Landlord and others Sued over Bankstown Apartment Fire

A few years ago, 2012, there was a fire in a bankstown, NSW, apartment. One girl died and another broke her legs badly while trying to escape.

Now the court case has started with the following people and companies being sued:

• apartment's landlord, James Peng
• the Property Investor Alliance, which allegedly told Mr Peng he could build another bedroom in the unit
• the company responsible for installing extinguishers in the building
• the body corporate,
• the realty group that managed the building,
• the certifier who issued an occupancy certificate for the building and
• Silky Constructions, who built the apartments

see
www.smh.com.au/nsw/ginger-jiang-sues-after-being-forced-to-jump-from-burning-bankstown-apartment-20171215-h05p90.html

 

Interesting to see the 3rd bedroom wasn't Council approved. I'm thinking about converting a dining room (with balcony coming off it) into a 3rd bedroom but will now make sure I check with Council first to see if approval is needed in my case. Hope they win this lawsuit.

 

So sad. I hope they win too.
According to this:
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/bankstown...lty-wiring-inquest-hears-20150622-ghu7g1.html
"The building itself was never compliant with the Australian building code and remains uncompliant."

 

You may also need body corporate approval as well as council approval.

Without the correct approvals you can be held liable in the event of a tragedy as covered in the above court case.

And insurance probably won't cover you for unapproved alterations.
Marg

 

Council's seem to be pursuing unauthorised Secondary Dwellings and dodgy alterations a bit lately (had several calls from potential clients who have been received Notice of Intention to Serve an Order letters from council (they need to remove/demolish the structure or have it retrospectively approved).
Many owners do not realise that although the retrospective approval process is now more difficult, there are serious home insurance implications if an unauthorised Granny Flat suffers a fire and destroys that structure or allows the fire to spread to the main dwelling.

 

Yes good point to also check with body corp.

 

jesus, what a mess of a situation,

poor girls
i wonder whether if anyone added the 3 bdr while knowing it wasnt approved

 

IIRC that building was rife with unapproved alterations - extra bedrooms, enclosed atrium made of flammable materials, and other breaches.

 

It will be interesting to see what the insurance company does on this mess,and who's covered for what..
Melbourne Airbnb 'trashed by gang', neighbourhood left in a mess

 

I hope the council isn't allowing anyone to live there in the meantime

 

I have done a lot of this in the past in Melbourne- you need a permit from council and get a fire engineer to bring down the fire sprinkler system to move or add additional fire sprinklers in the event it does cover all areas. This is also on top of the approval from owners corp (body corp)

 

Sounds like a real mess. Regardless of it all nobody wants to hear a story like this. RIP.

 

Thanks mate I'll check it out. Property is on gold Coast.

 

Unapproved changes within a building are prohibited but some landlords still do it thinking ownership confers rights to modify. Smoke detectors missing / disabled. Locks added...Why some stratas oppose Airbnb. Grills on windows, louvres in doors + unapproved doors that arent fire rated. Smoke detectors removed or silenced to prevent alarms. Repairs that arent to code eg door core and fire rating, door closers, hinges and locks. Simple acts like adding a wall or structure to a balcony could trap an occupant or cause spread of fire.

Insured ? The insurers have likely disclaimed liability due to illegal use, non-compliance and mods.

 

From the few articles I've read it seems a sprinkler system was not required (building <25m height)?

I'm finding it difficult to comprehend just how there were so many issues; and it's not clear if they existed before certification and/or were created after occupation.

It doesn't even seem that they know what actually caused the fire ... an occupant may have caused the fire themselves - does this reduce the liability of others ie contributory negligence?

 

Not necessarily - unless proven to be deliberately lit by the claimant.

Unauthorised internal structures may have accelerated the blaze or affected exit routes from the unit.
Marg

 

It is still being lived in

 

Does anyone know the outcome of this court case?

 

@Gockie 's post pretty well sums it up. If you are an owner or a Strata Committee member in this building, and you think that any insurance is going to pay up for any reason on a building that is non-compliant with code, you probably need your head read.

Either the Owner's Corp gets their crap together and make sure the building is compliant, or they will be bankrupt, and, even then, it's probably a bit hairy.

Whichever developer, or their $2 company they are suing for defects or whatever, is irrelevant to the occupants that got injured or killed.

So, it's probably gonna get a bit ugly.

As a thought, it's probably a good idea that owners in Strata Corporations seriously consider taking an interest in being a member of their Committee, so they know what is happening with their building, and as protection for their investment(s), given that they have invested 100s of thousands of dollars, or millions, in some cases.

 

I just searched the Supreme Court database using various names from the SMH article and couldn't find any case related to this.

Perhaps there was an out of court settlement