Flammable cladding builder busts ...

Just read this article today.

Turns outout the builder who built an apartment complex clad with flammable cladding has gone belly up. The owners now have to fork out millions....

Yucky situation. I sincerely hope this doesn't affect anyone here!

Builder being pursued over combustible cladding goes bust, leaving apartment owners with bill
Builder being pursued over combustible cladding goes bust, leaving apartment owners with bill

 

Did anyone expect any other outcome? All because of an illogical decision by my state governments


"At the heart of the problem is a 2002 Victorian government decision to exempt builders from taking out home warranty insurance if an apartment block was taller than three storeys"

 

Maybe a royal commission into the building industry and for those that thought it would be a good idea to wrap hi rise buildings in flammable cladding,and some serious fines.
While the aviation industry was busy building planes that improved survivability from fires and smoke inhalation, our building industry was doing the exact opposite .
A lot of people that run these companies must have been seriously asleep at the wheel, as well as those that regulate the industry.
Or was it self regulation and a tick and flick mentality.

 

More likely the use of a product not suited to the application - some of the types of panelling used are non-flammable others are suitable to buildings of less than 3 storeys. Guess which one got used? The cheaper, non-compliant product because no one can tell the difference.

 

And these companies should have had people within their organisation that knew what they were looking at , not some uni grad straight out of uni that just turned it into a tick and flick exercise.
We have a major hospital near us that is in the process of having all this cladding removed.
Its ridiculous that it was even allowed to happen .

 

Wouldnt.the.builders.insure cover it.even the business has gone into administration

 

Read the article - no builder’s warranty insurance for buildings over 3 storeys.

 

Just out of curiosity what was the reasoning for changing the rules re buildings over 3 storeys.

 

A few brown paper bags changing hands but more likely a lot of lobbying, HIH going bust, other insurers exiting the market causing a monopoly situation and the cost of insurance becoming ridiculously overpriced (when you consider that the govt exited the market and insurance is based on the assets of the builder as the first port of call when there's an Insurance claim).

 

I believe it was because no insurers would provide the insurance after the collapse of HIH.

 

Didnt know that

 

The architect would have specified a particular type of cladding (performance specification If they couldn't nominate a brand). Builder would have either sought approval or substituted without approval.

Architect should be wearing it on their professional indemnity insurance If they let it through.

 

Just seems to get worse and worse if this article is correct where it appears building surveyors are being refused insurance over the concerns associated with cladding.

Great Fire of Melbourne 2020?

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/...rs-are-refused-insurance-20190625-p52152.html

 

wast there a 4 corners piece done on flammable cladding ????