Problems with surveyors in Melbourne?

[Honest John]

List of Building Practitioner Inquiries for 2004/2005
Marie Josephine WALKER (Central Park) BS 1068 & IN-U 1059
Issued building permit when consent and report not obtained (septic tank).
Reprimand
Fine $1,500
Costs $250
http://www.buildingcommission.com.au/www/html/2170-200405.asp

List of Building Practitioner Inquiries for 2005/2006
Marie WALKER (Central Park) BS-1068
Failed to comply with Regulation 2.17(1)(b) Building (Interim) Regulations 2005 (3 allegations) - failed to pay permit levy & forward form 4 to Building Commission.
Failed to comply with Regulation 2.18(1) Building (Interim) Regulations 2005 - failed to forward signed and completed Form 5.
Reprimand
Fine $5,000
Costs $300
http://www.buildingcommission.com.au/www/html/2167-200506.asp

List of Building Practitioner Inquiries for 2011/2012
Marie WALKER (Central Park) BS-U 1068
The practitioner was found guilty of nine allegations across five separate sites in Narre Warren South, Alphington, McKinnon, St Kilda East and Point Cook. These breaches included failing to comply with s201(5) and 24(3) BA when estimating the costs of works, s24(1)(a) BA when issuing a permit for works which did not comply with set back requirements, issuing an occupancy permit when she had not inspected the works herself (2 allegations), and several other breaches of regulation 1502(a) for issuing permits which did not comply with the regulations.
Reprimand
Fine $10,000
Costs $9,952
http://www.buildingcommission.com.a..._4_December_2011_web_file_BC_prosecutions.pdf

 

[Scott No Mates]

The joys of deregulation. Nothing different to council employees taking a back hander for turning a blind eye

 

[Honest John]

Haven't seen any convictions for council employees, seen plenty for 'cheque-book' surveyors though. The one above is just the worst I've seen, but of course, the audience knows better?

 

[Honest John]

Please Find below the determination of the BAB. It is worth noting that the other surveyor Argyriou was recommended to face a hearing by the legal review but the BPB didn't want the publicity. Ostojich was a builder registered by the disgraced BPB registrar Peter Brilliant. He was found guilty at a separate hearing.

For Walker, this is her fifth hearing where she has been found guilty.

At the directions hearing, Chair Thomas blocked our request for being joined as a party by using a 'closed-loop' tactic, ie because we did not appeal a judgement in our favour we could not be joined.

At every step we have been blocked, the latest is the FoI Commissioner who is refusing to provide Ostojich's registration details, his company, Domestic Reblocking of Seddon, Melbourne is still operational.

Walker operated out of a company called Australian Building Permits Pty Ltd.

Next month is the hearing into the building inspector Grant Moore, watch this space!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal

Building Act 1993 VICTORIA
DETERMINATION OF THE BUILDING APPEALS BOARD

Appellant Marie Walker
Respondent Building Practitioners Board

Nature of Appeal
Appeal pursuant to s143(1) of the Building Act 1993 (the Act) against the decision of the Respondent relating to an Inquiry into the conduct of the Appellant under Division 2 of Part ll of the Act as a registered building practitioner in the category of building surveyor.


Decision/s of the Panel
Having considered all the submissions and information placed before it, pursuant to s149(1)(a) of the Act, the Board to affirm the decision of the Building Practitioners Board.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Reason/s of the Panel
1. Before the Building Practitioners Board the Appellant pleaded guilty to 6 allegations and was guilty of 3 allegations; 2, 3 and 6.

2. The Appellant's registration was suspended for 6 months and she was fined $3,000 and ordered to pay the costs of the inquiry of $14,891 .60.

3. The grounds of appeal in the Appellant's Notice of Appeal were against the penalty only; however, at the Directions Hearing the Appellant gave notice that she intended to appeal the findings in respect of allegations 2. 3 and 6.

4. Despite the fact that in her written submission the Appellant alleged that certain statements were made to her by Mr Grant Moore, the person delegated by her to inspect the stumping works, the Appellant did not call Mr Moore to give evidence on her behalf; nor did she elect to give evidence herself. Furthermore, in cross examination of Mr Ostojich the Appellant failed to put the matters alleged by Mr Moore.


Allegation 2
5. The Appellant's explanation that she relied on information given by the builder, Mr Moore and the owners and one or more of those parties sought to deny her full details of the works being undertaken was not accepted by the Board.

6. The Board accepts that the Appellant failed to properly review the documentation or make appropriate enquiries as to any cost increases before issuing a "variation to building permit" to include works which had already been undertaken, but not inspected.

DETERMINATION OF THE BUILDING APPEALS BOARD

7. The Board does not accept that the Appellant was not aware of the previous appointment of Argryiou until receipt of documentation from the Respondent in May 2011 as the inspection prepared by Argryiou dated 3 September 2010 notes that a copy had been sent to Australian Building Permits.

Allegation 3
8. The evidence is that the only stump hole inspection was undertaken on 23 August 2010 and the rear stumping works had not yet commenced.

9. The Appellant did not produce any inspection records, documentation she relied on in confirming that mandatory inspections had been carried out or enquiries made.

Allegation 6
10. The Appellant sought to justify her failure to make appropriate enquiries as to the value of the cost of the additional restumping works by comparing restumping costs on other projects.

11. The Board does not accept that it was the obligation of the builder, the re-stumper or the owner alone to advise her of the increased scope of the re-stumping works. It is the Relevant Building Surveyors duty to ensure that the work that was carried out is consistent with the works approved by the building permit, and to take enforcement or remediation action as necessary.
Conclusion

12.The Appellant failed to carry out her statutory duties as the Relevant Building Surveyor for this project, and seeks to blame others for her failure to do so.

Panel Members
Bryan Thomas, John Clampett, Joe Zita
Chairperson, Building Appeals Panel
Date of Hearing 18104113
Registrar
Date signed: 03/06/2013
OFFICE USE Ref: 445007

 

[norbeth]

Marie Walker

Would you know where Marie Walker is living now.

 

[Honest John]

Sorry, I haven't been on in a while, few personal issues to deal with plus of course, dealing with this.

Marie Walker vanished, to the best of my knowledge she is in NT somewhere. I spoke to one of her former employees, who claim she also ripped them off by not paying his super contributions.

Alaric Ostojich DB-L 23899, was the builder (restumper) who was found guilty on four counts of breaching the Domestic Building Contracts Act and the Building Act, his conviction can be found here:

http://www.buildingcommission.com.a...sciplinary-Register-as-at-17-October-2013.pdf

He was severely criticised by the panel as I knew more about his job then he did - he didn't even know the difference between a quote and a contract! During his registration period, 8 years, he did approximately 400 jobs - so there are 400 houses out there that have had or will have stump failure because of his incompetence. The quality of his work was described by the panel as the worst they had seen.

These are small fry in comparison to the corruption in the system.

So how did he get his registration in the first place? The VBA are charged with protecting the public, right? WRONG - they're there to protect the system.

There is a lot more to run on this story at institutional level and I'll post when I have more to tell. Please watch the video on the thread I posted 'how to choose your builder in Victoria'.

Thanks for your time.

 

[Honest John]

15 months ago I submitting a Freedom of Information request requesting the registration details of the builder - Ostojich. After the hearing into breaches of the Building Act 1993 and the Domestic Building Contracts Act it became clear that this builder knew very little about the mandatory aspects of his job. He didn't know the difference between a quote and a contract.

After a catalogue of errors by the Victoria Building Authority the FoI Commissioner granted me the details. However, the VBA immediately appealed that decision.

I attended the mandatory conference at VCAT yesterday where the VBA eventually conceded and they have now been instructed to release these documents.

What also became clear was that builders have to sit a competency test that only consist of a small number of yes/no questions and these questions were set in 1993 and have not changed since. Therefore it is very likely that the training companies touting their services have at the very least the vast majority of these questions and therefore the answers. Further, the VBA do not verify any of the details on the application - references, experience, training, etc.

The only conclusion I can draw is that at best the VBA crosses its' fingers and hopes that the applicant has completed the application honestly as there is no verification.

 

[Honest John]

The latest in this saga is that the headline builder, Danny Daher of Natcon Developments, was taken to VCAT by a consumer. Concurrently, he was also facing numerous VCAT hearings with regards to unpaid debts owing to suppliers, trades, etc. At the last count he has $1.6m unsecured and $400k secured unpaid debts.

Before settling, Daher went into receivership, administered by Worrells and can be found here: http://www.worrells.net.au/

Also, another interesting forum has sprung up :

http://www.reverseaustralia.com/lookup/0359313166/


Despite the VBA receiving numerous complaints about Daher, some over three years old, they continue to turn a blind eye to his antics.

Unfortunately, the receivers seem unwilling to prevent Daher from trading through his other company Natcon10 Pty Ltd.