Building reform submissions paint picture of substandard work in Canberra

Collapsing ceilings, cracking concrete and glass, leaking roofs and ill-fitting windows are among the myriad building defects facing Canberra owner-occupiers as the ACT government continues to review building regulations in the territory.

The Environment and Planning Directorate is sifting through 32 pieces of feedback and 62 completed surveys following the release of a discussion paper in November which canvassed possible changes to the current system amid spiralling complaints.

If successful, the proposed reforms could be introduced as early as September.

The Owners Corporation Network ACT has lodged a package of complaints on behalf of disgruntled and heartbroken owner-occupiers, painting a picture of the scale of defects across Canberra, especially in apartment complexes.

Many of the people behind the submissions have battled lengthy, complex ordeals or forked out thousands of dollars to rectify substandard plumbing, electrical and construction work.

In one instance, a couple spent tens of thousands of dollars after their apartment flooded with hot water because a valve in the laundry failed and could not be turned off.

The incident caused major flooding in another three apartments.

“To our shock water and steam had engulfed all our apartment with some ceilings already collapsing,” according to the submission.

According to the anonymous writer, the biggest problem was navigating body corporate insurance, the building company undertaking the repair work and the couple’s insurance company.

The writer, who claimed to have a building background, said the repair work took 10 weeks and “required constant supervision on my part due to the poor workmanship”.

“This experience cost us at least $50,000 due to the disruption of our lives. This should not happen if [building materials] meet Australian standards,” according to the submission.

“We decided to move and find another home as this apartment was only three years old and the experience was devastating for us, more so for my wife who is legally blind.”

Another couple living in a dual occupancy home in the Belconnen region were also slammed with a range of building woes, from non-compliant roof tiles, windows and doors, to discovering a number of kitchen items had been damaged prior to installation.

“Both my wife and the … owner of the other dual occupancy home were reduced to tears by the unscrupulous builder who swore at them and accused them of damaging property,” according to the submission.

“The builders continually ignored requests to complete the work and later to do maintenance that was required. I found it necessary to threaten legal action before they would even discuss the issues with me.”

The anonymous writer believed a large part of the problem stemmed from the use of “questionable” private certifiers.

“There must be a better way to ensure honesty and proper adherence to the building regulations,” he said.

Owners Corporation Network ACT president Gary Petherbridge said leaking roofs and balconies and peeling paint and render were among some of the more common building defects facing mostly apartment and dual-residence home owners in the region.

He said industry-wide change had been a long time coming.

“We’ve been over these reforms and focus groups over [the past] six years and really, not a lot has happened,” he said.

An Environment and Planning spokeswoman said the introduction of the proposed reforms would vary based on their complexity.

“There is a wide variety of reforms of various complexity proposed – from practice guidelines for practitioners to establishing new systems for dispute resolution and managing project payments,” she said,

“Some reforms are likely to be implemented within the next six months, while others will be implemented in the longer term.”

If a new dispute resolution process was established, some existing disputes might be transferred to the new system.

“It is expected disputes would be considered on a case-by-case basis so that only those that would likely benefit from being transferred are dealt with under a new system,” she said.

“For example, a dispute that has already been through mediation and is subject to court action may be best resolved by the court … If a dispute has been resolved or work rectified it may not be appropriate to have the issue reopened in a new system.”

She said new standards, offences and penalties could not be legally applied to issues that occurred before the relevant laws were introduced.