Blog

We do a lot of pre purchase and timber pest inspections for people buying properties and we always advise them to have their inspection done within three days of signing the contract. This is because then they can cool off without giving reason if significant unexpected issues are discovered during inspection.

Sometimes however, purchasers will rely on contract clauses that give them more time to cool off but have conditions and terminology that can cause confusion and a headache if the purchaser wants out.

Yesterday I had a very upset customer call saying  she was told she could not cool off, that it was to late and her cooling off expired last Monday. After some office investigation into the circumstances this is what I had to say:

Hi xxxxxxxx

Yesterday I completed a pre purchase building and timber pest inspection in Hoppers Crossing. The house was about 20 years old and in excellent condition for its age, almost nothing to put on the defects list.

Whilst speaking to the vendor’s agent I found out that this house was an absolute bargain, perhaps reflection of the current state of the property market.

I called the purchaser to give him the verbal summary and the good news and told him that this was the best 20 year old home I have seen for about six months.

I was surprised then that the purchaser told me he cooled off. When I asked him why, he told me he just found out there was a covenant on the title that would prevent him from building a dual occupancy (even though the land was big enough)

There you have it, a perfect investment property that’s not good enough.

What could it be? It’s ASBESTOS

Exposure to asbestos dust can be deadly so it pays to know where it is so you don’t accidentally disturb it whilst making home improvements or during maintenance.

This one is tricky because asbestos cement sheet roof was covered by corrugated metal roof and the walls were rendered over asbestos cement sheet.

The current wisdom it is safe because it is locked in the cement product but it definitely is not wise not knowing where it is.

We provide best Pre purchase property inspection services that may save you more than just money, it could be your life!

Some time ago, my client’s business suffered substantial damage when a water main burst and flooded his buildings. Insurer for the water authority refused claim saying it was not responsible, the claim for negligence could not be proved and as the water main had been in satisfactory use for at least seven years. I found otherwise:

This is what I said:

Inspection Findings:

The most telling finding is the presence of deep gash in the water main pipe wall.

The most likely cause of the pipe damage is excavating machine or equipment damage to the pipe.

The pipe may have been damaged in stock or at the time of laying.

Expert opinion:

 The pipe failed because it cracked at the wall weakness caused by a deep gash.

The reason it did not fail immediately and did so after seven years is that despite the gash it still had some residual wall strength.

Pulsations caused by variance in pipe pressure and the momentum of moving liquid eventually caused material fatigue/wear and the failure.

Normally good defence against negligence is documented satisfaction of critical procedures/testing however in this case there has been manifested failure at four levels:

1)    Operational level: Training and education. It is difficult to see how properly trained pipe installers exercising their art with reasonable care and skill could have failed to see the damaged pipe and if they did why did they let it remain in the ground?

2)    Supervisory level: Properly trained and experienced supervisor exercising his art with reasonable care and skill should have picked up damaged pipe and ordered it to be replaced.

3)    Quality Assurance: It is difficult to see how the respondent could not have effective QA system in place and if it did why has it failed to pick up obvious pipe damage.

4)    Failure to properly document and record the three steps as outlined above.

For the reasons given above it is my opinion that the (damaged) pipe was laid negligently, that failed supervision did not pick up defect and furthermore that QA system that is there precisely to pick up such defects, has failed.

That is negligence.

Guess what? Insurer paid up!

The moral of this story is: don’t accept refusal without a fight, they may be just bluffing.

Please post a comment

Every now and then I come across a good job that’s a pleasure to inspect.The pleasure comes partly from not having to write down anything but mostly from recognising that the builder has got it right. In an industry where quality is hard to get and that is rife with poorly trained tradesmen and that abounds with many lay trades persons pretending to be competent tradesmen, it’s hard to get it right.

In this case a single storey frame on slab in Point Cook is a good example of a relatively good job of acceptable standard but without anything to sing about. The set out was imperfect (trusses did not line up with studs) but the builder made up for it by using double top plate(that’s acceptable). All the braces were in the right place and well done except a single missing ply brace (but SS knew and was attending) . So not perfect, but good and as far as I was concerned that’s good enough.

The clients were attending and I told them that in my opinion builder had done a good job. They could not wipe a smile of their faces (and the supervisor too), and that’s really good.

Post a comment