A building surveyor effectively is a suitably qualified and experienced building certifier, which is engaged by the homeowner independently to that of the builder. The surveyor represents the homeowner on site and monitors the progress of the building work. The builder will also engage a building certifier to gain the approvals required under state legislation in relation to works carried out.
A surveyor is independent of the builder and builder’s certifier.
Another option rather than having two certifiers/surveyors running around the building site, it to try and negotiate with a builder for the homeowner to engage their own certifier/surveyor at their cost, to carry out both functions (a builder should pass on the savings from not having to engage their own certifier). I suspect some builder’s won’t agree and maybe this might ring alarm bells in itself if they refuse such a proposition. Having one may have benefits as they might assist in resolving disputed between builders and homeowners during construction, before it is too late.
I was privy but at arms length to such an arrangement in a commercial build. It did not go well, although could have gone worse.
It appears to make sense but at the end of the day the surveyor cannot easily serve two customers with differing objectives with impartiality, and if the surveyor can stay to the standards on the straight and narrow and just present the facts, and all of the facts, with equal visibility and volume to each side, each side may hear what they want and it still can become litigious.
For anyone considering going that route it might work out, or not.
This isn’t correct in all circumstances and there is a similar system often used in major project/infrastructure delivery.
If the surveyor/certifier function is to ensure that the contract is delivered and that components are delivered in accordance with the building/statutory requirements (compliance role), then the surveyor doesn’t have a conflict of interest and can easily be impartial (I have worked in such a role in a team of specialists responsible for contract and legislative compliance, and to meet design and construction specifications - and engaged by the client and not the contractor). This model I am very familiar with for delivery of major projects and it works well. The surveyor/certifier has a clear role and responsibility, and works to agreed processes for resolving common matters such as disputes, variations, delays etc. There are also communication, review and adjudication processes as well.
What can’t be dealt with such approach is personality conflicts. In a major project environment, these can be dealt through project teams or sidelining those in conflict. With a one on one type approach with domestic building, where personality conflicts arise, these can be more difficult to resolve. It is worth noting that such would occurs irrespective of the model used.
While the model could easy be used for domestic building work, there is a major limitation. Unlike organisations which commission large commercial/infrastructure where they have panels or can tender for such services, most home owners won’t know where to engage such services…and may rely on say the builder or other service providers (architects, engineer etc) for recommendations. This poses risks that it may end up where those recommended could potentially favour those who recommend, and not to have a specific function to ensure contract delivery and compliance.
Certifies currently in my opinion serve the person who pays for them, that is they serve the builder in most matters and only a window dressing to the home owner. Seen it and lived it and living it with work that has been certified but is not to standard. Then as a home owner it is more money paid to get the work brought up to standard as the system is skewed against the owner. The system needs overhauling to bring balance to it.
My experiences of major projects and construction in the public or private sectors are very different to that of a home owner who has signed a pro forma commercial contact to have a home built. As a point of balance we’ve had one home delivered to our design and paid for the builder direct. Another has been a new spec build. I’ll not dwell on the differences between building $500M+ public or private infrastructure and a 250sqm family home. It’s easy to suggest there are many more zeroes on the back end of the bills for one compared to the other. Not to mention the number of volumes forming the contracts.
If one is paying to have a home built it’s important for those in the community so inclined to seek out information and advice relevant to the state the works are being carried out in. It’s not possible to generalise about any one state without risk of confusion as to whether this is the same elsewhere. As @grahroll points out from experiences in one state first hand, that system and regulation are deficient. It’s a simple point that no build should leave the new home owner to pick up the cost of oversights or worse. Whether some states or territories are worse than others in this regard, is open for all to comment. The ABC and other reports are reminder consumers are not well protected.
For those contemplating a major renovation or new build - note the standard builders contracts hand over all control of the works and site to the builder. Owner builders are a notable exception. Those seeking different, may need to seek some legal input to deliver a better contract. Appointment of a suitably qualified and experienced independent owners representative to inspect the works at any time would also need to be noted, if required.
With all builders and construction companies there are those with good reputations, and the rest. It’s worthwhile putting the time and effort into making the right choice. Not all professional Certifiers, Inspectors or Building Surveyors are equal either.
They are different, but similar models could be used in the domestic application. The major project models are established to achieve a acceptable standard of construction, and to ensure that all relevant laws, codes and standards are met.
Currently the domestic building industry is struggling to achieve these specific outcomes. Looking at the major project models may be beneficial to achieve similar outcomes in the domestic housing industry.
Alternative to solutions discussed earlier in the thread, a simple step could be for home owners to commission an independent surveyor/certifier. Like in other professions (and for major projects), these surveyors/certifiers can be set up to impartial and have functions as outlined above.
The current domestic building certification process is broken, and other options which which current exist elsewhere and work should be considered before trying something ‘new’ (unproven or untested) for the industry.
The pesky A Current Affair might be the most effective oversight there is - not very effective but at least publicises the miscreants even if only 1 at a time. Seems the fine church going gent has a long record yet has still been out and about allegedly doing people over.
Seriously legally disgusting?
Mr Chandler is the NSW Building Commissioner.
Mr Chandler also said Icon’s legal representatives had sent him a deed, accompanied by a letter threatening to take him to court if he didn’t agree to relinquish any ability to refer them to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) over the Otto 2 development.
“The moment I got this I just said, ‘You are joking’,” Mr Chandler told the inquiry, referring to the letter.
"It came with a covering letter that [said], unless I agreed to enter into this they’d be taking the matter to the Supreme Court the following Tuesday at 5 o’clock.
The rest of the story is in the ABC report.
No public comment from the NSW Govt?
The state and territory governments have progressively sought to better regulate the sector. To some the actions might be likened to a flick pass. Note disputes are supposedly able to be settled in a neutral corner (Govt Statutory appointed bodies) without a court of law. This may have worked for a cheap 6 pack unit development.
Per recent reveals there are often 100+ owners all with a million or more at stake. There are also large corporates who have muscled (purchased) their way into the BC and Strata Management business. They have effective control over many millions of dollars to be spent on insurance, maintenance and legal/inspection services. It adds a layer that is promoted as improving outcomes for management committees.
What chance might a first home buyer or sole property owner occupier stand in getting a fair outcome. Some investors may be holding their first purchase sold on doubtful truths about the low risks. Other savvy investors may own multiple properties and know the path. It’s in the best interests of all to have a safe, sound and well maintained building. However investors are far less likely to see the same priority as an owner occupier, and there is a call on the investor to share in funding repairs.
Developers can only win where the Strata owners are unable to work together or worse have vastly different agendas. Hopefully the NSW-CAT can deliver a better outcome.
Tasmanians seem to be among those living in a wild west where caveat emptor is the consumer’s only recourse, eg suck it up and move on. With Tassie history is there any chance more than a single pollie let alone a government will take any notice? Pesky media reports seem all most citizens have to put it in pollies faces regardless that other citizens get their backs up at the numbers of exposes we encounter monthly, and sometimes weekly or daily and blame ‘the messengers’ more than ‘the system’ that has a blind eye with no propensity to open it.
There is a stark contrast between the protections not included in private residential construction contracts and the assurances of the more commercially focussed used by developers, state government departments or the BHP’s of the world.
It’s a slightly different discussion to that of physical building defects that inspired this topic OP.
Home ownership is the single largest financial commitment many consumers will make. Our experiences of negotiating to have a home built in Qld suggest that the owner is always paying in advance of the true value of the work. It’s the form of the standard BSA contract the Building Industry and Govt have agreed to that delivers a less than satisfactory outcome. It may be similar in other states and territories.
For contracts negotiated by the state for public works or by the BHP’s of the world the position financially is very much in favour of the Principal. Contractors and suppliers are chosen/expected to have the financial capacity to fund progress in advance of payment.
While the ABC may be highlighting the more extreme individual residential examples, they are not unique. We know others who have suffered similar fates. There has to be another and better way.
A Qld special circumstance still allowed to stand. Let the developers have their dollars. Seems a lot of Queenslanders trust their system that might not to be trusted.
The current legislation is intended to protect the buyer from being trapped in a contract for an extended period of time with no recourse to exit. There are many reasons a project off the plan to develop or build can be delayed or not proceed. The loophole that enables the developer to cancel the contacts on a time expired basis (it varies typically 18-36months) on the comments of several leaves little hope of personal remedy.
Whether the legislation in other states or territories is any better? Does it offer a solution to cancellation by the developer but trap the buyer unreasonably? Nine did not expand on the issues or options.
From the article: In states like New South Wales and Victoria, there are not similar loopholes available to terminate contracts, Maybe there are issues, but with the focus.
Yes. Both states have added (NSW effective Dec 2019, Vic 2019 backdated) legislated requirements, imposed on contacts for off the plan purchases of property. These modify the developers ability to unilaterally terminate the contract when relying on a subset clause.
For NSW it requires the buyers consent or an approved application with justification to the NSW Supreme Court.
For Victoria similar legislation changes back dated the effective date relating to Sunset Clauses in Vic to 23Aug18. Conditions require the buyers consent or approved application to the Supreme Court of Victoria.
Perhaps Nine could have expanded on this and added some real life examples of the legislation in action. Regardless of the right in any matter before the courts, there is always further time and expense involved. The positive is this may be sufficient deterrent to encourage better outcomes from the developers, (and with some scepticism recommendations from their legal advisors)?
Written as one who might be standing for office in Qld? Or minimally avoiding pointing fingers at those bi-partisan members who ‘did nothing’ to fix it since the dawn of the legislation?
