Why Aren't There Laws Similar to ACCC for Properties?

• 

  Kousuke Nakamoto on 01/06/2015 - 16:37

  I feel the same way too. It's buyer beware! There's no one to turn to when shit happens and no one would be accountable for your loss but yourself. That sales contract that you sign on the dotted lines is bias against the buyer.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons

  laws should be enacted that property sellers must provide independently endorsed building inspection report just like a vehicle inspection report.

  Things that I believe that must be thoroughly scrutinised:

  1. Energy rating and liveability report
  2. Condition of internal electrical Wiring
  3. Broadband availability and condition of internal telephone/cable Wiring
  4. Pest inspection report
  5. Structural integrity
  6. Gas/water Plumbing issues if any
  7. Conditions of built in appliances
  8. Home security rating
  9. Bank valuation on the property from the four banks
  10. An estimate on repair costs

  This will greatly improve transparency

  • 

    Settero on 01/06/2015 - 17:19

    +3

    i found your post funnier than i should have.

• 

  dbun1 on 01/06/2015 - 16:43

  What exactly die the REA say that makes you think this?

  What would constitute a defect? With property what one would call a "defect" another would call a touch up job. Where would you draw the line?

  Some properties are advertised as "renovator's dreams" or "knock and build your dream home", so clearly in those cases the REA knows the property itself has no appeal.

  You also have the right to negotiate into the contract/your offer your own set of conditions i.e. "subject to building inspection", "subject to pest inspection" etc.

  • 

    keyman on 01/06/2015 - 18:01

    Nothing in particular with my experience however it's the general feel I get when reading online and doing my research. Most go along the lines with "don't trust what REA says", "take every word that comes out of their mouth with a grain of salt" along with the standard clauses in the contract that says the REA is not liable for anything said outside of what's listed on the contract.

    For example, if the REA has told you that something will be fixed before settlement, you cannot rely on this unless it is included as a special condition in the Contract. I understand that they're not the "seller" but they are effectively the ones who are "selling" and marketing the property to you. Most of the times, you don't have direct contact with the real owners/sellers.

    I guess I'm really dreaming for there to be some kind of protection for buyers where things are a lot more transparent and there's no need to spend money each time you want a contract reviewed to make sure there are no hidden "gotcha's" on a property you may not even end up buying. Also, I just wanted to hear what people's thoughts are on the matter after having just very recently going through the process myself.

    • 

      Settero on 01/06/2015 - 18:04

      -1

      i never understood why people who have a written contract already in place think verbal amendments are sufficient…

      • 

        jaybmate on 01/06/2015 - 20:48

        In other areas/industries, verbal contracts/amemdments are just as binding as a written contract. It's pretty common.

      • 

        Ughhh on 01/06/2015 - 20:56

        +1

        @jaybmate:

        I think the problem with verbal contract is, while its binding, it's hard to prove what was said and agreed. One could deny it or change it and unless you have 3rd party eyewitness/bystander, you got no proof- basically he said she said. For important things, I would say its worth the effort to have it all written down so that both parties have a copy. Soley relying on verbal contract is a dumb move imo.

• 

  retiredfeline on 01/06/2015 - 17:25

  A stands for agent. They are not the seller. Caveat emptor.

• 

  Settero on 01/06/2015 - 17:39

  +1

  i assume you are talking more about the consumer protection laws than the fair trading part.

  its unreasonable to expect a consumer to be able to hire someone to inspect each individual item they purchase, thus the consumer needs some sort of protection so that they can freely buy smaller items with little worry.
  a property on the other hand , you are expected to hire someone to inspect and evaluate the property thus you need less consumer protection, as the cost is rather negligible when compared to the cost of a property.

• 

  donnie darko on 01/06/2015 - 17:52

  There is Fair Trading

• 

  kipps on 01/06/2015 - 20:33

  However in regards to properties, most contracts have clauses stating the REA holds no liability in what they say. Basically Caveat emptor. Obviously with most things you intend on purchasing, the buyer has to do their due diligence and as much research as possible but shouldn't there be something to protect the buyer from what REA say?

  Misrepresentations are unlikely to be avoided at law by such clauses.

  Also, when trying to buy a property, you may spend thousands doing building/pest checks which many others will do too for the exact same property and then in the end you may not even end up buying it why isn't there a law where you must provide a report in order to sell the house muck like trying to sell a vehicle in Victoria where you must obtain a RWC. It would be way more cost efficient and in my opinion attractive to buyers if sellers just provided the reports upfront and maybe incorporate it into the price of the property for the successful buyer.

  Because the building/pest inspector would be engaged, and selected, by the seller, and the seller may simply get 10 reports and only publish the most favourable one.

• 

  pebee47 on 02/06/2015 - 13:13

  Yep, it's Caveat emptor all the way, unless you can prove (via an expensive court process) that someone said it was something it wasn't.
  Most States have similar standard RE Institute contract forms. These basically say that one party agrees to purchase a particular property, with or without various provisos, from a particular other party, for a certain amount, on a certain day, and that a certain sum of money has been paid to make the contract binding.
  The provisos are the point where you can insert the conditions that have to be met for the sale to be completed. This is were you say you need a building inspection or a surveyors certificate (to say the fences or building are in the right place) or if you need Finance approval or the toilet needs fixing, etc etc.

  The period of time between having the offer accepted and the date of Settlement is when all these conditions are to be met. The message here is that if there is things to be done, allow enough time before Settlement for it to happen. Finance approval can vary, but straight bank loans take about 5 days from when ALL necessary bits are with the lender. After that you get the building inspection etc done. Usually, allowing 5 or 6 weeks until Settlement reduces the stress considerably!

  The REAgent is usually employed by the Seller and is there to apply all there experience to get the best outcome for the Seller. There is also the possibility for the Buyer to hire an Agent to get the best deal for the Buyer. Most Buyers (99.999999%) don't as it adds to the costs for them.

  The bottom line is that it is the Buyers responsibility to ensure what they are buying is what they want, and in a condition they are happy with.

  Even brand new houses can leak