One of my services is to inspect properties which have been bought off the plan so clients have peace of mind prior to settlement ('pre-settlement inspection').  Generally, the process goes pretty smoothly with hardly any major issues to hold up settlement.  However, it's always good to have a list of items which can be raised either to give the builder/developer fair warning that there are some things to be attended to, or to renegotiate a price (if the contract allows for it).  After settlement, there is also often a Defects Inspection which would be similar again to the pre-settlement inspection; hopefully by then they would have fixed most of the issues so there's less of a headache when moving in.

So when does something come up which might raise an issue for settlement?  Missing structures (e.g. missing walls), incomplete finishes (e.g. missing tiling, unlaid carpet, etc) or issues which don't allow "fit for purpose" - refer to the industry bodies and Department of Fair Trading for further detail.

I inspected a new development in Eastern Sydney a couple of weeks ago, and on the whole it was a lot more polished than the one I inspected in Ultimo previously.  This time there wasn't missing skirting, scratched floor boards, misaligned electrical plates and such.  But instead, there were signs of staining to the grout of the bathroom.  

Recently, I received a concerned email from a recent client about her new property which she bought off-the-plan.  Apparently, her property size had shrunk from what she originally paid for by five square metres (5m2), and was wondering why she was neither made aware of it during construction nor unsure if the property developer was pulling a fast one.  She had contacted the developer, who stated that the discrepancy of the size was due to how the area was measured at sale and at settlement.  

Depending on the contract signed, the floor space might reference difference floor areas such as Gross Floor Area (GFA), Nett Lettable Area (NLA), Fully Enclosed Covered Areas (FECA) and Unenclosed Covered Areas (UCA); it might reference one or a number of them, or might even mention that the areas are “indicative”. 

I established Improjex in March 2010 after completing the Audi Lighthouse project in Zetland and helping out with the Crocodile Exhibit refurbishment at the Sydney Wildlife Centre in Darling Harbour. Up to that point I had managed large projects ranging from $5M to $125M in predominantly commercial developments, with the odd retail and industrial projects. So why did I make the move then, in possibly the worst time in the global economy? 

I wanted to give a more personal approach to project management, without the overblown hype and lingo; a service where I could help out Clients that needed a friend in the field. 

So after the roller-coaster decline of the construction industry, especially in the last 12 months with a number of building contractors closing down (e.g. St Hillers, Southern Cross, etc), the high Australian dollar and our reliance on foreign investment and uncertainty with government, I've managed to hit the big 3 year anniversary! And besides overhauling the website, what am I doing next and learnt?

I've learnt that I'm going to keep offering personable services, because although it's not as popular with the big players in the industry, I believe that's the difference between really knowing the client needs and project than going through the motions.