How much more corruption before it affects you?

Honest John

Honest John

How long before Planning Minister Matthew Guy sends this guy on his way? Guy announced Michael Kefford's one-year appointment on 31 January 2012, in the wake of former Building Commissioner Tony Arnel's resignation. He is not fit to continue as Building Commissioner. See the following articles.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/b...-contract-to-friends-firm-20130131-2dnno.html

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/commissioner-resigns-20120130-1qpox.html

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...-michael-kefford/story-fn7x8me2-1226321168245

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/building-regulator-left-public-in-the-dark-20121129-2aisg.html
 
http://www.theage.com.au/national/building-regulator-boss-out-the-door-20130206-2dyw1.html

Obviously it was next week from the date of my original post.

FYI Kefford removed all the data from the building commission website concerning prosecutions against dodgy builders/surveyors going back to 2002. Vic Ombudsman instructed Kefford to put it all back in August. Since then Kefford has wriggled and attempted to just put up 3 years of data and significantly, drops all details of convictions. I have brought this to the attention of Vic Ombudsman, who has instructed the Building Commission to carry out their original instruction. They are still wriggling and Mr Guy, Planning Minister is fully aware of the situation yet prefers to ignore it - ask yourself why.

I also note that auditors have been assigned to review the registration process, where Registrar Peter Brilliant jumped, obviously before he was pushed. If my calculations are correct 75% of Victoria's registered building practitioners have simply paid their insurance premium, paid the BPB Registrar and obtained a registration. Please note there are two insurers in Victoria - QBE and Victorian Managed Insurance Authority, owned by The Victorian Government, who took in excess of $18m from domestic consumers yet paid out only $103,000 in claims.

The BPB administers the Building Act 1993, rejecting consumers rights at all costs in order to protect the scam and prefers to keep everything in-house. Why? The maximum penalty for a builder who is convicted is $13,000 in fines, compared to unlimited fines and custodial sentence available at the magistrates court. How many registered builders have been referred to the magistrates court in the last 20 years - zero.

The Building Commission/BPB/BAB prefer you not to know these facts.
 
I will do Aaron, thx for keeping it active.

Vic Ombudsman is undertaking another investigation into the illegal judgements handed out by BPB/BAB. PwC are undertaking an investigation into the registration process that so many in the building industry by-passed, I am bringing to their attention the ones that I know of. It is interesting to note that the BPB elected not to undertake their own audit, why not? I suspect the numbers are staggering and I am being blocked in obtaining information under FOI. I have made a complaint to the FOI Commissioner who is due to respond this week..... I suspect documents are being shredded as we speak?
 
seems like you got something against a builder?

for unregistered builders - they do come down pretty hard - consumer affairs as opposed to building commission
 
Not at all. If you had read the links posted above there is a common theme....corruption. That's undertaken by public servants not builders. The BPB refer unregistered builders to the magistrates court because CAV do not want to know, not their remit.

However, I refer you to the William Cass case heard at Ballarat magistrates court in December 2010. Cass pleaded guilty to over 70 breaches of the Building Act 1993, including working without a permit on 3 separate cases. Therefore no insurance. Cass was fined a nominal amount, went on holiday in January and obtained a registration in Feb 2011, signed by the BPB Registrar and Chair.

Personally, I wouldn't want Cass anywhere near a building site, but consumers in Ballarat wouldn't know. Why? Because the BC have removed the information so how are domestic building consumers going to make a considered decision? Think you'll get your money back when it all goes wrong - think again.
 
It's actually really scary and I read about these types of practices all the time. Pity really, but the onus is on us as property investors. "Caveat emptor" is fair enough when it comes to a point but... really?!
 
It isn't buyer beware, it is buyer has a right to be ripped off and we'll protect the scam at all costs. Mr Guy, Planning Minister, finds the time to steam-roller over planning laws in order to grant approval to a $1bn building project yet cannot find the time to protect consumers and initiate the Royal Commission into the Building registration system.

Giving a builder $1 is like throwing it down the drain....96% of ALL permits are illegal, checked yours? Source VAGO report. But unlike throwing it down the drain, it comes back to haunt you.
 
Honest John said:
It isn't buyer beware, it is buyer has a right to be ripped off and we'll protect the scam at all costs. Mr Guy, Planning Minister, finds the time to steam-roller over planning laws in order to grant approval to a $1bn building project yet cannot find the time to protect consumers and initiate the Royal Commission into the Building registration system.

Giving a builder $1 is like throwing it down the drain....96% of ALL permits are illegal, checked yours? Source VAGO report. But unlike throwing it down the drain, it comes back to haunt you.
Click to expand...

Not worth the lawsuit to agree/disagree with this, but I understand the sentiment.

We've been talking about regulation in the industry generally (in terms of property advice) for a long time here. But the truth is that corruptions go deeper and higher up than many of us can probably imagine.
 
"Poorly certified" he actually means illegal work certified by a cheque-book surveyor!

This could easily have resulted in 11 deaths, in fact, I am amazed no one died. Think the insurance will cover it? Not if this were in Victoria. The builder has to die, go insolvent or vanish before either of the insurance companies pay out. That's right, the duopoly consists of QBE and VMIA, owned by the state Government. In 2011 these two insurers took $40m in premiums yet paid out $103,000 in claims to just three owners. Think you're covered, think again!

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/balcony-held-on-by-just-12-nails-20130302-2fd1m.html
 
Try the other article I posted today - help stop the corruption cesspit, don't employ a domestic builder you are not protected!

50% of all building projects involving domestic builders end in tears and financial ruin, don't be the next victim.
 
Shouldn't all builders be insured? The reason I ask is that I'm looking to do a reno which involves a couple of non load bearing walls being removed. I brought one builder in who said said it was a straight forward job (5K to remove and add a timber beam) plus cost of finishing (plaster etc). The second builder said I needed all these permits (5K) and the cost of insurance (1K) as he is not insured. The first one didn't mention any of these things. I just assumed it was mandatory for a builder to be insured. This is separate to them being registered right?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top