‘Not enough clarity’: Brisbane homeowner forced to split mould remediation costs with builder

A Brisbane man whose new build was riddled with mould is warning others about the dangers of checking their contracts regarding responsibility.

A Brisbane homeowner has revealed there is “not enough clarity” on the dangers of mould and the responsibility for prevention and remediation in standard building contracts and guides.

Tony Prineas said the frame of his southside home was completed in early 2021 but the structure then weathered “two massive rain events” without a roof. 

Mr Prineas said there was “extensive” mould growth on structural and flooring timbers but confusion over who was responsible for “remediation”.

“The contact I signed didn’t really make mention of mould,” he said.

But Mr Prineas, who is hopeful of moving into his home by Christmas, said “I just needed to get it done”, and ended up splitting the cost of the remediation with his builder which totalled $3500. 

But according to the Queensland Building and Construction Commission “a builder is responsible for ensuring their construction work conforms to all relevant standards and codes”.

“A builder would also be responsible for ensuring the remediation of an issue such as mould until the completion of a construction project,” according to the QBCC.

Mould Men owner Gerard Murtagh. Picture Glenn Hampson

Meanwhile, MouldMen Founder and CEO Gerard Murtagh said a builder is “responsible” for constructing and delivering a home which is “safe and to code”.

“A house that is covered in mould is not to code,” he said. 

“As far as I’m concerned it is quite clear cut – the builder should be claiming (any damage that happens during construction) on his insurance,

Mr Murtagh said even though a weather event is out of the builder’s control, the property is still their responsibility until he or she “hands over the keys”.

“The cost of materials is so high that (builders) are drawing jobs out for longer because it is cheaper to try and do that but at the same time they are not getting roofs on in time,” he said.

Mr Prineas said although the timber was inspected and “endorsed” structurally, the mould as a health issue was “dismissed”.

“There is not enough clarity on the dangers of mould and the responsibility for prevention and remediation in standard building contracts (Master Builders) and in guides (Queensland Timber Technical Data Sheet)” he said.

“I’m still concerned about potential health implications but I’ve had it (the mould) treated to the best of my knowledge,” he said.

Mr Prineas said he is “frustrated” the home is not yet watertight ahead of another wet summer. 

“(My builder) is about to put the gyprock in which is very absorbent to moisture and could potentially reactivate the spores – I really want it closed up now,” he said.