Building surveyors – what they won’t do

We have had a number of problems associated with site levels and stormwater drainage since our house was finished and I recently sent a letter to our private building surveyor asking for some information to try and find out what went wrong. He replied, rather curtly, that they were satisfied with what they inspected and that they assume plans and certificates are correct.

As both the builder and the building designer have relied on his certificate of occupancy to claim that the house complied with the building regulations I find his response ridiculous. We have a situation where the builder and the building designer can rely on the validity of a certificate to cover themselves which relies on their integrity in the first place!

As I have been surprised by what the building surveyor doesn’t know about our build, I just wanted to check that he’s not just having me on.

So our building surveyor will:

approve plans for a 3.6m wall on boundary even though the site levels have only been estimated and there is no guarantee the house can be built

not be aware that site levels were incorrect even though he had to approve your amended plans

not require the amended plans to have revised site levels on them so that the proper floor heights can be worked out

not notice if slab heights vary from the approved plans

not notice the absence of freeboard and whether land has been graded away from the house

not notice if the overflow relief gully doesn’t have the right separation from ground level

not notice that you now need steps to the front porch deck and a retaining wall at the back (which has only become apparent now that you have excavated the land to the right level!)

give approval for a deck that covers weepholes

Anything else he won't do?

It sounds to me like he hasn't performed due diligence.
Bozos like this are what give the building industry a bad name.
I'm lucky in my dealings with some of the local private certifiers who mostly seem to want to cross every T and dot every I almost to the point of being pedantic - but the builders on their jobs know exactly where they stand. Every deviation from an approved plan is documented with new floorplans and elevations as well so there is no confusion for anyone concerned.
I think this sometimes comes down to how well the original construction documents have been drawn as well. Some I've seen leave a lot to be desired and only cause confusion for all concerned.

Stewie

Thanks for the reply StewieD. So I'm not being unreasonable then? A good building surveyor should notice these things?

I should add that the building surveyor was the designer's choice. We wanted to use the local Council Surveyor as his fee was considerably less than these fellows- approx. $700 instead of about $2,000. The building designer didn't want to as council surveyors require “details” she considers “unreasonable”. We were told that, if we chose the council building surveyor, she would charge “extra for the extra time to document” if this proved necessary. It's hard not to come to the conclusion now that she chose them because they don't ask too many questions.

I've just found this document on the Victorian Building Commission website:

http://www.buildingcommission.com.au/__ ... 013_62.pdf

and it makes very interesting reading. It may of be use to others. It says, amongst other things:

"the Registered Building Surveyor must not supplement or augment the application of design documents by ...correcting errors"

Our plans are annotated in red everywhere by the Building surveyor.

It also says:

Site plans must include:

site levels and contour lines of the allotment

Ours didn't.

It also says:

"Where the roof truss design is to be submitted after the issue of the building permit, the RBS must include a condition on the building permit that the roof truss details and layout plans are to be submitted prior to the installation of the wall framing.

Ours doesn't and there was a big stuff-up with the roof framing.

It also says:

"The stormwater drain layout must clearly show the required fall, cover to pipe work, downpipe locations, pits, inspection openings (IO), agricultural drains, the connection to the LPD and any other details necessary for compliance."

Ours didn't and I have spent 18 months chasing the builder and the building surveyor for a proper drainage plan. Of course, if the ground had been at the right level, we wouldn't have needed a drainage plan because we could have seen the pipes!

So the building surveyor came from the same school as our builder and building designer - the College of Can't Be Bothered.

+1 This clown needs to be brought to account. Obviously he and the building designer are scatching each others backs and cutting corners. Not unheard of.

Hi Liliana,

Have you checked his registration? As you know, there were a few unregistered ones running around until recently, one reason why the Victorian Building Commission was replaced last year.

Working for such a low cut rate would have had my alarm bells ringing. You were also coerced into using him by your 'designer' and it is apparent that your 'designer' was not acting in your best interest, only their own. Very unprofessional.



You could not have worded that any better.

Hi SaveH20,

Yes I have checked. This appears to be a reputable and experienced company. That is why I'm just thrown for a loop. Mind you, none of the actual surveyors visited the site. They use their building inspector for visits but the surveyors would have approved the documents surely.

Let's face it. Most of the defective work is done by people who are registered. It would be just too easy if you could catch them out doing something as blatant as working unregistered.

I was thinking along the lines of the recommendation. I thought that you would have checked but I had to make sure.

No, it was the council building surveyor (we didn't use) who would have charged $700. The people we did use (chosen by the building designer) charged $2,000. Or is even that considered a low-cut rate?

Sorry Liliana, I got the rates crossed when I scanned the posts. I had in my mind that your designer persuaded you to use their recommended (I thought) cheaper surveyor.

Also, just to avoid any other confusion, by building surveyor I mean the person who issues the building permit and occupancy certificate, not the land surveyor.

Hope all is now clear!

Liliana wrote

"Yes I have checked. This appears to be a reputable and experienced company. That is why I'm just thrown for a loop. Mind you, none of the actual surveyors visited the site. They use their building inspector for visits but the surveyors would have approved the documents surely."

Yes reputation is a wonderful thing but it also can be deceptive and give you a false sense of security leading to blind trust. A train called blind trust could take you over the cliff.

I have learned to be sceptical about reputation because I mostly deal with disreputable things done by reputable builders. In fact I no longer believe it, I just think you are only as good as your last job.

Reputation can also be very dangerous because it is a mother of vanity feeding own egos and false beliefs they are better than they actually are. "Trust me I know best" Really?

Reputation is essential first stop, after that catch a train to project control.

Just to update this thread - I lodged a complaint against my Building Surveyor with the VBA not long after I started this thread. The final result of the investigation is still pending though I do know my surveyor has been found guilty of issuing a permit when he could not have been satisfied that the building work could comply with the Act. However, it appears that the VBA has now changed the rules regarding the process to be followed by Building Surveyors when issuing a building permit in the state of Victoria. They are now obliged to use a VBA approved checklist when approving building permits, as well as when making changes to building permits. See links below:

http://www.vba.vic.gov.au/2016-changes- ... -surveyors

http://www.vba.vic.gov.au/__data/assets ... 160616.pdf

I wonder whether 8(ii) in the checklist would have made a difference to our situation? Would "a survey plan of existing site conditions" include a contour survey?

Yes, going by your problems with site drainage in the past.
The first thing I insist on when a client engages me to draw plans is to get a contour survey done of the property in question. This will give you all the features necessary for an accurate site plan.
These will usually include
- contours at 500mm increments
- any features like trees , their species, height , spread of canopy etc
- outcrops of rock
- all boundary fences, retaining walls etc
- any services on site like underground cables, mains sewers etc
- easements
- floor levels of the existing dwelling ( if any ) and neighbouring properties
- outline of neighbouring dwellings that face the property including roof lines and slopes, eaves heights, ridge heights etc
- window sill heights, location and levels of neighbouring dwellings ( these are especially useful when I do the relevant shadow diagrams to show how the new house/addition will affect their solar access)
- spot levels around the property every 3m or so - all to AHD and a benchmark on the kerb
- boundaries pegged on at least one side so you know exactly where to build to ( fences are notoriously out and should not be relied upon as an accurate reflection of where the boundary actually is )
- Any other predominant geographical feature etc etc
Our local councils will not even look at a DA unless an extensive contour survey has been done. It makes it very hard for a builder/concreter/landscaper/drainage plumber to get it wrong when all this info is readily at hand although amazingly some still do!

Stewie

Thanks for the reply Stewie. It looks to me as if the VBA has taken some positive steps here to try and sort out the mess in building control in this state.