101 residential building feedback

Hi..
I'm seeking opinion for anyone that has built or in the middle of building with 101 residential.
has anyone built with 101 residential?
What's the result and if you are happy with it?

Thank you..

I've never heard of them. Might be helpful if you state which State your building in.

Not really a great sign when a builder does this...

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/accc- ... 05l2x.html

Their latest Google reviews wouldn't exactly inspire confidence either!

Hi parkland,

We'd recommend wandering over to ProductReview and see what our clients are saying about us over there. While we used to see a reasonable number of 101 Residential clients documenting their experiencing here (and we'd like to see them doing it now), the bulk of reviews seem to have moved to ProductReview.


Hi HereForHelp,

We understand why you'd raise the ACCC report for consideration when discussing 101 Residential, because the undertaking was spun (by both the ACCC and the media) to make it look like we had been manipulating reviews, or gagging clients from posting negative reviews. As you pointed out, our Google reviews aren't all positive, which contradicts this idea, and our reviews posted on all review sites have maintained the same line they did before the ACCC undertaking. Both of these are evidence that we weren't gagging anyone, and our clients are as happy, as the reviews have always suggested they are.

Simply, our lawyers recommended we add a number of clauses to our contracts in an attempt to limit our exposure to some of the more recent threats that businesses face, such as social media attacks with malicious intent. Not honest criticism, the really extreme and dishonest type, which we've only experienced once in the life of the business. We added those clauses, but never relied on, or enforced them.

In August this year the ACCC raised a concern that 1 of the clauses may be unfair and another may be a false or misleading representation. We immediately removed those clauses, and opened our records to full ACCC scrutiny, to understand whether those clauses were, in fact, unfair, and whether any of our clients were negatively impacted by those clauses.

The ACCC found no indication that we'd used the clauses, their only criticism was they believed we shouldn't have them worded as they were in our contract. They didn't take us to court, they didn't fine us, they simply offered us an undertaking which included our agreement that the clauses may not have complied. We believe we acted with complete integrity at all times. We relied on the advice and wording our lawyers provided us, and the terms may (with hindsight) have been poorly worded, but we never have, or intended to, rely on them the way the reports indicated we had.

It's also worth noting that these clauses have previously been in the contracts of many WA builders, although, with the publicity we received, we assume they would have removed them by now.

We hope this puts some clarity to the reports.

Regards,
CT
101 Residential

LOL product review I will remember to go there when i need a new washing machine, coffee machine and weight loss plan.

I've read the company explanation of the ACCC report within the Google reviews, and whilst I can absolutely accept that the media will spin things, it's certainly interesting that you're accusing the ACCC of doing likewise.

Why would the ACCC spin anything? As a Government regulator, they would have no vested interest or derive any benefit from spinning things to look like you had been manipulating reviews.

Obviously the media will be biased and you [as an employee] will also be biased. Perhaps it would be better off accepting the findings of an un-biased third party at face value instead of accusing them of spin?

I honestly understand your thinking, I'd say the same thing if I didn't have the personal experience with this case. I feel like we're taking this thread away from helping the OP, so I'll keep it as brief as I can.

We had no idea that our poorly worded clause was going to be tied to online reviews until we saw the press release. It hadn't come up in our discussions with the ACCC, and there was no suggestion we'd used our clause to influence reviews. It appears the ACCC wanted to make a statement about online reviews, and because our clause could have been used to prevent clients from posting reviews, I believe they used the opportunity to make that statement by tying it into their press release.

If you read their statement in this context, I hope you'll appreciate that we're not trying to avoid anything we're responsible for. I might be biased, but I'm also happy to be transparent. The ACCC are simply saying that the wording of the clause could have been used this way -
"... building contract contained non-disparagement clauses that allowed it to prohibit customers from publishing any unapproved information about the company, including online reviews". The fact is, we didn't, and there's no suggestion we did.
I'd happily sit down with anyone, and the team who investigated our complaint at the ACCC, to discuss whether there was any indication that we had used these clauses in any way in relation to reviews (or at all). That would be complete transparency, and we're happy to do it.

CT
101 Residential