The Office of Regulatory Services has pledged to investigate QBE Insurance's refusal to compensate victims of the $4 million Sublime Constructions collapse if it is asked to do so.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Brett Phillips, the executive director of the Office of Regulatory Services, said if his office received complaints from owners affected by QBE's refusal to pay out on home warranty insurance they would be investigated.
QBE's refusal to honour policies taken out on up to 13 homes being built by Sublime Constructions when it collapsed in February was a hole in the ACT government's mandated protection for customers, the Master Builders Association's Jerry Howard has said.
Mr Phillips, whose staff have already investigated allegations Sublime Constructions falsified the contract amounts on HWI certificates provided to customers, said the question of jurisdiction over the dispute between QBE and the Sublime clients was complex.
While building complaints in the ACT were usually handled by the Environment and Planning Directorate through the Constructions Occupations Licensing Registrar, the ORS was responsible for complaints lodged under the Australian Consumer Law, he said.
However, financial products were exempt from the consumer law provisions.
"The laws in relation to financial products and misleading and deceptive conduct are replicated in the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act," he said.
"My initial view, without having explored all of the issues, is that ASIC would be the regulator on insurance disputes."
The ORS had received only one consumer complaint so far, which had centred on allegations certificates had been falsified, he said.
"If we received a number of complaints (about QBE failing to honour the policies taken out over the homes under construction by Sublime Constructions when it went bust) we would look at them and see if the remit falls with us or another entity. If we found it was within the remit of another entity we would refer it on."
Such a referral would be significantly more comprehensive than just telling the complainants they had to go elsewhere, he said.
"We would seek legal advice on what the law of the land was on the jurisdiction, the wording of the (QBE) policy document and the relevant section of the Building Act. The worst thing I could do would be to go in and do something I didn't have the power to do.
"If we did refer it on we would generate written correspondence saying, `This has been brought to our attention. These are the documents. Can you please give it your consideration.'"
Tanya Nguyen, one of the affected owners, who is out pocket almost $200,000 as a result of the collapse, welcomed Mr Phillips' willingness to take a look at the issue.
She said other ACT agencies had shown little interest in the impact of Sublime's collapse and the failure of QBE to pay out on HWI policies.
"We will certainly be taking him up on his offer," she said.
Sublime Construction's liquidator, Tony Lane of Vincents, said concerns had been raised about the lack of home warranty insurance cover on many of the company's projects at a recent meeting of creditors.
"It is no secret that the MBA, as an interested party, hasn't responded to concerns about the lack of home warranty insurance," he said.
"Questions were asked at the meeting about the extent to which the ACT government is responsible for this."
Mr Lane said his inquiries were far reaching.
"There are a range of parties that fall within the scope of the liquidator's investigations and I do not rule out the possibility of acting against any of the parties to the building process."
That included anyone who has advised, assisted, approved or signed off on any aspects of Sublime Constructions' building activities, he said.
