Building Inspections - By Developer or Builder

I am finalizing a building contract (3 units Geelong) and am conflicted on building inspections.

There are advantages to having building inspections done by developer. From developer's perspective it might result in delay in payments and loss of some control.

However since this is my first association with this builder and I would be more comfortable organizing an inspector myself. It also helps me maintain better control since I am located interstate.

Would appreciate various opinions (contract clauses, no of inspections) either way.

Other inputs into interstate management of project would also be extremely helpful and welcome.

Many thanks for the feedback.

 

Building inspections usually occur after each stage of the build and before each stage of the loan is released : slab, frame etc

 

Inspection by a 3rd party.

 

Do you mean inspections as a normal part of the construction process? If so these are undertaken at specified stages and by the Building Surveyor who issued the building permit.
If you are looking for something else - like monitoring the project you can appoint someone to assist and guide you - but not the builder/developer - you will want someone who can tell you, independently, if things are progressing ok

 

Contract clauses - make sure you have/include Liquidated Damages. Builders hate it, but it's the only way of ensuring an end date and time delay penalties. Get some advice. You will get burnt if doing it yourself and with limited experience

 

Thanks Tufan, I know that the same person who issued the building permit has to inspect. What I am concerned with is the conflict of interest that builder's nominated inspector has.
Council's building inspector is one solution but in my previous experience is beholden to council and incurs delays.

Second option is for me to nominate an inspector who will at least be impartial.

Third option is to have an inspector in addition to building inspector (who has issued permit) but I can foresee conflict arising due to this arrangement.

Still confused.

I agree about liquidated damages, I am getting the pushback from the builder... Feigned ignorance. Is there a stock standard clause that can be included?

Thanks to all who have replied.

 

Inspections as part of the statutory process are limited to that process. It sounds like you're looking for someone to inspect occasionally and report back to you about details, materials, finishes etc, keeping an eye on the builder on your behalf. This is what an Architect can do. You will need to appoint an independent Building Inspector, or the like and brief them well to make sure you get what you want.

Liquidated damages - the only way to ensure a proper completion date. of course there's pushback - the builder doesn't want a penalty for going over the completion date. The builder will know EXACTLY what's going on, don't be fooled
Yes, good contracts have a clause included

Of course if you have already signed a contract it will be too late.
Maybe take the draft contract to your lawyer

 

I am ignorant about the typical residential construction process, but is an inspector in bed with a builder, i.e. certifying a building that they shouldn't, or knowingly letting a builder cut corners so certain parts are non compliant really a thing? I would have thought the risk would be too great for the inspector to be worth their while

 

There are less than honest people in all industries. I don't believe it's anymore prevalent with certifies . From my experience, certifiers that builders have engaged have been no less rigorous than certifiers I've allocated.

 

Thanks Tufan...No ink on paper as yet. Will definitely see a lawyer.

 

The builder doesn't nominate the inspector or certifier, you appoint one to act in your interests. The builder may have made a recommendation that you use person X based on their previous experience with them, that they turn a blind eye, are quick, are cheap, don't ruffle their feathers etc but ultimately you appoint the certifier and pay them.

Private certification came around due to the desire to remove red tape from the approvals process where everything had to go to council for approval (not even via delegated authority).

Delays are experienced when the builder doesn't follow the inspector's direction eg providing 48 hours prior notice for the required stage inspection. Who's fault is that?

 

And thank god for that! The less council has anything to do with the development the better in my honest opinion. Those who have lost faith in the public hospital system I tell them they ain't seen nothing yet till they deal with councils.

 

You need to think about certification and your peace of mind separately. In my opinion if the builder has certifier that he uses which will get your certificate in the end, then all good.

This is completely different to the building being done to your satisfaction. This is where you take control and inspect at the stages or get someone else to.

At the end of the day, it is you who is going to be in strife if your building is not certified. You are the one paying the bills.