That's so vague as to be almost useless. An architect? An engineer? Who are they supposed to ask? Who would even grant them site access?
I agree, a prospective buyer of a new apartment would be unlikely to be in a position to engage any of these professionals for the entire development. Building regulations at the time should have protected them.
Why would you hire an architect to assess structural or regulatory compliance issues? A suitably qualified engineer will recognise some of the warning signs that not all is in order. If they don't know what to ask and who to ask, get someone else. The vendor via the agent always facilitate access.
It's a poor analogy. There is significant consumer protections in law governing fitness for purpose, accuracy of description, and outlining the responsibilities of a vendor in the event of a fault. Anyone purchasing a property really should understand that there are no such protections in place, and it is your responsibility to do your homework to the best of your ability, and that you alone bear the risk of issues that such homework fails to uncover
It's really similar in that neither can inspect what isn't visible to the naked eye. Apartment developments follow a pattern, so there would be limited value in seeing inside multiple units.
Untrue. In our estate there were many shortcomings identified by the Surveyors recently that should have been identified before the initial build was signed off. Just one example would be that the flat roofs on all 10 blocks should have been coated with solar reflective paint which would have extended their lifespan but this was never done. This is just one example from a very long list.....
Apologies for the misunderstanding, I was referring to all the issues, not just fire safety. It is true of course that fire safety legislation is regularly updated and it isn't within the remit of this scheme to ensure that all OMCs are up to date with current legislation. This is an emotive topic for me because I have recently been presented with the evidence of all the shortcomings in the initial build here. Luckily there has been no loss of life as a result of the negligence but we have been lucky in that regard and will work now to resolve as many of the issues as we can.
Correct, and they would have been passing inspections for a number of years since construction.
I believe the view is that it is tough on anyone, regardless of property type. That's the very essence of caveat emptor!
In fairness, the governement make a tidy sum from everyone involved in the process which is why I would side on the apartment owners on this.
How does yet another levy work in a market where the building industry is already failing abysmally to build enough houses and apartments, and cost inflation is already out of control?
Insurance sector is already levied, and it's been done with the banks as well.
I understand what you are trying to say, but there is considerable fury at the very idea that buyers should have to pay for these loans. (Even though it would seem that many impacted by fire issues on smaller scales are paying out of their own pockets for remediation).
That is true in our case. We hired a good engineer who surveyed everything he could about our apartment and fifteen years later it is as good as the day we bought it, as he predicted.
I am no expert in this area but it was my understanding that the Government sets building regulations and enforces them. The builder of our apartment block got away with negligent building practices that made substantial water ingress inevitable. If the Government had sufficient oversight of the industry, there would have been less chance of this happening. I feel let down by the Government. Because of their bad past decisions, my biggest investment is at risk. I think the tax payer, whose Government messed up, have a moral duty to pay something in cases like ours, to reduce the amount we have to pay back.