IMPORTANT! FROM A CAAN COMMENTATOR ON ‘APARTMENT OWNER WELCOMES VICTORIAN COMBUSTIBLE CLADDING FIX’ 17 JULY 2017
‘Definitely the licensee should be personally responsible regardless of company status and not just the qualified supervisor but the actual directors of the companies.
They shouldn’t be able to hide behind Phoenix laws when defective work is involved.
The BCA states quite clearly that the external cladding for high-rise buildings must be non-combustible. It is pretty clear they were involved in unconscionable behavior.
It is clear that they were thwarting the rules to save a buck, and only look after themselves and not the end user at the expense of the safety of the future residents.
Therefore they didn’t care about the outcomes of their behaviour, and that amounts to unconscionable conduct.
Unconscionable conduct is a statement or action so unreasonable it defies good conscience.
Section 21 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) prohibits unconscionable behaviour in connection with the supply of goods or services, or the acquisition of goods or services, in business transactions.
Why nobody has looked into this as an avenue is a mystery. Maybe because of privity of contract between the owner developer and the purchaser.
There is a VCAT case in Victoria regarding the Lacrosse Towers that has opened this up a bit. It’s yet to be tested in higher courts. I don’t think the taxpayer should pick up the bill for knowing, or mistaken disregard of regulations.
There is a bit more to the application of the ACL but that can be added with legislation. The outcome of the Lacrosse case was the builder was in breach of section 18 of the ACL.’
ALSO VIEW ON U-TUBE: THE LACROSSE TOWER OUTCOME