Home » Blog » Mythical Reform and the Reality of No Reform

Mythical Reform and the Reality of No Reform

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Mythical Reform and the Reality of No Reform

Anne Paten published on Sourceable 9 July 2015 47 shared 10 Comments
LINK: https://sourceable.net/mythical-reform-and-the-reality-of-no-reform-part-3/

Mythical reform

From a consumer perspective, Parliament’s confusion and lack of enthusiasm to pass the Building Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 was the only good news last year. Emanating from the Consumer Protection Reform Strategy, its purpose was to conceal the reality: there was no reform for consumers.
A review of the proposed legislation reveals no improvement in consumer protection. Worse, it would actually make more consumers more defenceless and more susceptible to damage than is currently the case.
In short, the new ‘strategy’ falls under the same meaningless ‘registration regime.’
Enforcement of compliance
The VBA’s statistics demonstrate that, like the Building Commission, the ‘no touch regulator’ continues with no enforcement. For example, in 2013/14, out of 13,261 registered domestic builders (limited and unlimited), not one was audited for compliance with building and safety standards. The surveyor audits conducted focused on permit levies and not on auditing surveyors’ work.
The VAGO’s findings of 2015 verify that the VBA does not identify ‘risks,’ does not enforce compliance and makes no attempt to prevent harm to consumers. Likewise, the VAGO found that CAV is loath to use its enforcement powers, with a mere four prosecutions in 2012/13, usually of ‘unregistered’ persons. Further protection for the rogues is provided by CAV and VCAT, both supporting the ’strategy’ of not referring any offenders to the BPB for discipline.
The reform is the VBA in charge of compliance, as was the Commission and the old ‘no enforcement’ mindset is the new ‘strategy.’
In short, the new ‘strategy’ brings about no change and even less enforcement.
Complaints and Dispute Resolution
CAV conducts few conciliations, declaring most disputes ‘resolved’ without providing any assistance to consumers. The VAGO concluded that it was unclear if CAV’s activities were at all helpful in reducing consumer detriment. However, many thousands of consumers have verified that CAV’s ‘helpers’ do not help consumers. CAV officials know the builders and their lawyers well, acting unequivocally as collaborators. These officials have a record of openly demonstrating prejudice, fully aware that by acting to protect the builders, they will cause additional damage the owners and their families, not to mention the blatant injustice.
The reform here is to move dispute handling from the CAV to the VBA. If a consumer makes a complaint, the mythical strategic boast is that Rectification Orders (RO) will help consumers. If, for example, an owner knows that the slab and frame are defective and complains to the VBA, it may appoint an ‘inspector’ to examine the work. If past practice of the Commission and VBA is a good predictor of future performance, the ‘inspectors’ will omit and or/minimize defects and support the offending builder. If the VBA issues a RO, and it need not, the VBA can compel the owner to pay more money to a builder. Meanwhile, the builder can get a VBA review and if this is unfavourable, he can then go to VCAT for another review.
From past experience, we know that most will do this to avoid VCAT orders against them for failing to comply with the RO. As construction lawyer Peter Micevski notes, the “prospects of appeal are likely to be high” and leading to “an over-crowded VCAT and high demand for construction lawyers to assist in the litigation of building disputes.”
What are the consequences for consumers? First, the RO can be within a ’reasonable time’ – which can be taken to mean months or even years! If the builder fails to rectify, the VBA may issue another RO, extending the time. Then there are two reviews open to the builder (VBA and VCAT). If a breach of the RO notice is issued, the owner may end the contract, but then has to apply to VCAT for an order against the builder. By now, how many years have passed? When the case comes up at VCAT, it can make any order it considers ‘fair,’ including ordering the owner to pay more money to the builder. This ‘strategy’ will allow owners to be legally robbed of more money, whilst years slip away (VCAT cases lasting up to nine years), owners paying the mortgage for a house they cannot live in and rent to live elsewhere, and more VCAT costs. All this because they wanted to exercise their ‘consumer rights’ to get the house they paid for.
This leaves VBA and VCAT in charge, both with appalling records of causing injurious harm to owners. The big winners again are litigation, lawyers and their cowboy clients. Consumers are hammered harder and more heartlessly.
The refusal to improve the scheme, underpinned by conflict of interest, collusion and secrecy is shameful. But to spin a ‘strategy’ to increase consumer harm disguised as genuine reform is truly wicked.
Published on 09 July 2015
Anne Paten
Anne Paten is a well-known Building Consumer Advocate, who has worked for seven years as a public advocate for the enforcement of consumers’ rights.
*Please refer to our comment policy before submitting Post Comment
1. Beverley-jane says:

July 9, 2015 at 10:59 am
Consumers are nothing more than fodder for this industry Anne and year after year, audit after audit, nobody is listening or cares. The basic survival instincts to provide safety and shelter for one’s family drives us to risk our financial security in believing
our builder’s registration equates to honesty and competence, after all, our red tape clogged society surely they would be monitored by an effective regulator, legislation etc ? Our misplaced trust ensures we will continue to be herded by these wolves in lambs clothing like lambs to the slaughter.
2. Mark Whitby says:

July 9, 2015 at 9:50 pm
Couldn’t agree more Anne.
Anything over 1 year is an unbelievable time to resolve a dispute. What a defective system we’ve got.
It seems that the aim of the authorities is to simply make disputes go away, no matter if it’s via delays that make people give up, or bullying in VCAT or immune authority appointed so-called experts with no definition of defect commenting on alleged defects. It’s a joke
3. Branko Mladichek says:

July 10, 2015 at 8:36 am
As Building Expert practising in Melbourne with thousands of pre purchase and building stage inspections behind me I have had a front row seat to building problems and disputes. It all comes down to greed. Builders are really well paid for what they do(or at least they are paid their price) but it seems for some its not enough. Much more money can be made by under delivering on the promise particularly as builders know they can get away with it with impunity. So we have new houses built built with defects in sub standard workmanship because there is no quality control (quality control costs money to implement and maintain you see) Apart from skimping on quality and compliance there is also cost stripping once dwellings are sold off the plan. As I write this I have houses under construction now where builders are simply not complying with engineering recommendations for site drainage, thereby risking foundation damage , all with impunity. So it seems “Greed is Good” where there is impunity.
A lot can be said and we can beat about the bush till cows come home but the stark reality is that building control system without enforced penalties is no defence against greed.
o Mark Whitby says:

July 15, 2015 at 7:53 pm
Good point Branko,
About the builders not complying with recommendations… it’s the recommending and not requiring that is the heart of this problem, because owners are locked into a maximum amount that they can afford contract… and complying with the recommendations would cost lot’s more. It’s a sort of cronyism I say… with the owners kept in the dark all the time
4. Andrew says:

July 10, 2015 at 12:00 pm
How can these government department justify their existence with absolutely no protection for consumers. After having dealings with VCAT and other government departments responsible for the building industry with my own house, I can’t understand why there is no help and why the unjust system is not changed. The only people that benefits for this system are the lawyers, building consultants and of course the builders. Keep up the good work.
5. Mel says:

July 11, 2015 at 11:38 am
Slowly but surely the curtains are being drawn back on this issue thanks to Anne and others. The many (and there are thousands upon thousands) of people harmed by the’system’ must stand together to force the issue out into the open. Real reform will only happen when genuine consumer voices are heard.
6. Val says:

July 11, 2015 at 1:32 pm
This is not surprising to me. I have known of so many people seriously harmed, including close family members. The system has been organized for owners to lose their money and they have no means of recourse.
As for reform, it appears that this has again been orchestrated for owners to lose, but more of them and even worse. This is disgraceful, especially seeing that it has been arranged by government and the officials who are supposed to protect owners. It is time for this to be stopped. People must unite as clearly the government will never take action and it has allowed owners to be so damaged. Good on you Anne for persevering for so long. I look forward to your hard work bearing fruit.
7. Dick Gower says:

July 13, 2015 at 11:19 am
It is difficult to understand the apathy of both sides of politics on an issue so obviously and seriously in need of reform.
8. Connie says:

July 19, 2015 at 7:52 am
The spotlight on the government again. It seems the reforms are not reforms for consumers at all. Even more saddening these if passed would make owners worse off than they are at present.
9. Rob says:

July 19, 2015 at 2:18 pm
This system obviously suits the building enterprise in the short term, but in the long team they are running it into the ground. The more consumers that experience this, the more consumers will avoid building or renovating. They are doing a good job of keeping this secret for now, but that can’t last. Once bitten twice shy.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *