Podcast: Defects, debts and dream bathrooms

Melbourne-defects.jpg

The melbourne couple featured in the ABC TV story about apartment defects

Elsewhere in this post

Sometimes we are just too efficient for our own good. No sooner had we sent this week’s podcast off for transcription than the news broke that NSW Building Commissioner David Chandler had announced he will be leaving the job in November – just weeks after he signed a year-long extension to his contract.

We’ve covered that in detail HERE and will pick up on the news for next week’s podcast.

Meanwhile, there’s plenty to talk about this week, including the TV report that they have discovered that apartment blocks in Victoria have defects.  Who knew? You can watch the ABC report HERE.

There’s the anti-strata beat-up about the couple from Earlwood in Sydney who, thanks to bad advice saw an $18,000 special levy blow out to a $44,000 debt – and that was after they had paid off $13,000.

Then, on the subject of debts, we have a chunk of last week’s interview with strata lawyer David Sachs which I cut out and set aside for this week as it’s mainly about Section 232 of the NSW strata Act and the various – almost limitless – ways it can be used to resolve disputes.


LISTEN HERE


Then we talk about the things we like about hotels that end up being included in apartment designs.

So there’s lots to talk about before next week, when rest assured we will get into why David Chandler resigned and what kind of building commissioner the NSW government will be looking for to replace him.

If you enjoyed listening to this podcast (or reading the transcript), please share it with your friends using the social media buttons on this page.

TRANSCRIPT IN FULL

Jimmy  00:00

Okay, back from Bali.

Sue  00:02

Yes.

Jimmy  00:03

With no suntan, but a lot of mosquito bites.

Sue  00:07

Yes, but much more relaxed and happy and content.

Jimmy  00:13

Well, I was until we had to sit on the plane next to a teenage girl who refused to put a mask on.

Sue  00:20

Yes, that was very annoying, wasn’t it, really? And she wasn’t the only one, there were quite a few people on the plane who weren’t wearing masks, which is a bit disturbing.

Jimmy  00:27

Because it says on the announcement, that it’s a legal requirement that you wear a mask for the duration of the flight.

Sue  00:33

But it’s pretty hard for the air stewards to insist. They kept coming around and reminding people and people would put on the mask…

Jimmy  00:39

And then as soon as they were gone, take it off again. And then they ask you to respect people’s choices, which means you can’t grab them by the throat and say “put your effing mask on.”

Sue  00:40

Even though you want to.

Jimmy  00:52

Very much so. So today, we are going to talk about… Apparently they’ve just discovered defects in buildings in Melbourne; it was a big thing on the TV while we were away (shock, horror). Welcome to the real world. And, we’re going to have another chat about that. What I think was a confected scandal, about the old couple who couldn’t pay their levies… I think we were the first to (apart from the story that broke in the Sun-Herald before we left).. We were the first people to actually pick up on that and comment on it, so I think we’re entitled to have another swing at it, now that we’ve had a chance to think. And, David Sachs, the strata lawyer, was talking about debts last week. And I chopped out a thing (because we kind of went off on a tangent at one point), to talk about section 232, which is part of the act that basically, allows you to resolve disputes with your strata committee, or your strata scheme. So, that’s quite a lot really, isn’t it?

Sue  01:59

Absolutely.

Jimmy  02:00

I’m Jimmy Thomson, I write the Flat Chat column for the Australian Financial Review.

Sue  02:04

And I’m Sue Williams and I write about property for Domain.

Jimmy  02:07

And this is the Flat Chat Wrap.

[MUSIC]

Jimmy

So, apartment blocks in Melbourne have defects… Who’d have thunk it?

Sue  02:28

It’s interesting. I guess this story about the defects in the Melbourne block got a lot of traction, because the couple who live in the building were prepared to face up to the media and talk about it. And that’s always a problem with defects. A lot of people don’t want to talk about it, because they feel that it might reduce the value of their apartment, if other people hear about it. So, that’s always difficult. As a journalist, when you’ve got a face, and you’ve got somebody talking about something, it’s much, much better, because other people can look at them, realise they’re regular people and really identify with them and feel incredible sympathy for them.

Jimmy  03:06

And I do feel sympathy for this couple. We’ve sort of laboured under the illusion, I suppose, that defects in Victoria are not as bad as defects in New South Wales, or certainly not as widespread.

Sue  03:20

Because they don’t have self-certification.

Jimmy  03:22

And also because the Supreme Court, or the High Court, has ruled that builders have to respect a 10-year warranty; it’s a duty of care to the owners of the apartments. But it seems that there are still big gaps in the legislation there. And one of the things in the past there, has been that you had to get a special resolution to take legal action. I mean, it’s hard enough in New South Wales to get a simple majority of owners to agree to take legal action, because that’s an open-ended commitment.

Sue  03:55

You never know how much it’s going to cost.

Jimmy  03:57

Or even if you’re going to get a result. So imagine trying to get a special resolution to agree to legal action, but that’s changed now.

Sue  04:05

Where you need a 75% majority.

Jimmy  04:06

Special resolutions in Victoria are a bit complicated and weird. Anyway, they don’t have that for legal action anymore there. I suspect we’re going to see a lot more cases come through, of owners in buildings in Victoria saying “hang on, we’ve been sold a lemon here, and we want it fixed.” Fair enough.

Sue  04:28

Yes, absolutely.

Jimmy  04:29

I thought it was quite interesting, the story of the people who were featured in the story. I mean, it was awful; they’ve paid money for surveys and things like that, which should really have been paid for by the owners corporation. They found mould and they were told by the mould inspectors that they shouldn’t really be living there, because it was dangerous for them and their kiddie. The developer in the case of course, has wheeled out a truckload of expensive lawyers, so they’re just quite intimidating for people. You look at the hole in the ceiling; look at the water coming through from the bathroom… Look at all these defects, it’s quite obvious, but then the developer hires lawyers to somehow argue that black is white, and they don’t have to pay anything and that can be very intimidating for people.

Sue  05:18

Absolutely.

Jimmy  05:19

And I think (I think this applies to New South Wales and I’ve said this in the past); I think it’s time… You’re not asking for a guarantee, that all defects will be fixed by government insurance. But I think there’s a point at where the potential defects bill is so great, developers will fight defects in the courts, for as long as repairing the defects, would cost more than paying their lawyers. And if they can make a $1 difference between those two figures, they will fight in court and they will bully owners and obfuscate and delay and all these awful…

Sue  06:02

This is obviously only some developers. We know developers that have gone in and fixed all defects, because they want to have a good reputation. They want to have repeat buyers; they want the market to kind of respect them, really.

Jimmy  06:16

You’re right, and I should have said the bad operators; the bad actors in this. And you’re right, there are developers these days that are unbelievable, in how diligent they are in repairing. These are the ones that David Chandler talks about, giving them the five stars, the five gold stars, so that purchasers know they’re going to get properly looked after. I mean, every building has defects, it’s inevitable, but they can be fixed. So getting back to these bullying developers, the nasty guys; a lot of the time label prevail, because they have more money to throw at lawyers. It’s not because they’re right, it’s because they can keep the cases going and going and going.

Sue  06:59

That can be incredibly intimidating, because you kind of face individually private ruin, as well as an owners corporation in total, losing lot money. So it can be really hard to keep going, I think.

Jimmy  07:15

If you’re the figurehead for this, you’ve also got to deal with (and I hate to say it), backstabbing from your fellow owners, who will not support you, or will actually go against you and will actually undermine you, if you don’t do what they want. And that’s why I think when the defects bill reaches a certain point, the government should step in and say “okay, we’re going to take over here. We’ve got this insurance, we’ve got this fund. We are going to fix the defects and we are going to sue the developer.” Now the developer at this point (if they are at all business-minded), will go “oh, hang on. This isn’t a bunch of apartment owners; half of whom don’t know what they’re doing. This is a government, who’ve got their own lawyers, and they’ve got their own experts, and they’ve got unlimited amounts of money to throw at this. Maybe we won’t fight this in court, because we’re going to lose. Let’s just fix it.” It takes a real change of attitude in the government to say “we are going to look after people to that extent.”

Sue  08:19

Interesting idea.

Jimmy  08:20

Another interesting idea that the government will totally ignore.

Sue  08:24

Well, you never know.

Jimmy  08:25

You never know. When we come back, we’re going to have a quick chat about the levies bill scandal couple, that we spoke about two weeks ago. And, a very interesting update on what’s been happening there. That’s after this.

[MUSIC]

Jimmy

I tuned into Amanda Farmer’s podcast…

Sue  08:50

Oh, yes, the strata lawyer.

Jimmy  08:51

Yes, and you know, we get on, okay. She does a live podcast every Friday afternoon and we’ve been on it. She’s got her website and stuff going on. She and her co-host were chatting about the elderly couple from Earlwood, who (just to summarise briefly). Their building wanted to replace the windows. Their share of the cost was $18,000. They didn’t want to do it; they didn’t want to pay it. They didn’t pay it for a while and then of course, the penalty interest starts to mount up and they went to court, I think, to fight it and lost, so legal fees were added on. They started paying (and they paid off about $13,000 of the debt), and then some smart-arse lawyer told them to stop paying and then things just got out of control. By the time the appeared in the Sun -Herald newspaper, they owed $44,000. Now, the way this was presented in the Sun-Herald newspaper was, this was all the owners corporations’ fault, for pursuing these people, for a levies debt. As we have discussed at length… I said in a post that I put on the website (and Amanda reiterated this); opinions were divided equally between people who understand how strata works, who were saying “look, you’ve got a commitment, when you have a strata scheme. You have to pay your share of the costs of things, based on your unit entitlements.” Because they had quite a large apartment, their unit entitlements were quite high. They bought this apartment for $22,000, back in 1970. It would now be worth, at a reasonable estimate, a million dollars. A lot of people; a lot of observers thought well, if you’ve got a million-dollar apartment, you can reverse-mortgage that, or pick up a loan, or whatever, very easily. Now, this could all have been done right at the beginning and they wouldn’t have all this hassle. Then there are the people who don’t understand how apartments work, who were saying “this is awful! This owners corporation, they’re cruel and heartless, and how dare they and they’re going to have these people declared bankrupt,” and all that nonsense.

Sue  11:05

They don’t seem to understand an owners corporation is just made up of other owners. It’s not like some distant beauracracy, or something and if other owners are paying their debts, why would they allow one couple to not pay their debt, because then, they’re having to pick up the debt themselves?

Jimmy  11:24

And they had entered an agreement, to pay off the debt and of course, the one thing that will bring that agreement to a shuddering halt, is if they stopped paying, which somebody advised them to do. So, this was the situation… As much dissected and debated and kicked around, they were left with this debt of $44,000, and possibly, have been declared bankrupt. I mean, it was a real worst-case scenario thing; they were going to be declared bankrupt, the trustee would take over their apartment, sell it for a peppercorn amount (just enough to cover the debt), and they would be thrown out in the street, none of which was likely to happen.

Sue  12:06

And then somebody started a Go-Fund Me campaign, didn’t they?

Jimmy  12:08

One of their relatives.

Sue  12:11

So this could this could be the start of a whole new fashion, couldn’t it? People could start saying they couldn’t afford their levies and then other family could set up a Go-Fund Me thing for them. You just kind of think, that’s a bit kind of weird, isn’t it? You get debts in life, and you have to pay them. Otherwise, there are consequences. Go-Fund Me, well it’s great that kind-hearted people contributing, but really, there’s a lot of causes out there, which are perhaps a lot more worthy.

Jimmy  12:41

Than an old couple who got bad advice. Let’s assume they didn’t attend meetings, or didn’t attend enough meetings, or didn’t pay enough attention when they did attend the meetings, and maybe, didn’t read the minutes, etc. All that stuff… Didn’t get involved and suddenly gone “well, we can’t afford these windows, so don’t fix our windows, and we’ll be fine.” And it doesn’t work like that; it doesn’t work like that anywhere in the world. So guess how much the Go-Fund Me… This is based on Amanda Farmer’s podcast that I listened to last week. Go-Fund Me; they’re looking for $44,000… Guess how much they had last week?

Sue  13:24

$50,000?

Jimmy  13:24

$62,000.

Sue  13:26

Wow!

Jimmy  13:26

Probably more now. And it’s great that kind-hearted people want to help old people, but the level of misinformation and biased reporting and just simple naivety… Call it what you want; ignorance, if you’re being harsh. They didn’t need that money. They needed money; they didn’t need anybody else in the community to put their hands in their pockets, to bail them out. They were sitting on a million-dollar asset, that they could have traded in some way, to pay off the loans; to pay off the debts that they should never have had in the first place, because if they’d just paid their bloody levies, everything would have been sorted out. Here endeth the sermon! When we come back, we’re going to listen to David Sachs explaining how section 232 of the New South Wales Act, can be used in ways (unexpected ways), to resolve issues like costs and penalties and things like that.

[MUSIC]

Jimmy

It’s been recently (although it’s been on the statute for a long time), established that if you win a case against your owners corporation, they have to find their expenses through a special levy, from which you are excluded. I.e. loser pays  and if the loser is the owners corporation… That’s everybody who wasn’t involved in the case.

David Sachs  15:00

It’s been really developed; people really working on that now, so there’s some very clear provisions there. I think it’s section 104 of the Strata Schemes Management Act, that says, if you are a successful party in proceedings, either that you bring against an owners corp, or it brings against you, then the owners corp has to pay it’s costs for monies levied against all other lot owners, but not you. So you don’t pay to run an unsuccessful case against yourself, essentially. That’s been extended through section 232. Everyone loves to 232, now that the Court of Appeal has said it’s got such a broad ambit. And that’s now used if, for example, an owners corp lets water keep running in and an owner loses tenants (so they lose a lot of money in rental), that the rental compensation can’t be levied against the lot owner who lost it as well. That has to be paid by all of the other owners, under a special levie, too.

Jimmy  16:01

The failure to…

David Sachs  16:03

It’s just essentially resolving any disputes or complaints, within the strata scheme. It essentially gives the tribunal the power to make any order that is necessary to resolve a dispute or complaint in a strata scheme. It’s pretty broad language, and for a long time, that was considered not to cover an award for payment of money, right and then in Vickery’s case, the Court of Appeal said “oh no, it should be given broad interpretation; it’s facilitative legislation.” And so people  just use it for all sorts of things now. Back to our topic of levies; just this Monday, there was a decision of NCAT where they said “we can use 232 to wipe administration charges and interest charges on unpaid levies, if it’s appropriate to do so.” Sometimes, you know, levie notices get sent to the wrong address, or an email goes wrong, or something or other. I actually think in that case, they just got the email address wrong; it had an s, were an s shouldn’t have been and it just went to nowhere. If they’d given it a moment’s thought, they would have wondered why they hadn’t got any strata levies for the last eighteen month. But not withstanding, they didn’t get those notices and then they (for the grand total of $890), challenged it in NCAT and NCAT made a learned decision about how 232 could be used to, effectively, wipe off what is otherwise a statutory right to claim interest.

Jimmy  17:24

Slightly off topic; 232, does that imply an obligation by owners corporations to enforce their bylaws?

David Sachs  17:32

No, I’m not aware of any decision that says that 232 would require an owners corporation to enforce its bylaws, in the sense that a lot owner could bring proceedings against an owners corporation for a mandatory injunction, requiring it to issue a notice to comply. I mean, look, there’s always, you know, food for thought, in looking at any of these things, and you’re trying to work it around how 232 can be a ‘next’ to some of the other provisions.

Jimmy  18:05

I get into that argument a lot, with the people who come on my website. I spoke to Victor Dominello, back in the day and he said the second reading of the Act, clearly implies that there is a responsibility by owners corporations to enforce their bylaws. But as you say, has anybody ever pursued that?

David Sachs  18:29

But  just like any enforcement; anything, that’s enforceable, there’s always discretionary factors, in deciding whether you’re going to enforce it. Obviously, the police, for example, have a responsibility to uphold the law…They probably give an oath, when they become police officers, but it doesn’t mean that they’re required to book everybody who commits an offence. People are, you know, entitled to get warnings. People are entitled to be cut a bit of slack, people are entitled to have explanations given and listened to and by analogy, why wouldn’t a strata committee consider the same sort of factors that come up? I mean, surely, just because somebody else has got a more robust view about how the law should be enforced, it doesn’t mean it’s the right way of doing it. I don’t know why NCAT would exercise its discretion to prefer one person’s view about the way law should be enforced, to another person’s view. Because ultimately, isn’t that one of the things that’s in this little code book, with all of these strata schemes? People are meant to be able to make a lot of decisions for themselves, that are appropriate for their scheme, and they delegate that power to the strata committee and sometimes, they delegate it to the strata manager, and that’s the way we do.

Jimmy  19:43

There is obviously the option in strata for an owner, or any resident, to take action at NCAT, to have a bylaw enforced? Is that correct?

David Sachs  19:53

Yes, they can do those things, if they’re an interested person, if that’s what they want to do. I think you’d want to be quite careful about doing that. You certainly see ones where people are smoking on common property, or smoking in their lot in a way that’s allowing it to drift and then someone will decide to take that on, because they’re a campaigner against smoking and they think that’s important. So, you know, those things are allowed. There’s a really interesting issue about  when people carry out unauthorised works on common property, either in their exclusive-use areas or just attached to their property. They put an awning over the backyard, or something or other, and whether another lot; the strata committee might decide not to do anything, but another lot owner might be affected by it. And, the Tribunal today has rejected all of those claims, because they’ve said, it relates to damage to common property, and only an owners corporation can bring a claim for damage to common property. A lot owner can’t bring a claim for somebody carrying out work that was not authorised under Section 108 or Section 110, which are the renovation  provisions in the Act. Even under 232. I want to take on a case like that. I think I think it’s unduly limited the standing of lot owners to effectively enforce the proper compliance with strata law. Because you are (as a lot owner), a part owner of the property that’s being damaged, in a way. You should be able to say “I need to defend my little square inch of concrete.”  Well yes, I just think  it’s a bit illusory, to describe someone putting up an awning for example, as damage to the common property. I suppose if you drill a hole to fix it up, that’s damage, but really, you’re making an improvement. You’re adding, or altering, or erecting a new structure on the common property, to pick up the language of section 108 and that requires you to get a special resolution at the owners corporation, so why if someone does that without bothering to ask anyone, is that damaging the common property? Isn’t it just not getting permission to do something that you required permission for?

Jimmy  22:06

Although, some people might argue that, in drilling that hole to fix that awning, if that awning then damages the common property; let’s say it’s not properly fixed, and it breaks up the slab, or whatever, then the special resolution, the bylaw, has a provision in it that the person who installed the awning has to fix the common property.

David Sachs  22:29

To a degree, yes. I just thought damaging common property is where, you know, people…  I don’t know; I’m bouncing on my pogo stick, up on the tiles… I did this as a kid and I broke a lot of tiles. You might say, that’s me damaging the common property, or I crashed my car into a wall and knock it down, because I’m drunk. That to my mind is damaging common property, not adding some improvement. This dichotomy between individual rights in a strata scheme and the collective rights that have to be exercised through an owners corporation… There’s just always touch points right in it and it’s something that comes up all the time. The reality is like, as a strata lawyer, for every strata scheme, there’s (I don’t know what the average number of lots is, but probably 20-plus), always 20 lot owners, so there are far more lot owners that have got beefs’ with the way things are done in strata, than there are owners corporations who have got beef’s with…

Jimmy  23:31

Okay, that makes sense. Okay Sue, I know that you don’t get too excited about strata law and stuff like that. But, there are people out there who would have found that fascinating. He’s a good bloke, David. He’s been a sponsor of ours for years now. What I like about him is; I think I tend to get a bit excitable about legal things and he is a very calm voice. He just says no, that’s not how it works. When we come back, we’re (briefly) going to talk about some of the things we may have brought back from Bali (but not foot and mouth disease).

[MUSIC]

Jimmy

Here at Flat Chat, we’re always telling people that one of the benefits of apartment living is that you can just lock up and leave when you want to take a holiday. Well, if you’re looking for some inspiration on where to go to make the most of your freedom, take a look at Mild Rover.com, Our website for seasoned travellers. It has news, reviews and special travel deals, in which you can literally save 1000s of dollars. That’s mildrover.com, the website that takes you somewhere fantastic, even if you don’t leave home.

[MUSIC]

Jimmy

And we’re back from Bali, to the news that the Australian Building Construction Commission is about to be pared back…

Sue  24:56

By the Federal government.

Jimmy  24:57

Will that make any difference to apartment owners?

Sue  24:59

I don’t think it will, really.

Jimmy  25:00

 Good. We can just tick that one off and kick it into the basket.

Sue  25:05

And I think there was a webinar on the Hub the other day, wasn’t there?

Jimmy  25:08

I got this this email when we were away, saying ‘we’ve just realised that you haven’t registered to be here for this panel discussion of what we need to do on the Hub.’ I said “yes, that’s because I’m in Bali.” So they invited me to ask a question. I don’t know if it got any traction, or if it got mentioned, but basically, I said, is there any way that owners corporations can be compelled at their AGM’s to say “this is the information that we have supplied to the Hub…Here are the things that are; documents maybe, that might be missing and this is what we’re doing to recover or replace them.” I don’t know if that was asked. I’m going to be sent (I’m told), a link.

Sue  26:00

Okay, and you’re going to put that on your website?

Jimmy  26:01

I’m going to put it on the website, so everybody can find out if my question got aired. And then finally, on a much lighter note, I have this theory that Australian apartment bathrooms are based on hotels that people have stayed in while they’ve been away in Europe and things like that.

Sue  26:19

That’s right. I mean, there is a huge crossover between hospitality and apartment design. Lots of architects talk about the influence of Balinese hotels on them and Thai hotels. Because, you know, they’re very relaxing and they’re very minimalist. That’s kind of the fashion really now, for contemporary apartments. It was interesting, because we stayed in some resorts and there were kind of apartments, within the resorts. One of the places we stayed, COMO Shambhala, which is kind of a retreat in the jungle…

Jimmy  26:54

A health retreat.

Sue  26:55

Yes and it was a beautiful apartment-style…

Jimmy  27:00

It was almost like a house, wasn’t it?  Although there was another house, underneath it.

Sue  27:05

But with a big balcony all the way around and looking right over the jungle. It was absolutely beautiful. But the only difference was I suppose, that we were sitting there one day doing some work and suddenly, there was this scuttle from the balcony, and all these monkeys appeared.

Jimmy  27:20

We didn’t expect that.

Sue  27:21

No. And we rushed to close the doors, because it looked like they were coming inside, because it was raining, so they were getting wet.

Jimmy  27:27

It was showing it’s fangs at me, the monkey. But then I realised there was a young monkey in the jackfruit tree behind it.

Sue  27:38

So it was just protecting it, really.

Jimmy  27:40

 From this crazy Scottish guy.

Sue  27:42

That was interesting.

Jimmy  27:43

It was. The other place we stayed was COMO Uma and that was where the apartment;  the room was split in two, with a fish pond in the middle. So the bathroom was on one side of the fish pond and the…

Sue  27:58

Living quarters, like the bedroom and everything…

Jimmy  28:01

And there was a plunge pool out the back. I think we were worried that inevitably, at some point in the middle of the night, one of us was going to stagger into the fish pond, on the way to the bathroom. We managed to avoid that. And then, the last place was in Canggu. That was fantastic. That really was an apartment, wasn’t it?

Sue  28:20

Yes, that was. Very big though; probably as big as the apartment we live in, in Sydney.

Jimmy  28:26

Yes. The bathroom there was fantastic, it had this big, giant, two -person spa bath, which was great. Took about two hours to fill and three hours to get out of. But it was nice. It had the double-sink thing. You’re not convinced about the double-sink, are you?

Sue  28:44

I guess we always used to see double-sinks on American TV shows and I used to think “wow, how rich those people are, that they can have two sinks, so they can stand there side-by-side, cleaning their teeth. Actually, I prefer having two bathrooms.

Jimmy  28:59

The secret to a long marriage. We’re going to talk about our adventures on our other website, mildrover.com, eventually. We’ve got lots of pictures… I’ve never taken so many pictures of so much food, but the food is fantastic.

Sue  29:17

It is. A lot of it is organic as well, because it’s grown by families. Corporates have organic plots and they grow lots of their food there and some of it is just absolutely amazing.

Jimmy  29:32

Can you remember your favourite meal?

Sue  29:35

The COMO Shambhala; they were very much into health food. It was organic. It was quite simple, but the flavours were really quite intense and everything tasted so good.

Jimmy  29:47

I couldn’t believe I was having steamed greens for my breakfast.

Sue  29:52

Yes, that was a bit odd!

Jimmy  29:54

The meal of the holiday for me (twice-over, or was it three times); fish tacos.

Sue  30:01

I’ve never seen anyone so excited when they see fresh fish tacos on a menu.

Jimmy  30:05

I was in heaven. Okay, enough of this chat; it’s making me hungry. Thank you, Sue.

Sue  30:12

Pleasure, Jimmy.

Jimmy  30:12

And thank you all for listening. We’ll talk to you again soon.

[MUSIC]

Jimmy

Thanks for listening to the Flat Chat Wrap podcast. You’ll find links to the stories and other references on our website, flatchat.com.au. And if you haven’t already done so, you can subscribe to this podcast completely free on Apple podcasts, Google podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your favourite pod-catcher. Just search for Flat Chat Wrap with a W, click on subscribe, and you’ll get this podcast every week, without even trying. Thanks again. Talk to you again next week.

Flat Chat Strata Forum Current Page

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #64311
    Jimmy-T
    Keymaster

    Sometimes we are just too efficient for our own good. No sooner had we sent this week’s podcast off for transcription than the news broke that NSW Bui
    [See the full post at: Podcast: Defects, debts and dream bathrooms]

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Flat Chat Strata Forum Current Page

Flat Chat Strata Forum Current Page

scroll to top