Image courtesy of WAToday.com.au
Brian from the blog “A new house” recently posted a comment one of our posts. Brian’s blog is a really interesting and practical blog, with lots of pictures and lots of practical issues and solutions for the new house buyer.
Whilst his blog target market is a bit different to ours i.e. Prospective owners vs Archite cts and Building Designers we would encourage you to have a look at Brian’s site.
Here’s a couple of interesting posts:
Does the pine tree on top mean it's finished? (Image courtesy of Image Shack)
FSC have recently been working on a state government project where we found some research that indicated that consumers for building work may not understand the difference between “suitable to occupy” and compliance. There is an important difference.
One of the problems is that “suitability to occupy” is not defined. So a building surveyor might not be able to tell you what it means either, but they will still be merrily issuing Occupancy Permits. The Building Commission in Victoria has issued a practice note to assist building surveyors to evaluate when they can issue an Occupancy Permit (or a Certificate of Final Inspection).
The Act is about minimum standards for compliance, whereas the DBCA regulates the rights and responsibilities consumers (usually owners of land) and builders under a contract for those works. Under the Act to be compliant and complete and for a building surveyor to approve the final inspection, the works must comply with the Act, the Regulations and the referenced Australian Standards. Under the DBCA for the contract to be complete the works must be in accordance with the drawings and specifications for the contract and an Occupancy Permit (or Certificate of Final Inspection) must be issued.
Here’s the list of items for a home to be considered suitable to occupy:
Image courtesy of Don Brand Fences and Gates
Building inspections are for minimum compliance only, not quality
One of the key misunderstandings by consumers for building works by builders might just be the role of the building surveyor with respect to quality of the built product. Now, depending upon which state you are in, even the name of this person, both in the legislation and in common use, may be different. For example, in New South Wales traditionally the role was known as a Building Inspector whereas the legislation now refers to Accredited Certifiers and Principal Certifying Authorities.
With respect to the issue of quality we would like to start with a submission to the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission (VCEC) into Housing Regulations in Victoria by the Royal Australian Institute of Architects and Archicentre Limited. Their submission stated that:
“… the public perceived that council inspections by building surveyors should be and were comprehensive enough to pick up poor workmanship and defective construction.”
VCEC’s reporting of there being an apparent misunderstanding about the role of inspections because some consumers interpret inspections as a way of ensuring the quality of building work was hi-lighted in a further submission by Consumer Affairs Victoria who made the point that:
“Consumers may falsely believe that inspections by building surveyors against the minimum standards of the Building Act 1993 are also an inspection of work specified in the contract. Improved consumer awareness of processes under the Building Act 1993 may assist in reducing disputes.”
So let’s have a look at the role and function of the Building Surveyor under both processes in more detail -
