There is enormous resentment and frustration in the ACT over the apparent inability to stop dodgy builders doing shoddy work - and then repeating their tricks.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
If the roof leaks in your new townhouse or apartment, what redress do you have if the developers have gone out of business?
And how are you supposed to keep your temper if the same people pop up later, with a new company but the same old ethics and the same malevolent aim - to fleece unsuspecting customers?
There is a huge problem when builders declare themselves bankrupt at the first sign of trouble from customers.
Three years ago the ACT government promised to clamp down on dodgy builders and in its own careful, thorough way it is: which means visible progress is slow.
The responsible minister, Simon Corbell, has just released a package of measures including legislation to increase penalties for builders who breach the Building Act, and the publication of more comprehensive information about construction licences on a website.
From July he will begin a rewrite of the act to improve consumer protection, but cautions that the changes will take time.
For good measure, he is turning the heat back on industry groups to clean up their house. Oh great - instead of co-operation to fix the mess, do we have an internecine tussle in the ACT?
It would be fairer to characterise the situation as friction between interested parties, rather than a drag-em-out, knock-'em-down fight. The government, industry groups and professional organisations are on the same side, but disagree on the remedy.
Frustration about dodgy builders was high on the agenda when more than 100 unit owners met recently.
Gary Petherbridge, president of the ACT Unit Owners Association, says the most significant problem for new units is water penetration. ''They are also sometimes the hardest problem to find,'' he says. ''It can be water coming through roofs, coming off balconies, through the walls; you also have windows that aren't sealed properly.
"In addition to all the water problems, there's been glazing issues where substandard glass has been used, often glass that isn't up to the Australian standards. So the use of non-standard products is often a problem.''
Petherbridge says it is common for new home buyers to find defects in their house, townhouse or apartment. "There's a fair chance just about everyone will have a problem - there's not too many in Canberra who haven't had a problem, let me put it that way,'' he says. "It's not one building and another one there, it's much more significant than that.''
He is suspicious of the regime of private certifiers. "Often they certify from the ground, or sometimes do not even come to the site,'' he says.
And he really opens up about legal loopholes. ''Why do we let developers start up a company, sell most of the units off the plan, build the places and then after they have been sold get rid of the company so then there is no one to fall back on? They have disappeared,'' he says.
"Why does the government let those same people start up other companies? Why don't they put a hold on people starting companies when they are proven not to be appropriate? We all know that it happens and it's been happening for years. It's about time the Law Society or someone put their heads around that, because a lot of people are suffering.
"When you look at the unit title strata section, the people who are suffering are often the people who can least afford it, or are least able to recover. A lot of people buying into units may be first home buyers, and they're not necessarily the people who have the resources to turn around and pay the extra needed when there are defects.''
While Corbell is pushing ahead to amend the building industry legislation, he will not consider a broad ranging inquiry or review.
''We have talked to industry a lot already and we will continue to engage with industry, but I think the time for reviews is over - I think the time for action is now and that's really where we are focused,'' he says.
''So we will continue to engage with industry on specific proposals and specific mechanisms to improve building quality and consumer protection, but you know, going back to first base and reviewing things again I don't think is going to serve anyone well.
''I think we are past that point and the focus must be on action and reform and implementation of measures to address problems that we already understand and know are out there, because we've had those discussions already.''
Corbell is even firmer - and sparks of frustration begin to fly - when asked about a return to a regime of government-paid building inspectors, dropped two decades ago in favour private certifiers.
''I think that debate has been had and I think it's important to remember why this switch was made to private certification,'' he says. ''The switch was made because government inspectors could not physically get to every building site to inspect. Less than 50 per cent of all building sites were inspected under a government inspection regime.
''With private certification every building site must be inspected by the certifier and certified as being consistent with the building code, so that's the whole purpose behind private certification. I think people who hark back to government inspection forget that even 20 years ago there was no possible way the taxpayer could afford to fund an inspectorate of the size needed to inspect every building site.
''So private certification is the right approach but we must make sure that the certifiers are kept honest.
''We have a situation at the moment where we still see builders including in the contracts the cost of certification services. That continues to mislead consumers, because consumers believe the certifier is engaged by the builder.
''In fact under law the certifier is there, engaged by the consumer, to protect the consumer's interests and to make sure the builder is doing what they are obliged to do under law in terms of the building code but we still see in building contracts it is presented as though it is a service provided by the builder - well no, it's not, the certifier is there to keep the builder honest on behalf of the customer.
''We audit certifiers to make sure they are acting in the best interests of their clients and keeping builders honest, and we will take action against certifiers who do the wrong thing. I've had to write to the MBA and the HIA and remind them that it is important that in the standard template contract that members provide to consumers they make clear that the certifier is not a service provided by the builder, the certifier is there to protect the client and that's an ongoing task.''
The call for a review of the building approvals process comes from Jerry Howard, deputy executive director of the ACT Master Builders.
''We want better regulation, we don't want more regulation,'' he says. ''The minister is trying his upmost to address the situation through regulation but I think that some of the regulation could potentially exacerbate the problem.
''We talk constantly about red tape strangling the industry and here we are again with the minister saying he's going to write more regulation because you guys can't regulate yourselves. Collectively we haven't got to the bottom of what the real problems are, and we can only do that by having a properly conducted review to actually look at the process.''
He says private certification ''really got a hammering'' at the recent unit owners forum. ''However, I do not believe private certification on its own is a problem.'' Howard worked as a government building inspector before the regime was scrapped in favour of private certifiers.
He wants more compulsory checks at each stage of a multi-unit building. ''We've never had the problems we have now,'' he says.
Asked about the government's progress, he says: ''I'm not convinced we're making great headway … it's a fairly ad hoc approach.''