This article is from the Australian Property Journal archive
TIME is running out for strata owners hoping to make a claim against parties responsible for installing illegal composite aluminium cladding on their buildings, to pay for the repairs.
Strata and construction lawyer David Bannerman, who co-convened the Strata Fire Safety Forum with Lannock Strata Finance, said statutory warranties are complicated and time sensitive.
“The chain of people responsible for the proliferation of non-complying material used in apartment construction is long, from the importer to the designer, builder and certifier.
“Different warranty periods apply at each stage of the supply chain but one thing is certain, time is fast running out for many owners to make a claim under the statutory warranty,” he pointed out.
Bannerman said recent changes to NSW legislation mean that buildings where the contract was issued after 1 February 2012 have a two-year time limit, meaning that it is already too late for some building owners.
For contracts that pre-date February 2012, they have a seven-year time limit, however that is a narrow window to make a claim, according to Bannerman.
“The cut-off dates are non-extendable,” Bannerman said. “I’ve seen many clients who have missed out by a day or two weeks because they acted too late,”
“However there may be other legal avenues to pursue so owners should not lose heart but seek expert advice. Anybody who can see shiny metallic cladding material on the outside of their building should be acting now, not waiting for a letter to arrive from the government or for somebody else to raise the issue.”
Bannerman said strata owners should take the opportunity to delve beyond external fire risk.
“It is well known that a lot of fire measures in strata are not up to standard,” Bannerman said, “so if you’re getting the cladding inspected by a fire engineer it’s an opportunity to audit the entire building.”
Lannock Strata Finance CEO Paul Morton said the media and strata industry focus on the risks posed by the non-compliant use of composite aluminium cladding had served to keep pressure on the community to address real safety concerns.
“This is not the first time that risks in strata have been brought to light.
“But on previous occasions they’ve been swept under the carpet or delayed until everybody loses interest and returns to business as usual,”
“But the very real threat to life posed by non-compliant composite aluminium cladding means that failure to act now, when so much is known about the risk, would have serious consequences in terms of culpability.
“Strata owners must investigate the true extent of the problem they have, which means acting quickly to seek the very best professional advice, including from lawyers, regarding the potential for litigation to seek redress.” Morton said.
In one example, the Lacrosse building fire in Melbourne’s Docklands in 2014 will cost residents of Lacrosse $10 million to replace the cladding.
If strata owners do not replace the cladding, there are cases where insurers are withdrawing coverage for buildings.
Earlier this month, Hall & Wilcox Lawyers partner Matthew Curll told the Australian Property Institute’s National Property Conference that there are cases where insurers had previously provided cover but are refusing to renew the policy for PE cladding building.
Curll said property valuers are also expected to play a key role in identifying the presence of cladding within a building and assessing the market value having regard to cladding.
Australian Property Journal
