Question: We know the Builders Warranty is six and a half years. Our building is relatively new. A few owners have experienced water leaks. Do we wait until the sixth year to obtain a defects assessment report, or should we identify and address potential issues now?
Answer: Owners must report issues when known to give the builder the best opportunity to resolve.
It is not recommended to wait 6 years to obtain a report for a number of reasons.
Firstly, if they are known, allowing defects to manifest can be seen as not making a reasonable effort to mitigate further damage and costs. Builders will certainly use this defence and insurers regularly can use this to reject claims.
Owners must report issues when known to give the builder the best opportunity to resolve them.
Also, defect issues can often take some time to resolve, often far more than 6 months. Therefore, it is considered high risk to leave it this long.
It is highly recommended that owners get an independent building inspection report at the following stages (where possible):
- 10 months after completion (before 12 months)
- 3 years after completion (reasonable time for defects to manifest)
- 5 years after completion (reasonable time for builder to demonstrate commitment to rectify before 6 years)
- Periodically up to 5 yearly intervals dependent on the condition of the building and the frequency of issues.
This post appears in the October 2024 edition of The QLD Strata Magazine.
Bruce McKenzie
Sedgwick
E: bruce.mckenzie@au.sedgwick.com
P: 1300 735 720
I am on a committee and we have spent the past 12 months going through the QBCC with more that 160 fire and safety and waterproofing defects, which the former Chairperson (wife of the developer) and former Treasurer (Builder of the complex) failed to get the annual fire and safety audit. Now that we are about to go and lodge with QCAT both the developer and builder who are owners of units in the building are looking to take over the BCC. Is this not a conflict of interest?
Hi Victoria
We have responded to your question in this article: QLD: Q&A Requirements for Body Corporate Committee Members
The question : The exhaust for the fire pump diesel engine is directed into the basement car park and fills the car park with fumes and smoke when tested once a month. Who do we chase to have the work rectified?
Our 2 cents:
The Car Park will likely have supply and exhaust fans fitted, these could be manually switched on to assist. that said, does the Car park have a Carbon Monoxide system in place and does it work? Are you activating the supply and exhaust fans via a time clock (this may contravene AS1668).
To rectify:
Discuss with your mechanical services provider, they may be able to assist with regards to the CO system control and / or a manual switch to activate the fans during the test.
Or
Have the exhaust pipe extended to atmosphere, this is subject to the distance and may impede diesel performance: to rectify a diesel mechanic or generator mechanic maybe able to help
Hi,
We have multiple fire safety defects (as well as non-structural and structural defects) which include incorrectly installed, zones & labelled smoke detectors, undersized OWS batteries in our fire detection panel, and the hydrant diesel pump has a faulty discharge gauge, leaks in the exhaust system and no local alarm bell. The builder has dismissed these saying they are NOT defects because the building was certified.
We have submitted a complaint to QBCC which includes items and more, but I was recently told by an acquaintance that QBCC do not deal with defects related for fire safety equipment… is this true? and if so, what our options for redress / rectification?
Thanks!
Hi Suzy
The following response has been provided by Frank Higginson, Hynes Legal:
This all depends on the contract documentation around the construction of the building. The first thing is to be absolutely sure that the matters complained of are actually defective. After that, the body corporate can (in effect) step into the shoes of the developer to look at who was responsible for this and whether they did what they had to do.
The fact the building was certified does not mean anything with respect to defects of this nature, and if it was when there were apparent defects, then that becomes another potential claim!
Not much different in WA where developer has gone into administration with out completing the conditions of approval of the development from the local Shire They just keep passing the baton when the Shire really needs to ensure compliance to the approval but has given occupancy certificates without ensuring their processes comply with their duty of Care to the resident ratepayers which is particularly poor in relation to retirement estates as in Mundaring WA