Dangerous Building Cladding

[Black Orchid]

Residents of one of the first buildings in Victoria to be audited for cladding claim they received threats of huge fines and eviction by the regulator if they didn't remove it.

Pensioners Jennifer and Kevin Opie bought an apartment at 247 Williams Street in South Yarra seven years ago, which was all signed off by the proper authorities.

"We trusted building regulations at that point but now we don't," Mr Opie told Today.

"We were just leading a normal life, we just retired, we just had enough savings to the end of our lives when this absolute terrible nightmare has befallen us."

Their apartment block was audited by the Victorian Building Authority (VBA) just over a year ago. It was found to have the same combustible cladding found in the Grenfell Tower inferno and the Neo200 fire on Spencer Street earlier this year.

The VBA then hit the couple, aged 78 and 84, with a massive bill to remove it.

"We opened up our computer and saw that we owed $92,000... we were absolutely panic-stricken, we were devastated, we couldn't believe it," Mrs Opie said.

"I worked to 77. Everyone knows teachers don't get a huge wage. We have enough to get us by, we have not got $100,000."

But there was more bad news from the VBA to follow.

They were told if they didn't come up with the cash in three months to remove the cladding, they would be fined over $20,000 or evicted.

The couple says the VBA advised them to get a loan to pay for the cladding removal but, as pensioners, they would never be able to get a loan for that amount of money or pay it back.

>snip<

"I've got a message for Planning Minister (Richard) Wynne and his Government - they should take full responsibility for this disaster and come up with some financial assistance so we can get on with our lives," Mr Opie said.

Today contacted Minister Wynne for comment but he declined to be interviewed, instead referring us to the VBA.,

The VBA declined to be interviewed but released the following statement:

"Public safety is always the Victorian Building Authority's first priority.

>snip<

"The Supreme Court of Victoria determined in December 2017, that after an occupancy permit is issued, the Victorian Building Authority cannot direct builders to fix non-compliant work.

"This means that owners are responsible for fixing their buildings. The VBA acknowledges the difficulty for owners and will help them navigate this complex task."

Close to 700 privately owned buildings have been identified with cladding in Victoria.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/news- ... 4b6d0a6fe1

I think this is wrong wrong wrong! If compliance permits are approved and occupancy permits are issued it should not be the owners who have to pay for faulty workmanship or the replacement of dangerous materials.

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".

"It's a 'get out of jail free card'. They don't have any liabilities over warranty or insurances and they just spin up another company somewhere else," Mr Silvagni said.

Both couples say they have received no financial assistance from the government, even though they are facing financial ruin for a problem that was not theirs in the first place.

Again this should be the responsibility of the regulatory bodies to ensure this doesn't keep happening.

[Texan]

That's obscene. They can regulate new construction all day long, but to change building codes retroactively and threaten people living on a fixed income is obscene.

I once bought a house in New Mexico that was built in the 1950s and had asbestos siding on the outside. Other than painting it, I was afraid to touch it. I replaced a piece or 2 as needed, but always wore protective masks and painted the exterior to limit exposure. I was a newlywed and living on a meager military income. Being forced to replace the siding would have killed me.

[brian ross]

That's obscene. They can regulate new construction all day long, but to change building codes retroactively and threaten people living on a fixed income is obscene.

I once bought a house in New Mexico that was built in the 1950s and had asbestos siding on the outside. Other than painting it, I was afraid to touch it. I replaced a piece or 2 as needed, but always wore protective masks and painted the exterior to limit exposure. I was a newlywed and living on a meager military income. Being forced to replace the siding would have killed me.

Asbestos is not flammable. If it is bound and kept in place, there is little danger from fibres. The danger is when work is undertaken on it, which releases the fibres. The cladding in this case is flammable. The danger is if it catches alight as the Grenfell Towers fire showed. On the surface, it appears unfair to make the occupants pay for it to be replaced but as the old Roman saying says, "caveat emptor" - buyer be wary. In this case the buyers appear to believe they are being unfairly punished. They should sue the builders, to recover their monies or sell up to those who can afford to replace the cladding.

[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?

[Texan]

That's obscene. They can regulate new construction all day long, but to change building codes retroactively and threaten people living on a fixed income is obscene.

I once bought a house in New Mexico that was built in the 1950s and had asbestos siding on the outside. Other than painting it, I was afraid to touch it. I replaced a piece or 2 as needed, but always wore protective masks and painted the exterior to limit exposure. I was a newlywed and living on a meager military income. Being forced to replace the siding would have killed me.

Asbestos is not flammable. If it is bound and kept in place, there is little danger from fibres. The danger is when work is undertaken on it, which releases the fibres. The cladding in this case is flammable. The danger is if it catches alight as the Grenfell Towers fire showed. On the surface, it appears unfair to make the occupants pay for it to be replaced but as the old Roman saying says, "caveat emptor" - buyer be wary. In this case the buyers appear to believe they are being unfairly punished. They should sue the builders, to recover their monies or sell up to those who can afford to replace the cladding.

I know about asbestos. I brought it up because it was banned from use in construction in the 70s, much like the cladding in the OP. Asbestos was popular because of its fire resistant properties.

[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.

[brian ross]

That's obscene. They can regulate new construction all day long, but to change building codes retroactively and threaten people living on a fixed income is obscene.

I once bought a house in New Mexico that was built in the 1950s and had asbestos siding on the outside. Other than painting it, I was afraid to touch it. I replaced a piece or 2 as needed, but always wore protective masks and painted the exterior to limit exposure. I was a newlywed and living on a meager military income. Being forced to replace the siding would have killed me.

Asbestos is not flammable. If it is bound and kept in place, there is little danger from fibres. The danger is when work is undertaken on it, which releases the fibres. The cladding in this case is flammable. The danger is if it catches alight as the Grenfell Towers fire showed. On the surface, it appears unfair to make the occupants pay for it to be replaced but as the old Roman saying says, "caveat emptor" - buyer be wary. In this case the buyers appear to believe they are being unfairly punished. They should sue the builders, to recover their monies or sell up to those who can afford to replace the cladding.

I know about asbestos. I brought it up because it was banned from use in construction in the 70s, much like the cladding in the OP. Asbestos was popular because of its fire resistant properties.

And it's cheapness. Asbestos was a remarkable cheap building product in it's day.

[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.

[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.

[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.