Building companies must be brought in line

Building companies too often play on the fact most neighbours don’t know the rules and regulations. It’s not good enough, writes Michael McGuire

All you want in life is a little consideration. A little courtesy. But that’s not an attitude that’s too prevalent in the state’s residential building industry.

This is only one tale. It’s mine. But I’m far from alone.

Next door to my house in an Adelaide outer suburb, two homes are being built. No problem. In fact, it was good. A previous plan had proposed five double story apartments on the same block.

You know when you are next door to a building site there will be unavoidable disturbance. You accept all that. You just hope it’s all over as quickly as possible and silence again descends on your part of suburbia.

There is no doubt building companies play on this acquiescence. They know people generally don’t like to kick up much of a fuss. They also know most people don’t understand the law and their rights.

In our case we were pretty relaxed at the start. A representative for the builder knocked at our door one day and explained what would happen.

They would need access to our land as their garage wall would become the new boundary fence. After a few questions we signed the requisite form. And then heard nothing for months.

The next interaction was when a couple of blokes turned up six months ago and removed the fence that runs the length of our block. That was unexpected. There was no discussion about a replacement. And there still hasn’t been. Eventually, a temporary fence was installed between the two blocks. Privacy screening was promised but only half delivered.

We also had to disconnect and move our water tank. Something else that hadn’t been mentioned. It’s still disconnected, which I contemplated as I watched the rain tumble down last night.

A new retaining wall had to be built. We watched. It appeared to be creeping into our block. We were assured multiple times all was fine.

We spoke to the builder who said the retaining wall wasn’t their problem. It was the subcontractor. The law says new retaining walls must be built entirely on the property of those building it. We insisted on a survey to establish the truth. It showed the wall had started on our property and drifted ever further in. It was removed and work started again.

Liberties big and small were taken.

Layout and installation of roof rafters on a new commercial residential construction project by framing contactors

There was the day we noticed the subcontractors had attached a hose to one of our taps to use our water. A water pipe was broken and not fixed for weeks.

Last week, we were woken at 6.20am when work started. The earliest work can start is 7am. When I voiced an objection at this breach I was assured it wouldn’t happen again. Two days later, they started at 5.50am. When asked what was going on, the supervisor told us “we can start when we want’’.

And this is the issue. They think they can do as they please. Councils are responsible for policing sites and mine gave a warning, but builders work across the city. A central repository for complaints would be useful to help keep builders in check.

The council told me it was fielding increasing numbers of complaints against builders. For work starting too early, for finishing as late as 11pm, for working on public holidays and Sundays.

It’s because builders have so much work on at the moment. They are trying to squeeze in as many jobs as possible.

Reform is needed to protect the rights of homeowners. Surveys between neighbours should be shared. There should be some outline of what works will occur, and for builders and contractors to be educated in the law and requirements under multiple Acts, including the Fences Act. The second most common advice given out by the Legal Services Commission relates to “fences/retaining walls’’.

Having a contact available to resolve issues early, (and not leave it to an answer machine) and a place to make confidential reports would also be useful.

Perhaps, it could become a state election issue. It would take resolve for either party to bring in good neighbour practices and enforce them. Builders tend to be generous donors to both.

Still, which voters would be against it?