Browse Forums Building Standards; Getting It Right! Re: The National Construction Code not fit for purpose 21Jan 12, 2020 12:32 pm Unfortunately it was the latter, they came up with whatever suited their client to try and get them out of the situation. The concern for me (and every other consumer), is when it goes to VCAT they will all be blaming each other and I am the one with the associated costs for it to be dragged out. The first Structural Engineer that was sent out from the builder's insurer, spoke about trees in his report and included pictures and there are no trees there. So where does one take that information as it is not my policy, it's the builders? It's misleading and deceptive and would be deemed as fra.d if the homeowner was putting in a deceptive report. The result of that claim.....liability denied. Re: The National Construction Code not fit for purpose 22Jan 12, 2020 1:01 pm That's monstrous! but the word "fr.ud" is not allowed to be used in connection with the building industry. I remember a telephone conversation with a representative from the VBA in which I accused our builder of fr.udulent behaviour. You would think I had slaughtered a baby in front of him. Your language is more important than their behaviour. They only ever commit "mistakes". Re: The National Construction Code not fit for purpose 23Jan 12, 2020 1:29 pm Very interesting Liliana. Maybe I should stick with 'misleading and deceptive'? Or I can find some other synonym for the word 'fra.d'. Perhaps 'bamboozlement' or 'hocus-pocus' is fitting in their game of 'pass the parcel'. Or maybe I just quote section 13 & 14 of the Insurance Contracts Act....'the utmost of good faith' which applies to the conduct of the insurer in the handling or settlement of a claim or potential claim under the contract of insurance. Also s.18 'misleading and deceptive conduct' and s.29, 'false or misleading representations' - Australian Consumer Law. I've done my homework. Knowledge is Power. Re: The National Construction Code not fit for purpose 24Jan 13, 2020 6:46 am In common law on building contracts there are two textbook variations on misrepresentation (Hudsons on Building Contracts) 1 Innocent misrepresentation - where representation is made unknowingly not to be true 2 Fr@udulent misrepresentation - where representation is made knowingly not to be true or recklessly without regard whether it is true or not. In 2 above there is dishonesty, dishonesty/deceit = fr@ud Unfortunately for all of us fr@ud in building contract administration is not properly dealt with in our legal systems and fr@udsters are not punished. Which means more fr@ud. Foremost Building Expert in Australia,assisting with building problems/disputes, building stage inspections,pre-contract review advice for peace of mind 200 blogs http://www.buildingexpert.net.au/blog Re: The National Construction Code not fit for purpose 26Mar 12, 2020 2:57 pm The very reason Revinator why there are so many Acts, Codes, Contract laws, Operational Guidelines etc. It’s to confuse the consumer and then they are not sure which pathway to go down when things don’t go as planned and have to chase the party for non-compliant work and or negligence. If you don’t get your head around it all, you are walked all over. As stated before, knowledge is power. Re: The National Construction Code not fit for purpose 27Mar 12, 2020 6:48 pm It has to be remembered that the NCC is a performance based documents that contains Performance Requirements as the minimum requirement. Australian Standards are non mandatory referenced Deemed To Satisfy solutions within the NCC that need to meet the Performance Requirements but sometimes Performance Solutions certified to meet the Performance Requirements of the NCC are used in place. The NCC, being the primary document, has hierarchy over the Australian Standards and Performance Solutions but many persons do not understand this. The document linked below gives a good explanation of the Objectives, Performance Requirements and hierarchy. http://www.constructionlawmadeeasy.com/ ... ildingCode When things go wrong, the lower tiers of hierarchy are most often examined for cause/non adherence whereas lack of governance during the build process is what has most often affected the result. If something has failed, it is because the construction has not met the minimum Performance Requirements of the NCC. Even regulators often fail to recognise this simple fact for various reasons often conveniently kept to themselves. It must also be understood that adherence to AS compliance doesn't always meet the Performance Requirements. building-expert The problems with non compliance in Victoria are not of engineering nature and engineers cannot fix them. It's to do with inadequate building control regulation and lack of enforcement driven by entrenched corruption. There are many failings within the building industry and building_expert's summary is succinct. A question to ponder; What was the real motive for the introduction and acceptance of the apartment 3 storey warranty change and why wasn't the move rigorously opposed by those in positions of influence who knew of consumer detriment most likely with their introduction? The article below is a sobering read. https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/fears-home-law-changes-could-spark-sales-slump-20111021-1mca8.html 3in1 Supadiverta. Rainwater Harvesting Best Practice using syphonic drainage. Cleaner Neater Smarter Cheaper Supa Gutter Pumper. A low cost syphonic eaves gutter overflow solution. Re: The National Construction Code not fit for purpose 28Mar 20, 2020 10:07 am That is indeed a sobering read SaveH2O. I fear for the ordinary homebuyer when I read articles like that. Obviously some of the big developers have gotten into the ears of pollies who have changed the rules. I think they should hang their heads in shame over that one. Quote - It has to be remembered that the NCC is a performance based documents that contains Performance Requirements as the minimum requirement. Australian Standards are non mandatory referenced Deemed To Satisfy solutions within the NCC that need to meet the Performance Requirements but sometimes Performance Solutions certified to meet the Performance Requirements of the NCC are used in place. The NCC, being the primary document, has hierarchy over the Australian Standards and Performance Solutions but many persons do not understand this. The document linked below gives a good explanation of the Objectives, Performance Requirements and hierarchy. http://www.constructionlawmadeeasy.com/ ... ildingCode When things go wrong, the lower tiers of hierarchy are most often examined for cause/non adherence whereas lack of governance during the build process is what has most often affected the result. If something has failed, it is because the construction has not met the minimum Performance Requirements of the NCC. Even regulators often fail to recognise this simple fact for various reasons often conveniently kept to themselves. It must also be understood that adherence to AS compliance doesn't always meet the Performance Requirements.- UnQuote Excellent information as always. Stewie A survey must’ve completed by a certified surveyor. This form part of every DA requirement 3 223610 Hi All, see above image. The required setback from the rear boundary in my case is 5m, as you can see the shape of the site and location of the boundary is slightly… 0 8451 CDC Housing Code 3 When to apply Floor Area external face of wall vs Gross Floor Area internal face of wall. Reading thru CDC Housing Code 3, lets take a lot 915sqm.… 0 16560 |