Podcast: The other strata trap, post Chandler

We start this week’s podcast by looking back at the previous episode which has broken all our records for regular downloads.

It’s not surprising really, given that it was a chat with ABC TV Four Corners investigative reporter Linton Besser about how and why he pulled together the Strata Trap report.

At more than 450 downloads after only a week, this one will run and run, as they say in showbiz.

This week we look at another of strata’s big problems – defects – through the eyes of Acting Building Commissioner Matt Press.  What’s happening with defects now that Building Commissioner David Chandler has retired?

One thing that hasn’t changed is the Building Commission’s tendency to use initials,  acronyms and fancy techie terminology. 

So, just in case you are wondering, the “LDI” referred to means Latent Defects Insurance or it could be DLI (Decennial Liability Insurance).

Either way, it’s a 10-year insurance against defects that the better developers are able to take out, for the first time in decades. Maybe they could call it Defects Insurance. Too on the nose?

Apart from that, Matt Press assures us that even though David Chandler has gone and Project Intervene has been absorbed into the Building Commission’s complaints process, the good work in making sure apartment owners get what they paid for continues unabated.

That’s all in this week’s Flat Chat Wrap. 

Transcript in Full

Jimmy  00:00

Well, what a week on the podcast.

Sue  00:02

It’s been pretty successful, hasn’t it?

Jimmy  00:05

Last week, as regular listeners to the podcast will know we had Linton Besser, the reporter from Four Corners.

Sue  00:13

Oh, who did that strata report on TV?

Jimmy  00:15

Yeah, The Strata Trap. And we had him on and he answered a few questions from us. And right now, on a Wednesday morning, we’re looking at just a shade under 450 downloads.

Sue  00:29

Wow, that’s fantastic.

Jimmy  00:31

Double. That’s double what we normally get.

Sue  00:33

Great. OK, we’ll have to have Linton on a bit more. He’s got it. Why that was, I mean, was it because a lot of people actually watched the TV show and they were interested in any follow up questions.

Jimmy  00:45

Absolutely, I think that was it, and we were trading on the coattails of the hard work that he’d done. I mean, people were still talking about it two days later, when we went live and we went live early with the podcast, just a day early, which by the weekend, we were over 350 downloads, which was more than we normally get for the whole week. People are interested. People were talking about it. I mean, it’s just everybody I’ve met for the past week has been saying, Did you see the

Sue  01:17

That’s right.

Jimmy  01:18

I feel like saying, Oh no, was there something on TV? Did I miss it,

Sue  01:21

But it was good because it was really national as well. I mean, he’d obviously gone to great trouble to include Adelaide and everywhere really

Jimmy  01:28

Well, they kind of have to. When they’re doing a Four Corners, there’s a national TV show, and that’s one of the problems with getting reporting done. You know, people are saying, oh, Four Corners should come and do this thing about my building here in this area of Sydney, and you go, well, unless it’s gonna have a national angle on it, then they’re probably not gonna do it. But anyway, it’s been terrifically successful, and hopefully the next one will be too. We have been speaking to Matthew Press, who is the Acting Building Commissioner now that David Chandler has retired,

Sue  02:05

And he answered lots of questions, didn’t he? He was great.

Jimmy  02:08

He was so let’s listen to that interview, and we’ll have a chat after that. I’m Jimmy Thomson. I write the Flat Chat column for the Australian Financial Review,

Sue  02:17

And I’m Sue Williams, and I write about property for the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Fin Review and Domain,

Jimmy  02:22

And this is the Flat Chat Wrap. This morning, I’m talking to acting building commissioner and otherwise assistant building Commissioner Matthew Press, who’s joined us on the podcast, welcome Matthew.

Matt Press  02:48

Thank you, Jimmy, always good to chat to you.

Jimmy  02:50

I don’t think we even need to get into what happened on Four Corners the other night. That’s not really your area of concern. I’m sure you’re glad to see.

Matt Press  03:00

Look, it’s not our specific area of concern as the building regulator, but obviously something that we are concerned about. Because, as you know, and all your listeners know, there’s a lot of intersection points between the way in which buildings are regulated and the way in which there’s managed. So yeah, there are linkages there that we’ve got to help Fair Trading and the Strata Commissioner work through

Jimmy  03:22

Well, we’re just about to be joined by Sue Williams, who’s walking into the room right now. You know Sue from previous discussions, I’m sure.

Sue  03:30

Hi, Matt.

Matt Press  03:31

Hi Sue.

Sue  03:32

Nice to all you. I’m sorry. I had something else,

Jimmy  03:36

And we’re all anxious to get this done before the great debate starts. Are you going to watch that?

Matt Press  03:41

Are the US debate? Look, I’d love to watch it, but I think I’ve got it more than enough in New South Wales to keep me busy.

Jimmy  03:51

All right, Matt, question one, we know that Project Intervene was, I think, by any measure, a terrific success. It was oversubscribed. What has happened with it?

Matt Press  04:02

It’s still going. So the Project Intervene was was really a pilot. It was trying to use the new powers that we were granted by government, particularly under the under the RAB Act, to see if we could take a more direct and effective approach to try and resolve buildings that were completed in the last six years and and had left owners suffering with trying to resolve those defects under their own steam. As the you know, the data showed which we have, which are now two, two research reports on this, owners corporations, when they’re trying to resolve defects for themselves. It’s both very costly, a lot of money spent on expert reports and then mitigation, and very time consuming, probably a third of those cases taking near the three year mark year. So it’s about trying to intervene, as the name suggests, and hold builders to account and give the owners corporations some certainty. So there’s a process agreed to to fix the defects, and in a much shorter period of time they can get on with the rest of their lives.

Jimmy  05:07

I mean, the Project Intervene was basically, and I may be misrepresenting this, but people would go to get to the point where they were getting, were not getting satisfaction from their developers. Would come to the Building Commission. You guys would intervene, and your experts would then assess the defects and then ask the developers to fix them. Is that a fair summary?

Matt Press  05:30

Yeah, so people engage with us. They could have been in a process for some period of time with the developer or builder, or they could be starting sort of reasonably afresh. We’d take both of those two scenarios. We then organized for inspections of the building. We’d focus on the issues which the owners corporation had raised to us, you know, the defects that I’m most concerned about. But also part of those inspections, we were doing dip sampling across the rest of the building, because we wanted to make sure that we didn’t miss anything that was a serious defect and not have it picked up as part of the process. We then turned that inspection report essentially into a draft order, a draft building work certification order, and put that on the table and say to the developer or builder, “look, we’ve got this list of issues here. We’re minded to turn this into a into a final order under the RAB Act. But what we’d really like to do is agree through an undertaking process which gives us a bit more flexibility about how we can work through a methodical process with you and the owners corporations to get these defects fixed.” So we would essentially sign the developer up to a up to a process, they agree. We then refine the defects and have the owners corporation come as the third party. And then, I think, as a novel approach, we’d have an Undertakings Manager as the essentially the supervisor, making sure that what was agreed between all of the parties, both in terms of process and defects is actually what’s occurred, and I think that’s been an aspect of the program that’s really given all parties a lot of confidence, because it’s made sure that we’re not getting into situations where the developers sort of walking backwards from that agreement, or the owners corporations start to lose confidence, because they’re not really sure if what there’s been told about a remedial solution is really going to hit the mark.

Jimmy  07:23

So, I mean, has Project Intervene? I know it’s been absorbed into the Building Commission. Is it over as it changed? Is it a different thing?

Matt Press  07:33

So the the Intervene itself is, is continuing. It adds something like 227, registrations, so the team are still completing those, and most of those are already in a, you know, in a process i.e. agreed to a deed or the the parties haven’t agreed. But for the new projects that come online, instead of using Intervene as the front door, we’re now having Building Commission and its standard complaints process as the front door. But in responding to those complaints, we will use the new processes and the expertise we have in Intervene to resolve them.

Sue  08:08

And what is the success rate? Have you had kind of 90% of buildings and developers agree, and only 10% then go on to legit, to litigation? Or is it higher or lower, or is there any kind of

Matt Press  08:20

Yeah, so, so about 40% of the buildings that have come to us have been resolved through the process. 10% have not been able to go through the process because they there wasn’t a party left to hold account. i.e the developer and builder had had gone into liquidation, administration, you know otherwise, not around. So that’s, those are pretty good rates, particularly when you consider, if we look at the survey work, that the main process that people have been following is litigation under their own steam, and that’s reaching around a 17% success rate. So we’re, we’re well above that. And I think 40% is pretty good for for the start of this program.

Sue  09:02

Yeah, that’s fantastic. That’s a lot of people’s lives who haven’t been ruined by money and the stress of going through litigation, I guess so what

Matt Press  09:10

I think that’s, that’s, that’s the pleasing thing internally. You know, the the team are so proud that when they have one of these buildings signed up to an undertaking and going through the process that they really take on that there’s 200, 150, you know, people’s lives that are now improved for the better.

Sue  09:26

Absolutely, it’s fantastic. And so what would be the trigger now for an application to the Building Commission for intervention?

Matt Press  09:32

So we, we want people to be confident about raising any issue with us. We still have only about a third of buildings with serious defects do reach out. So we’d like to increase that. The types of defects that we could particularly looking to resolve is those more serious ones. So serious ones around the common property, waterproofing is a particular area, and also fire safety systems, depending on the age of the building, that defines what we can what can achieve. So if it’s in the first two years of occupation, we’ve got powers to have more minor defects resolved as well. Once it’s beyond that, it’s really more talking about the more major or serious defects. And so an example of the type of things that we might we know we’re interested in is around bathrooms that either that have leaks or there’s significant ponding or pooling there, that we might have cracks in basements, or walls which have gone beyond sort of shrinking cracks and they’re now in that more uncontrolled state, or wet walls in basements which really aren’t performing, you know, as intended. And that’s really complex one for us to look into, because sometimes it’s the design of the system, other times it’s poor maintenance. But through this process, we work through those issues with the owners corporation.

Jimmy  10:53

So does the Building Commission have the power to go into a building, go into apartments that have been recently constructed, and say we need to check because bathrooms are common property, or much of them the floors usually are. Do you have the power to go in when the owner of the apartment, who might still be the developer, says, I don’t want your people coming into my building. Can you move in?

Matt Press  11:19

So we do have the powers of entry. Unfortunately, we have had a few scenarios where the owner, who hasn’t been a developer has actually refused us entry, and that’s that’s, at times, been a frustrating part of trying to get defects resolved, because we’ve got powers to force those issues. But in terms of us considering our resources, we’d really like to be there with the, you know, the consent of of the owners themselves, and not have to go down that pathway. But it has been the case where a few people have refused to allow us entry or refused to allow even work to occur. And so that’s challenging

Sue  11:54

Is that just because they didn’t really understand or

Matt Press  11:57

Look, I think people can quite value their privacy as a starting point, be unsure about the process, unsure that they might, you know, have their have their their lot or their bathroom out of action for a prolonged period of time. So I think yes, a general lack of lack of confidence is probably the best explanation from what we’ve seen.

Sue  12:16

Yeah, I guess it’s difficult, if it’s tenanted as well. It provides another layer of complication as well.

Matt Press  12:22

Exactly, exactly. But look, those, those situations have been the minority, and I think it’s about people start to become more aware of of how the process works and what it’s been able to achieve. That hopefully people become more confident in those issues, you know, start to fall by the wayside more and more.

Jimmy  12:39

Yeah, I’m thinking about situations where the developer may have been unable to sell a number of apartments and wouldn’t be super keen on having the Building Commission coming through and looking at the bathrooms, which, I mean, it seems to be a fact of life, isn’t it, that you’re going to have problems in bathrooms in just about any building. Is that fair to say?

Matt Press  13:04

Oh, look, I think that’s probably an over, over overestimate. I mean, waterproofing is actually one of is actually the defect that has gone the same way water has and towards the drain. So in the last four years, waterproofing defects have been reduced by about 20%

Jimmy  13:24

Wow,

Matt Press  13:25

Builders, builders and developers and contractors have really got the message that we’re focused on, on falls, that, you know, achieving that the one in 80, one in 100 we’re looking at overflows on balconies And that is an area that has significantly improved in New South Wales, quite pleasing to see.

Jimmy  13:45

There’s a sense in the strata community that if you get the Building Commission involved, they’re going to you guys are going to present Rolls Royce solutions where a Toyota Corolla would suffice. And by that I mean that because you are acting under legislation, you’re bound by the letter of the law to do everything to make it perfect, rather than just right. Is that fair?  Look, there’s not too many Rolls Royces rolling around government, Jimmy that I’ve seen. But, but no, no, and I can, and I can appreciate why people might think that, but really by having the Undertakings Manager, that’s the person we’re trying to sort of put between the two and effectively arbitrate. So we’re setting out through the inspections clarity and what the defect is at that point. So yeah, so we have a quick understanding of what was the requirement under the building code or the Australian Standard, and therefore, what’s the difference between what we observe and that standard? The solution, then, is to be developed through the process, and it’s that Undertakings Manager who’s really helping join the dots on what solution is appropriate. They’re not so much looking for the Rolls Royce solution as holding the developer. and builder to account on making sure that the solution actually solves the root cause.  Yeah,

Matt Press  15:04

So what the defect we actually resolve? Let’s absolutely make sure that what’s being proposed solves that problem, not everything else, but that problem. And most of the time, sorry, some of the time that’s also about sort of, you know, giving the owners corporation comfort as well, because sometimes they’ve got expert reports, which can be the Rolls Royce solution, you know. So back to the bathroom. The Rolls Royce solution, by the expert report, could be that whole bathrooms got to come out, you know, bath, literally, the kitchen sink, as the problem could just be in that enclosed shower area. So that’s the only area we need to pull up the tiles or re waterproof. So that’s probably more in the moment we see that the owners corporations have been led through, led to believe, through expert reports that the solution must look like such. But actually it doesn’t necessarily have to. And the process is really about making sure the owners corporation get a get a fair and reasonable deal there.

Sue  16:00

And that’s the value of having the Building Commission involved, isn’t it, really. Because I remember when we went into litigation against our developers, and we had, we had a number of expert reports, and we would tend to go for the fabulous Rolls Royce solution, because then we could, we knew that in the negotiations and stuff, there would be room to kind of downgrade to a lesser solution, but would still be a solution, but you’re kind of, you know, subverting that, really, by just getting in there and just saying, “Well, this needs to be done”,

Matt Press  16:26

Yeah, and that’s why the you know this choosing Undertakings Managers that we’ve now got an established panel on, you know, and they bring their construction experience to this, so they can sort of call out the BS, if you like, and, you know, but, but holding position of, you know, let’s make sure that the owners corporation do have this issue solved. And we’re not, not coming back years later, and the Undertakings Manager has almost formed like a community of practice, which we facilitate, encourage as well, with regular catch ups. So they’re sharing information and knowledge about how they’re resolving these issues to try and ensure there’s consistency. But also, you know, increased capability amongst that group because it has been so new.

Jimmy  17:08

Your predecessor, the recently departed David Chandler, could be a scary man at times. Do you think the developers are generally a bit scared when they get a phone call from the Building Commission.

Matt Press  17:22

Look, I think they understand that we’re going to hold them to account, and that while David’s been very much the public face of the Building Commission, there’s a whole organization that’s now built up behind him and behind that role, and they are just as as passionate about trying to have seriously defective buildings resolved. I think that developers and builders understand that our approach will be firm but fair, and that we’re, we’re really trying to get them to a solution as quick as possible, because most of them don’t want to go down this pathway as well. You know, like, also get, get drawn down the litigation pathway both sides can end up in that, in that pathway. In the main most of them would, would prefer to have certainty and what needs to be done, so they can get on it with doing it, and move on to the next project,

Jimmy  18:11

Right. So you can say, basically, do you want to do this the easy way or the hard way? And a lot of them are saying, let’s do it the easy way.

Matt Press  18:18

Let’s do it the easy way, and use the flexibility of an undertaking where we’ve got agreed process, but flexibility to to iron out exactly how things are done. The alternative option is that we we apply our powers under orders, and we just issue the developer or builder with a final Building Work Rectification order, and they can get on with following that. That’s a relatively blunt instrument. It has the same effect, but it just doesn’t give the same scope. As an undertaking to have all of those support processes there.

Sue  18:49

And they probably prefer dealing with you, don’t they? Because when they deal with owners, there’s so much emotion there, and often so much history, it can really amp up the temperature all the time.

Matt Press  18:59

It can, it can. And so as part of this with the team, have really got out of the office, not just in terms of inspections, but in terms of engaging with the owners corporations. So they do offer to go to the AGMs of the owners corporations when they’re deciding to sign up to these undertakings, so that they can ask the questions, and again, help to give that confidence. And I think that’s really powerful as well, you know, because there is a lot to absorb, a lot to understand, and so that sort of time with them, I think, has been a really fantastic piece of the program.

Jimmy  19:33

It’s interesting. You mentioned fire safety as being a defect. I’m going to say this is a hypothetical, but it’s not really a strata management company that has vertical integration that includes a fire safety company has given the developer a clean bill of health on the fire safety. And then along comes a fire an independent company that looks at the fire safety and issues a three page document of faults. And I suspect strongly that the new fire guys come in and they want the Rolls Royce solution. And I suspect that the fire safety company that’s working for the strata manager is maybe underestimating.  Is that the kind of thing that people could come to you and say, can you just step in here?

Matt Press  20:21

Yeah, absolutely. We want to hear about that, that sort of issue. It’s only relatively recently that that reforms were introduced in that space. So we now have a person who there’s an accredited  person to perform that role, and that’s under the FPAS Scheme. And we have seen over the last couple of years that the newly accredited person has taken a different view to the work done prior. And I think that’s picking up on the, you know, some of the situation, the hypothetical situation that you mentioned there previously,  But I have the sense that things are now starting to change, because there’s accredited people doing doing that role, and because the FPA that runs that accreditation have been auditing those persons, I think we should now be starting to see a general uplift in performance and fewer scenarios where we have different opinions on the same issue. But it’s absolutely something we would like to hear about so that we can make sure that the system is working and and hold those people to account if they’re not performing their role appropriately. Because it is very expensive, Fire Safety,

Jimmy  20:56

Yeah,  Yeah, absolutely,

Matt Press  21:32

Very important. It’s not something you want to skimp dimes on.

Sue  21:36

And I know, as you said, you’ve got a big organization there, and you’re all kind of really fine tuned to pick up these problems, and which is amazing and fantastic. Is there going to be a new Building Commissioner appointed sometime soon, though, as well, or are you working quite happily without one or

Matt Press  21:53

Look, we keep we keep going. We keep going, regardless. I’m acting Building Commission at the moment, and I’m very honored to take that role while recruitment is resolved. But I think it’s just a matter for us as maintaining the focus and maintaining the momentum and continuing to improve. You know, we’ve had a really positive few years with David and and and sort of implementing the new reforms. We’ve got to keep going, and we’ve got to kind of uplift across all areas of building regulation and give them the same level of attention that the Class Two has had. And then there’s, you know, there’s plenty of areas for for improvement, but the fantastic thing is, the team are up for it. You know, they’re coming, coming with ideas. They’re really energized about making Building Commission, New South Wales the best regulator it can be. We don’t need an army to do that. We just need to make sure that every interaction we have is as good as it possibly can be

Jimmy  22:48

Great. Well, look, Matt, we’re rapidly running out of time. And thank you very, very much for coming on. And I know you’re a very busy man, but it’s really good to know that things I mean we feel because we’re kind of close to strata, and we’ve been writing about it for 20 years now that the last couple of years, in terms of the ICERT Gold Stars, all those different innovations have made a huge difference. So congratulations from us to you and your team for what you’ve achieved.

Matt Press  23:18

Thanks, Jimmy. I think I think that’s the way forward. You know, I think, I think that the corners now started to turn in terms of the industry seeing a new way forward through things like ICERT and LDI. You know, the fact that we’ve got 55 buildings now with LDI in place is a significant improvement from where we were five years ago. We’re the only jurisdiction in the world where waterproofing is considered under those policies,

Jimmy  23:46

Wow,

Matt Press  23:47

That’s fairly substantive. And then the next phase of that is to get to senior loan liability insurance, which has even more protection. So I think we’re on the right pathway. There’s always going to be that bottom industry to cause concern, and I think hopefully that’s where we’ll spend the majority of our time sorting out, and the market will see the incentives to do better and keep moving in that direction.

Jimmy  24:08

That’s great. Well, thanks very much. Thanks for talking, guys. We’ll talk to you again sometime soon, I hope. Cheers,

Matt Press  24:16

Thanks, Jimmy, Thanks, Sue.

Sue  24:17

Thank you.

Jimmy  24:25

Well, that was really interesting. Yeah. I mean, the we’re in a strange situation right now, in strata, the Building Commissioner has retired. We have an acting Building Commissioner who’s, you know, a very competent member of that team, it has to be said. And that’s Matthew Press, who was just talking to us just now, the Strata Commissioner has stood aside, but there doesn’t seem to be any movement in that area. So we kind of feel more in the strata side that we’re a little bit in limbo. Yeah, sure. You know, there’s a lot of big decisions need to be made in a hurry, and the kind of, everybody’s just, I don’t know,

Sue  25:05

On hold. And it’s hard because, I guess, because we don’t have a Strata Commissioner at the moment we do, but he’s kind of sidelined, yeah, um, you kind of wonder what’s going to happen. Is he going to be replaced, or is he going to come back? Or will, I mean, the worry for me is the New South Wales Government might think it’s all too hard and end up abolishing that role,

Jimmy  25:24

But they abolished it once before

Sue  25:26

They did

Jimmy  25:27

The Coalition Eleni Petinos, the famous Eleni Petinos, decided that the Strata Commissioner Commission role was not required. She was very her focus as Fair Trading Minister was very much on small business. So John Minns found himself out of a job round about the same time as David Chandler resigned in protest at some of the pressure he was being put under

Sue  25:55

To talk to rogue developers.

Jimmy  25:57

Yeah, like, just

Sue  25:58

Them kind of

Jimmy  25:59

Yeah, John Nassif,

Sue  26:02

That’s right,

Jimmy  26:03

And then suddenly it was Eleni Petinos, who was gone. She got the cardboard box clear your desk, and John Minns was back, and so was David Chandler. And the rest is strata history, well so far,

Sue  26:17

But the worry is that they just won’t reappoint the strata commissioner or appoint a new one. They’ve got to, haven’t they? Really. I mean, there’s so many people now living in the strata, and so many more people predicted to live in strata in the next few years. They really, they have to have somebody there, don’t they?

Jimmy  26:36

But their problem is that, one of the problems is that right now, three of the biggest strata management companies in New South Wales are being investigated by Fair Trading because of their vertical integration models, where they say, they say, “Hey, look, it’s great. You’ve got your strata manager, you’ve got your building facilities manager, you’ve got your your insurance broker, you’ve got your legal firm, and we’re all under the same roof, and we’re saving you heaps of money because we’re all integrated.” And the reality seems to be

Sue  27:14

A complete lack of transparency about that,

Jimmy  27:17

And you’re not saving money, you’re getting charged more. And somebody’s written to me just this week saying that one of these big companies has been negotiating building remediation, which should cost about $200,000 but the actual bill is $800,000 because of agency fees, up and down the line of that vertical integration,

Sue  27:45

Six hundred thousand on that,

Jimmy  27:47

Yeah, so they’ve managed to quadruple the cost by by taking a piece of the action at every level. And that’s the problem. That is a real problem. Allegedly. The big problem is that these big strata management companies are about profit and not about service. I remember, I was taken into one of the companies that’s been investigated. I was taken into their office, and they said, We’re going to show you this fabulous computer model of how our integration works. And I thought, well, that’s going to be really interesting. So I went there and they showed me this CGI video of a kind of toy town. And they went, Oh, that building is our strata management building, and that building is our, you know, it’s not real. There’s nothing real about this. It’s just you’ve you’ve done a computer representation of how your systems are connected, except you’ve done it as a series of buildings in us that don’t exist in a street that doesn’t exist in a town that doesn’t exist, and it doesn’t make any difference. You might as well have shown me one of these Linky diagram things. I have a feeling that the next big move will be that these strata companies, strata management companies, will be told to divest some of their other companies, to dis, de, integrate, disintegrate.

Sue  29:14

Does Fair Trading have the power to order that

Jimmy  29:17

I don’t know. Does Fair Trading have the will to order?

Sue  29:20

That’s true, and as well, they would possibly appeal against that and say that is a stranglehold on their ability to be financial viable. Financially viable,

Jimmy  29:31

All right? And on that less than happy note,

Sue  29:33

Yes,

Jimmy  29:34

Thanks for being part of the interview with Matt Press, and thank you to Matt if he’s listening, for coming in online and talking to us. And thank you all for listening,

Sue  29:47

Bye,

Jimmy  29:47

 Bye,  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. So you can subscribe to this podcast completely free on Apple podcasts, Google podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcaster, 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.