WHY HAVE HOMEOWNERS ESCULATED TO INVASIVE INSPECTIONS? 

Homeowners are forced to provide the QBCC visual evidence through invasive inspections that they themselves or their licensee refused to acknowledge prior to covering up the defective and non-compliant building works.

This is the pattern I am seeing across the multiple home sites I have attended purely to provide the QBCC visual evidence that they or their licensee refused to acknowledge prior to covering up the defective and non-compliant building works.  All to ensure the regulator issues 'Direction to Rectify' the defective works &/or to ensure that the QBCC don't deny their Home Warranty Insurance Claim.

For a homeowner this invasive inspection and expert reporting is expensive and creates validation that the QBCC are neglecting to address the deeper structural issues performed by their licensee's.  These issues are not just isolated disputes between a homeowner and a builder. The escalation I’ve seen is owners literally opening up walls both externally and internally after the dwelling is completed to prove months or years later that the QBCC and their licensee fail to adhere to the basic governing regulations, legislation and codes within the building industry.  It is clear that

1.     Defect's are going unchecked due to the "Lack of Site Supervision"

2.     Systemic lack of support from the regulator – QBCC

3.     QBCC default of conscious bias for their licensee’s 

4.     Administrative interpretation rather than mandated legislative & technical merit

defects.

INVASIVE INSPECTIONS should not become the normal functioning regulatory system & signifies an extreme breakdown by the regulatory body and their licensee’s.

1. QBCC Licensee’s and their Regulator fail to detect early-stage defects &/or enforced compliance.
2. QBCC Evidence thresholds become unrealistically high with the homeowner’s shouldering the burden even though it’s clear their licensees have clearly and demonstrably been non-compliant with mandated legislation, codes and manufacture’s installation requirements. 
3. QBCC places the evidence thresholds at unrealistic heights towards the homeowner and relies upon their own internal interpretation frameworks instead of legislation and codes that mandate the building industry.
4. QBCC Fragmentation of responsibility needs to be split between the Builder responsibility, Private certifiers and QBCC enforcement.
5. QBCC Procedural Delays, partial information, or narrow interpretations of legislation has eroded procedural fairness, increase financial pressure on homeowners & incentivise escalation just to be taken seriously 

By the time multiple experts are involved, positions are entrenched.  The QBCC furthermore then reject legitimate complaints based on wording or administrative interpretation rather than on technical merit.