House inspections

[George]

Would appreciate any thoughts on this situation.

My sister bought a house 6 months ago, based partly on a builders report which, while stating 'could not find access to sub-floor', had concluding comments of 'an older house in sound condition needing minor repairs' such as some window rot, new carpet etc.

I went down to help her paint the house and found some bulging weatherboards in a line 2 boards up from the brick perimeter base along one side. On removal, found the entire 4x3 perimeter bearer, ends of most joists and much of the bottom plate had dry rot. So the bulging boards resulted because the house had sunk into the mushy foundation timbers. Removed 3 boards up around the entire house and the result was similar, the only bearer still solid was possibly some heart wood with perhaps the rest being sap wood.

I rang the builder, who was certified and also a joiner, and after viewing said he could not gain access so not his problem. Said the bulging boards may not have been visible when he made the inspection a year ago. Also made the most mystifying statement 'a lot depends on what the house was bought for' meaning that if it was bought cheap enough could cover the cost of any repairs. On a second phone call to say we were taking the matter to a tribunal, he said his lawyer had said we didn't have a leg to stand on. Much is made of not being able to gain access and that the report was a visual one.

However, he also stated the gables were good when one was completely rotted out at one end because of no end to the galvanised spouting (which the plumber also missed - he also stated 'no access found' and there was a leaking main water pipe under the house).
Other visuals were 'glazing good' when the putty could be picked out with your fingers and sticking windows along the bad side which could indicate to an expert that something could be amiss. Much of the report was on things like 'kitchen cupboards had round chrome handles'.

On ringing around discovered that some inspectors on not finding access, ask the agent to ring the seller where it is or permission to knock a hole in the base - our builder said that would not have been appropriate.
Others ask the seller or buyer to find it and they return to complete the inspection. Some even have a little camera to poke through gaps. Our guy must have made about $100 an hour for his 1 hour visit plus paperwork etc. so to have made a return visit to do a thorough inspection would still have been a good earner.

My sister now has to pay to get the job done and pay $100 to go to a hearing and get some or all of it back. We have many photos of all the above. Am told that often they scratch their heads and award 50-50. One estimate was for 11 grand plus gst. As soon as the builder got out of his vehicle he noted the bad design of brick perimeter foundation with the boards finishing inside the face of the brick and a sloping mortar which was supposed to shed water but usually gets trapped behind. He had had a bad experience himself with that design suggesting that some builders may not. But surely a building inspection is about the building, the foundation, the bearers, joists etc UNDER the house and should be inspected at all costs. It should be stated that access MUST be available to do the job properly or there would be no inspection - just my biased opinion of course.

In my view this so-called builder should be made to pay full costs as he failed to inform the customer of the importance of sub-floot access. This was an accident waiting to happen as most houses would be at least ok and nothing would come back to haunt a superficial inspection.

Appreciate any thoughts on this
George