Our house is being held for ransom by a dodgy building company....

Any update on this? How do Canberra builders get away with this rubbish?

So any updates? What happened? Lots of contributions would be nice to acknowledge the results.

Hi Bec,

Good advice on speaking to your Solictor (if you engaged one for settlement) your contract SHOULD state exactly what you are getting in your new home, landscaping, kitchen etc…. what you WILL receive as part of your build…if you have only used a conveyencer then you will need to take the builder to court yourself….but you still should have a contract that you signed outlining what you are purchasing.

dungfungus said :

NoImRight said :

p1 said :

NoImRight said :

The name on the CT tells you who owns the house.

Ahhh, obviously. Wait, what is a CT? You call me out as being ill-informed on the subject (which I certainly am), yet do a very poor job of communicating the only potential new bit of information in your post.

NoImRight said :

Given the ignorance in your comments your last statement is just puerile. Was it meant to sound smart or tough? Or both? Just playing to the crowd? “Yeah! Take that Establishment!”

Tough. Yes, with that comment I was trying to portray myself as the kind of tough guy who… wait, what again? ‘…banks are scum’ was obviously not supposed to be deeply philosophical treatise on the plight of the individual in a world of multinational corporation or on the ethics of global wealth distribution. Safe to say thought that I do not particularly like, nor value banks.

Fair point. Im usually in a rush typing so perhaps didnt think through my “advice” 😉

The CT is the Certificate of Title. As the name suggests its the actual Land Titles document that says who owns the land. For most of us a Bank will have a mortage registered “on the title” so will actually be holding thisdocument. At a settlement (buying/selling a property) the seller hands over the title and a discharge of any mortgages on the title. The buyer then takes it and some other stuff to Land Titles and registers their ownership. More to it than that just trying not to write an essay.

So the question is, as I said before, has the OP setteld or not? If yes then they do own the place. If not the Cert of Occupancy is irrelevant. If I was a locksmith and someone called me out to change every lock in their house and didnt have any keys Id be well ……curious. So Id exercise caution before going down that path.

With respect, you can’t own land in the ACT.
You can own a lease and a lender will usually accept that lease as security for a mortgage loan.

No thats true but its not relevant and doesnt actually make any difference as far as the reality of land transactions in the ACT and in particular this case.

NoImRight said :

p1 said :

NoImRight said :

The name on the CT tells you who owns the house.

Ahhh, obviously. Wait, what is a CT? You call me out as being ill-informed on the subject (which I certainly am), yet do a very poor job of communicating the only potential new bit of information in your post.

NoImRight said :

Given the ignorance in your comments your last statement is just puerile. Was it meant to sound smart or tough? Or both? Just playing to the crowd? “Yeah! Take that Establishment!”

Tough. Yes, with that comment I was trying to portray myself as the kind of tough guy who… wait, what again? ‘…banks are scum’ was obviously not supposed to be deeply philosophical treatise on the plight of the individual in a world of multinational corporation or on the ethics of global wealth distribution. Safe to say thought that I do not particularly like, nor value banks.

Fair point. Im usually in a rush typing so perhaps didnt think through my “advice” 😉

The CT is the Certificate of Title. As the name suggests its the actual Land Titles document that says who owns the land. For most of us a Bank will have a mortage registered “on the title” so will actually be holding thisdocument. At a settlement (buying/selling a property) the seller hands over the title and a discharge of any mortgages on the title. The buyer then takes it and some other stuff to Land Titles and registers their ownership. More to it than that just trying not to write an essay.

So the question is, as I said before, has the OP setteld or not? If yes then they do own the place. If not the Cert of Occupancy is irrelevant. If I was a locksmith and someone called me out to change every lock in their house and didnt have any keys Id be well ……curious. So Id exercise caution before going down that path.

With respect, you can’t own land in the ACT.
You can own a lease and a lender will usually accept that lease as security for a mortgage loan.

p1 said :

NoImRight said :

The name on the CT tells you who owns the house.

Ahhh, obviously. Wait, what is a CT? You call me out as being ill-informed on the subject (which I certainly am), yet do a very poor job of communicating the only potential new bit of information in your post.

NoImRight said :

Given the ignorance in your comments your last statement is just puerile. Was it meant to sound smart or tough? Or both? Just playing to the crowd? “Yeah! Take that Establishment!”

Tough. Yes, with that comment I was trying to portray myself as the kind of tough guy who… wait, what again? ‘…banks are scum’ was obviously not supposed to be deeply philosophical treatise on the plight of the individual in a world of multinational corporation or on the ethics of global wealth distribution. Safe to say thought that I do not particularly like, nor value banks.

Fair point. Im usually in a rush typing so perhaps didnt think through my “advice” 😉

The CT is the Certificate of Title. As the name suggests its the actual Land Titles document that says who owns the land. For most of us a Bank will have a mortage registered “on the title” so will actually be holding thisdocument. At a settlement (buying/selling a property) the seller hands over the title and a discharge of any mortgages on the title. The buyer then takes it and some other stuff to Land Titles and registers their ownership. More to it than that just trying not to write an essay.

So the question is, as I said before, has the OP setteld or not? If yes then they do own the place. If not the Cert of Occupancy is irrelevant. If I was a locksmith and someone called me out to change every lock in their house and didnt have any keys Id be well ……curious. So Id exercise caution before going down that path.

NoImRight said :

The name on the CT tells you who owns the house.

Ahhh, obviously. Wait, what is a CT? You call me out as being ill-informed on the subject (which I certainly am), yet do a very poor job of communicating the only potential new bit of information in your post.

NoImRight said :

Given the ignorance in your comments your last statement is just puerile. Was it meant to sound smart or tough? Or both? Just playing to the crowd? “Yeah! Take that Establishment!”

Tough. Yes, with that comment I was trying to portray myself as the kind of tough guy who… wait, what again? ‘…banks are scum’ was obviously not supposed to be deeply philosophical treatise on the plight of the individual in a world of multinational corporation or on the ethics of global wealth distribution. Safe to say thought that I do not particularly like, nor value banks.

p1 said :

IrishPete said :

(Deed? if you don’t, maybe your lender has it?)

Bank might be interested in what is going on, since (unless you paid cash for the place) they probably technically own it… or should, except the builder is withholding handover.

Probably not though, since banks are scum.

Managed to be wrong in every sentence. Nice job of helping.”Technically” the Bank doesnt own the house. Probably never will. The name on the CT tells you who owns the house. So the question is whether there has been a settlemet or not. Sounds like there probably has. In which case the OP is the owner. As others have stated a Certificate of Occupancy also has nothing to do with ownership. If it hasnt settled OP needs to get their solicitor working.

Given the ignorance in your comments your last statement is just puerile. Was it meant to sound smart or tough? Or both? Just playing to the crowd? “Yeah! Take that Establishment!”

cranky said :

rosscoact said :

cranky said :

rosscoact said :

Are they with the MBA or HIA? If so, write to them and complain with attached contracts.

Forget this option. These industry groups may as well be the godfathers of dodgy builders. They have no interest in supporting anyone but their members.

With all due respect you have no idea what you’re talking about.

MBA and perhaps to a lesser extent HIA take their name seriously. I know because I used MBA very successfully in a building matter. They pursued the builder, mediated and resolved the matter.

Sometimes you need to take a quiet moment and think about things

Play the man, not the ball much.

Do you think I would comment as I did without very valuable personal experience?

The HIA could not give a hoot about my complaint. They apparently ‘spoke’ to the builder, but the end result was ‘your on your own’. And believe me, my complaint was not insignificant. Non compliance with contract, very poor subbies, and a massive bill for over-runs at completion. How about $800 to install a power point in the fuse box.

No faith in these organisations at all.

You’re right, I apologise for being patronising. It’s pretty poor behaviour and I apologise unreservedly. That’s a shame about HIA not being worth the name.

Still, do contact MBA if they are in it, you might get some joy.

IrishPete said :

(Deed? if you don’t, maybe your lender has it?)

Bank might be interested in what is going on, since (unless you paid cash for the place) they probably technically own it… or should, except the builder is withholding handover.

Probably not though, since banks are scum.