Developer Approved Front Render Colour Then Decides It Needs to Be Changed

LExopius on 06/09/2018 - 11:02
Last edited 11/09/2018 - 01:17 by 1 other user

So my house is nearing completion and I get an email from my builder saying that the developer doesn't like the front render paint saying it's too bright (wife chose orange) and needs to be changed. We accepted and chose a different colour but now the builder is charging us for it.

The issue here is that in the prestart meeting we were already willing to change the colour straight away if the developer wouldn't approve of it but they approved it. The developer did specify that bright colors for painting would be approved first in which they did. I am now asking my builder for evidence of the approval by the developer to use against the developer.

Now just wondering if there is a breach in the HBCA and if I am in the right here? I'm willing to get a construction lawyer if this ends up in me paying for it.

UPDATE: So I've talked to the developer and apparently the one at fault here is the builder as the color that they put for approval is just the name of the color. They didn't mention the brand of paint they were going to use. As a builder, I would be more detailed in describing these colors so as not to confuse the developer. Who would thought that there would be two kinds of "comets tail" for paint color? One being blue and the other being dark orange.

Anyway, I believe both of them are at fault but the bigger fault would be the builder. I don't understand why I have to pay the price for their mistakes.

Home & Garden

Comments

  • Almost Banned on 06/09/2018 - 11:52
    +1

    Did you sign a variation with a cost included?

    • Exopius on 06/09/2018 - 13:43

      Not yet bbut the builder has given us the paper to sign it

      • Almost Banned on 06/09/2018 - 14:16

        So - don't sign it.
        If the developer insists they can seek your approval to have it done at THEIR expense.

        • Exopius on 06/09/2018 - 16:34
          +1

          True, just need proof that they approved it first.

  • HighAndDry on 06/09/2018 - 12:03
    +2

    First:

    Is this a house-and-land-as-two-separate-contracts deal? I'm assuming so, otherwise the developer and the builder will be one and the same and there shouldn't be room for disagreement.

    Second:

    If they are two separate deals, how's it structured that the developer still has a say on what you can or can't build, because the land should already belong to you free and clear.

    Third:

    I get an email from my builder saying that the developer doesn't like the front render paint saying it's too bright (wife chose orange) and needs to be changed.

    Christ, change it to a more normal colour, pay the extra charge, and thank your lucky stars the developer gave you the perfect excuse to not go along with your wife's idea for house colour. You'll be thanking them in 7-10 years or whenever you're trying to sell the place.

    • [Deactivated] on 06/09/2018 - 12:28
      +5

      What's wrong with orange? It's high vis so you'll never overshoot or drive into it.

      • HighAndDry on 06/09/2018 - 12:31

        Lol. That might also be a blessing in disguise though. Relevant Google image search.

        • [Deactivated] on 06/09/2018 - 12:36
          +1

          It works with certain architecture.

          My neighbour cheaper out of copper cladding and used powder coated copper look panels instead.

          Turned out orange and looks like crap. Will definitely affect resale value as it is a multi million dollar street.

        • HighAndDry on 06/09/2018 - 12:37
          +1

          @tshow:

          powder coated copper look panels

          Just reading that made me cringe. Heck, reading that on the description of some consumer appliance would already be bad enough, and then you remember this went on a house?!

        • [Deactivated] on 06/09/2018 - 12:39

          @HighAndDry:
          Feature facade of the house no less.

          It's an oceanfront-adjacent property so the lack of natural patina makes the house looks cartoonish.

        • HighAndDry on 06/09/2018 - 12:45

          @tshow: There's no accounting for taste I guess. Though if they have enough money…. but they cheaped out on actual copper cladding…

        • [Deactivated] on 06/09/2018 - 12:52

          @HighAndDry:
          Could be a bad case of keeping up with the Joneses.

        • HighAndDry on 06/09/2018 - 12:56

          @tshow: But it's like buying a tricked out Hyundai Tiburon to compete with your neighbour's new DB11. At a distance, if people squinted and had a bad case of astigmatism, they might look similar, but it fails at any closer than 100m. Which rather defeats the purpose of using it to keep up with the Joneses.

          But again, people. I give up trying to understand (some of? most of?) them.

        • [Deactivated] on 06/09/2018 - 12:58
          +1

          @HighAndDry:
          Won't work here. Someone on the street has a vintage fully original and running Bugatti. My direct neighbour is poor. DB9 and a few Porches. Poor common folk.

        • HighAndDry on 06/09/2018 - 13:02
          +1

          @tshow:

          vintage fully original and running Bugatti.

          I'd honestly (almost) be more impressed at their dedication to car history than I am at their presumably solid gold house.

          DB9 and a few Porches.

          Oh, what a embarrassment. Don't know why you're even bringing him up in conversation, I mean I'm progressive like that, but you should be careful about admitting to knowing these people in public.

        • jonathonsunshine on 06/09/2018 - 17:47

          a lot of those don't look half bad. i'd choose a "color", dunno if orange but not a variation of white

        • [Deactivated] on 07/09/2018 - 12:57

          @jonathonsunshine:
          Orange is a variation of white.

          Look at Donald Trump…

        • jonathonsunshine on 07/09/2018 - 23:59

          @tshow: I'd vote orange, just wouldn't paint my house with it. I'd vote orange and paint my house blue.

    • steff on 06/09/2018 - 12:32
      +2

      I was just thinking the same thing as your point 3. Who on earth paints their house bright orange??

      Maybe OPs wife is going for a "who lives in a pineapple under the sea" style? lol

      • [Deactivated] on 06/09/2018 - 12:45
        +2

        SPONGE BOB SQUARE PANTS!

        I'm a simply dude. I hear oceanic residential pineapples, I shout Sponge Bob.

  • [Deactivated] on 06/09/2018 - 13:14
    +4

    what shade of orange was chosen? ozbargain orange?

    • Austin 316 on 06/09/2018 - 13:25
      +1

      OP's wife is so dedicated to OzBargain

      • Exopius on 06/09/2018 - 13:44

        Haha a bit brighter like tangelo orange.

  • tsunamisurfer on 06/09/2018 - 17:38

    Orange???

    Time to find a new wife.

  • TimOfEastBNE on 07/09/2018 - 07:53

    Some poor advice here. You need to consider what the cost to repaint is compared to the cost of litigation. In general, developer covenants are hard to enforce, and unless you are one of the early build blocks, unlikely they would bother. It's going to cost you between $200 and $400 to get some proper legal advice, and much more if you had to fight it. If you already had an approval in writing for the colour, they are no tlikely to win a case against you. If you don't have their approval in writing, somewheat harder.

    • Exopius on 07/09/2018 - 17:17

      My builder has documents that have them approving the color. Builder said that the developer didn't double check the paint with them anymore before approval. I only want them to shoulder the variation of the color change. If they decline then that would be the only time to take legal action. It's their fault, why should I put out more money for their mistakes?

  • [Deactivated] on 07/09/2018 - 21:16

    What does that sort of variation cost?

    Surely if they have not actually done the work yet then there would be room to negotiate.

    • Exopius on 08/09/2018 - 00:52

      Builder is charging $1000 for it. Said it's the best price they could do. They can't start it until we sign the variation in which I'm not going to unless the developer pays for it. Still need to talk with the developer about it.

      • [Deactivated] on 08/09/2018 - 15:17

        So they have not put any render up yet? I kinda curious how they justify $1000 (other than we figured you would pay it).

        Most builders don't order materials to they are needed (I know I sell sheet metal roofing we get the order a day or 2 before it gets delivered).

        I would really be pushing the builder hard to justify that charge and negotiate it down (assuming none of that work has been done)

        • Exopius on 09/09/2018 - 11:34

          First render is already done hence the change of mind of the developer saying it is too bright. I think because they need to scrape the paint again or do something before they repaint it is why it cost that much but yeah it is still too much to pay for that much. I did ask them to bring it down but they said that was the best price which is still unreal.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/09/2018 - 17:24

          @Exopius:

          Render is not usually painted they put dye in the cement when they are mixing it up.

          If they have already done one coat then $1000 seems fair enough.

        • Exopius on 09/09/2018 - 20:57

          @seano2101: Thanks for the info on that. Good to know we're getting a fair price on that. But still would like to talk it out with the developer and let them pay for it.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join