There is growing disgruntlement in NSW Strataland about the effects of the Design and Building Practitioners Act (DBPA).

In a nutshell, people are complaining that to be compliant with the Act you have to add two or three levels of professional involvement, which means higher fees which inturn mean higher costs by multiples of three or even more.

And it’s not just that Angela the architect charges more than Angelo the handyman, or that you also need an engineer or surveyor for a relatively simple job. One component of the higher level of professional advice is additional insurance cover for the various box-tickers.

Then there are the builders and repairers who feel they must abide the letter of the legislation, which can mean offering Rolls Royce solutions for Toyota Corolla problems.

In one example that has come to our attention recently, a strata building’s accessible roof garden has developed a few leaks. Those leaks have almost certainly kicked off some concrete cancer.

The owners corporation has been told that it may well mean stripping the concrete tiles off the entire area, about half the size of a football pitch, to lay one-sheet waterproofing.

Patching, they have been told, would not be compliant with the DBPA or Building Code of Australia. The proposed solution could cost upwards of $5 million.

The solution was never going to be cheap but this seems ridiculous, especially since some waterproofing firms offer guaranteed patching for just such a scenario. So we checked with the Building Commission and Fair Trading and asked if they could confirm that the following was true:

“Patching of isolated leaks in very large areas of waterproofing membrane, such as apartment block roofs and podiums, may be permitted under the DBPA and BCA, provided the patching work is undertaken by a registered and insured practitioner who guarantees their work.”

The simple answer: “It’s correct.”

Now, our word from insiders at the Building Commission is that some remediation firms are so concerned about falling foul of the legislation that they over-engineer their solutions. The old message of not letting “perfect” be the enemy of “good” has not reached some quarters.

And there are doubtless some firms who see those over-egged scenarios as an opportunity to expand the scope of their works and inflate their fees.

However, there is another unintended consequence at the other end of this tunnel. There are homeowners who are wondering if those repairs that just tripled in price are really all that important, after all.

Maybe it would be easier to apply a band-aid solution, which will temporarily solve or at least cover up the problem, than invest hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of dollars on the Rolls Royce option.

The government was supposed to be bringing in another tranche of DBPA regulations in July, but we hear they are now on hold, and the Building Commission is already back at the drawing board, hopefully fixing the flaws and filling the holes in the current laws. Perhaps this is another area where patching is permissible.

We’re having an interesting debate in the forum – prompted by this post last week. And what we really need NSW Fair Trading or Building Commisssion, is two things. Raise the financial threshold for DBPA involvement from $5000 to $10k or even $20k.

And issue a clear and concise guideline on that can and what must be done when you maintain and repair your building. Clarity is everything in strata, and it’s clear that there’s something seriously wrong with this system.

Part of this commentary was issued with the weekly Flat Chat newsletter. You can sign up (for free) below.