HIA Contract

The builder cannot charge you or an agent to access the property. This is a huge red flag and is often put there because the builder knows you're going to think twice about shelling out for an inspection and then also pay hundreds of dollars for access. If you want this builder, fight to have this clause removed. Its BS and unlawful.

Tthe surveyor issue is an annoying one, because by law you are entitled to use your own, but the builder isn't motivated for you to have your own as they tend to find issues when the builders own conflicted surveyor doesn't.

Now the builder has to by law have that box there to tick as it "shows youve been given the option to exercise your right", but if you say you want a different surveyor, the builder will find a reason (a lawful one) to not take on your contract. Its catch 22 and often not worth the fight.

This really should be examined by regulators because this law was passed to ensure that you as an owner were best represented. I guarantee you 99% of contracts will all have the builders surveyor as the one chosen by the client. A very unlikely statistic if there ever was one.

If it were me, if be getting the cost to access clause removed. Its unlawful as the standard contract allows for you or YOUR AGENT (read: inspector, or whoever the fk you want) to gain access with the appropriate notice and agreement of the builder. The charge is bogus and an unlawful contract clause doesnt alient your right to a lawful clause. basically you cant contract out of a legal entitlement regardless of what the contract says. You just want that settled now, before having a fight about it after you sign the contract.

The Surveyor issue can be largely mitigated by your own personal inspections and being on top of the goings on of your build (some people are really good at this others sit on tehir hands and wait for the hand over).

Both are red flags. But the inspector access cost is the bigger red flag.

Not one bit. The report stipulates defects, they can't hide behind a "well you didn't pay me to read about the defects" clause. Would love to see that argued in court

The review is presented by the customer. A private building consultant appointed by the customer to serve as their inspection agent does not communicate with the builder. It doesn't matter who has alerted the customer to possible/probable breaches.It could be a spouse, a friend or even someone on H1 as has often happened in the past.

The builder has added one sided contract conditions that fit the definition of Unfair Contract Terms as per Australian Consumer law.