. It may be that the upper neighbour has insurance and the insurer has pulled out the fine print to say it is not an insured event, hence not insurable. At least until the cause of the failure is proven to the satisfaction of all parties. All for a suburban back yard.
Weâve been around a loop with one of our insurers over a high retaining wall. It appears to be a risk that while real has limited protection for the owner. Similar to the movement of a high rise on failing foundations or a structural defect in a building outside any statutory warranty provision.
The example Nine has brought to our attention highlights again the need to get structural works right the first time. Hardly something the average home owner is able to assure. Arguable something the insurance industry is equally disinterested in covering or being responsible for.
The short arms of government not only fail to reach the hip pocket of expenditure for compliance inspection, they canât even reach the shirt pocket pen of effective regulation and enforcement.
P.S.
Common building standards and regulations place conditions on the construction of retaining walls and building near to the top or below a retaining wall. Even minor works near to a wall may result in an unstable condition. Subsequently not only do walls need to be engineer signed off in many instances, so do nearby works. Buyer beware if you are purchasing a property with near to boundary retaining walls which ever side of the boundary they are constructed on.
1 Like
8mm movement detected using satellite imagesâŠare they joking as there are numerous reasons why this is not technically accurate or reliable.
1 Like
It did not go into detail, but radar was included in the description. Still a curious claim but Iâll give them the benefit because:
I grew up in an anthracite coal shaft mining region and am first person familiar with how underground tunnelling affects buildings and roads. The Westconnex work is âallegedlyâ to blame, but if not tunnelling and the vibration from tunnelling, what then?
As an aside, âweâ built a custom purpose large scale computer room a long block from a major train station. All the rails were on the surface but our vibration sensors picked up ongoing vibrations that required damping in our construction. Local road traffic contributing? Not with the 24 x 7 coinciding with rail traffic that matched the sensor data. As the next large multi-story rose, more problems from vibration during constructionâŠ
3 Likes
Another absolute doozey.
Beyond disgraceful.
2 Likes
The response of the Queensland Local Council is worse than an âabsolute doozyâ.
Logan City Council said the Austinsâ situation was a matter between them and the builder and certifier, but that it was reviewing its planning scheme.
The option of the owners having to fight it out in court is also gut wrenching. Especially with the advice of a legal expert concerning costs, time, stress and uncertainty of the outcome to consider.
Uninformed Opinion?
The State Govt seems not to be interested either deferring similar issues to Local Govt. Note Certifiers and Builders are State licensed, while building regulations are also State Legislation (in support of National Building Codes). The Qld State Govt, election pending has in previous years moved to sack Local Governments and appoint Administrators if a demonstration of State Govt authority is needed to reinforce who is ultimately accountable.
One item of advice in the ABC news item for those building is to employ an independent certifier to check on the works. Wise but only of the paid hand is not of the same mind or interests as the Builder and their Certifier. Equally dodgy IMHO was advice that owners should get involved more directly with the builder and inspections. There is a risk in doing so that the less astute and experienced might become accepting parties to incorrect decisions. Until Councils put full time independent inspectors back on their payrolls, is there any hope, given Local Govt and apparently State have little desire to enforce their requirements?
A consumer failure that suggests Choice testing for the best $50 toaster or $100 stick blender is trivial in comparison.
2 Likes
The reason to place them so close is purely moneyâŠless space between means more houses per hectare which means more money for the developer, and as there are more houses more rateable properties for the Councils who allow it. So if anyone complains about it they shouldnât expect real sympathy from the Council as any change to decrease housing density will meet stiff resistance from such Councils even though they may use conciliatory terms in any spiel they give. Belief in fair outcomes needs to be suspended when listening to or reading any such guff put forth by Councils.
3 Likes
Beyond something âŠ
What am I missing? Owner next door has built as close to the boundary as they have:
⊠leaving aside what should or shouldnât be certified, etc - if I were told I could build to within a thousandth of an inch to the boundary line, Iâd assume my neighbour could do likewise. How this affects my safety and investment? well ⊠he apparently said âI work in the construction game.â - and heâs never seen this before? I work in a completely different field and Iâve seen this kind of thing just driving through suburbs on the rare occasion I brave the big smoke.
I do feel sorry for them - Iâve made some incredibly ill-informed (some would suggest âstupidâ) mistakes in my time. I donât feel alone in this either ⊠but I guess one should expect that the so-called âauthoritiesâ will let everyone else get away with anything they have let one get away with - and I doubt anyone is even getting away with anything - it probably all meets the code. I guess there is a reason they call it âcodeâ - more like an enigma 
4 Likes
Bingo. My house has a carport to 500mm of the lot line (1998). The new neighbours garage (2003) is about 10mm from it. It is how it is and how one needs to expect it to be.
3 Likes
Itâs a good point.
My arms length take is we should not be too dismissive of the situation.
There are Qld State Govt design requirements.
There is always provision for exemptions or approvals of non compliant construction. For a small or narrow block, the minimum requirement, solid wall of a dwelling is 750mm or greater clearance to a boundary. Without stating the obvious at some time access will be required to maintain the fence and the external surfaces of the building. The required clearance by design may be greater than 750mm depending on the site dimensions and use.
It appears in this instance approval to have a reduced set back on one side of the property (assuming rear access is provided on the other side of the property) has applied. It seems unlikely it was intended to have two standard residential constructions with minimal clearance on the adjoining boundary. Approval, builder or certifier error who knows at this point in time?
As you suggest there are examples of close building to boundaries, with two structures nearly touching. Deliberately so. In which instance the design of the adjacent walls, roofs and gutters are altered to eliminate the need for access in an impossible work space, or the need for ongoing maintenance. There is also no need for a dividing fence in the gap between the two properties for very obvious reasons.
Itâs possible who is at fault in allowing the situation reported to arise will not be determined. Itâs open for the council or an adjudicator to resolve the situation. One outcome could be a direction both owners rebuild their adjacent walls and amend the roofing to a design suited for build to boundary, adjoining structures. A less understanding council might order one or both of the non complying structures to be removed.
2 Likes
You have to wonder how they actually managed to build the walls like that.
Presumably they started by constructing the adjacent wall of the second home and went from there.
1 Like
From the reports to date it appears nobody is responsible so the courts will either ascribe responsibility or allow the nearly conjoined houses to stand as they have been built. Would the council then step in? Unanswerable until it happens.
Therein lies a problem. A so-called licensed certifier gave the all clear to flip the plan around but has no responsibility. That seems consistent with most everything else where we have layers of requirements that no one is responsible for abiding by, excepting the innocent end-customer, as often as not.
4 Likes
An article regarding the disgraceful situation a young couple discovered after buying a house.
It would appear that the pest inspector was either the village idiot or was paid off to keep quiet.
As for real estate agents, I would not trust the majority of them half as far as I could throw them.
1 Like
These days even buying a second hand car has some protections that it is safe and fit for purpose, although to lesser time limits than new? For a house purchase worth 10x, 20x 30x any everyday newer second hand car why are consumer protections so weak?
The response from the Real Estate Institute is as expected.
Antonia Mercorella from the Real Estate Institute of Queensland says itâs a case of buyer beware.
Disgraceful is too kind a word. Zero empathy and no understanding of consumer expectations that are fair and morally acceptable. Not even a hint the Real Estate Institute might need to do better.
Draconian or not there must be a better solution? My first ball of the over.
One small step by government might be a requirement for mandatory reporting of all building inspections by certifiersInspectors and by registered pest inspectors/treatment businesses to a government database. A database that is made available to any prospective purchasers prior to contract as a matter of statutory disclosure. The reports could be held in the same system that retains all approval records at LGA or independently at State level.
3 Likes
One has to remember that the issue isnât with the real estate nor the REIâŠbut the pre-purchase pest inspection company, if their inspection was proven to be defective.
One also doesnât know the circumstances the comment was madeâŠit could have been a general comment taken by ACA to use in relation to their âarticleâ.
In Queensland, sales contracts make it clear that pre-purchase inspections are the responsibility of the buyer and not the vendor. Any inspection done by other parties is only for the person paying for the inspection. I assume this is the case as one doesnât know the scope of inspection requested by the paying party. In addition to this a second party provided the inspection report would not be able to make claims against a defective building inspection.
The owners of the house should be seeking legal advice over what action can be taken against the company who did their pest inspection, if they believe it was defective and can prove such. Licenced building inspectors from memory are required to have professional indemnity insurance to cover any claims resulting from their work.
They should also lodge a formal complaint with the QBCC, which may chose to take other action.
2 Likes
