These People Should be Certified

Private certification of medium and high rise apartment development has been around for about 12 years in NSW and has copped a lot of criticism.

By privatising government regulation it opened the way for more efficiency and choice but (unfortunately) it also created opportunities for more genuine mistakes, more negligence, the temptation of undue influence and corruption.

But, there are some controls and things affected owners can do.

The Building Professionals Board monitors, regulates and disciplines certifiers and can accept and investigate complaints from anyone.  It has a very comprehensive website that contains the Disciplinary Register and reports summarising selected Complaints & Investigations.

In the latest report a few high rise cases are highlighted.

In one case, the certifier failed to identify that a car park was open deck and did not properly determine the building height, thereby certifying an apartment building which did not have sprinklers in the building and carpark, one fire exit instead of two, no fire control facility, no emergency warning system and no intercommunication system. After action by the Building Professionals Board, the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal reprimanded and fined the certifier $15,000.

In another case, a certifier did not properly ensure that fire safety measures were met in an apartment block and certifying tulip style door handles when they should have been single downward action handles.  The certifier argued that he relied on certificates provided by installers and the owner.  Interestingly, the ADT said that “an accredited certifier is expected to be skeptical of the reliability of a certificate presented by a trade supplier or installer as these document may be affected by a lack of detachment and partiality”.  The ADT reprimanded and fined the certifier $5,000.

And, in another case, a certifier did not properly certify two apartment buildings by making errors on separation distances between openings and boundaries, exit door swing directions, exit obstructions, inadequate exit signage and the fire rating of floor coverings.  The ADT decided that this certifier did not properly understand the public responsibility of his role and did not adequately manage certification (relying on others, delegating responsibility and not carrying out inspections). The ADT cancelled the certifiers licence, banned him from reapplying for 2 years, disqualified him from working in a certifiers office for 5 years and fined the certifier $12,000.

And the Disciplinary Register records the following since 2007 –

• 66 certifiers have been disciplined
• 32 of those certifiers have had more than one disciplinary actions
• One certifier has been disciplined 25 times
• The worst sanction against a certifier was a $15,000 fine and cancellation of their licence 

None of this is good news and it confirms anecdotal views about the (poor) quality of come certifiers.  But, it also demonstrates that complaints can result in action, that the Building Professionals Board is doing something and that the Australian Decisions Tribunal is making decisions that reflect common sense about the certifiers’ role.  

And, maybe some of those ADT decisions will also help civil legal actions by strata corporations against certifiers.

Francesco …