The parties have reached a mutual understanding in resolution of each of the other parties concerns
Browse Forums Building A New House The parties have reached a mutual understanding in resolutio 141May 01, 2019 4:16 pm Simeon McGovern Affordable Custom Homes, We design and build to your budget Ashington Homes www.ashingtonhomes.com.au Re: Builder demands $201,118 for non compliant defective wor 142May 01, 2019 5:23 pm 3in1 Supadiverta. Rainwater Harvesting Best Practice using syphonic drainage. Cleaner Neater Smarter Cheaper Supa Gutter Pumper. A low cost syphonic eaves gutter overflow solution. The parties have reached a mutual understanding in resolutio 143May 01, 2019 5:39 pm Simeon McGovern Affordable Custom Homes, We design and build to your budget Ashington Homes www.ashingtonhomes.com.au The parties have reached a mutual understanding in resolutio 145Jun 03, 2019 2:55 pm Simeon McGovern Affordable Custom Homes, We design and build to your budget Ashington Homes www.ashingtonhomes.com.au The parties have reached a mutual understanding in resolutio 146Jun 11, 2019 1:56 pm Simeon McGovern Affordable Custom Homes, We design and build to your budget Ashington Homes www.ashingtonhomes.com.au Re: Builder demands $201,118 for non compliant defective wor 150Jun 14, 2019 7:20 pm Even if the Builders contract was fair and reasonable its likely not viable for the average consumer to enforce it in court if defective work is delivered. Solicitors cost $500 per hour plus, barristers cost more, expert reports for the court $5k plus. The industry needs proper regulation that actually enforces building standards and offers protection to ‘unsophisticated’ consumers. This is why in most cases builders like Metricon just do as they please.
Re: Builder demands $201,118 for non compliant defective wor 151Jun 14, 2019 7:21 pm Even if the Builders contract was fair and reasonable its likely not viable for the average consumer to enforce it in court if defective work is delivered. Solicitors cost $500 per hour plus, barristers cost more, expert reports for the court $5k plus. The industry needs proper regulation that actually enforces building standards and offers protection to ‘unsophisticated’ consumers. This is why in most cases builders like Metricon just do as they please with no regard for their customers interest or fear of consequences. Re: Builder demands $201,118 for non compliant defective wor 152Jun 15, 2019 8:47 am The problem is that most consumers want the key and are often renting and have given notice. If the consumer holds the payment the builder is forced to act to try and rectify and most will do this. Nothing is 100 percent in a build if you get a 90 percent you’re doing well. Most problems seem to come from high rise or develop type builds the average joe gets a reasonable house depending on the supervisors and the trades in most cases. If trades were paid more instead of building companies cutting them to the bone they could spend more time and would not have to rush from job to job. Maybe the trades should form a union and set rates for each phase of construction. Re: Builder demands $201,118 for non compliant defective wor 153Jun 15, 2019 9:00 am Zorro6 Do you realise Royal Commissions cost millions of dollars mainly going to the legal profession for asking questions they get from builders and paid for by the taxpayer. A better solution would be to ensure that your building contract is examined by a legal firm and that its provisions are enforceable .You only have to look at the banking royal commission so much deceit and no one prosecuted, borrowers losing all their assets and banks still laughing up their sleeves . The standard HIA contract is the benchmark then go from there. I'm not really sure how having her contract of sale examined by a legal firm would have helped my niece avoid now having to pay $10,000 to replace the flammable cladding on her building. I wouldn't expect a Royal Commission only to be investigating builders. Why was flammable cladding ever allowed into the country or approved by the appointed building surveyor? As I see it too many people are still in the dark about what can go wrong when they build or buy a house or apartment. This needs to be brought out into the open and a Royal Commission would do that. Re: Builder demands $201,118 for non compliant defective wor 154Jun 15, 2019 9:22 am And what about these people in the news today? Sydney high-rise in Mascot evacuated after residents spot cracks in building https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-14/ ... d/11212816 And the only reason it does make the news is because it affects so many people. If it was a private home falling to bits, as has happened to more than one person on this forum, it wouldn't make the news nor would they be evacuated. Re: Builder demands $201,118 for non compliant defective wor 155Jun 15, 2019 9:52 am Zorro6 Nothing is 100 percent in a build if you get a 90 percent you’re doing well. That is a defeatist attitude only made possible by the lack of new home buyer consumer protection that many builders take advantage of. Zorro6 If trades were paid more instead of building companies cutting them to the bone they could spend more time and would not have to rush from job to job. Tradies leave the domestic sector to do commercial work because it pays better. If a tradie isn't happy with rates offered, they are free to say no. Houses have to be built to comply with the National Construction code (NCC), Australian Standards referenced in the NCC when called up as Deemed To Satisfy (DTS) solutions, certified Performance Solutions included in the contract and other certified engineered solutions used during the build where/when necessary. Builders need to have onsite quality control (QC) to ensure that work done by contractors meets the builder's contractural and regulatoty obligations. For years, many builders have failed in numerous construction stages to do this and the new home owners are the ones who suffer through no fault of their own. Many such failures have become endemic because of the lack of proper builders QC and industry self regulation that accepts self certification as proof of compliance. A Royal Commission is needed to expose the massive extent of such issues. Disingenuous comments that scoff at the need for a Royal Commission are disrespectful to the hundreds of thousands of new home owners who have been badly affected in recent times by industry regulatory bodies, bureaucrats and politicians who have failed miserably to act to better protect new home buyers and clean up the industy. It has be the various regulatory bodies task to ensure that a compliant product is delivered, not the new home buyer who is often financially disadvantaged at the end of their build and unable to pursue their legal options. 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: Builder demands $201,118 for non compliant defective wor 158Jun 15, 2019 6:41 pm That’s just it , it doesn’t exist at the moment but I think it would be far more effective than a so called royal commission. Insurance companies need to address this gap but I think if consumers want it they would provide. There are two benefits to this one the home builder would be entitled to claim for any defects to be fixed and two the insurance company would then sue the builder for defective work. Re: Builder demands $201,118 for non compliant defective wor 159Jun 15, 2019 7:09 pm And who will insure the builders when it looks like building surveyors are hard put to it to find insurance at the moment? In fact it is possible that very soon the entire Australian building industry will grind to a halt. Listen to: https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/p ... k/11191318 Re: Builder demands $201,118 for non compliant defective wor 160Jun 15, 2019 7:14 pm It isn't enough to have regulations. Regulations need to be enforced and that is not happening at the moment. A Royal Commission could examine the failings in the industry and make recommendations as to how things can be improved. That is what the banking Royal Commission did and nobody would argue that it wasn't needed or useful. It certainly wasn't just a means for lawyers to make a lot of money. ask the surveyor for clarification would be the logical approach 1 20204 Thanks mate. Yeah good points! Leaning towards Option 3 to get a bit extra space in the cabinets but not going too crazy high (and expensive). Would require a mini… 13 40009 Hi All, I just wanted to close this topic out with an update. So we ended up agreeing to a number with the insurance company, and after an extensive amount of hand… 8 23762 |