Dangerous Building Cladding

[billy the kid]

Legal action against the building company will fail if the company is in liquidation and has re-surfaced under another name.
The only way legal action would succeed would be if it was against builders working under their own names..even then the builders
could declare bankruptcy and avoid all creditors.

Which is what they do and then re-emerge unscathed.

Yep..know all about it...when people or companies refuse to pay their debts and the laws protect them,
theres not a lot anyone can do about it...legally of course.....

[Black Orchid]

Legal action against the building company will fail if the company is in liquidation and has re-surfaced under another name.
The only way legal action would succeed would be if it was against builders working under their own names..even then the builders
could declare bankruptcy and avoid all creditors.

Which is what they do and then re-emerge unscathed.

Yep..know all about it...when people or companies refuse to pay their debts and the laws protect them,
theres not a lot anyone can do about it...legally of course.....

There's nothing anyone can do about it but in the building industry, where the family home is most people's main asset, the appropriate government regulatory body needs to take responsibility.

After all, plans and materials need to be approved by someone and that someone needs to step up to the mark.

[cods]

when they discovered Mr Fluffy a brand name for asbestos in ACT..

the govt has no choice but to remove it....they did in fact buy back the property..even though they didnt sell it to the owners..

they are still knocking down these houses and rebuilding on the blocks.....it been a terrible ordeal I believe for the original owners...

but it is the right thing for the govt to do......its whats called RESPONSIBILITY... they now know of the problems....would they be held accountable if these homes burst down thanks to this cladding.????....


it is after all just another accident waiting to happen..

[billy the kid]

Legal action against the building company will fail if the company is in liquidation and has re-surfaced under another name.
The only way legal action would succeed would be if it was against builders working under their own names..even then the builders
could declare bankruptcy and avoid all creditors.

Which is what they do and then re-emerge unscathed.

Yep..know all about it...when people or companies refuse to pay their debts and the laws protect them,
theres not a lot anyone can do about it...legally of course.....

There's nothing anyone can do about it but in the building industry, where the family home is most people's main asset, the appropriate government regulatory body needs to take responsibility.

After all, plans and materials need to be approved by someone and that someone needs to step up to the mark.

Well, thats the conundrum isnt it...if a building inspector, in accordance with the rules and regulations of the day, passes building material to be in order, and then, years later, that building material (cladding) is legislated to be unacceptable, the owner of the building has no recourse against anyone.
If, however, the building inspector has illegally passed the cladding as satisfactory, then legal action could be taken against the building inspector. Once again, however, the laws which protect debtors come to the fore, and he would probably declare
bankruptcy to avoid the consequences of legal action against him.....that is the very reason why Councils outsource their inspections to private individuals...to avoid responsibility for their employees incompetence.
Taking it a step further, even Police have to, these days, sign a waiver (absolving their employer of responsibility) before they graduate, and accept responsibility for their own actions, rather than do something wrong and have the Government/Police Department sued.....even though they are still in a master/servant relationship....
Everyone escapes their responsibilities these days.......but again I digress.....

[brian ross]

Sue the builders? Read the article Brian.

They are also paying for a lawyer, but any possible action against the builder, GDM Constructions, is futile, because they have de-registered.

They will now likely emerge operating under a new name - a process known in the building industry as "phoenixing".

How do you propose they sue a de-registered company?

They can sue the people who owned the company, Black Orchid. The company built the building but the builders are individuals who owned the company. Deregistration simply means they are not allowed any more to work as a building company under that name.

No they can't Brian.

Willing to bet, Black Orchid?

[Black Orchid]

Sue the builders? Read the article Brian.

They are also paying for a lawyer, but any possible action against the builder, GDM Constructions, is futile, because they have de-registered.

They will now likely emerge operating under a new name - a process known in the building industry as "phoenixing".

How do you propose they sue a de-registered company?

They can sue the people who owned the company, Black Orchid. The company built the building but the builders are individuals who owned the company. Deregistration simply means they are not allowed any more to work as a building company under that name.

No they can't Brian.

Willing to bet, Black Orchid?

Sure Brian. See how you go suing a defunct company that is hidden behind another shelf company and where the directors are declared bankrupt. Good luck with that

[billy the kid]

Anyone can sue anyone else, anytime...be it a company, a registered business, or an individual.
BUT even securing a judgment against a company, a registered business, or an individual does not mean diddly squat.
The reason being, the debtor/debtor business or debtor company is not compelled to pay.
If the debtor does not pay, the creditor then has to enforce the judgment, by taking enforcement proceedings...
If the debtor has no assets or available funds, then the creditor is wasting his time and money.....
Hence, if a company has folded up, has no assets, and re-commenced trading under another name, there is no contract with
the new company...the contract is only with the company which has gone bust...therefore creditors dont get a cent....
...happens all the time....sue til your hearts content, but if theres no possibility of recovering any money, youre wasting your time....
If the company folded up, but subbied the work out to sub contractors, then the sub contractors could be joined as co-defendants....and you might have a chance, as there is more than one defendant, and all defendants are jointly and severally liable for the entire debt......

[Texan]

I'm not a lawyer and don't know Australian law, but this is what I see in America.

Once a building is built to code and inspected according to code, it is what it is. The cladding may later be determined to be unsafe, but the owner can continue to live in it "as is" if they choose. The government does not mandate that their home be upgraded to maintain residency. Usually, when the house is sold, a new inspection is required. The seller will have to disclose the deficiency found since the code changed. They can either sell at a discount with the provision that the buyer will be responsible for upgrades or upgrade the house before selling. There could be restrictions on renting out a property with a newly found unsafe condition, but I'm not a landlord either, so I don't know.

Sometimes, another option is filing a claim on your homeowners insurance policy. I doubt that applies to construction deficiencies, but if the fault is aggravated by a natural disaster, then the insurance company may have to pick up the tab. It's what we pay them for. The situation that comes to mind is about 20 years ago, people were having lung issues from the growth of black mold after flooding repairs. It didn't show itself very well because it grew under the cosmetic repairs. Suddenly, there was a rash of people claiming black mold to have their homes repaired, many times from a fear of future health issues from black mold. After a couple of years of losing their shirts, the insurance companies changed their policies to not cover mold removal unless it was part of a current flood or plumbing leak.