Is Victoria Building Authority a Sham? 8

By
Saturday, July 5th, 2014
liked this article
Embed
Karabiner – 300 x 250 (expire August 31 2017)
advertisement
building construction
FavoriteLoadingsave article

A recent Victorian Building Authority media release highlights the sham that is the ‘building regulation regime’ in Victoria.

In the release, titled Costly Lesson in Building Fire Safety, the VBA says that “[a] group of property owners is facing a bill of about $500,000 to fix problems after the VBA issued a building order in response to fire safety concerns.”

It sounds impressive, as if the VBA is playing the role of ‘regulator’, but it disguises a significant fact. The builder, surveyor and others involved in building the 55-apartment complex ignored many fire safety regulations and the risk to people’s lives. Yes, this is a “costly lesson for the owners,” but why are the owners responsible for rectification costs when they are not at fault?

For those who build or buy new properties in Victoria, this is a common story and raises all the usual concerns, underscoring the myths and exposing what is effectively an industry without any governance, and one for which consumers bear the financial burden.

Murray Smith from the VBA cites the myth that buildings “must meet fire safety requirements under the Building Regulations 2006.”

As this case demonstrates, without enforcement by the VBA, all building practitioners know they can do as they please. With no audits, no enforcement and a minuscule number of cowboys ever given any penalty, those in the building industry realize that no matter how outrageous their conduct, they can ignore all regulations and with complete impunity!

The VBA has now issued an order, but after the fact. Furthermore, the order was not issued to the offenders, but rather to the owners, who are supposed to be protected by the builders’ warranties. This case brings to mind the Childers Palace Backpackers Hostel fire of 2000 in which the hostel did not have working smoke detectors, fire alarms, sprinklers or fire extinguishers, and 15 people lost their lives.

In 2011, the Victorian Auditor General’s Office concluded that “The Commission has not adequately discharged its responsibilities under the Act and its obligations as a regulator” and “there is little assurance that surveyors are carrying out their work competently, that the Act is being complied with and the risk of injury or damage to any person is being minimized.”

It is now 2014, three years later and we learn that nothing has changed!

“When the plans for the building were developed, there was little consideration for fire safety,” Smith said. “As a result, the owners are now fixing the problem, at a cost of almost $500,000.”

The Building Practitioners Board registered all of the building practitioners, with the VBA’s role to enforce compliance. But be it the Building Commission or the VBA, over two decades, both have failed. They have performed so badly that after two extremely damning reports from the Victorian Auditor General (2011) and the Victorian Ombudsman (2012), they decided in 2013 to put a disclaimer on their website.

“Registration with the Building Practitioner’s Board is a minimum legal requirement in order to be able to conduct many building related business activities,” the disclaimer reads. “However, registration does not guarantee that a practitioner has maintained up-to-date technical knowledge or meets the current standards required for registration as a new registered practitioner.”

In other words, registration is essentially worthless!

What other registration boards would be unable to deliver to the public any confidence in those they registered, such that they would be compelled to make a statement in the form of a public warning?

Of course, with building practitioners the public should be warned; whether they are newly registered, or old and ‘grandfathered in,’ consumers are unprotected and in many cases their lives are at risk. However, until 2013 the public was denied this knowledge, with owners unaware of the dangers of building and oblivious to the fact that ‘registration’ was no guarantee of anything. The disclaimer has now been removed from the website and thus owners are once again uninformed, with the truth hidden and consumers exposed to serious harm.

Recently, it was revealed that the Department of Human Services has no confidence in the registration system and it has established its own accreditation board for registering building practitioners involved in Victorian public housing projects. DHS recognizes that the VBA regulation system has been a total failure and abandoned it as ‘not good enough.’

Victorian consumers agree with the DHS. We demand that this sub-standard system be abolished and a new rigorous registration system be established to provide competent builders who can guarantee to construct structurally sound and safe buildings.

“It would have saved a lot of money and time for everyone involved if the developers had made sure the required safety measures were installed when the building was constructed,” Smith said.

But the fault is not with the developers. It is squarely with the VBA, which failed in its duty of care and allowed the builder and surveyor to construct dangerous, non-compliant buildings.

Smith went on to attribute blame to owners, who he said need to do their ‘homework’ in these matter.

“If you are thinking of buying a house or a building, you should consider arranging a professional inspection to make sure it is safe and meets the building regulations before you buy,” he said.

This statement is absurd. How can the owners be blamed for not doing their homework when they purchased new apartments that were constructed by practitioners the VBA registered, with the VBA responsible for ensuring that new buildings comply with building regulations?

Second, how would an inspection have helped the owners when, if registered, the inspectors would have obtained their registration from the BPB or VBA? As for self-titled ‘inspectors’ who offer inspections, many are ex-builders, some suspended or de-registered and still others use the title of ‘building consultants’ for which no registration is required.

In either case, such an ‘inspector’ would not provide any reassurance to prospective owners. If the VBA cannot register competent practitioners and cannot enforce building regulations, then no amount of ‘homework’ will protect owners from all the cowboys, whether they are registered or not.

The CEO of the VBA, Prue Digby, has said that as the industry regulator, “protecting the safety of the public is a priority” for the VBA.

Who could have guessed? Digby is commenting after the building has been constructed, after it was ‘approved’ and after the apartments were sold, after those registered have failed, and after the VBA failed to meet any and all of its obligations!

Worst of all, this case highlights that there is nothing ‘new’ about the VBA. It is a re-named, re-badged Building Commission, with the same old phony registration process, the same old non-enforcement and the same old non-existent consumer protection.

The VBA is a sham, camouflaging the scam that is the old policy reinvented as ‘new’, re-branded as the ‘Consumer Protection Strategy.’

By: Anne Paten
Embed
FavoriteLoadingsave article

Comments

 characters available
*Please refer to our comment policy before submitting
Discussions
8
  1. Andrew Heaton

    Anne,

    One of the things which strikes me about this whole debacle is the extent to which industry representatives and consumer representatives such as yourself all seem to agree that the process of building industry reform here in Victoria has been shambolic, that there has been a complete lack of genuine consultation on either side, and that neither industry or consumer representatives see these reforms as doing anything to help consumers – only adding costs to builders.

    Contrast to the situation in Queensland, where reforms there at least at face value appear to promote greater accountability and a new rapid dispute system should reduce the costs and time-frames associated with disputes for parties on both sides.

  2. Paul

    About time someone highlighted this betrayal of trust. A government body whose purpose is to protect consumers through registration of COMPETENT practitioners
    & take action where proven otherwise. Instead they allow repeatedly incompetent offenders ongoing registration, totally negating their advice to consumers to check registration before engaging a builder but more critically results in consumers being forced to cover the costs of their tardiness & as Anne reminds us, even deaths on occasion. Why were the promised reforms to this regulatory body and Warranty Insurance dropped? Shame on Victoria's ministers if it was as I suspect, due to pressure from industry groups who stand to lose millions in insurance premium income?

  3. Mick

    Well, what a great description of the current Victorian Building Industry regulator.

    Matthew Guy announced with great "fanfare" a "new" industry fix regarding the old Building Commission with the Victorian Building Authority.

    What a great new name change.

    From an informed and well educated registered practitioner point of view, they failed to bring out the "yard" broom and begin from the top floor and keep sweeping untill the building was empty.

    Replace with industry educated employees that have social conscience and strong moral fibre.

  4. Sonya

    A perfect description of the VBA Anne

    It is disgraceful that such injustice continues at the financial and personal expense of consumers.

    Purchasing / building a home is one of the single largest investments consumers will make in their lifetime and yet the Government agencies established for the purpose of regulating the building industry and providing consumer protection continue to fail in their duty of care and are not held accountable for their errors!

    Shame on the Victorian Government – consumers need REAL protection and REAL change, not these phony agencies you have established who offer nothing.

  5. Ari

    Anne there is plenty of merit in what you have said here, and this is coming from a registered building practitioner in the category of Building Surveyor. I do not have any in depth knowledge of the particular matter, but agree wholeheartedly that there are many problems in the industry that have not and are not being properly dealt with. Unfortunately, the VBA does not appear to be listening to sound advice from genuine, unbias and competent industry groups and consumer groups. Many of us from industry have been crying out for years for the real problems to be addressed but to no avail. To make matters worse, there are some very strange proposed changes to the Act that will in my view make matters worse.

  6. Peter

    A very good description of the regulator(!) in its past and present form. No law seems to apply meaningfully to builders. The question I have is 'why'? Surly no-one thinks that a Regulator that so blatantly enables practitioners to treat the community with such contempt isn't encouraged or pressured in this direction very strongly by Industry associations

  7. Andrew

    Home owners have known for years that the VBA was not a regulator in any sense. As for owners needing to pay a 'Building Inspector' to inspect brand new buildings, supposedly built by a 'Registered Builder' and certified by a 'Registered Surveyor', this is crazy. But the lawless domestic building industry is more than crazy. It is outrageous. And as we have learned recently, so many of those posing as 'Building Inspectors are unregistered, unskilled and numbers of them are failed builders, now unregistered! Prue Digby says that the VBA is "protecting public safety". Then how are all these cowboys operating outside the law and unpunished? How are so many 'Inspectors' masquerading as real and registered? No enforcement of compliance by VBA!

    • Mark Whitby

      Andrew is correct that the situation in the Building Industry is outrageous.

      However Building Inspector (capitals) means a person who is educated, is registered and who acts under a Building Surveyor to certify the progress of new homes, etc.

      Building Consultant means very little other than opinion reporter. Many are not very well educated or experienced in my opinion. These are the people who do not need to be registered, and therefore most are uninsured for their opinion reporting even if they are registered building practitioners.

      However having said that these problem houses have all been certified by the Building Inspectors and supervised (so poorly) by the Builders. I think that the blame game needs to start with these 3 groups.