Build safely on a moral foundation
The Sun 1/7/2004
THE prime minister's proposal to do away with the certificate of
fitness for occupancy (CF) for properties strives to cut the Gordian
knot that has stymied the housing industry for a long time.
The CF is a measure designed to safeguard the property buyer's
interest by ensuring that the unit is completed to specifications
and is in a habitable state.
But if the process of obtaining the CF stubbornly works against the
consumer interest, the case for removing it should make sense. While
efficiency may be gained by such deregulation, it carries a serious
risk of default on the developer's part.
Without the local authority's technical officers looking over their
shoulders, dishonest builders may be encouraged to cut corners, as
the National House Buyers Association (HBA) has argued.
Of course, an aggrieved buyer can seek redress for breach of
contract. But such action may not always be practical or effective
-- as builders know too well.
Hereafter, we tread on soft ground.
Do we dwell on the list of charges laid at the door of developers by
disgruntled buyers, from crumbling masonry to sub-standard
materials? Would we risk the industry's ire, since they frequently
place advertisements in the paper, paying premium rates to promote
property launches in full colour?
Could we ask what purpose the architect serves as the chief
executive of a development, or is it impolitic to ask of a
self-regulated profession? Is it a wonder that a CF is necessary
when a building project cannot be certified fit except by a
chartered member of that fortress?
Engineers verify that every aspect of the building is executed in
accordance with the approved plans. The engineer must check on-site
that the quality of materials supplied does not deviate from that
specified and the integrity of works is not compromised.
The house buyer's signature on the sale and purchase agreement
chains him to the financial liabilities of the contract, which the
developer uses to hold him to account. Do not the architect's and
engineer's signatures on the project's progress reports carry the
weight of their professional judgment?
The 28,550 complaints received by the HBA in 2002 press for an
answer to that question, among others. Going by the conventional
wisdom that for every complaint lodged, nine others remain off the
books, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has ample
grounds to prove its relevance.
But pointing a finger at its track record is not without risk. Would
we be accused of having an agenda against certain people?
Cutting out the CF process may give buyers their dream home much
faster, but it misses a key point -- building moral fibre. |
| |
|
