[colinnewlandParticipant@colinnewlandJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 128]

December 26, 2012 - 6:19 am

I would also lodge a claim with the State RE Board with a claim that the agent exceeded their written authority. You should be able to get back the difference from the amount that you authorised and the amount spent.

In any new contract, I  would also set out what is defined as an 'emergency'. An item of repair may be urgent (repairing a water heater but it is not imperative that it be attended to immediately (like a roof being torn off in a storm).  

Also ensure that ant PM has several contacts for you (land line phone, mobile, fax, emails [work and private]).

Also make sure that the agent records EVERY action as a file note on your property, including date, time, discussion points etc on phone calls, fax sent reports from the fax machine (as a matter of course, attached to every attempt to send a fax).

Review every file note by ensuring that the RE agent sends PDF copies of EVERY event/action they deal with in regard to your property.

Get a copy of the previous repair report and the current report that required the change to a new hot water system.

Trust BUT Check (everything!).

[colinnewlandParticipant@colinnewlandJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 128]

December 24, 2012 - 9:59 am

Flick this issue straight to the Dept of Fair Trading.

If you paid via a Credit card (always), lodge a complaint with them that you did not received what you paid for (a 'legiable'  inspection report) and ask for a 100% refund.

[colinnewlandParticipant@colinnewlandJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 128]

November 6, 2012 - 8:58 am

Why the delay? If it has been delayed, can you get it delayed further until you get back from your holiday.

If you MUST get another party to do the final inspection just prior (say up to 3 days before settlement) then you must get pictures (and video if possible) along with a written report. You should be their yourself or failing that use a trusted management agency that you are paying for; that does NOT include the selling agent as they have a conflict of interest in getting this settled as soo.n as possible so they can get paid.

Take HEAPS of date stamped pictures in every room, of every item (light fittings, switches, heaters, fans, dishwashers etc inside and outside. If you have/need to do the inspection early and still go on holidays, make sure you get your agent to do another inspection just prior to settlement and have the report and photos emailed to you where you can then give final approval for settlement to proceed (in writing to your settlement agent/lawyer).

Can you delay your holiday if necessary? 

[colinnewlandParticipant@colinnewlandJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 128]

November 6, 2012 - 8:40 am

Silly question but did you take out insurance on the property the moment you signed the contract. You have an 'insurable interest' and would have got insurance in a heartbeat.

You must get at least a 'cover note' that covers you for the first 2 weeks (to allow you to shop around to get better quotes) at no initial cost. This can be done with a simple phone call to any insurance firm or broker.

If you have got this insurance, claim against them.

As for the Department of Housing, you do need a lawyer. Make sure he claims that the property you are buying is now 'substancially different' from what you have contracted to buy.

It may appear that they have also failed to properly secure the property.

Not sure which state you are in but some states allow for a 'cooling off' period so read your contract and make an IMMEDIATE withdrawal from the contract in writing (Email, fax and letter-cover all bases) if this option is available to you.

If you are forced to complete the contract, you will have been given the right to conduct an 'entry inspection' prior to completing settelement. This allows both parties to inspect the property to ensure that all is still in order. A typicial case would be that the old owners have removed the water heater, taken the pool cleaning system, taken up all the carpets, removed the fitted carpets kicked in all the doors in the house or painted slogans all over the walls (I assume similar to your case). This allows you to holt the transfer until these items are fixed by the owner at their cost.

I also assume that you had a 'subject to finance' clause' in your contract (please tell you did). If you have and you have made every reasonable effort to get finance ('on terms acceptable to yourself, via a named bank'-make sure you have that as a condition) then you can avoid the contract if that named bank states (in writing) that finance is not forthcoming either in its current altered state or at all.

I hope this assists.  

[colinnewlandParticipant@colinnewlandJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 128]

September 3, 2011 - 12:47 pm

Getting wet is one thing, allowing water to 'stand' for suck a period of time that it penetrates and then swells the floorboards isNOT fair wear and tear.As for the 'oversight'…she is responsible to ensuring that the preort is accurate in all details.
Hold her to the condition report and claim against her bond.

[colinnewlandParticipant@colinnewlandJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 128]

August 26, 2011 - 9:53 am

Hand the sub division to a local surveryer…you could expect a cost of between $2-3,000 and takes about a month. 

[colinnewlandParticipant@colinnewlandJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 128]

August 26, 2011 - 9:51 am

If you MUST render, ALWAYS tint the render first…it will save heaps later.
I do howver recommend spray painting (especially if you intend to sell or rent). It fast, cheap (about 10-20% of rendering) and looks great and when you get tired of it, you can change the colours.

[colinnewlandParticipant@colinnewlandJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 128]

August 26, 2011 - 9:40 am

It is legal to have a boarder/house mate/friend in your house who makes a 'contribution' to household expenses (power, water, gas, interest, renting furniture, wear and tear of equipment etc).  You both decide what is fair.

As for the ATO, cost sharing/recovery should not be defined as income nor should it affect your CGT exemption.

It should not affect your FHOG either as long as YOU occupy the property for at least 6 continuous months, starting within 12 months of settlement/completion.

[colinnewlandParticipant@colinnewlandJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 128]

August 26, 2011 - 9:28 am

I completed 2 paint reno's (inside and out) and asked to be given trade prices (for 50-60% off retail). I now get top quality paint in the quantities I want/need and always get to keep some over for later touch-ups and accidents. To push this a little further, get a couple f friends who are thinking about doing their own renos and get a bulk order the first time out and ask for rade prices up front AND ensure that yu can continue to get trade at a later date. 

Ask for trade prices; the worst that can happen is they say no.

Remember, a top quality job is ALWAYS in the preparation (sugar soap on the walls to remove all dirt, grime and grease is a MUST) and then filling cracks and hole. This is what takes the time (a least 50% of the cost of labour) and 'almost' anyone can do it…yourself or a handy man (but they charge like tradesmen lately). Then get in a qualified painter if you must and they should be in and out very fast at a much cheaper total cost.

[colinnewlandParticipant@colinnewlandJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 128]

August 25, 2011 - 8:44 am

Do not get confused between what is 'adding value' like an extra room/an outdoor living area as compared to repairs and maintance (new paint/carpets etc).

If you spend $10K on new paint and carpets, you may get an increased valuation of between $10-15K and make it easier to sell (reducing your holding costs and allowing you to move quickly onto the new profit making deal. However, if you spend $15K by doing the paint and carpets AND dividing a LARGE room into an extra bedroom/office, you could add $30-45K to the deal.

Living space is what adds value.

[colinnewlandParticipant@colinnewlandJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 128]

August 24, 2011 - 1:18 pm

There is no such thing as 'can not' or 'impossible'. Its just a matter of cost; the cost of the builder that has caused the building to be constructed not according to the agreed contract.

[colinnewlandParticipant@colinnewlandJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 128]

August 24, 2011 - 11:13 am

Speakto a finance broker who specialises in 'commercial' property development. There are waysto get around the lack of future income (other than the property income itself).Depending on the equity held in property, she should qualify for a development loan as they banks will do a valuation on the end value.

Another way to deal with it is to go into partnership with a reputable builder where she provides the land and they provide the materials and labour and finance.
She talks a % of the profit by way of retaining several of the finished developments (as will the builder, who may or may not sell them to get to his profit).
This is a good method as it take sthe stress out of getting a LARGE loan with the builder completing ALL the paperwork AND you get to retain ownership of the land until the final sale to an end buyer.
You will provide him with several options (one covering each unit to be passed on) to buy (at a pre determined price) and a licence to enter the property for the purpose of completing the building development. As you are not (yet) selling the units, the builder will not be required to pay stamp duty. Stamp duty is paid by the final buyer who takes the option to purchase from th builder. This prevents double payment of stamp duty and retains the builders cashflow.

You will need sound legal and financial advice to use this method buy well worth it in the end.

[colinnewlandParticipant@colinnewlandJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 128]

August 24, 2011 - 10:21 am

They are trying to bluff you into settlement before fixing the matters. Once they have their money just see how long it takes to fix (aka = never). You are in the drivers seat, they fix it BEFORE settlement or no settlement.
A pre-selelment inspection is usually arranged at least a week prior to settlement not on the same day…They are banking on you feeling obliged to settle before they are fixed as you will have already arranged for the bank and lawyers for that day.

Get your lawyer to advise the other party (in writing and by registered mail of course) to:
1. make good the contract conditions or to have them repaired/fixed at least 7 days prior to settlement AND
2. to arrange for a pre-settlement inspection (take lots of pics and video) no later than 5 clear working days prior to settlement AND
3. have him advise the other side that settlement will NOT take place unless and until the items have:
A) been fixed AND
adequate compensation has been given to you to cover the 'reduced value of the property due to the mistakes/altered finish AND
C) for additional legal costs.
While you may not refuse settlement in the end due to 'minor' (as yet to be defined) you are entitled to be compensated for the unauthorised changes that have reduced the value of the property. 

They want 100% of their money on settlement day; do you think they are will to risk that instead of changing a bathroom door and/or to flip you a couple of thousand dollars due to the changes….along with all the delay in time and money to try and force you to settle? I think not.

Be polite but FIRM but fair in stating the end state that you need them to complete prior to settlement, then stick to your guns.  If they see weakness they will roll over you.

[colinnewlandParticipant@colinnewlandJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 128]

August 24, 2011 - 8:57 am

Agreed.

Remember, there appears to be no evidence that the property was not and is not still "…occupied by an applicant for a continuous period of at least six months…" being based on an inaccurate/false assumption (being the level of power/water/gas bills) that everybody must spend the same amount for every house no matter how many people live there or their personal life style or working situations.

[colinnewlandParticipant@colinnewlandJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 128]

August 24, 2011 - 8:47 am

1. It does matter if council approved the design, your contract states something different and needs to be fixed before you take delivery.

2. It IS possible to change, it is NOT impossible/too late to change, especially the bathroom door. They just do not want to spend the money to fix THEIR mistake.  Mistakes, honest or not need to be fixed.  They caused the changes, they pay to have it fixed.

3.  'minor' adjustments to plans, rooms sizes etc should have been advised to you ASAP before completion.

4. Write to your lawyer to get him to order the items fixed, making sure that you advise that settlement will not be completed until they have been fixed and/or a reduction in price to compensate you for the reduced room sizes and additional legal costs.

5. Fire your lawyer if he fails to follow your instructions then engage a new lawyer and advise him to complete item 4 above.

[colinnewlandParticipant@colinnewlandJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 128]

August 24, 2011 - 8:25 am

You have it in a nut-shell…a "revenue offence". No such 'alledged' offence has been or could have been reasonable arrived at.
Just being a state revenue service does NOT negate the requirements of that office to first seek the infomation from the 'alledged offender' or to advise him that the infomation is to be obtained from a 3rd party. The Vic SRO MUST first seek the info from the individual.
It appears that the Vic SRO obtains private info as a matter of course without first contacting the person concerned, a clear breach of the Act.

Only AFTER the Vic SRO has the details in front of them could they every come to a conclusion that an 'offence' has/could have/might have been committed. They are not entitled to go on a fishing trip.

Assuming the Act was not breached (which I contend has been breached), there is no evidence that the property was not
and is not still "…occupied by an applicant for a continuous period of at least six months…" being based on an inaccurate assumption (being the level of power/water/gas bills) that everybody must spend the same amount for every house no matter how many people live there or their personal life style or working situations.

Stick to your guns ,then when the dust settles, look at lodging a formal complaint for breachs of the Act.

[colinnewlandParticipant@colinnewlandJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 128]

August 24, 2011 - 7:58 am

Make an offer; the Bank can only say 'No' or put it on the market and wait months for  buyer with addition lost interest income, fees/expenses etc.

Is your client still looking are recovering his $150K via a VF 2nd mortgage with you or will he maintain/place a new lien on the property?

[colinnewlandParticipant@colinnewlandJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 128]

August 24, 2011 - 7:50 am

This is not the ATO nor the AFP, its the Vic SRO and in every case they need a prima faca case of wrong doing before they can get access to private data. Are you saying that you accessed personal data without a warrant such as phone records, power/water/gas bills? And data sharing/matching only relates to sharing of data between govt departments and not private companies.
Even the AFP is restricted in what they can and cannot access. I refer you to Section 7 of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) (TIA Act). The TIA Act generally prohibits interception of telecommunications. The main exception to this prohibition is interception under a warrant. Under sections 46, 46A and 48 of the TIA Act a telecommunication interception warrant, a named person warrant and a warrant for entry on premises can only be granted for investigations of serious offences as defined in section 5D.
The Vic Information Privacy Act 2000 – SECT 9 shows that privacy must not be violated by a Govt department or its agents (including outsourceing [private investigators]).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ipa2000231/index.html

Application of Act  9. Application of Act  (1) This Act applies to-     (a)  a Minister;     (b)  a Parliamentary Secretary, including the Parliamentary Secretary of         the Cabinet;     (c)  a public sector agency;     (d)  a Council;     (e)  a body established or appointed for a public purpose by or under an         Act;     (f)  a body established or appointed for a public purpose by the Governor          in Council, or by a Minister, otherwise than under an Act;     (g)  a person holding an office or position established by or under an Act         (other than the office of member of the Parliament of Victoria) or to         which he or she was appointed by the Governor in Council, or by a         Minister, otherwise than under an Act;     (h)  a court or tribunal;          (i)    the police force of Victoria;     (j)  a contracted service provider, but only in relation to its provision         of services under a State contract which contains a provision of a         kind referred to in section 17(2);  
There are exceptions of course: ie. Law enforcement by a law enforcement 'agency' [as defined under he Act].
Information Privacy Act 2000 - SECT 13 

Law enforcement  13. Law enforcement  It is not necessary for a law enforcement agency to comply with IPP 1.3 to 1.5, 2.1, 6.1 to 6.8, 7.1 to 7.4, 9.1 or 10.1 if it believes on reasonable grounds that the non-compliance is necessary-     (a)  for the purposes of one or more of its, or any other law enforcement         agency's, law enforcement functions or activities; or     (b)  for the enforcement of laws relating to the confiscation of the         proceeds of crime; or     (c)  in connection with the conduct of proceedings commenced, or about to         be commenced, in any court or tribunal; or     (d)  in the case of the police force of Victoria, for the purposes of its         community policing functions. 
IPP means Information Privacy Principle;  law enforcement agency means-     (a)  the police force of Victoria or of any other State or of the Northern         Territory; or     (b)  the Australian Federal Police; or     (c)  the Australian Crime Commission; or     (d)  the Commissioner appointed under section 8A of the         Corrections Act 1986; or     (e)  the Business Licensing Authority established under Part 2 of the         Business Licensing Authority Act 1998; or     (f)  a commission established by a law of Victoria or the Commonwealth or         of any other State or a Territory with the function of investigating         matters relating to criminal activity generally or of a specified         class or classes; or     (fa) the Chief Examiner and Examiners appointed under Part 3 of the         Major Crime (Investigative Powers) Act 2004;     (fb) the Special Investigations Monitor appointed under Part 2 of the         Major Crime (Special Investigations Monitor) Act 2004;     (g)  an agency responsible for the performance of functions or activities         directed to-     	(i)  the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution or punishment of         criminal offences or breaches of a law imposing a penalty or sanction         for a breach; or     	(ii) the management of property seized or restrained under laws relating to         the confiscation of the proceeds of crime or the enforcement of such         laws, or of orders made under such laws; or     (h)  an agency responsible for the execution or implementation of an order         or decision made by a court or tribunal, including an agency that-     	(i)  executes warrants; or     	(ii) provides correctional services, including a contractor within the         meaning of the Corrections Act 1986, or a sub-contractor of that         contractor, but only in relation to a function or duty or the exercise         of a power conferred on it by or under that Act; or     	(iii) makes decisions relating to the release of persons from custody; or     	(i)  an agency responsible for the protection of the public revenue under a         law administered by it; 
You will note that the party must believe "on reasonable grounds" (s13) that non complienance is necessary. 
This is the main point; it is NOT reasonable for a party to assume wrong doing based on the low level of spending of a power/water
or gas bill, without taking into account the circumstances of the person concerned. An assumption has been that every person 
MUST fit into a 'normal' level of spending.
To access private data without 'reasonable grounds' is a breach of the Vic Infomation Act 2000.

As to the method of collecting private data, the Information Privacy Act 2000 - SCHEDULE 1 requires that private data be collected
from the individual concerned [s1.4]. Only then can it seek info from another person, after first informing the individual the 'must take reasonable steps to ensure that the individual is or has been made aware of the matters...' [s1.5].

1. Principle 1-Collection  1.1. An organisation must not collect personal information unless the information is necessary for one or more of its functions or activities.  1.2. An organisation must collect personal information only by lawful and fair means and not in an unreasonably intrusive way.  1.3. At or before the time (or, if that is not practicable, as soon as practicable after) an organisation collects personal information about an individual from the individual, the organisation must take reasonable steps to ensure that the individual is aware of-     (a)  the identity of the organisation and how to contact it; and     (b)  the fact that he or she is able to gain access to the information; and     (c)  the purposes for which the information is collected; and     (d)  to whom (or the types of individuals or organisations to which) the         organisation usually discloses information of that kind; and     (e)  any law that requires the particular information to be collected; and     (f)  the main consequences (if any) for the individual if all or part of         the information is not provided.  1.4. If it is reasonable and practicable to do so, an organisation must collect personal information about an individual only from that individual.  1.5. If an organisation collects personal information about an individual from someone else, it must take reasonable steps to ensure that the individual is or has been made aware of the matters...

On the facts presented, it does not appear that the individual has been given the opportunity to provide the infomation required before
the Govt department obtained private infomation from a private power/water/gas company (without or without a warrant).
Neither have they taken 'reasonable steps to ensure the individual was made aware of the matters'.

Putting the failure of the Vic SRO to abide by the Infomation Act 2000 to one side for the moment, the clerk conducting this
matter has failed to look at the personal circumstances of the before seeking infomation of an alledged offence.

Even assuming the Act was no breached (which I contend has been breached), there is no evidence that the property was not
and is not still "...occupied by an applicant for a continuous period of at least six months..."


Stick to your guns then when the dust settles, look at lodging a formal complaint for breachs of the Act.

his 
 

[colinnewlandParticipant@colinnewlandJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 128]

August 23, 2011 - 1:47 pm

TerryW, I do not know which country you live in but here in Australia police and govt agents still need a warrant to get copies of documents from private companies. As for private investigators getting access to private data, forget it! The 'only' agency that I know of that did not need a warrant was the WA Industrial Relations Department inspectors in regard to wage records; even the police HAD to get a warrant to obtain the same private and confidential material and that was BEFORE the Privacy Act came into effect. 

Even if (and that is a BIG if) they got such records it still does not negate the fact that people are: 1) entitled to live away from their PPOR for however long they like; 2) Having a small power, water and gas bill is NOT evidence that it is not his PPOR, rather it is evidence that his bills are small and nothing more than that; 3) Suspicion is NOT proof that it is NOT his PPOR; 4) It is still the law that they have to PROVE the facts alleged before his has to provide a defence.

The Vic "SRO gathers information via the public [dobbed in], data-matching [from public records; this does NOT include private company records unless under a warrant**] and other sources to ensure recipients of the Grant comply with the 6 month residence requirement." http://www.sro.vic.gov.au/SRO/sronav.nsf/childdocs/-6BF180369BCB3975CA2575A1004420CF-FFEFCD2ABA129376CA2575CB0001A2F0?open
** We would all be happy to be enlightened as to what power the Vic SRO has to be able to gather private document without a warrant?? The same goes for private investigators', who I understand are private citizens

The Vic SRO also defines:
 

"Principal Place of Residence [as]…

The home you primarily reside in. This home must be occupied by an applicant for a continuous period of at least six months commencing within 12 months of the completion of the eligible transaction."
http://www.sro.vic.gov.au/SRO/sronav.nsf/childdocs/-6BF180369BCB3975CA2575A1004420CF-8024A4ADFB9DAED9CA2575A1004420DC-517A6BE594B53E7FCA2575CB0000A442?open

The definition states that it is:
 A…."the home that you primarily reside in….[and]
The home must be occupied by the applicant;
C) …for a continuous period of …six months….
D) …commencing within 12 months of the eligible transaction [either settlement or completion of construction] with each of the 4 items being required to be met.
So;
1) "Primarily' means "essentially; mostly; chiefly; principally, mainly": It does not mean 100% of the time; at best that might mean 50% of the time.
2) 'Occupied' means "To dwell or reside in; To hold or fill (an office or position); To seize possession of and maintain control over".
 'Occupied' includes dwell in or reside in or hold the property or to seize possession or to maintain control over'. No where does it say that the application must ONLY reside in the said property or for what % of time would be considered a minimum requirement.
3) 'By the applicant'.  This does not mean that he can be the only occupant of the property.
4) 'for a continuous period of 6 months; self explanatory and
5) This period of 6 months can 'start' at any time within 12 months…

In a nut shell, as long as you lived in the house and did not rent or lease it out to a 3rd party and you maintained control over the property for 6 months, starting no later than 12 maths after settlement/completion then there is no way that there is any requirement to solely reside in the house and nowhere else AND to rack up bills that some party considers to be 'normal usage'.
What is 'normal uage' anyway? Is that for one person or for a family of 6? Is that for one guy or a house full of childern that spend hours racking up water and hot water bills by taking long, hot showers? {I shared a house with 3 guys with an 'average power bill. One of the guys had his daughter visiting 2 days a week plus every other weekend for 3 months; the power, water and gas bills doubled with just that one 7 year old child beccause she would stand under the hot shower, twice a day for 30 minutes at a time.}

The onus remains on the Vic SRO to PROVE their case.

[colinnewlandParticipant@colinnewlandJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 128]

August 23, 2011 - 9:52 am

I hope its not too late for us all
Look at rent to buy options as a way to get back into the game; this requires limited cash as youtake over someone elses mortgage then manage the final sale to a buyer afte rthen have added additional equity via completing a reno at their cost.
As long as you have at leat $20K (as an absolute min) so you can pay expenses and meet the initial mortgage payments and pick the right houses you should be OK and have no need to qualify for a bank loan ever again.
I STRONGLY advise you to work with somone on your first few deals who has a solid reputation in this area; get your knowledge and dip your toe in the water gradually.
Ask for contacts via this blog.

Best of luck.