230 Mr Fluffy owners accept ACT Government offer to purchase house

dungfungus said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

I am still boggled as to why this issue is not being handled by the insurance company that provided public liability insurance to “Mr. Fluffy”. Surely they can find out whom this insurer was and if not, it simply comes down to the government to clean up the mess for letting this mob get away with it. Unfortunately, it is our current generation of ratepayers who have to foot the bill, that is unjust bit simply the the only way out of it.
I would also jump at the chance to grab a handful of current market rate and rebuild elsewhere, or purchase another house in the neighborhood. With our tram network in the pipeline, I’m sure the purse strings won’t be open for very long.

I think you mean product liability insurance and even that wouldn’t cover this situation. Public liability cover that Mr Fluffy may have taken out probably would not extend to the asbestos problem either.
It is not the same as the “nominal insurer” (government) stepping in when a CTP claim is made against a defendant who has neglected to take out that cover.

Public Liability Insurance :

Public liability insurance protects you and your business against the financial risk of being found liable to a third party for death or injury, loss or damage of property or economic loss resulting from your negligence.

Professional Indemnity Insurance :

Professional indemnity insurance protects advice-based businesses from legal action taken for losses incurred as a result of professional negligence. It provides indemnity cover if your client suffers a loss – material, financial or physical – directly attributed to negligent acts, errors or omissions.

Product Liability insurance :

If you sell, supply or deliver goods, even in the form of repair or service, you may need cover against claims of goods causing injury, death or damage. Product liability insurance covers you if any of these events happen to another business or person by the failure of your product or the product you are selling.

wildturkeycanoe said :

I am still boggled as to why this issue is not being handled by the insurance company that provided public liability insurance to “Mr. Fluffy”. Surely they can find out whom this insurer was and if not, it simply comes down to the government to clean up the mess for letting this mob get away with it. Unfortunately, it is our current generation of ratepayers who have to foot the bill, that is unjust bit simply the the only way out of it.
I would also jump at the chance to grab a handful of current market rate and rebuild elsewhere, or purchase another house in the neighborhood. With our tram network in the pipeline, I’m sure the purse strings won’t be open for very long.

I think you mean product liability insurance and even that wouldn’t cover this situation. Public liability cover that Mr Fluffy may have taken out probably would not extend to the asbestos problem either.
It is not the same as the “nominal insurer” (government) stepping in when a CTP claim is made against a defendant who has neglected to take out that cover.

wildturkeycanoe said :

I am still boggled as to why this issue is not being handled by the insurance company that provided public liability insurance to “Mr. Fluffy”. Surely they can find out whom this insurer was and if not, it simply comes down to the government to clean up the mess for letting this mob get away with it. Unfortunately, it is our current generation of ratepayers who have to foot the bill, that is unjust bit simply the the only way out of it.
I would also jump at the chance to grab a handful of current market rate and rebuild elsewhere, or purchase another house in the neighborhood. With our tram network in the pipeline, I’m sure the purse strings won’t be open for very long.

And what about the insurance company that undertook the remediation years and years ago – they must have insurance that can be claimed against ? Unless of course, that rediation was done to then then prevailing standards and wasnt negligance or shoddy workmanship by the contractor(s) engaged to remove the stuff. Or that statute of limitations to make a claim has past ?

In any event, the ACT Gov’t knew about it 9 years + ago – and did nothing. Thats pretty appaling and they seem to have largely escaped criticism and/or lleal action over that. Having said that, why would the ACT Gov’t care ? They can just pass the cost onto ACT Ratepayers to a greater or lesser extent !

wildturkeycanoe said :

I am still boggled as to why this issue is not being handled by the insurance company that provided public liability insurance to “Mr. Fluffy”. Surely they can find out whom this insurer was and if not, it simply comes down to the government to clean up the mess for letting this mob get away with it. Unfortunately, it is our current generation of ratepayers who have to foot the bill, that is unjust bit simply the the only way out of it.
I would also jump at the chance to grab a handful of current market rate and rebuild elsewhere, or purchase another house in the neighborhood. With our tram network in the pipeline, I’m sure the purse strings won’t be open for very long.

It seems very generous and I’m glad the government wants to subdivide the blocks to increase the return they get and offset the costs. Apparently in Kambah there are 3 blocks in a row and they are concerned it will change the aesthetics of the street! Plenty of streets with medium density townhouses on them. Normal people live there and it doesn’t really make a huge difference. Developers have done it in Wanniassa and its not making the streets or suburbs worse. Its clutching at straws. If you are really concerned by your health then take the money and run. I can understand however an 80 yr old couple not moving, but well the house still needs to be demolished and delaying that makes everything difficult.

I am still boggled as to why this issue is not being handled by the insurance company that provided public liability insurance to “Mr. Fluffy”. Surely they can find out whom this insurer was and if not, it simply comes down to the government to clean up the mess for letting this mob get away with it. Unfortunately, it is our current generation of ratepayers who have to foot the bill, that is unjust bit simply the the only way out of it.
I would also jump at the chance to grab a handful of current market rate and rebuild elsewhere, or purchase another house in the neighborhood. With our tram network in the pipeline, I’m sure the purse strings won’t be open for very long.

Agree, I’d be taking the money and running, but it appears for some residents, want the government to build them a new house on their land, which isn’t fair on tax payers IMO.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Postalgeek said :

Curious about those who haven’t lived in their house the whole time. Normal CGT rules apply?

I’d think so. If you owned an investment property unoccupied due to Mr Fluffy you’d still be able to claim any losses, so presumably any gains will alos be fair game.

The only reall issue if the property was for investment would be planning which year to ‘sell’ it in, to manage to CGT liability as best you can. That said, if I had such a property and the government was taking it off my hands at full value I’d take the money and run.

Investment or residential, I’d be taking the money and running.

Postalgeek said :

Curious about those who haven’t lived in their house the whole time. Normal CGT rules apply?

I’d think so. If you owned an investment property unoccupied due to Mr Fluffy you’d still be able to claim any losses, so presumably any gains will alos be fair game.

The only reall issue if the property was for investment would be planning which year to ‘sell’ it in, to manage to CGT liability as best you can. That said, if I had such a property and the government was taking it off my hands at full value I’d take the money and run.

Curious about those who haven’t lived in their house the whole time. Normal CGT rules apply?

Maya123 said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

chewy14 said :

rommeldog56 said :

I wonder if that means that those who have accepted the offer are happy about it or are they just getting in first just in case the money runs out.

In any event, I suppose they have little choice other than to accept the offer – or negotiate a higher offer if thats possible – or possibly miss out all together.

Well for most of them, they are getting a fair deal on a house that might otherwise be unsellable, opposed to potentially spending a decade in court trying to fight the government. I know which one is the more sensible option.

This. If I owned a house containing Mr Fluffy asbestos and the government offered to buy it off me at full market value I’d jump at the chance. Realistically, what could be better?

I thought the government was only paying land value.

You thought wrong. Think about it, if all they did was pay land value then this whole thing would probably cost nothing as they could buy the land, clean it, sub divide and then sell for more than the original land value+clean up costs, all the while the home owner is out of pocket the cost of a building.

So no full market value of the house+land.