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

A lot of things in the report are incomplete works, one of the reasons I dislike these third party inspections. Unless it is an agreed hold point how can you hold anyone accountable? There's no agreed time or level of completion for the work prior to this inspection so you can walk in and see a lot of issues that will be fixed just by finishing the works.

The big issues raised in that report at the window alteration which I can't tell what that is from that photo. If the inspector had a set of plans that showed something different and the builder has changed the detail then he should be able to explain the reasons behind that. You'll probably just have to talk to him about it to see why the change was made and who is signing it off.

The grading on the porch beams could be as easy as a receipt from the timber supplier on the grade of timber. If it is clad in the final condition then a few knots and a twist in the timber is not going to be the end of the earth.

 

I disagree with this approach. Issues with bracing of the frame and slab issues may be invisible after handover or at least very hard to fix.

Inspections should occur at each major stage, if you are going to pay a private inspector.

 

Most of the issues highlighted will not be fixed, just hidden as the build progresses.......IMHO

Long story short, crap builder.

 

What state is this in? In Victoria the private building surveyor must be engaged direct by the owner unless you sign an authority for the builder to engage them. Never do this!

Always pay them direct and they work for you. The manadatory inspections must then be signed off and building surveyors are well within their rights to issue defective notices under the NCC. You can’t get the occupancy certificate in Victoria without these sign offs by the building surveyor so the builder has to do anything they direct.

 

Who appointed tge building surveyor at the Opal apartments?

 

The inspection was in Perth and no destructive testing was required. We don't have gyprock. Cost was $1200 from memory

 

Building surveyor has nothing to do with issues on Opal apartments. Structural Engineer is engaged to do design and inspect works prior to concrete being poured. Subcontractors provide sign offs that its been installed to design and all sign offs submitted to certifier/surveyor for final occupancy certificate.

It is not the certifiers/surveyors responsibility to inspect every element on the job prior to giving an occupancy certificate they have to rely on the consultants and subcontractors carrying out their responsibilities properly.

Read the report on Opal findings and there are a lot of failures throughout from multiple parties.

 

For example, the roof frame was not built to code. The inspector visually inspected the roof frame, took photos of the non-compliance and included these in a comprehensive report that also included exactly what action would need to be taken to rectify the faults. The builder had the faults rectified.

 

I don't agree with that. For example, in Perth, if the slab is faulty then it is too late to assess after the brickwork has been completed at the edges of the slab and footings are hidden by the brickwork.

In my case the waterproofing was not completed in accordance with the Australian Standard after the builder handed over the site to the tiler. I reported the non compliance prior to tiling and it was partially rectified. If I waited until after tiling, how could the waterproofing be inspected and rectified?

"how can you hold anyone accountable?"

Easy. In Perth, threaten to take the builder to the Building Commission. The Building Commission will take formal complaints from customers and force builders to rectify faults. It's doesn't matter the stage of the build.

I have just completed a build and the I am glad I didn't listen to the advice on here to let the builder do their thing. It would have been a disaster. The waterproofing is only one example. Inadequate waterproofing in the shower recess of a 2 storey house is a very bad situation. Fortunately I caught that before the tiles went on.

 

Sure inspect everything if you know what you're looking at but if your getting a third party in then better to have agreed hold points and inspections with the builder. Atleast then everyone is on the same page and you dont end up with a report of 20 pages where majority of it is incomplete works. Incomplete works are not defects.

Is threatening people with commissions and regulatory bodies how you deal with everything then? Surely easier to just discuss and agree some hold points and inspections and communicate properly with people. Give them a chance to do their job?

 

You asked a question. I answered it. You asked "how can you hold anyone accountable?" Easy. In Perth, threaten to take the builder to the Building Commission. Hold them accountable. Of course, if the builder does the right thing then there is no need to threaten them. I didn't threaten to take my builder to the Building Commission because I didn't need to.

Your question really is out of line and unnecessary. Just because I disagree there is no reason to become confrontational. Is that how you deal with everyone who disagrees with you?

That's exactly what I did but thanks for the advice. What if the builder didn't do the right thing after I discussed and gave them a chance?

First step is to ask the builder in writing to rectify a fault.

Second step is to advise the builder in writing that I will lodge a formal complaint with the Building Commission.

Final step is to lodge a formal complaint with the Building Commission.

I reached step 1 with my builder. I didn't get to step 2 because it was not necessary in my case.

 

Gone kind of off topic here. My point on holding people accountable is you do it with an agreed process rather than a random time when things are half complete.

I dont think my question is out of line, I've offered plenty of ways to hold people accountable or how to deal with the issues in a less confrontational way. You jumped to going to the building commission.

Leaving it here. We both disagree theres no harm in that.

 

Your question was out of line because it was phrased in an inflammatory and confrontational way. Play the ball, not the man. I have not taken anyone to the building commission or threatened to do so. However, suggesting a builder be held accountable by taking them to the building commission is not out of line and does not warrant the response you gave.

Civil disagreements are good. Personal attacks are out of line.

Of course none of this helps the OP, who has a serious problem and no path forward.

 

Find the solution, not the confrontation. Negotiation v threats.

 

I have some updates so thought of sharing...

Apparently the site supervisor turned out to be a nice guy and sympathetic to my cause. He assured me that he would get all reported defects rectified as he doesn't want me to lose sleep over this issue.

I had then conducted another independent inspection (directly via site supervisor) and inspector confirmed all previously reported issues are rectified.

Construction is now progressed to lock-up stage stage and supervisor assured me that he can privately provide access to my independent inspector and he would fix the defects if there are any.

I am not talking to builder's senior manager anymore and personally interacting with site supervisor and closely monitoring the progress. Hopefully, no more dramas.

@Everyone
Learn from my mistake and have a clause introduced prior to signing the contract which makes it mandatory for builder to follow independent report. As a result of the clause, builder is liable sign-off the report which you would keep for future reference and serve as your insurance for any future problems if they are identified in original report.

In your case roof frame was physically/visually accessible. So even if it was inspected after handover you had opportunity to have it rectify. What if the defect was hidden away in walls or slab underneath. If you hadn't involve independent inspector at different stages during construction you are basically going by the assumption that hopefully builder has done the right thing.

 

Agree with you 100%,you have more rights buying a microwave than building a house in this country,

 

100% correct and this actually happened in Perth recently.

Deborah was in the middle of building her 'forever after' home when two cracks appeared

 

I've seen this exact same scenario but the concrete started to lift and move a few years after they fully purchased the property, the builder just bankrupted themselves before litigation commenced. They then tried to litigate against the private compliancer because the concrete wasn't to standards after paying to engage engineers and testing of the concrete slab and foundations the local council "apparently" lost all the paper work.

 

@property_geek

I am glad you have managed to find your way around it.

With regards to putting it in contract to have building inspector reports and getting the builder to go by them, most builders wont agree to it.

Two big reasons for that.

1) If you bring in 2 different inspectors they will each have an opinion because they are usually former builders and builders almost always disagree with each other.

2) Due to the fact that they want to do minimum that they can to get away with and/or they have their own methods of doing structural work they (builders) dont want to see the opinion of another builder. This is why most project homes wont even allow you to have your own architecture drawing let alone letting you inspect.


There is a better way around it.

Basically every house will need an OC and the private certifier issuing it will need engineering reports to issue it. So if they approve something that is not meeting standards and is defective it will also put them on the line.

So rather than doing building inspectors, in particular for structural work, get a good structural engineer inspect it and give you a report. I would even suggest you draw the engineering with an engineer that you know and trust and put it in the contract that the builder is to follow this engineering and that the engineer will be inspecting the work at each interval.

Engineering reports issued by proper engineers (not dodgy ones) are far more valid in my opinion than any builder inspecting the works because builders will be relying on their thoughts whereas engineers will be relying on numbers instead.

 

This Exact scenario is why The building game sucks.

You've got a client who doesn't trust the builder. You've got a "building inspector" who probably got his "qualification" from a weet-bix box, then you've got a gaggle of commentary about how dodgy the builder is. And some bloke on a forum telling you it will all be hidden from you. Options like that are like *******s. We all have them.. you know the rest
A knot in a beam isnt going to kill anyone. Move on