Construction Standard

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVERS
The litany of <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-has-a-new-national-construction-code-but-its-still-not-good-enough-113729" target="_blank">defects, poor building standards</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/ministers-fiddle-while-buildings-crack-and-burn-120592" target="_blank">regulatory failures</a> has serious implications for apartment owners, occupiers and buyers alike. Fears of a <a href="https://www.afr.com/news/politics/national/the-apartment-building-crisis-explained-20190716-p527k0" target="_blank">loss of confidence in the sector</a> have unfortunately come true. Our research suggests a lack of reliable information about building defects is a critical factor in the crisis.
About a year ago, we started a research project with <a href="https://cityfutures.be.unsw.edu.au/documents/536/defects_project_overview.pdf" target="_blank">six industry partners</a> in New South Wales entitled <a href="https://cityfutures.be.unsw.edu.au/research/projects/defects-strata/" target="_blank">Cracks in the Compact City: Tackling Defects in Multi-Unit Strata Housing</a>. The context is compact city planning policies and a rapid shift towards apartment living in Australian cities.
The urban development strategies of NSW and other states rely on higher-density cities with many more multi-unit strata title dwellings. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/its-not-just-the-building-cracks-or-cladding-sometimes-uncertainty-does-even-more-harm-120662" target="_blank">human</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/flammable-cladding-costs-could-approach-billions-for-building-owners-if-authorities-dither-118121" target="_blank">economic</a> impacts of the building defects crisis could undermine these strategies.
Even with our resources, obtaining data on the extent and nature of defects in NSW apartment buildings has been a challenge. Individual buyers and owners must face even greater obstacles.
This lack of access to information poses a clear challenge to the principle of “buyer beware” that underpins property sales. The imbalance it creates between buyers and sellers is a prime example of what economists call “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry" target="_blank">information asymmetry</a>”.
<h2>Why does this matter for the whole apartment market?</h2>
Nobel laureate George Akerlof <a href="https://www2.bc.edu/thomas-chemmanur/phdfincorp/MF891%20papers/Ackerlof%201970.pdf" target="_blank">explained</a> how the price and quality of goods traded in a market affected by information asymmetries tend to gradually reduce to the point where only lowest-cost “lemons” remain. When buyers can’t tell the difference between products of good and bad quality, they typically prefer the cheapest available. This forces higher-quality products out of the market.
Sellers can also exploit this situation to hide poor-quality products from consumers. They might even charge the same as competitors selling higher-quality products.
While some unscrupulous sellers might profit in the short term, overall profits fall for everyone as confidence and links between price and quality are undermined. Ultimately, the entire market can collapse.
The risks are highest in markets with these two features:
<ul>
<li>sellers are not rewarded for delivering information to buyers or cannot disclose it effectively</li>
<li>buyers cannot discriminate between the quality of different products, as is often the case in apartment developments.</li>
</ul>
These problems are more likely when buyers cannot easily inspect products at the time of sale – as with apartment units bought off the plan.
When a vendor sells a product to multiple buyers, again typical in apartment developments, that can multiply the impact of information asymmetries.
The buyer of a standalone house might be able to make the sale conditional on an independent inspection of the entire building. But such clauses are very difficult to negotiate in off-the-plan sales for apartments in multi-unit buildings.
It would also be too costly for each buyer to commission such an inspection. Buyers are unable to organise a joint inspection of the building until after they have settled, which greatly increases their risk. While NSW’s new <a href="https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/housing-and-property/strata-building-bond-and-inspections-scheme" target="_blank">defects bond scheme</a> does require an inspection, it happens after ownership is transferred.
The negative impacts for buyers have spill-over effects as information asymmetries mean risks are perceived to increase across the entire apartment housing sector. <a href="https://www.afr.com/property/residential/the-opal-tower-effect-sydney-high-rise-site-sales-crash-50-per-cent-20191024-p533t4" target="_blank">Negative publicity</a>, such as the <a href="https://www.news.com.au/national/stalemate-leaving-fireprone-ticking-time-bombs-around-australia/news-story/7b26701bd6a690238a98e590c7d9a76a" target="_blank">flammable cladding</a> and <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/we-ve-had-ceilings-collapse-sydney-s-30-million-in-defect-payouts-revealed-20190705-p524kq" target="_blank">defects</a> scandals, can cause values to fall market-wide, regardless of the quality of individual developments. At the same time, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/berejiklian-calls-for-national-solution-amid-building-crisis-20190715-p527gj" target="_blank">finance and insurance costs increase</a>.
The issue persists for subsequent buyers too. Information about defects is often unavailable due to <a href="https://www.afr.com/property/residential/a-bigger-problem-than-building-defects-20190724-p52a6g" target="_blank">poor record-keeping</a> or <a href="https://cityfutures.be.unsw.edu.au/documents/424/Case_Study_Poster_-_Defects_3.pdf" target="_blank">confidentiality agreements</a>. Ironically, this adds to the information asymmetries that contributed to the problem in the first place.
<h2>What can we do about the problem?</h2>
To reduce information asymmetries, sellers and buyers tend to engage in two main types of behaviour: <a href="https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Job-Market-Signaling-Spence/c63c6222735629d0e232d5b2532152bf3b0880a8" target="_blank">signalling and screening</a>.
Signalling involves sellers flagging the higher quality of their products to buyers indirectly. For example, a reputable developer may use warranties and brands or quality marks, certificates and awards as a sign of their high-quality work. Buyers may well be prepared to pay more for higher-quality products that won’t cost more in the longer term.
Crucially, signalling only works if the signal is credible. At present, there are no construction-specific quality certifications and warranties, only <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.iso.org/standard/62085" target="_blank">generic standards such as the international ISO 9001: 2015</a>. And the administrative burden and costs of independent third-party certification make it unviable for many small companies. So instruments like ISO 9001 are likely of very limited value for effective signalling in the apartment sector.
The NSW Building Commissioner is supporting an industry rating system that will enable better signalling. Data mining will be used to identify risky players and <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/phoenixing-in-crosshairs-amid-crackdown-on-dodgy-building-operators-20191028-p5351a" target="_blank">phoenix operators</a>. It should take effect in the apartment sector by 2021.
Screening involves buyers investing time and resources to uncover the likelihood of defects. This includes examining available records and the behaviours of sellers and their representatives. But this adds to buyers’ costs, which disadvantages them in the marketplace.
Stakeholders in the building development process should be compelled to release this information. NSW’s <a href="https://www.registrargeneral.nsw.gov.au/news/new-requirements-for-off-the-plan-contracts-from-1-december-2019" target="_blank">new law</a> on off-the-plan contract sales will increase sellers’ disclosure obligations and provide stronger protections for buyers. Importantly, sellers will have to identify material changes made during the development process at least 21 days before settlement.
A similar requirement involving an independent expert building inspection would help buyers better understand the risk of defects before they finalise their purchase.
Another positive move is the requirement in the new <a href="https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/consultation-tool/design-and-building-practitioners-bill-2019" target="_blank">Design and Building Practitioners Bill</a> for declared designs and as-built drawings to be lodged with the government. The Building Commissioner has said these will be made available on an easy-to-access platform.
This would enable buyers to check information as the development progresses, before the crucial building handover. It’s a step towards creating a “<a href="https://www.thefifthestate.com.au/columns/spinifex/new-nsw-building-legislation/" target="_blank">digital twin</a>” for everyone licensed to perform construction work, making it easier for the public to check their record.
While the devil is likely to be in the detail, the NSW government is on the right track in tackling the information asymmetry problem. However, the various information gatekeepers will still have to be persuaded – or required – to release information they have long withheld in their own interests.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/127007/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/martin-loosemore-4690" target="_blank">Martin Loosemore</a>, Professor of Construction Management, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-technology-sydney-936" target="_blank">University of Technology Sydney</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/bill-randolph-147968" target="_blank">Bill Randolph</a>, Director, City Futures Research Centre, Faculty of the Built Environment, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-1414" target="_blank">UNSW</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/caitlin-buckle-399322" target="_blank">Caitlin Buckle</a>, PhD Candidate in Human Geography, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-1414" target="_blank">UNSW</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hazel-easthope-175163" target="_blank">Hazel Easthope</a>, Associate Professor, City Futures Research Centre, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-1414" target="_blank">UNSW</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/laura-crommelin-15376" target="_blank">Laura Crommelin</a>, Research Lecturer, City Futures Research Centre, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-1414" target="_blank">UNSW</a>
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/lack-of-information-on-apartment-defects-leaves-whole-market-on-shaky-footings-127007" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Lack of information on apartment defects leaves whole market on shaky footings

<html><body>
Financial comparison site mozo.com.au has found new homeowners have been charged $10.5 billion in repair costs over the past decade due to poor construction standards.
Their <a href="https://mozo.com.au/home-loans/articles/property-pain-building-defects-report-2019" target="_blank">building defects report, Property Pain</a>, found owners were left battling leaks, cracks and an assortment of other issues.
The issues also found most new and newly renovated apartment and house owners surveyed were in a similar position, plagued by defects that have cost them $6,434 and $5,839 respectively.
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2019/9/2/Property%20Pain%20Infographics-Update_3-05-02.png" alt="">
Source: mozo.com.au
To deal with the issues 60% of apartment owners facing defects had to contribute to a sinking fund and 24% were forced to pay special levies to fund the repairs.
The findings come as regulators continue to grapple with the fall out over the serious safety issues plaguing apartments in Melbourne’s Southbank and Olympic Park, Erskineville, Zetland and Mascot in Sydney.
Mozo Property Expert Steve Jovcevski said: "While buying a bright and shiny new property might seem like a good idea, the reality for many Australians is one of costly repairs and years of remediation.
"While the average cost of apartment repairs was $6,434, Mozo found 4% of owners had to pay above $50,000.
"With 670,197 apartments completed in the past 10 years, Mozo estimates, buyers have had to pay out $4.3 billion on repairs."
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2019/9/2/Property%20Pain%20Infographics-Update_3-05-04.png" alt="">
Source: mozo.com.au
"Those buying houses fared slightly better on average forking out $5,839 on repairs," Jovcevski said.
"However, 32% had to pay more than $5,000. Mozo estimates that with 1,059,913 houses completed over the past decade, buyers have had to pay $6.2 billion on repairs.
"Most apartment repairs (57%) were completed in under three months but 21% had to wait up to six months and 9% are still waiting for the defects to be fixed.
"If you are still waiting to have your apartment or house repaired it’s time to act.
"With fixed building warranties across the country, once the regulated time period to claim has passed you’ll struggle to get a developer or builder to fix defects with your property."
</body></html>

New home owners slugged with $10.5 billion building defects bill: Mozo

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION 
“What we need to do is rebuild confidence in Australia’s building and construction sector,” said federal minister Karen Andrews after the July 2019 meeting of the Building Ministers’ Forum.
This has been a recurring theme since the federal, state and territory ministers commissioned Peter Shergold and Bronwyn Weir in mid-2017 to assess the effectiveness of building and construction industry regulation across Australia. They presented their <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/July%202018/document/pdf/building_ministers_forum_expert_assessment_-_building_confidence.pdf" target="_blank">Building Confidence report</a> to the ministers in February 2018.
In the 18 months since then, the combined might of nine governments has made scant progress towards implementing the report’s 24 simple recommendations. Confidence in building regulation and quality has clearly continued to deteriorate among the public and construction industry.
In last week’s Four Corners program, <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/cracking-up/11431474" target="_blank">Cracking Up</a>, Weir was asked whether she would buy an apartment. She responded: “I wouldn’t buy a newly built apartment, no […] I’d buy an older one.” She went on to say:
"We have hundreds of thousands of apartments that have been built across the country over the last two, three decades. Probably the prevalence of noncompliance has been particularly bad, I would say in the last say 15 to 20 years […] And that means there’s a lot of existing building stock that has defects in it […] There’ll be legacy issues for some time and I suspect there’ll be legacy issues that we’re not even fully aware of yet."
These comments may not have delighted those developers trying to sell new apartments, or owners selling existing apartments, but they are fair and correct. Confidence will not be restored until all the governments act together to improve regulatory oversight and deal with existing defective buildings.
Residents of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/lacrosse-fire-ruling-sends-shudders-through-building-industry-consultants-and-governments-112777" target="_blank">Lacrosse</a>, <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/same-as-grenfell-tower-cladding-fears-as-fire-rips-through-melbourne-cbd-apartment-building-20190204-p50vgl" target="_blank">Neo200</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-big-lesson-from-opal-tower-is-that-badly-built-apartments-arent-only-an-issue-for-residents-109722" target="_blank">Opal</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/buck-passing-on-apartment-building-safety-leaves-residents-at-risk-119000" target="_blank">Mascot</a> towers and other buildings with serious defects are already living with the impact of “legacy” problems. Over the weekend, <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-23/cladding-and-mould-forces-residents-out-of-apartment-block/11443976" target="_blank">another apartment building was evacuated</a> – this time in Mordialloc in southeast Melbourne. The building was deemed unsafe because it was clad with combustible material and had defects in its fire detection and warning system.
A costly but essential fix
Fixing such defects is a costly business. A Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal <a href="https://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/resources/owners-corporation-no1-of-ps613436t-owners-corporation-no-2-of-ps613436t-owners" target="_blank">decision</a> established that replacing the combustible cladding on the Lacrosse building in Melbourne would cost an average of A$36,000 per unit. At Mascot Towers, consultant engineers <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-23/mascot-towers-repair-bill-soars-to-20-million/11439856" target="_blank">estimated the cost</a> of structural repairs at up to A$150,000 per unit on average.
According to <a href="https://cityfutures.be.unsw.edu.au/research/projects/governing-the-compact-city-the-role-and-effectiveness-of-strata-management-in-higher-density-residential-developments/" target="_blank">UNSW</a> and <a href="https://www.afr.com/property/residential/cladding-just-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-20190612-p51wrw#logout" target="_blank">Deakin</a> research, between 70% and 97% of units in strata apartments have significant defects. Let’s assume 85% have such defects and the average cost of fixing these is only $25,000 per unit. That would mean total repair costs for the 500,000 or so tall apartments (four-storey and above) across Australia could exceed A$10 billion.
The Victorian government has taken the lead on combustible cladding, <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-16/flammable-cladding-removal-fund-victorian-government/11311518" target="_blank">setting up and funding a A$600 million scheme</a> to replace it. It’s also replacing combustible cladding on low-rise school buildings even though these may comply with the letter of the National Construction Code.
No other state has yet followed this lead. This is concerning given the risk to life. No one viewing images of the <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/how-hundreds-of-lives-were-thrown-into-chaos-when-neo-200-caught-fire-20190429-p51i62" target="_blank">Neo200 fire</a> in the Melbourne CBD could doubt how dangerous combustible cladding can be.
The other states and territories should immediately copy the Victorian scheme. While not perfect, and probably underfunded, it is a positive step to improve public safety. The Andrews government should be congratulated for doing something practical while its counterparts in New South Wales and Queensland, which have many buildings with combustible cladding, fiddle about.
All governments share responsibility
The federal government’s response has been inadequate. When asked about contributing to the Victorian scheme, Karen Andrews said: "The Commonwealth is not an ATM for the states […] this problem is of the states’ making and they need to step up and fix the problem and dig into their own pockets."
This flies in the face of reality. All nine governments are responsible for building regulation and enforcement. All signed the <a href="https://www.abcb.gov.au/Resources/Publications/Corporate/2017-Inter-Governmental-Agreement" target="_blank">intergovernmental agreement</a> on building regulation.
The federal government, which chairs the Building Ministers’ Forum, leads building regulation in Australia. The <a href="https://www.abcb.gov.au/ABCB/The-Board" target="_blank">Australian Building Codes Board</a>, which produces the <a href="https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/ncc-online/About" target="_blank">National Construction Code</a>, is effectively a federal government agency. The precursor to the national code, the Building Code of Australia, was a federal initiative.
It is clear Australian governments have worked effectively together in the past to combat threats to life and safety, or to provide consumer protection nationwide. Examples include initiatives as diverse as the <a href="https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n5314/html/ch09.xhtml?referer=&amp;page=16" target="_blank">national gun buyback</a>, the <a href="https://asic.gov.au/about-asic/what-we-do/how-we-operate/history/" target="_blank">creation of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission</a> (<a href="https://asic.gov.au/about-asic/what-we-do/our-role/">ASIC</a>) and the <a href="https://www.choice.com.au/transport/cars/general/articles/takata-airbags-what-you-need-to-know-in-australia-230717" target="_blank">program to replace defective Takata airbags</a> in cars.
The crop of building defects we see today are a direct result of negligent regulation by all nine governments over the past two decades. Clearly, they all have a legal and moral duty to coordinate and contribute to a program to manage the risks and economic damage this has created.
All the evidence points to a <a href="https://www.afr.com/property/governments-failed-to-act-on-warnings-of-combustible-cladding-dangers-20190226-h1br6n" target="_blank">long-term failure to heed repeated warnings about the dangers</a>. Governments and regulators were captive to the interests of the development lobby, building industry and building materials supply industry.
The governments must stop playing a blame game. Effective programs are urgently needed to fix defects, including combustible cladding, incorrectly installed fire protection measures, structural noncompliance, structural failure and leaks.
The Australian Building Codes Board, which is directly responsible for the mess, should be reformed to ensure it becomes an effective regulator. The National Construction Code <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-has-a-new-national-construction-code-but-its-still-not-good-enough-113729" target="_blank">should be changed</a> to make consumer protection an objective in the delivery of housing for sale.
All parties involved will have to take some pain: regulators, developers, builders, subcontractors, consultants, certifiers, insurers, aluminium panel manufacturers, suppliers and owners. Only governments can broker a solution as it will require legislation and an allocation of responsibility for fault.
The alternative will probably be a huge number of individual legal cases and a rash of owner bankruptcies, which may well leave the guilty parties untouched.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/122180/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
Geoff Hanmer, Adjunct Lecturer in Architecture, UNSW.
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/would-you-buy-a-new-apartment-building-confidence-depends-on-ending-the-blame-game-122180" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Construction Standard

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Construction Standard

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News