Sydney man's half house....

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/home/builders-of-700k-half...

Reading this news I'm wondering , did owner never inspect house while it was being built…Something is not adding up here….

Comments

  • +107

    “Here have my money to build a house”
    3 years pass
    “Hmmm I wonder where my house is, I’ll go check”

    Yeah definitely something not said here. Who waits 3 years and does absolutely no checks while their house is being built?

    • +19

      It's complete and utter bullcrap.

    • +28

      three years later he told A Current Affair

      • +33

        Tracey has been off for the last 2.9 years eating pies.

        • +6

          Yes, I'm sure she's been eating various things, including, but not limited to pies.

        • -2

          Tracey has been off for the last 2.9 years eating pies.

          Didn't she eat Naomi Robson causing Today Tonight to be pulled of the air ???

          • -3

            @jv: Must be lesbian.

      • +2

        Mr Aryal employed the services of Zac Homes for a custom off-plan build worth $322,400 in 2016 and let the business get to work, saying he “trusted the process”.

        When he checked on the progress three years later he told A Current Affair he “nearly fainted”

    • +76

      The owner is lying, he knew what he was getting.
      This is 100% on the owner, but the building company is getting the blame despite repeatedly informing the idiot of exactly what he was purchasing and building.

      "When the bank asked to see the plans, Mr Aryal asked Zac Homes for the plans. He passed them on to the banks and admitted to A Current Affair he did not look at the plans, which were for half a duplex."

      "In a letter to A Current Affair, Zac Homes maintained Mr Aryal was made aware of his home's redesign and had an opportunity to get out of the agreement after the plans were amended.

      The company said this was evidenced by Mr and Mrs Aryal's attempt to negotiate a discount, intention to onsell the lot, the restriction being registered and a copy of the plans being provided to them. "

      https://au.sports.yahoo.com/homeowner-disbelief-after-paying...

      • +1

        Given the profile, I reckon this owner was also trying his luck by selling his story to ACA to gain $.

        Greed knows no bounds.

      • He knew what he was getting into and purchased a duplex. The problem lies with the owner of the other side of the duplex who pulled out of the sale and council / town planning who will not issue the occupation certificate as lot is to be a semi-detached duplex. It is not the builders fault and they've already offered a $23,000 discount to assist the owner.

        The owner is also a broker and should've known what he was getting into as he had multiple opportunities to pull out of the deal.

    • +1

      Exactly.

    • +7

      He's a liar

    • Wasn’t here overseas?

    • +5

      The guys is a broker. Has his own business. I am sure he is not that stupid and possibly getting paid for the story.

      • +13

        You don't deal with many brokers I'm guessing?

        • +1

          🤣

    • +1

      "let this be a warning to anyone building a house!" …🤔😂😂😂

    • +15

      To clarify what I believe would have happened:

      He only owns half the land, the other half is owned by another party.

      The block is a whole block, but the builder sells it as half with plans for a house either freestanding on his land or for two duplexes/side by side townhouses.

      They probably had two freestanding houses planned but if you split the larger parcel of land in two you make it smaller and council won’t allow a freestanding house on too small a parcel of land//OR THEY were approved as two duplexes joined houses originally anyway but the other party who owns the other half of the land refuses to build their half.

      The guy has his full fking house. There’s no other half of his house. Due to legal and planning rules this is all the builder can do and yes it would look awkward until the other person decides to build their house, if they want to build the same duplex lol.

      Builder told owner bad idea, owner doesn’t listen. Typical guy who asks for a bargain but doesn’t heed the advice of the salesperson…..

      • +2

        yes… and there is more complication in that: "the certifier has continued to refuse to issue an Occupation Certificate"

        I don't know the facts of this case and both parties deserve an element of presumption of innocence in an unfortunate situation.
        However, this guy in conjunction with the media appears to be trying to make it sound more dramatic, he's not technically "missing half a house" or anything dumb like that. When the other half is built eventually it will look just fine.

        The regulations / approval required it to be an attached dwelling, which means it is either actually:
        (a) just one parcel of land intended to have a community title scheme that turns it into effectively two townhouse units, or
        (b) they created it as a relatively new concept sometimes called a 'zipper lot' where you properly subdivide it on completion of the structures with appropriate fire separation walls etc, or
        (c) if the subdivision has already taken place, they are already two blocks and should have had a covenant that requires cooperation on construction as an attached duplex due to the width (or rely on local planning regulations to enforce this) but they are two freestanding lots in their own right.

        Sounds most likely to be the latter given what has gone wrong. So, there would be a development condition or building code regulation that can't be satisfied to properly allow a certificate of occupancy to be issued. Which means he can't legally move in. Depending on the contract terms, that MAY be somewhat the builder's problem but only if it is a turnkey house and land package with both parties and they had indicated they had some sort of control over the approval process to achieve that certificate as a deliverable for both properties simultaneously so as to achieve a completion outcome. Alternatively, they disclaimed responsibility for this but the owner didn't understand the risks of what that meant. However they are caught in the middle of it regardless as they technically aren't finished their job as a builder until certificate of occupancy - but the certificate can be held up by planning issues, not just building issues.

        I feel for each of them though, because most likely what has happened is something has gone wrong with the other/neighbouring party (e.g. financial issues) so they can't proceed, so they just built this guy's house alone, and now can't comply with the conditions. Neither would have expected to be caught like that.

        Council needs to come up with a compromise with the certifier that allows this house to be certified / safe to live in temporarily until such time as the other house can be completed. However if the other party already owns the left hand block… you can't force them to raise the money to build so if there is not a covenant about construction timeframes etc in the sale contract, it is a big learning curve for the developer / builder / and maybe even council as well about controls that need to be in place at time of sale off the plan to prevent these unfortunate situations. E.g. If there is something that can't be completed yet (until the other half is done) that costs $s they could take a financial 'bond' to guarantee that final completion step once the other party build.

        It's a sign of desperation but it's not really fair to splash it all over the media - Both the builder and owner are likely caught on the same side of this problem with the other owner needing to take action or Council coming up with a way to resolve it in the meantime. There are legal avenues, TV shouldn't be used to run each other's name into the ground.

        • +4

          I reckon the builder has pretty good resource for defamation against ACA for this to be honest. They don't seem to be that bad a builder, just the typical resi customers who don't get it.

          Honestly if I was the builder I would be fking outraged and preparing those litigation papers last week.

          • @Gallifr3y: recourse*

          • +1

            @Gallifr3y: ACA probably get defamation cases routinely - they'd be experts at dragging them out to get a settlement that is less than they make from the show on average.

            If the organisation they accuse are a large enough company, they can't make a defamation action. If small business,it's only on rare occasions you get a party that is rich enough to pay lawyers hundreds of thousands —> millions of dollars to go after media who sensationalise things for defamation, to the points of actually winning multi-week trials.

            E.g. Wagner family vs Alan Jones. I understand despite their company being large, they were able to take defamation action as Jones kept naming them personally so they did so as individuals. Despite a multi million dollar payout, they would have had to risk well over a million to get there (there legal costs would have eaten at least half) - it wasn't about the money, it was about principle and clearing their name. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-12/alan-jones-defamed-wa...

            Anyone else - no money, you won't get anywhere. They know most people can't justify the legal bills they'd run it up to. The system doesn't actually work in that regard, you may get a small amount of settlement to avoid legal costs early, (provided you agree they are off the hook and keep it quiet), anything else you'd be better off throwing your life savings on red or black at the roulette wheel.

      • This is pretty much exaclty what happened, the builder told the client that council changed the legal requirements. Builder told client of the change and asked if they want to proceed still, client said yes.

  • +15

    Some people just trust other people so much that they don't ever consider they are getting screwed. It's not uncommon, at least 10-20% of the population are pretty stupid and complacent.

    • +2

      saying he “trusted the process”.

      and going by the forum posts we see.. With ebay, gumtree and fb marketplace buying or selling… I say you are right :)

      Maybe he is a member here?

    • If you talking about the customer he knows exactly what he is doing. Perhaps he tried to get more discount but builder stood firm so he went to ACA got paid and they will take the litigation hit if any.

    • +8

      It is and always was a duplex.

      The problem is that the owner of the other part of the duplex has not started the build at the same time as the complaining other owner.

      • What are you reading?

        “Where’s my house? I want the rest of my house. It’s not a freestanding house, it’s not a duplex, it’s half a house. And it looks embarrassing,” he told the program.

        • +8

          It's a duplex.

          “The fact is the owners of the lot next door have failed to proceed with building their home and that’s why the certifier has continued to refuse to issue an Occupation Certificate.”

          • -4

            @BOGOF:

            It's a duplex.

            Okay, I see your point.Council said it has to be an attached dwelling.

            I dont' understand. Why does it have to be an attached dwelling when every other house on that street is a freestanding house? Sounds like dirty council. Wouldn't surprise me out in Liverpool where people seem to get grants to build anything they want.

            • +22

              @Orico: Because when the land was originally released, it was for a free standing house. However Council changed the rules, and would only allow an 'attached dwelling'…..probably due to the land size….AND…..the complaining owner still went ahead with the purchase & build, even though he was told multiple times what is happening, AND, that he could withdraw from the contract without any penalty. However, he still persisted against all common sense AND advice.

              If you can see the picture, the house directly behind him has the same footprint, but is a duplex house.

              TLDR….Complaining owner thought he could get away with it.

              • +3

                @BOGOF: This still doesn't make sense to me:

                1. It was for a freestanding house - if that was the case the indian fella would own both sides, not one
                2. The council changed the rules - suddenly after selling a block the council changes the rules and this guy sells his half? or he only buys half? in 2016 a block in edmondson park wouldn't have been 800k, I can tell you that for nothing. in which case he must have only bought half in the first place
                3. What council lets people buy half a block and build an attached house on it? I didn't even know that was possible, and I'm 9/10ths of a DA through on a duplex. Having said that, Liverpool council is the worst. Why would you marry up 2 randoms and make them go halves in a build?

                WTF is going on here? It's cats sleeping with dogs. I get that this guy might be a numpty, but surely between the council and the builder they should have refused the certifaction and building of the job outright. They are as much at fault for building this POS as he is.

                • +1

                  @Jackson:

                  It was for a freestanding house - if that was the case the indian fella would own both sides, not one

                  Nepalese.

                • @Jackson: Nepalese you're getting your Asians wrong

              • -2

                @BOGOF: get away with what?

            • +2

              @Orico: Look closely at the photos of the other houses. They are all duplexes. Looks like a single house, but are split down the middle.

      • +8

        I would call it a singlex. It becomes a duplex if they build the other half.

  • +2

    Agree something fishy. On a current affair I don't think they told the whole story. Why did the Council require it to be dual occ and not free-standing dwelling.

    • +11

      To get double the rates for a piece of land that should belong to one person.

      • -1

        The lot is half a duplex. So still single occ. If anything it devalues the land, so less rates.

    • +23

      On a current affair I don't think they told the whole story.

      WHAT?? THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE!!1!

  • +58

    its half the story

    • +1

      Is the glass half full or half empty?

    • +2

      He's splitting hairs.

    • It's half the house

    • Sydney man's half house

      …weird flex but ok

  • “Where’s my house? I want the rest of my house. It’s not a freestanding house, it’s not a duplex, it’s half a house. And it looks embarrassing,” he told the program.

    Why is the rest of the house HIS house? I am sure, when he bought the land he was told the land size he was buying.
    There is something more to this story.
    Did the council not allow a free standing house on his piece of land and he was forced to build a duplex OR he always knew he was buying a duplex and just pissed that the other owner has not put up their half of the house.
    Did the council only approve the plan for half a duplex and the other half was never submitted OR the council has approved the plan for the complete duplex and the other buyer has just not built their part.

    and how do we get a builder to plan & build half a duplex, did they never mention this to the owner that the other half of the duplex is not built?

    • +5

      You are allowed to keep reading… you don't have to stop half way through an article…

      Zac Homes said the build initially began as a single freestanding home but claimed it later had to be altered to fit with Liverpool Council regulations, which reportedly stated the block had to be an attached dwelling.

      “The disagreement that’s causing the holdup is between the certifier and Liverpool City Council and we’re working hard with them both to try and rectify the situation as quickly as possible,” the company said.

      “The fact is the owners of the lot next door have failed to proceed with building their home and that’s why the certifier has continued to refuse to issue an Occupation Certificate.”

      • +1

        Liverpool council, the worst in Australia

      • +3

        He's reading an article about Half a House that's why he's only obligated to read half the article

      • read it and also saw ACA but still not given full story or all the details

        when he bought the land did he only buy half of that land or all the land?

        there's many missing pieces of info omitted by Zac homes and the buyer.

  • +1

    I have had drawings done by an architect before.

    There is a review and sign off process.

    Even without looking at the internals, the dimensions, I could see something is horribly wrong when I look at the elevation .

    This would never pass my council for approval, would how it passed that council.

    • +3

      Perhaps it was privately certified and thus never went through council? The majority of dodgy stuff in NSW happens this way.

  • Can I hijack this thread for minute.
    Would you buy a house that had a restrictive covenant? Had a look at a few properties and one in particular we like, shows on the sec 32 it has a restrictive covenant in regards not not allowing to build a fence at the front. "Any fence on the front boundary, or within 8m of same on the side boundaries, or in the case of corner allotments within 3 meters of the front boundary, side st boundary.

    I mean, I wanted a fence but is it that big of a deal breaker lol?

    Edit: mods delete if off topic. Just wasnt sure it warranted entire forum post.

    • Really depends how badly you want a fence at the front of the house.

      • Yeah I wanted it. But I guess I also want a house. (Not FOMO).

    • +1

      Plant some hedges instead.

      • Was just thinking that!

        • +1

          Your hedges might needs some stakes for support, spaced out, every 20 cm or so.

  • +1

    A neighbour said the home is so odd-looking home that people have begun to stop and take photos.

    It was probably Google.

    • +3

      Check this out LOL, just around the corner!

      https://www.google.com/maps/@-33.9663841,150.8683428,3a,25.8y,335.55h,90.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sT06QFLSehvePZCyxb8u5Gw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

      • +3

        Geez, what are they doing there! Maybe that's why the owner is worried :D I think that proves the council's incompetence.

        Another angle

        • Can't believe this wasn't shown on ACA haha

    • ER… WTF :o how is this the council allowing this?

  • +18

    And the guy is allegedly a mortgage broker. Not a great advertisement for you…

    • +1
      • +12

        Oh hang on, he's a brooker - according to his profile "I have bachelor of Business/ Accounting , multiple diplomas in finance and Mortgage brooking." Sadly I guess those diplomas don't include the reading of plans.

        • +7

          Reading plans is part of the Master's…

        • If he indeed does have those degrees what does that say about the admission and teaching standards of Australian educational institutions if after getting those degrees he is still this "stupid" and cannot read documentation when spending a lot of money on a house?
          That is the most worrying thing here.

      • +1

        I am very passionate for education and empower - What does this mean???

        • +1

          He loves education or being educated and
          empowerment. - the process of becoming stronger and more confident, especially in controlling one's life and claiming one's rights.

    • +5

      This guy:

      His knowledge of buying and selling homes means he is able to help his clients achieve a wide variety of property goals.

      How ironic.

      • +1

        LOL
        was about to post that..also

        "By being a part of the process, he can really make buying or selling property easy and stress-free"

        Guess his idea of the stress-free is not to check up on the status of the build until it is 99.9% complete.

  • +4

    in the current market, finish building the duplex
    sell each house for 2m
    win win

    • +10

      I don't think he owns the vacant land parcel

  • So noe Oz bargain is what you should have watched on TV last night!!!!!

  • +7

    What's the relevance of him being from Nepal and ESL?
    Would they have said that if he was Chinese or Indian etc?
    How is this programme still around, who is their audience

    • +1

      News.com.au and ACA…

    • +4

      who is their audience

      Obese, middle-aged conservatives, who are easily triggered, especially when the bad person is darker than them.

    • +4

      why didn’t ACA mention that he works as a mortgage broker who usually provides home loan advice and should be familiar with contracts etc?
      Really… seriously ???

      • +2

        It might not fit in to their picture of this poor foreigner who's been taken for a ride?

  • +5

    Weird facts in story

    Doesn’t check house for 3 years
    House cost 700k, is it made of bloody gold.

    How the f does someone who can’t even speak English not see a floor plan and not notice the missing windows

    • +16

      He is mortgage broker so don't think he can't speak and understand basic English..

    • +2

      Total cost is $700K, land alone is just under $400K ….. it says "deposit on a $398,950 block of land"

      • Article says builders of 700k house. So my point being the title is wrong, there is no 700k house.