Major structure fault identified during construction. Builder doesn't even want to see it.

I wonder if it's worthwhile calling the insurer to discuss?

 

Only If the builder has gone broke or died.

 

So in other words you have more consumer rights buying a microwave than building a property in this country

 

Not sure why you think that.

If a microwave dies you go back to the shop or the manufacturer not their insurer.

If something is wrong with a build, you go back to the builder.

 

Your right to claim against the HOW insurance is very limited. Builder has to reject any liability, builder dies or gone bankrupt.

The policy is a insurer of last resort. They will begrudedly pay out then chase the builder's assets which have been declared when the policy was put in place.

 

It sounds like the builder has been down this route before and has checked their legal position very diligently (shame they lost their ethical/moral compass in the process).

Not many would have considered that the cerifier's report could be legally ignored until after the build was finished (what is the point then of progress inspections?) Makes no sense to me.......but the law often does not make sense.

 

I find it hard to understand why you would be expected to continue paying progress payments when there is defective work? I would call HIA as I’m sure that you are not supposed to pay progress payments if the work isn’t completed as per contract (Compliant with BCA) for that stage until it’s complete (complete would mean compliant with that stage and the BCA components of that stage?

 

Your would surely not covered if the house fell apart/injured someone etc (exaggeration I know) by building insurance after handover by knowing there’s are faults with the construction. I’d be surprised that bank would release payment if they were aware of this info. I’ve had to sign declarations before to get banks to release funds stating that stage has been completed as per contract etc

 

Good idea but I think you'll find they will not be obliged to hand it over unless it's someone from Govt departments that deals in safety. It's looks & sounds just like another dodgy builder covering their back sides for dodgy work.

I'm not current with these individual building laws but there must be a private compliancing officer involved in all of this, if the OP has photos of the defects, he might be able to twist their arm with some legal advice.

 

HIA is an employer's organisation/lobby group, they don't deal with consumers only builders.

 

Consumer Law may apply to the contract. Discuss with Fair Trading or ACCC. Maybe both.

Merchantable quality etc. That may even be an unfair term to exclude your assertion of defects becuase they dont accept it under their contract position. And Australian consumer law (ACL) cant be contracted out.

The ACL route may be cheaper and more acceptable to your evidence than a court.

 

Post report with location etc redacted so we can see. From what you have said so far it doesnt sound that bad to me. Sounds more like third party person putting things into a report to justify a fee.

 

There is no evidence of that.

I just finished a build and had a private inspector complete a very comprehensive report. I handed it over to the builder and the builder took it very seriously. There were structural issues identified in the report and the builder did not deny it. All major faults were rectified prior to handover.

The inspector did not put anything in the report to justify the fee. He only documented actual faults and provided photographic evidence of every fault.

 

If the above two points are the only things noted in Major defects then it doesn't sound that bad to me. Nobody has seen any of the photos of the defects so how can you judge? When noting major defects I wasn't expecting knots in timber and twisting beams as 'major structural defects'. What info was provided to the person completing the report? Are they are structural engineer, doubtful.
It's easy to beat up on the builders for everything but its the builders license on it at the end of the day and he is the one that needs to provide the QA/sign offs for each stage. There is a contract with the builder and from the sounds of it no mention of a third party inspector or hold points with third parties so you are delaying the builder.

Probably all could have been avoided if you were upfront with the builder about a third party inspector or just not mention the report and ask for the builders records of timber grading and changes to window head framing etc and let them prove their doing their job.

 

Until somebody is killed when the beam collapses onto or under them?

 

Its a beam for a porch, which is showing some twisting, guess what timber bows and twists. Get the receipt from supplier on timber grade that's all the report has asked for. How big do you think this beam is? It will be 200 x 35 or some similar size if its a porch on a house. Understand the context of what is being built before going over the top.

Lets see the photos and we'll see how many lives are at risk because of it.

 

How did private inspector identify structural defects after handover? Did they do destructive testing meaning ripping of gyprock etc?

Did builder cover the cost of destructive testing?

What about sections of testing where no fault found? Did you have to pay for restoring those areas of build?

How much was the total cost?

 

Building inspector that I recommend locally states that he doesn't ever do inspections during construction, completely not worth it - his words.
For the reasons mentioned above, that the builders have control of the site, mistakes can be fixed prior to completion.
Suggestion only worthwhile at the end, best time is prior to handover (always get final payment from bank in form of a cheque, never direct to builders account and hold onto that baby until you're 100% happy don't ever wait for errors to be fixed up at the 3month maintenance, once they have your money...goodluck)

 

@Coxy89 @Antoni0
Report attached.

My argument with builder is not about whether a fault is major or minor or not-a-defect.
It's about builder not wanting to look at the report because it's from external private inspector.

I argued with him to at least take a look at report and if he says it's normal and no repair required then I would accept it.

The purpose of involving an external inspector was to see if anything overlooked as a human error and not because I doubted builder's expertise.

But he doesn't listen. I guess he knows the law is in his favor on this.

 

I am not sure if it is possible to find a structural fault ( eg cracked frame) at final handover inspection without incurring destructive testing which is very costly and time consuming.

From what I know only minor cosmetic defects that are visible can be identified at that stage.