Section 2: Increasing inspection capacity through use of Accredited Organisations (Building)

The discussion document noted that some BCAs contract private organisations to carry out inspections, including remote inspections, and that there is scope for BCAs to make more use of Accredited Organisations (Building) (AOBs) to carry out inspections on their behalf.

Submitters were asked to comment on the benefits, costs, risks and barriers of increasing the use of AOBs to undertake inspections. Submitters were also asked if owners should be able to directly engage AOBs to undertake inspections.

Benefits, cost, barriers and risks to more use of Accredited Organisations (Building) to increase inspection capability

Over 150 submitters commented on the benefits, costs, barriers and risks to more use of AOBs to increase inspection capability.

Among BCAs and several industry group submitters, there was general agreement that more uptake of AOBs will allow BCAs to accommodate any fluctuations in demand. This will enable BCAs to maintain low wait times during busy periods. Some industry submitters raised that this could lead to faster build processes for consumers. A couple of builders said more use of AOBs will allow for greater use of more specialised skills in the inspection process, especially if the contractor is familiar with local building issues in the district. 

Submitters commented on the barriers to greater use of AOBs, including the cost of this approach. The reasons given by submitters were:

• liability issues,
• limited protection for consumers (inadequate insurance coverage),
• lack of inspector availability or competency, and
• inconsistent approaches to inspections between AOBs and BCAs.

Submitters also stated that this approach is expensive and provided minimal savings for BCAs, owners, and ratepayers, and could also lead to less public confidence in the inspection process and overall build quality.

Some of the barriers identified above were also identified by submitters as key risks to more use of AOBs. These were:

• liability risks: Several BCAs and industry submitters, and a couple of industry submitters raised that AOBs could go out of business or declare bankruptcy at any time, leaving BCAs and homeowners to bear any liability issues that could arise.
• low quality building work: A few BCAs raised that third parties may lack local knowledge on environmental features unique to certain districts or have little understanding of the Building Code. They suggested this could result in non-compliant work or issues being overlooked during inspections, resulting in low quality building work.

Direct engagement between owners and Accredited Organisations (Buildings)

Submitter views were relatively split on whether owners should be able to directly engage AOBs to undertake inspections. Direct engagement was supported by 58 submitters, while 65 opposed and 38 submitters were unsure.

A few submitters shared that this option would provide more choice and competition for owners. However, some submitters raised that the lack of BCA involvement would lead to non-compliant work going unnoticed and any related liability issues would fall on BCAs under the current joint and several liability rules. BCA involvement was generally preferred to ensure consumers are protected and that buildings are safe for end-users.

< Section 1: Increasing the uptake of remote inspections | Summary of submissions: Improving efficiency in the inspection process >