Mascot Towers 'not viable to fix'

It's pretty dire when the suggested 'repair' to a newish property is the wrecking ball!

70 to 80% loss.

Owners of Sydney's Mascot Towers advised to sell | Sky News Australia

 

I feel so terrible for the owners.

 

So sad. The ABC article has a man who bought just months before they were evacuated 'There will be bankruptcies': Mascot Towers owners urged to sell as developers circle

 

These people must be absolutely devastated.

I know it wont and probably cannot happen but it would be at least something if the owners were forgiven any debt still owing. Yes, I realise banks, etc, etc.

Unlikely the developers are doing it tough so somebody "won." Morally bankrupt.

 

Why should banks be liable for contractual matters between vendor and buyer ? Caveat emptor. Bank doesnt underwrite property losses.

It does raise a issue concerning consumer protection when dealing with new builds. They should make professionals such as contractors, engineers and certifiers and the developer all liable and give protection to consumers.

 

At times I think, why in a country like Australia with good governance can allow such thing to happen. If it is in some other parts of the world, I can accept it, but here...? It's sad.

 

Where do you draw the line?

• ".....We just built what was shown on the plans"
• "....We certified what's been shown on plans, certificates provided & matches the DA/CC"
• "....We designed what the client asked for"
• "...We delivered a product to market which sold out very quickly "

 

Role of builder's insurance? Requirement for developers to be insured?
Building falls apart -> owners sue developer -> developer's insurer pays?

 

If I buy a used car that blows smoke and the engine blows up, it's caveat emptor. Tend to think these people should be able to reasonably rely on building standards and a certification process such that their building wouldn't have major engineering defects.

 

Earth shattering for those affected. Hopefully this will never be repeated but I won't hold my breath.

My advice to anyone: don't buy anything less than 20/30 years old.

 

Be careful what you wish for. I work in the industry and I think the latest proposed legislative changes are very heavy handed. Everyone involved owing a duty of care to the owners. This will inevitably increase time and costs associated with builds which unsurprisingly will be passed through to purchasers. The real winners with all of this are the owners corp lawyers. Huge fees coming their way.

 

Whilst Caveat Emptor, I felt very bad for the owners. Afterall, the general expectation of these apartments should be say 50 years+? Unless you are a builder and know how to inspect every part of the building, would you be able to pick up all the issues? Yes there are building inspectors that you can hire, but would they be able to predict the Mascot Tower's issues by an apartment inspection?

Otherwise, every apartment should have a "use by date"? Afterall, it is probably the most expensive purchase in a person's lifetime. To me that is the failing of the government and council and I am angry that these developers have been getting away with it.

 

Unfortunately, with the loose legislation in the last 20 years, the government has realised that the general public is almost completely unprotected on one of their biggest purchase of their lifetime. They had to do something.

 

Have they worked out if the issue was with the original build or the (alleged?) mishandled excavation next door?

 

any updates to this?

 

Derek’s home was worth $900,000. He’ll walk away with nothing


https://www.domain.com.au/news/dere...lrmujPFtGG6xomaPIXK-GhHCpWfdO&mibextid=NOb6eG

 

But he walks away from his debt too doesn't he?

Does he expect the taxpayer to give him some more money as well?