Inflammable cladding ‘not a major defect’

Apartment owners in unit blocks more than two years old are faced with a “pay up or move out” dilemma if they discover the same dangerous cladding on their buildings that caused the ‘towering inferno’ in the Lacrosse building in Melbourne last year.

While industry experts are calling for building inspections to discover exactly how many high rises have the inflammable aluminium cladding,  some owners corporations may adopt a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ approach as only ‘major’ defects can be claimed within six years.

Under the defect claims rules introduced at the beginning of this year, non-major defects have to be claimed within two years.

But surely inflammable cladding is a major defect? Not necessarily, according to Fair Trading.

“Aluminium composite panels can be used appropriately and safely as part of a building’s external walls and cladding,” a Fair Trading spokesperson told Flat Chat.

“Therefore, the fact that a building has included this type of aluminium cladding as part of its construction does not necessarily pose a problem, and so would not necessarily constitute a ‘defect’ or a ‘major defect’ as defined in the Home Building Act.”

“This requires case-by-case assessment. It would depend on the size, nature and design of the building involved.”

The Fair Trading statement went on to say that the use of inflammable cladding in a building could constitute a major defect if it was attributable to defective materials and caused or was likely to cause … “the inability to inhabit or use the building (or part of the building) for its intended purpose.”

In other words, the defect would only be considered “major” if the local council or fire officers decided the risk was so great that the building had to be evacuated until it was fixed.

So strata owners in buildings with cladding face a tricky decision.  The law demands that owners corporations maintain and repair their buildings, regardless of who should pay – and that includes rectifying defects while, if they can, getting the developer or builder to pay for it.

However, to qualify for the six-year defects claim period, they would have to show the risk was great enough to merit the building being declared uninhabitable.

If your building was more than two years old, would you be in a hurry to discover whether or not any cladding was safe or not?

How many committees are going to hope nothing major happens, rather than making a claim against the developer or builder that could end up with everyone homeless until it was fixed or a bill for tens of thousands of dollars to replace dangerous cladding that the law demands they remove?