dispute

Domestic building dispute resolution

Domestic Building Dispute Resolution Victoria (DBDRV) is an independent government agency that provides free services to help resolve domestic (residential) building disputes.

This service was established to resolve domestic building disputes without the cost and time often associated with courts and tribunals.

If you experience an issue during a residential building project, you need to try to resolve the dispute yourself – before you apply to DBDRV. This is a legislative requirement, so you will need some proof showing how you have tried to resolve the dispute. This may include notes from meetings or email records.

If you are unable to resolve the issue(s) during your initial meeting with the other party, i.e. owner or builder (or other parties), you must write to the other party outlining any remaining issues. In this letter, you must advise them of your next step, which might include lodging an application with DBDRV.

To begin using resolving your dispute through DSDRV, simply visit their website and click on the “application” button.

You will be prompted with a range of questions. If while you are answering these questions, a pop up appears that says “is our service right for you?” you will be directed to answer a range of further questions.

If you are eligible to use the services, then you will be allocated a file manager, who will familiarise themselves with your matter and decide which course of action is most appropriate in your dispute.  Please note that you need to be involved in the process in good faith and attempt to fully resolve the issues.  If a Dispute Resolution Officer is able to get the parties to resolve the dispute, s/he will present a draft order to the Chief Dispute Resolution Officer.

The Chief Dispute Resolution Officer has the power to issue binding dispute resolution orders and certificates.  Builders please note that if the dispute involves any defective works, the Chief Dispute Resolution Officer will report them to the Victorian Building Authority after the conciliation process is completed.

Further information

If you are not eligible to use DBDRV, your next step, is to speak with us.

 

This article provides information that is general in nature and is not a substitute for legal advice.

 

Domestic Building Dispute Resolution Victoria (DBDRV): https://www.dbdrv.vic.gov.au/

Image credit: www.dbdrv.vic.gov.au/

Expert evidence – in building disputes

The following is the link to the VCAT Practice Note which sets out the requirements for expert evidence.
file:///C:/Users/RJH/Downloads/practice_note_vcat_2_expert_evidence-effective_1_october_2014_0.pdf
We recommend that every Owner undertaking building works (unless they are a qualified experienced builder or similar) engage someone with experience to act as “certifier” or “building consultant” to assure them, the Owner, that their builder’s work is in accordance with the contract, the plans and the specifications and the prior agreed and signed variations (“the contract documents”).
Many experienced people sign contracts without actually reading them – after all the contract documents are “standard” contracts – and often a builder will say – it’s a “standard contract” to help the Owners decide to sign it.
If you are an owner and you suspect or you know your builder has not built the house in accordance with the contract, the plans and the specifications, or has made alterations without getting signed variations beforehand you need to obtain expert help so you know what to do next.  The first thing is to arrange a building consultant who is worth hiring and get a report that complies with the VCAT Practice Note.
Apart from the above, for the Owner there at least 3 reasons why you engage an expert to assist you in assessing the building works carried out by any builder.
Some of the larger building companies suggest that their owners engage a building consultant to assist the owner (its good marketing and it shows the builder has nothing to hide.)
First and in most cases, the most important thing is if you are not a builder you would not know whether or not the building works match the contract documents in all respects.  You can give a list, prepared by your building consultant to the builder after the first Progress Claim – if there are any items – and then you both need to determine what has to be done to reach that stage of the building works for which the Progress Payment has been claimed and you can get the building consultant back to cross-check the items are done.  But you need to be very careful selecting your building consultant.
IF YOU ARE A BUILDER – Why would a builder encourage an Owner to pay for an independent building consultant?  Answer – Because you want your owners to trust you and it takes the stress away from you, the builder, dealing with the owner in respect to any items that are not defective nor incomplete and it gives the owner the comfort of dealing with someone other than the Builder who knows about building and the owner has the comfort that their builder is a good builder and does the work properly in the first place or rectifies anything he has missed without any problem.  But you do need a sensible building consultant, not one that will pump up every basis for dispute by inflating problems and giving legal advice (see below).
Secondly, if the building works do not match the contract documents you want to know as soon as possible, before it’s too late and your building consultant’s report should be VCAT compliant, because you want to give the builder an itemised list of all items of either defective or incomplete work with the detailed specification for rectification and your building consultant’s calculation of how much it will cost you to rectify the item if you have to get someone else to rectify that item. (Which amount you might be entitled to deduct from the contract price or claim from the builder or the building warranty insurer (in specific circumstances).
Thirdly, if the builder does not rectify or complete as per the report you have an itemised list with a cost (owner’s loss and damage) and you can take that complaint to the Domestic Building Dispute Resolution Victoria (DBDRV) for adjudication and direction and if the complaint is too complex for DBDRV then when DBDRV will issue a Certificate for you to take your complaint to VCAT – you are ready – having paid for #1, only report which has all you need in it to substantiate your allegations (because it’s from a qualified experienced person who knows) and it has a proper amount (not inflated by quote or guess work) identifying the value of the owner’s claim.
The internet link for DBDRV is: https://www.dbdrv.vic.gov.au/dispute-resolution-process
No one should have to pay a building consultant that will not do his job.  In a recent report we were given by an owner the building consultant said
“The level of description and location of defects will reflect assumed builder’s skill. Thus for example a general comment “fixing is below acceptable standard because of uneven door margins and architrave quirks” will mean that the builder is required to examine find and rectify every door and architrave that is defectiveIt is not intended or necessary that a building expert guides builder to every individual defect. Or in the case of items not complying with regulations it is sufficient to point out nature of the defect and the builder can verify compliance requirements for himself.”   We added the underlining.
Had the builder done the work properly in the first place the owner would not have needed a building consultant who tells the owner to rely on the defaulting builder to fix all the faults even though the building consultant has not bothered to list them! The owner already knows the builder cannot be relied on to identify all the “items not complying with regulations” and therefore it is NOT “sufficient to point out nature of the defect and the builder can verify compliance requirements for himself”.
From our point of view the most important thing we can assess from a properly prepared report is – is it worth having a dispute over.

We can make this assessment when the report has been provided to the builder or the owner by someone of worthwhile reputation, qualification and experience as a building consultant who has appeared as an expert witness at VCAT – AND whose evidence is accepted as reasonable and will usually be accepted by VCAT whether it is the builder complaining about an owner or an owner complaining about a builder.  It becomes a cost –v- benefit analysis.

The question is: What are the legal costs of a dispute compared to the costs of rectification and/or completion of all items listed in a VCAT compliant report.  Would you better off paying to fix any items and avoid proceedings?

From the one report you have all of the above possible options and you need to know your options.  Contact us at admin@hls.net.au if you need to make an application to DBDRV or arrange for a building consultant.

 

This article provides information that is general in nature and is not a substitute for legal advice.

Disputes with a Neighbour – Part 2

Adverse Possession in the context of a fencing dispute

Australian law inherited the doctrine of adverse possession from English law (Adverse Possession).[1] For many hundreds of years Adverse Possession has been used to resolve land disputes in England. Adverse Possession is still relevant today. As recently as 2002 the Land Registry received approximately 20,000 Applications for Registration of land based on Adverse Possession and 15,000 of the applications were decided in favour of the adverse possessors. In the Applications, over a half of the applicants were squatters.

 

What is the position in Australia? Are there disputes between two land owners, the non-lawful owner, who will assert a claim in Adverse Possession and the lawful owner, who will dispute the claim and defend the existing lawful possession?

 

In Australia, the law relating to fencing is state-based law. So too is the law relating to Adverse Possession. In the first part of Disputes with the Neighbour[2] we advised on the fencing dispute and that occasionally a fencing dispute is complicated when a claim is made in Adverse Possession.

 

This will occur when it is discovered that a fence, which has marked the common boundary between adjoining properties for many years and is now to be replaced, is not precisely on the common boundary of the adjoining properties.

 

The Fences Act 1968 was intended to limit fencing disputes; however this did not occur. The commentary by a property advisory firm on the effect of the Fences Act 1968 when the Fences Amendment Bill 2013 was being considered by the Victorian Legislative Assembly is[3]

 

It has been over 40 years since the original Fences Act came into operation. During that time the number of fencing disputes has increased rapidly. The Fences Amendment Bill 2013 attempts to provide this clarity by detailing what constitutes a dividing fence, the responsibilities of land owners and the process of dispute settlement. The aim is to reduce the number of disputes reaching the Courts and to minimise the costs involved to all parties.

 

 

The Fences Amendment Act 2014 (FAA 2014), amended the Fences Act 1968 (FA 1968) to introduce the legislative changes set out in clauses 28, 29, 30 and 30 (A),[4]   that now apply in cases when the precise location of the common boundary is disputed by the adjoining owners.

 

The FAA 2014 supplied what was missing in the FA 1968 and introduced a process by which the adjoining owners are able to resolve a dispute on the precise location of the common boundary which has arisen in the context of fencing works (the resolution process).

 

As is set out in a Fact Sheet on the FAA 2014 provided by the Victorian Government (the Fact Sheet) states in relation to the boundary disputes that “The process [set out in the FAA 2014 meaning the resolution process] is intended to ensure that only one surveyor needs to be engaged in respect to the boundary dispute and to resolve disputes about of costs of the survey”.[5]

 

In the FA 1968 the descriptions of the adjoining owners are respectively the Notifying Owner and the Adjoining Owner with the following meanings:

 

i. Notifying Owner is the person who initiates the resolution process.

 

ii. Adjoining Owner is the owner of the adjoining land to the land owned by the Notifying Owner and the other person in the resolution process.

 

The relevant sections are:

 

Section 28

In summary section 28 provides for the service of a Boundary Survey Notice by the Notifying Owner. Section 28(1) makes clear the service of the Boundary Survey Notice is where it is necessary “to have the common boundary defined”.

 

Section 28 (3) provides, by sub-clause (b) that you as the Notifying Owner may serve “A Fencing Notice in respect of the adjoining lands to the adjoining owner at the same time as giving a notice under this section.”

 

Section 29

Provides in sub-section (1) the options for the Adjoining Owner to respond to the Boundary Survey Notice.

 

The options to respond are:

 

(a). to agree in writing on the position of the common boundary as specified in the Boundary Survey Notice or the Fencing Notice; or
(b). if there is no agreement, the Adjoining Owner “will specify the position that the adjoining owner thinks is the position of the common boundary in writing or by defining the position of the boundary line by marking it [the common boundary] on the ground”; or
(c). engage a licensed surveyor to have the common boundary defined.

 

The resolution process together with the Commentary makes clear it is intended that it is necessary only for one licensed surveyor to be engaged in the boundary dispute.

It is our view that it follows if there is a recent Plan of Survey (the Survey) of the common boundary, it is not necessary for the Notifying Owner to serve a Boundary Survey Notice requiring the engagement of a licensed surveyor to have the common boundary defined. We suggest the Survey means it is necessary only that the Notifying Owner serves a Fencing Notice and annexes the Survey to the Fencing Notice; this is because the Survey has established the common boundary.

 

Section 29 (1) of the FA 1968, which provides the three responses by Adjoining Owner, will make clear the terms parameters of the dispute. Service of the Survey by the Notifying Owner will in most disputes lead to a resolution of the dispute:-

 

(i)                  29 (1)  (a) if the Adjoining Owner agrees to the position of the common boundary as specified in the Survey, there is no dispute,

(ii)                29 (1) (b) if the Adjoining Owner specifies the position of the common boundary in writing or by marking the position on the ground and the position contradicts the Survey, the Adjoining Owner will need to justify the position he nominates that is clearly in conflict with the Survey,

(iii)               29 (1) (c) if the Adjoining Owner specifies a position of the common boundary different to the Survey, it is necessary that justify the position and the Adjoining Owner will then engage a licensed surveyor to have the common boundary defined and

(iv)              By section 29 (2) if the Adjoining Owner has the common boundary defined under subsection (1)(c) by the licensed surveyor the Adjoining Owner has engaged and the Survey agrees with the position as nominated by the Adjoining Owner it is necessary then the Adjoining Owner must serve on the Notifying Owner notice, in writing, of the common boundary as is defined by the Survey provided by the licensed surveyor.

 

Powers of the Magistrates Court

 

If the dispute is not resolved amicably by the adjoining owner’s in the resolution process the dispute must proceed to the Magistrates’ Court (the Court). The Orders that may be made by the Court when the fencing dispute is heard and decided by the Court are set out in Section 30C (1) (a) – (m) of the FA 1968[6].

 

Adverse Possession

 

When a fencing dispute with the further complication that fence to be replaced is not erected on a common boundary that is accepted as correct by both the adjoining owners, the dispute is not always resolved when the common boundary is established by the Survey or the Surveys.[7]

 

When there is a claim in Adverse Possession one of the adjoining owners will claim it is the position of the fence that correctly determines the common boundary, although that position is in conflict with the Survey or the Surveys.

 

As is set in the Fact Sheet[8] Adverse Possession may determine[9] the issue in dispute. In a claim in Adverse Possession the rights that have accrued to previous owners will attach to the current owners. As is set out in the Commentary:

 

Adverse possession law allows a person to claim title to someone else’s land if they have continuously occupied that land for more than 15 years without the owner’s permission. After 15 years, the original owner loses their right to bring an action to recover their land and their title to the land is extinguished.

 

In Victoria, adverse possession is covered by the Limitation of Actions Act 1958, the Transfer of Land Act 1958 and the common law.

 

An adverse possession claim may come up in the context of a fencing dispute if a dividing fence has been in the wrong place for more than 15 years. The owner who has gained a strip of land because of the misplaced fence can bring a claim to that land in adverse possession.

 

The Fences Amendment Act clarifies that the Magistrates’ Court has the power to hear and determine adverse possession claims that arise in the context of fencing disputes, but otherwise the law applying to the adverse possession claim remains the same.

 

The obvious complication which will apply to both adjoining owners is if there is a lack of conclusive of the date when the fence to be replaced (the fence) was erected in the contentious position. It is the adjoining owner who makes the claim in Adverse Possession, who is required to prove that the fence was erected in its current positon “more than 15 years ago” and, since the date the fence was erected in its current position the adjoining owner who makes the claim in Adverse Possession has used the portion of land in dispute without objection by the lawful owner of the portion of land. If the adjoining owner who makes the claim in Adverse Possession is not able to prove this, he may not be able to resist the demand of the adjoining owner asserting the the common boundary is as is established in the Survey.

 

The disadvantage in the resolution process established by the FAA 2014 is if the dispute is not resolved by the resolution process, the dispute must proceed to Court and the legal costs to resolve the dispute may be expensive. In an Application to the Court, even though the procedure in the Court is initially to refer the dispute to the Dispute Settlement of Victoria (DSCV) to investigate if the dispute is able to be settled in conciliations, the legal costs to resolve the ownership of a sliver or small portion of land may be expensive.

 

In addition there will be the inevitable complications and uncertainties that are a characteristic of litigation in these matters when there are often complicated factual disputed issues and it is not straightforward to predict an outcome.

 

Further, it is by no means certain that, even when one of the adjoining owners is successful that the Court will make an order of costs, certainly not when a settlement is reached in conciliation at the DSCV.

 

But perhaps the only certainty is with the ever increasing costs of land in Victoria, particularly in metropolitan areas, there will always be the potential for these disputes. And it is essential when a lay person is a party to one of these disputes that legal advice is sought at the earliest opportunity.

If you, or someone you know is experiencing a fencing dispute with a neighbour, please contact our office and we can assist. Simply call us on (03) 9555-7233.

 


[1] See Adverse Possession and Title-by-Registration Systems in Australia and England in 2011 Melbourne University Law Review page 773 by Fiona Byrnes, Associate Professor, Sydney Law School of the University of Sydney accessed at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbULawRw/2011/28.html

[2] See Blog August – link to article

[3] See Ownership or Occupation? How adverse possession can impact the value of your assets by Charter Keck Cramer accessed at http://charterkc.com.au/projects/ownership-or-occupation-adverse-possession/

[7] There will be two Surveys, when the Adjoining Owner does not accept the Survey served by the Notifying Owner is correct and, pursuant to section 29 (1) (c), the Adjoining Owner engages second licensed surveyor

[8] Fences Amendment Act 2014: Main Changes see paragraph 10 on page 4

[9] It is emphasised that conclusive evidence is required toi press and succeed in a claim in Adverse Possession

 

This article provides information that is general in nature and is not a substitute for legal advice.

Don’t fence yourself in

To have an amicable, constructive and supportive relationship with the next door neighbour is perhaps more valuable than living in the house of your dreams but next door to the nightmare neighbour.

 

The relationship with the neighbour must be maintained and there are the common disputes, which unless resolved quickly, can lead to the souring and destruction of the relationship with the neighbour.

 

Common disputes with neighbours

These common disputes are well known: overhanging and encroaching trees, unacceptable noise, yapping dogs and the fencing dispute.

 

This article deals with a fencing dispute.

 

The legislation

State legislation deals with the fencing obligations of adjoining property owners – Fences Act 1975 (SA), Dividing Fences Act 1961 (WA), Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011, Dividing Fences Act 1991 (QLD), Dividing Fences Act 1981 (ACT), Northern Territory Fences Act 2015, Fences Act 1968 (Vic), Boundary Fences Act 1908 (Tas).

 

This article advises on the law in Victoria and found in the Fences Act 1968, as amended in 2014.

 

The Fences Act 1968 (Vic) (the Act) provides the process in Victoria for the replacement of a dividing fence.

 

A dividing fence is a fence which marks the boundary between two or more adjoining properties.

 

Replacement of a dividing fence

The Act defines when the dividing fence is sufficient and provides the means by which adjoining property owners are able to determine when a dividing fence is not sufficient and should be replaced.

 

The process

The Fences Act provides the adjoining property owners are equally responsible for a dividing fence between the adjoining property owners.  Usually the adjoining property owners will contribute in equal shares to the dividing fence.  The process sets out the rules for replacing the dividing fence and is best explained when there is agreement and when there is no agreement between the adjoining property owners.

 

If there is agreement

When there is agreement, one neighbour will initiate discussions with the other neighbour.  Both (or more) neighbours will agree the fence is firstly a dividing fence within the terms of the Act, second, it is not a sufficient dividing fence (now referred to as  a fence) as is set out in the Act and three, it must be replaced by a new fence.  One (or more) neighbours will obtain a quote (or quotes) from a Fencing Contractor.  One (or more) neighbours will serve a Fencing Notice, which sets out the proposal for the repair of the fence or the removal of the fence and erection of a new fence.

 

The quote (or quotes) is attached to the Fencing Notice and served on the neighbour (or neighbours) requesting the response in 30 days.

 

When there is total agreement between the neighbours, it is not necessary to serve a Fencing Notice, the agreement of the neighbours is recorded by each neighbour signing the quote for the repairs or new fence.

 

When happens when there is no agreement?

When there is no agreement, for example, when the neighbour does not respond to the Fencing Notice, the initiating neighbour may:

 

(a) Proceed with the fencing works, without the neighbour’s agreement, and recover the sum to be paid by the neighbour in an action in the local Magistrates’ Court of Victoria (the Court); or
(b) Issue the action in the Court and seek an Order of Court that the initiating neighbour may proceed with the fencing works and the contribution that is to be paid by the other neighbour.

 

A response does not always indicate there is agreement, for example, where the adjoining neighbour proposes the erection of a different fence than is set out in the Fencing Notice (the quote will set out the details of the proposed fence), the initiating neighbour will then negotiate the agreement for the new fence.  If the negotiations do not produce a satisfactory agreement allowing the initiating and adjoining neighbour to proceed with the repairs or new fence, the initiating neighbour may issue the action in the Court, as set out above.

 

Who pays for the fence when the neighbours agree the fence must be replaced but do not agree on the standard of the new fence?

 

The Pre-Amendment Act provided separate processes when there was (1) the erection of a new fence and (2) the maintenance and repair of the existing fence.

 

The Act was amended in 2014 and there is now a single statutory process for all fencing works (including all related works, which includes the maintenance and repair of the existing fence). The statutory process now covers the erection of a new fence or the repair of the existing fence. The amendment to the Act has led to the simplification of the process.

 

The other major change post-amendment is that the contribution to the new fence by the each neighbour is altered.  The Pre-Amendment Act required the neighbours pay equally for “a fence sufficient for the purpose of both occupiers”.  What was deemed sufficient by the neighbours was not set out in the Act.

 

Post-amendment the neighbours:

1. Must contribute in equal proportions to a “sufficient dividing fence”;
2. Define what is a sufficient dividing fence; and
3. Provides where one neighbour wishes to erect a dividing fence to a standard, which exceeds what is a sufficient dividing fence, then in that situation the neighbour requiring the non-standard fence will pay the difference in cost.

 

If you issue an action in the Court

If there is a fencing dispute, which proceeds to an action in the Court, the Court will refer the dispute to the Dispute Settlement Centre of Victoria, where there will be a conference or mediation (the mediation) of the neighbours with a Court official. The mediation is intended to settle the fencing dispute and decide the terms on which the new fence will be erected.

 

Are fencing disputes complicated?

The most serious complication is when the neighbours cannot agree on the common boundary between the adjoining properties.  Frequently, the fence to be repaired or replaced is not on the precise common boundary.  When a Fencing Notice is issued and there is no agreement by the neighbours, the disagreement is as on the location of the precise common boundary.  The neighbours obviously must agree on the precise location of the common boundary before agreeing on the repair of the existing fence or the erection of the replacement fence.

 

In these circumstances, a Boundary Survey Notice is served setting out the dispute with the existing common boundary and giving notice that a Land Survey (the Survey) is required.  The 30 day period following the service of the Fencing Notice is suspended and is replaced by a 30 day period, which follows the service of the Boundary Survey Notice.  If the 30 day period expires and there is no agreement on the boundary, or the Survey to be carried out on the adjoining properties, the neighbour who served the Boundary Survey Notice may proceed to organise the Survey.  When the Survey has been completed, and there is agreement on the common boundary, the Fencing Notice will proceed.

 

The costs of the Survey will be determined by whether the existing boundary is correct or the boundary must be altered.  If the Survey confirms that the existing boundary is correct, the neighbour instructing the Land Surveyor must pay the costs of the Survey.  If the Survey determines the boundary must be altered, the neighbours of the adjoining properties will equally pay the cost of the Survey.

 

There are further complications in with respect to the fencing obligations of neighbours which are not set out in the above summary.

 

Adverse possession

This will determine the extent of your property.  If the existing fence is not erected on the common boundary and this is determined after the fence has marked the boundary for a substantial number of years, there may be a dispute between the neighbours caused by Adverse Possession.

 

The law of Adverse Possession states that where one person has intentionally used another person’s land without objection by the owner of the land, the person using the land will acquire ownership where the use is for more than 15 years.

 

Clearly, where there is a fence on your property that is not in alignment with the boundary as is set out in the Certificate of Title, the potential for an Adverse Possession Claim arises.  This is most serious.  If you suspect a fence on your property is not in alignment with the boundary, it is necessary that you take immediate action.

 

The Adverse Possession period used to be 30 years. The law in Victoria was recently amended and the Adverse Possession period has now been reduced to 15 years.

 

A claim for Adverse Possession may now be brought in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria using an application under the Fences Act. The use of the Magistrates’ Court is expected in most cases to result in a reduction of the expense of these complex actions.

 

It is absolutely essential to seek legal advice such is the complication of an Adverse Possession matter.

 

If you require legal assistance in this complex area, please contact Blair Williams at our office.

 

This article provides information that is general in nature and is not a substitute for legal advice.

Changes to the Building Act & You!

Building Disputes and the Building Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Act 2016 (“BLAA”)

Changes to the Building Act 1993, by the Building Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Act 2016 (or “BLAA”) commenced on Monday 4 July 2016. It amended the Building Act 1993 (BA) and the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (DBCA).

The main changes so far are as follows:

Appointing Building Surveyors

Builders are no longer allowed to appoint a Building Surveyor.  This amendment has been introduced to stop some Building Surveyors from a premature certification of mandatory stages for builders who may be their friends.

Building Surveyors will also now have to be very careful in carrying out their functions and from being engaged in a situation that may give rise to conflict of interests.

There will be a new check list that Building Surveyors must complete.  This check list will have to be lodged with the local Council.  Non-compliance with this requirement will cause the Surveyors to be fined.

Directions To Fix Work and Written Undertakings

The Authority (Victorian Building Authority) may issue a direction to a builder to:

(1)    Fix work;

(2)    Carry out work in substantial compliance with the Building Act; or

(3)    Stop work.

 

Any such direction should be either complied with or appealed to the Building Appeals Board.  An extension of time can be sought to comply with the direction.  Non-action in respect to any direction can result in a fine up to $75,000.

Written undertakings may be provided by a builder to do or not do something.  If a written undertaking is provided by a builder, it becomes public record.  Non-compliance with a written undertaking can result in prosecution of the builder.

 

Owner-Builders’ responsibilities and Regulations for Owners generally.

Owner-Builders can be audited by the Authority to ensure that the works are carried out properly, in compliance with the Building Act and its Regulations, and without posing any danger to anyone.

There are new penalties that could be imposed on the Owners who allow building works to be carried out on their property before a Building Permit is issued.  The penalties are high.

The above information completes the changes to the Domestic Building Contracts Act and the Building Act that are currently in force.

There will be further amendments, the most significant one that will come into force in February 2017 is as below:

Before a dispute can proceed to VCAT Under the new act, to resolve a domestic building work dispute, a certification of conciliation is required to bring proceedings to VCAT. [DP to link back to old building disputes / myth articles].

Cannot Issue at VCAT for a Domestic Building Work Dispute without a Conciliation Certificate

(s.56 DBCA)

The major change being that proceedings in respect to a domestic building dispute cannot be issued at VCAT unless accompanied by a Conciliation Certificate issued by the Chief Resolution Officer (“CDRO”) for Victoria or one of what is being termed the “experienced dispute resolution officers” (“DROs”) (see new s56 & s57A DBCA).

All domestic building work disputes (as defined s44(1), DBCA) relating to any “domestic building work matter” (as defined in s44(2) DBCA) are to be referred to the CDRO for an assessment under s45A of the amended DBCA as to whether not the dispute qualifies for conciliation under the amendments.

The CDRO has been appointed. She is Gina Ralston (“Ralston”). She and her team of “experienced dispute resolution officers” (“DROs”) will initially asses all building disputes (s45A, DBCA). The DRO can call for evidence (s45B, DBCA), accept or reject the referral (s45C, DBCA)

The CDRO must give written notice of the decision to either accept or reject a referral (under s45C DBCA) and give notice of the decision to accept or reject the referral for conciliation under, S45E(1) DBCA) within 10 business days after making the decision!!

HOW LONG WILL MAKING THAT DECISION TAKE?

NOTE – it will be necessary to amend domestic building contracts to include a right to suspension of the building works and the extension of time for the completion of the building works for the period between the referral and the issue of the decision under S45E(1) DBCA and up to and including the implementation of any decision or direction resulting from a conciliation.

A certificate is to be issued if the dispute is not resolved by conciliation (s46D, BLAA) or if an agreement is recorded (s46F, DBCA).

NOTE – Any such conciliation agreement should always include an agreement as to the period for which the building period is to be extended and include a period for the builder to organise trades and materials and return to site.

A Domestic Building dispute is defined as between an owner, a builder, any other Building Practitioner, Sub-contractor, or Architect in relation to domestic building work.

When making an application to the Chief Dispute Resolution Office, section 45 of the DBCA requires you to specify the particulars of the dispute, in addition to other relevant information and documents.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? – It means that you need to prepare for the Conciliation if it proceeds and carefully, and in as much detail as if it were a proceeding in a Court or at VCAT – and that’s where we can help.

WHY SO MUCH PREPARATION? – Because the DRO can issue a certificate stating that a party did not participate in good faith s46E,DBCA), can issue a stop work notice (s.47A DBCA), recommend an assessor’s report as to the building works (s48,DBCA) issue a dispute resolution order (s49 & 49B, DBCA) including the payment of money.  There is also a right to appeal to VCAT for review of a dispute resolution order – which must be within 20 business days after the date of the order and on limited grounds.

To give yourself the best chance of settling the dispute and avoid going to VCAT – speak with us as soon as any “dispute” is referred to the CDRO for assessment for conciliation.

The Conciliation may not proceed if you establish that the dispute does not satisfy the requirements in section 45 – WHAT IS THE REAL DISPUTE?

Proper preparation is far better than never ending discussion and expense.

 

This article provides information that is general in nature and is not a substitute for legal advice.