Skip to main content

Construction issues resolution in Sydney - Part 2


In the earlier post I described the timeline of the intriguing case of construction issues/defects resolution.

What's obvious:
  1. Nobody is rushing to fix the earlier reported issues
  2. Vendors don't do anything to fix the issues
  3. Strata management doesn't assist in fixing the issues, but forward messages to the executive committee of the owners corporation
  4. Treasurer of the owners corporation Executive Committee is somehow involved in the process and communicates directly to vendor, strata manager and the builder. No visible results though, but just promises of better future.

Research

The owner initiated the following research:
  • Strata rules to see who is responsible for what in terms of building defects
  • Seeking legal advice to set up a plan for further actions against the Vendor and/or the Builder
  • Requesting strata scheme account statement

Outcomes

  1. There is no law for breach of contract. So legally there is no obligation to act as per contract of sale even after it is signed. This is what the lawyer said to the owner. In this case that means the Vendor doesn't necessary have to fix the defects at their own expense in 6 months after the contract completion.
  2. Some of the building defects that were reported as individual unit defects are actually Owners Corporation (OC) responsibility to repair. That means the rectification work should be done on OC expense. Builders are responsible by law to provide warranty and rectify the building defects. However not all of the defects were included by Strata Manager, Vendor and Executive Committee (EC) as OC representatives in the list of OC defects in this case.
  3. EC used some of the OC money from sinking fund to help the Vendor and Builder to rectify some of the defects. No communication on that has been done to the rest of OC. Also no result of defects rectification, but EC constantly says that owners have to be patient and wait.
  4. Questionable expense items on the OC account.
  5. The Builder declines to rectify some of the defects and refers the owner to body corporate. 
Other posts from this story.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Wine - 2011 Brown Brothers Crouchen Riesling

Very nice wine with fruity taste - peach and pear: Consumed with Hungarian salami. Tasting notes .
Post a Comment
Read more

Scrum - Team Culture and Wall Manifesto

In the Scrum framework one of the key components is the wall and daily stand-up. In some organisations I worked with the whole concept of the wall is not accepted by many developers, because of the stand-up necessity and "time waste". Very often all that methodology is used for the sake of methodology and not to achieve what we actually do - adding or creating value to our customer (usually called "The Business"). I can understand frustration that is caused by the wall and stand-up process. From the software developer perspective it is really a waste of time for the following reasons: 1. In 95% of cases developers are head down working like hell delivering valuable outcomes that they are accountable for. Extra effort to go to the wall, staying there for 15-30 minutes and listening or not listening to what others were doing yesterday and will be doing tomorrow is annoying for them; 2. The mere fact of having to do something mandatory to do that looks like
Post a Comment
Read more

Mastering The Multitasking

There is usually two distinct perspectives on multi-tasking: 1. Multitasking is counterproductive. We get distracted by multiple tasks that all get our way and fight for our scarce attention, time and resources. This leads to a common fallacy that if you do multiple activities “at a time” you are not doing good work in any of those. 2. Multitasking is a way of getting many things done in a short period of time or in a long run. Indeed it can be either a disaster or a great helper depending on how it is used and practiced. Most recent research shows that we don’t do multiple tasks purely in parallel or simultaneously. That means we don’t purely multi-task, but switch between tasks and execute them one at a time, but by spending very small timeframes on each task. A good example from the history is a story about Julius Caesar capabilities in that area. Plutarch writes, “Caesar disciplined himself so far as to be able to dictate letters from on horseback, and to give directi
1 comment
Read more