Whoops - Developers forgot to build 2 levels of Carparks

Ok - this is an interesting one.

Developer builds an apartment building, however forgot to build 2 of the 3 levels of underground car parks. Whoops!

This is not an honest mistake - this is purely taking the ****. As a result, there may be a number of purchasers who purchased an apartment with a carpark/storage on that level - that will either not have a car park or will have a car park in an alternative location (i.e down the street).

This will be interesting to see the outcome. There are clauses within a std OTP contract in Vic that protects the developer for anything (i.e they can change anything) however, there may be recorse under the Trade Practices Act that I will let the lawyers dig into to.

Lets hope that the council says NO and does not issue the permit. In the meantime there will be a number of impacted investors (most likely foreign given the location) that will be in limbo.
Read more
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/o...s-of-underground-parking-20151028-gkkhxv.html

 

Throw another log on the fire of why I don't buy OTP.

 

Keep us updated @Redwood

 

Saved the developer $@,000,000 in a rising market.

Council can't give a $#!+ as it wants fewer cars in town.

Purchasers can pull out if they feel that the delivered product is not what they bought.

In the immortal words of Meatloaf "2 out of 3 ain't bad".

 

Need to change the words as it is 1 out of 3

 

If its a rising market and purchasers pullout, then they might achieve even more for those units to new buyers. Win win for everyone

 

@D.T. absolutely right - the canny buyers would flip the units if the upside was greater than the loss of parking.

 

These developers should be thrown in the jail for deliberately taking the ****.

All for development, but there are always those who push the rules too far for the sake of $$$.

 

Buyers would be materially prejudiced and able to terminate under OTP laws in QLD. Not sure on Vic but assume it would be similiar

 

But with the market growth, it would probably suit the developer more if they did cancel!

 

Depends on how much they paid for the apt....not so sure abt market growth in the CBD.

 

I don't think buyers will be materially prejudiced if they still have a car park but it is above ground instead of below ground. It doesn't say that buyers have missed out, just that it is inconsistent with the approved plans. If this is right then only the council can take action I would think.

 

Apparently some Owners are already living in the apartments. One of them phoned in to the radio today. How can this happen? Surely Council check that the building is as per permit?

 

@Chrispy - maybe they used a private certifier

 

gotta say there appear to be a hell of a lot more shonky scumbag developers in sydney and melbourne

bedrooms disappearing, now carparks, fair few using sunset clauses to rescind contracts and resell at much higher prices etc. cant say this is a common occurance at all in perth, i cant think of a single occasion (apart from a couple of times sunset clause has been used - eg finbar with reflections)

 

And all they get is a slap on the wrists (if that) and a fine which they laugh at as its so minute in comparison to the extra profit made.

 

Agreed. If they had to knock it down then less of these issues would occur

 

@Chilliblue - S96 application will solve all of the developers problems. Modify the DA, get rid of parking, justify the decision & problem gone. Building is now DA compliant.

Developer and council happy.

 

And here I am stressing that Chris and Marries didn't have the correct plant I had approved In my landscaping plans so I planted a similar alternative.

 

@albanga - today the plant, tomorrow the plant & equipment.