Paying to view a completed building inspection??

Was your friend the buyer or seller?
I remember the entitled little turds whinging about this one:
http://lgaq.asn.au/news/-/asset_publisher/pG32/content/newmarket-cubby-house-risk-unacceptable-lgaq

 

Several and I have been around a bit.

 

Ah, clear as mud

 

How is this for a possibility?
The vendor may have a particular problem with the property they are trying to sell. They use a building inspector for a report. The inspector finds the problem and makes note of it in the report. The vendor doesn't like the fact that the problem was mentioned. So....gets another inspector to do it....and another and another until one misses it. That's the problem with using the report supplied by the vendor. The actual inspector may not be dodgy but sometimes they could miss something and the vendor takes advantage of the oversight.
So I think it's best to always do your own with someone you have used before and know they are thorough. That being said, it is possible for your inspector to miss something too but I'd rather someone I chose do it then rely on a report given to me by the vendor

 

Is this case relevant? The auditors had no duty if care be becase they didn't know the audit was conducted for the purpose of Esanda lending that company money. But when we do a BI, doesn't the inspector know we are having an inspection done because we may potentially buy the property? If not, can we notify the inspector that's the reason. Then does the inspector have a duty of care?

 

Disclaimer: I'm only a student, this is based on my notes from having studied negligent professional advice recently.

I acknowledge that Esanda isn't directly analogous, because in Esanda there was a difference in purpose of use of the advice, as well as a difference in parties relying on the advice. With a building inspection, we're only talking about a difference in party, but the purpose is the same - acknowledged. I believe (because I haven't gone back to re-read right now) the court found, however, that the presence of either element - a different party, or a different purpose - can negate the duty of care.

The fundamental principles regarding establishing a duty of care for negligent professional services were outlined by the High Court in MLC v Evatt. The first element is "assumption of responsibility", i.e. that the provider of professional services assumed responsibility for the quality of their advice. That's where I think you're going to fall over in your scenario. The provider of advice has to know, at the time of providing the advice, that it's going to be relied on by the particular defendant, or by an "identifiable class" - see para 24 of judgment - because it's a doctrine that the law is opposed to applying indeterminate liability (Caltex Oil v The Willemstad and many others).

You might argue that "buyers of the property" is an identifiable and limited class. If the inspection report was headed "A report on the condition of the property at 123 Smith St", then this argument probably has some legs.

But building inspectors are onto this, and have professional indemnity insurers who instead insist their reports say: "A report for Barbara Jones regarding 123 Smith St". The report will also have a clause saying that the advice is provided for the use of Barbara Jones only and for no other party.

I don't believe this has ever been tested in a court of record, but it is generally believed that where the inspector clearly intends the advice to be used by a particular party, they only owe a duty of care to that party.

If it's tested, it'll be an interesting day.

 

Hi guys
Disclosure- am Jim's Building Inspections Business Manager.

This discussion popped up and I thought I would respond for clarity. We have a program of what we call OnSpec Reporting. We conduct inspections (usually building and pest) on properties going to market, without an initial client, and make those reports available for sale on-line. There's no commercial relationship with the agent or vendors although they facilitate access.
The idea is that interested parties can purchase the reports on-line usually at a lower cost than ordering them individually.

We did it because we were looking for:
a) a creatively disruptive path to market so that we don't just keep doing the same same - tipping money into google's coffers
b) because in such a hot market buyers were often not getting the information a building and pest inspection report contains because they felt under pressure to make an unconditional offer and also to help out those going to auction who are often having to go to the expense of bidding on multiple properties.

Not sure if that resolves all of your queries but happy to field further questions. Your insights and feedback help us to make sure what we do meets the market needs.