Can you believe this????

[silentC]

I've read both of your posts above and I disagree with you.

You appear to be arguing that an owner builder should be physically working on the job, otherwise, they cannot call themselves an owner builder. I think that's a bit of an odd point of view. I actually know a couple of builders who never do any physical work. Here's what they do:

1. Order materials
2. Co-ordinate deliveries
3. Organise trades
4. Arrange building inspections
5. Do paperwork
6. Pay bills
7. Take responsibility for the job and see to it that contracts are in place for parts of the job that are the responsibility of others
9. Pay workers comp, make sure OH&S requirements are met, building insurance etc etc.

I'm sure there is plenty more. An owner builder also has to do all of this and in many cases, including mine, hold down an 8 to 5 job as well. So why do you believe an owner builder MUST work on site?

Owner builder is a legal concept that allows a person to take responsibility for building their own house. It has nothing to do with whether or not they physically build the house. Anyone can be an owner builder.

[Big Shed]

Totally agree with what Silent said

[pawnhead]

When I started in the game, you could get your full builders license from a Corn Flakes box. You just had to fill out a form, pay the fee, and they sent you your license. I worked for a builder who did just that, and he didn't know much about building, suggesting some pretty dodgy cost cutting schemes.

But he did very well for himself because he hired the right people to advise him. My father, as a foreman/carpenter was one of them, and he taught me the trade. There were a lot of dodgy builders back in those days though.

I got my chippies license without doing any courses, but I did do a builder's course at tech some years after. It saved a lot of time not doing a trade course, and you can still bypass it today if you want a full builders license.

BTW, that 'earliest building code' that I mentioned earlier is the Code of Hammurabi. Although there are a lot of people getting slain, there are some very wise laws which you can read here.

[Chumley]

Legally there's no way you'd be allowed to do work like that in NSW without some sort of contractor license. For residential building work over $1000 you'd have to provide a written contract and for work over $12,000 home owner's warranty insurance.

The above notwithstanding, people fly under the radar all the time. I think the post referred to above is an example of a very unlucky person who was caught out.

Does anyone else think the focus should be on what you're doing, not how much it costs? I mean if I'm updating my laundry, pull the old cupboard out and replace it with a new cupboard in a different location I can't see how this should need any kind of license or control. I'm not messing with anything structural, electrical or plumbical (?). I know this won't cost $12k but if I extend the idea to the kitchen and start replacing cupboards I could quickly go over that amount - and I'm still basically removing and replacing something that is non-structural (might need to get a sparkie and plumber if I mess with their areas).

Again, if I want to close off a door that I no longer want, remove the architrave and jamb, add some extra studs cover it with gyprock and do a bit of expert stopping what's the big deal? However, if I put a new door in a wall that requires me to cut some studs out, then it's structural - I should at least get some professional whatever (help/advice/inspections/certifications - you pick).

I'm not sure how this could translate to regulations - maybe that's why there's this silly focus on cost. I mean, I could install some really flash bookshelves in my library - if it's big enough and I use very expensive timber and fittings I could go over $12k - does this mean I need govt approval/certification/etc -- sound ridiculous to me.

Then again, I guess all definitive regs are silly because there have to be definitive: I can build a freestanding pergola below 3m without interference because the ACT regs say I need planning approval/inspections if it is 3m or higher. So I can build it 2.9m high, but if the roof is a bit higher I'm caught.

Ok, off my soap box.
Cheers,
Adam

[silentC]

The cost thresholds are just a means of gauging the size of the job, and therefore the liability that exists if it is done poorly and needs to be repaired or replaced. I suppose they needed a way of doing this that didn't require individual analysis of each and every job. It's relatively easy for a council officer on the front desk to work out based on total cost. If they had to try and assess the nature of the job as well and then apply some kind of rating to it, it all becomes very complicated.

The figures of $1000 and $12,000 are very arbitrary anyway. I'd imagine the cost of a job would also have a lot to do with where it is being done too - people in Mosman probably can't replace a doorknob without council involvement.

[arose62]

which we weren't, but....

one of the bosses here is into brewing his own. We were having a chat about a new micro-brewery which has opened up, and he explained that legally, and for tax purposes, the "brewer" is the actual person who tips in the yeast.

So, the micro-brewery does all the work before and after the yeast-adding step, but that doesn't make them the "brewers". I can walk in, toss in a teaspoon of yeast, and that 1 second action entitles me to call myself a brewer.



Well, it seemed like a parallel situation to the builder-who-doesn't-actually-build discussion.

Back in my box now.

Cheers,
Andrew

[silentC]

Well thanks for that, Andrew.

But yes, I believe it is a similar situation. The builder or owner builder is the legal entity responsible for the job, they hold the license to do the work and the onus is on them to have it done properly. But they don't have to actually do it.

[MrFixIt]

Hi

I have done two MAJOR extensions as an owner builder.

The simple solution to this kind of problem is to do the work, as I did, under the registration number of a licensed builder.

This solves the problem of the builder / OB registration, as the council has a comeback on the REAL builder, under whose license the work was performed.

Of course the OB has to do the right thing (hopefully) as the real builder will be on him "like a ton of bricks" if things are NOT done to standard.

The real builder is supposed to check on the construction/work being done during the course of the building process.

In my OB jobs, the first was on my own home so I did not need to take out any indemnity insurance. The second instance was an IP so if the work exceeded $12,000 I needed to take out indemnity insurance.

This indemnity insurance in turn required an engineers certificate based on a physical inspection of the work carried out. I obtained the certificate without difficulty but as I did the job for less than the $12k I did not need the indemnity insurance.

So all you need is a "friendly" builder that trusts you AND your work.

The first OB job I did was a MAJOR second storey extension, I did by asking around and I discovered that someone with whom I (then) worked had a brother that was a builder.

For my IP reno, fortunately I was able to use my brothers building license

[silentC]

The simple solution to this kind of problem is to do the work, as I did, under the registration number of a licensed builder.

In that case, you are not an owner builder (in the eyes of the law) you are working for the licensed builder and he is responsible for what you do. "Owner builder" is a legal status that implies you are the responsible person.

I'm not sure how long ago you did those jobs, but it will become increasingly harder to convince a builder to allow you to use his licence in this way, because he has to warrant not only your work, but the work of anyone you bring on site, for 10 years - by which time you might have sold the house, passed on or left the country. He would have to be a trusting individual. I certainly wouldn't do it, unless I knew the person very well. Even then...

Also, at least in NSW, you must either live, or intend to live in the dwelling in order to get an Owner Builder permit, so you can't work on an investment property under one. What a lot of people do is buy a house, move in, renovate under an Owner Builder permit and then sell it. But you can only do this once every 5 years.

[Bleedin Thumb]

I'm not sure how long ago you did those jobs, but it will become increasingly harder to convince a builder to allow you to use his licence in this way, .

If your a licensed builder why the hell would you let someone do work under your licence No.?


"a brother of a mate I was working with"........ you must be very persuasive. or is it WA builders?

[Sturdee]

Owner builder is a legal concept that allows a person to take responsibility for building their own house.

When it first came into Victoria there was the addition that the owner builder had to live in the house for seven years before he could sell it as the OB did not have the 7 years independant guarantee on new house buildings.


Peter.

[thebuildingsurv]

You can sell, you just need inspection report and insurance for 6.5 years after the final certificate is issued., insurance cost around 2k

[silentC]

I think Peter was saying that when it first came in, that was the case. Obviously it is different now. In NSW it is 7 years.

What a lot of people don't realise though is that the insurance covers the new owner, not the Owner Builder. If repairs are required within the 7 year warranty period, the insurance company will expect the Owner Builder to pay for them. If the Owner Builder cannot be found, or is insolvent, the insurance covers it.

[JehuAB]

I've been reading this with a fair degree of trepidation... just in the middle of planning a kitchen overhaul. Does anyone know what the laws are in WA?

I'm looking at getting some structural work done by a builder (removal of a wall and re-strutting the roof), but intend to do the gutting and replacing of the cabinets myself. Is there any way this could need an OB license? seems ludicrous if it does.

[Notsquare]

I think a lot of this is just hot air. Councils only act if there is a complaint, for the 70% of the population who don't live in a capital city, I think your pretty safe. How could any one tell if you changed a few things in your house anyway after a period of time. Along as the neighbours don;t complain, then the council doesn't give a toss. Who wants to pick a fight. This is more about seeing to be doing something, and I guess the HIA and others would be behind it. Buyer beware is still the law with a lot of this stuff. If a qualified experienced building surveyor who should have been employed by a potential buyer can't pick out dodgy work and report it, then it doesn't matter. This is more about protecting stupid people who can't spot a front door hung opening outwards.