KAV Building Services Pty Limited | Property

KAV Building Services Pty Limited

Phone: +61 418 961 432

Add/Update information

Reviews

Tags

• Property
• Businesses
• House inspector
• Home inspector

23.01.2022 These photos show a two story BV dwelling protected by bait and monitoring stations set to the perimeter of the dwelling. Spacing about 3 metres apart. Numbering 38 in total, the units were being inspected at 6 monthly intervals. On every occasion the units inspected separately showed negative. No activity and/or signs of workings. Further to this, the dwelling had been inspected to exterior and interior in accordance to the (Australian Standards) AS 4349.3. Again all clear. ...The damage noted took place over a period estimated at two years. (It’s actually impossible to date the age of termite workings) KAV constructed a report as to this matter. Void of elaborating on the outcome, our findings showed the dwelling required removal. Proposed remedial was so extensive, salvaging was limited to the concrete slab set to the foundation. That limited the footprint related to any new work. The entire structure was removed in preference to a poor alternative and/or compromise. Significantly, this situation was only located with a cleaner taping a skirting board, finding it sounded hollow. No other signs existed. All prior non intrusive, visual inspections failed to located activity and/or damage. This dwelling housed three bivouacs (commonly and erroneously called colonies or nests) A properly executed inspection, using a moisture meter may have located the high readings, if the surface of the walls were accessible. (In most situations only 60% of wall surfaces are accessible within an occupied property.) Protection of any property seen as vulnerable and conducive can be executed adequately. Contact KAV for independent advice as to this. There should never be a conflict of interest, seeing a proposal for work presented post an inspection. The manner and method of protection utilised in this case study was not in any way a primary or reliable means of protection. At best a secondary contingency. The firm responsible for this situation inspected the property and put forward a proposal for work as noted. This was accepted in good faith. In concluding, make certain you obtain reliable independent separate advice as to protecting your property. See more

22.01.2022 Hi John Pye and Vendor ------ I respond to your seeking advice related to Vendor reports now being sought regularly and your concerns as to reliability. NSWFT ...make comment as to any report executed being of a non intrusive type, including Vendor and pre-purchase reports. Both types of reports are reliable, yet limited as disclosed within. This is why reports of this type are extensive in construction. They have to be informative on findings, recommendations and disclaimers. If not they are unacceptable. All reports should be executed in accordance to the experts code of conduct and comply regardless as to original or expected purpose and use. ( both being unknown and varying if required or called on by a tribunal or court) An independent expert report for the Vendor ( transferable ) or a Purchaser can be relied on totally and to the same degree. The reports must comply where required and must be constructed in a proper informative manner. All reports are reliable to the extent disclosed and significantly if transferable to third parties. The Vendor report ( constructed by KAV ) covers significant matters being building structural concerns and timber pest matters. It's designed to support an Agents appraisal for very good reasons. It must not encroach on or stray beyond its boundaries and be complimentary. A recipient ( proposed purchaser ) has the benefit of examining the KAV report free of any additional cost. KAV do not execute a service where the Vendor or Agent acts as agents for us, suggesting a proposed purchaser pay out ( any amount at all ) to obtain the report. It's unprofessional to do this and not in the interest of all encapsulated in the process. Avoid that type of service and make certain you and your Vendor have the report in your possession. You the Agent must have that ability to manage it and present it to others at no cost. That's the way this service should work for all parties. The cost to the Vendor is normally added to the sale price. The KAV Vendor report, provides a recipient with the option to call for additional work. Naturally that calling will vary pending a recipients needs. This includes a site meeting if required. The KAV reports ( Vendor and pre-purchase reports ) have been evaluated by legal experts including a Barrister. Our reports are acceptable to recipients relying on the service including the NCAT, NSW District Court and NSWFT. Hundreds of Agent use this service and understand precisely why. The alternative ( traditional manner ) is to have a proposed Purchaser engage others ( including KAV ) to execute a report that may be specific to that parties needs. This resulting in you the Agent, (via mandatory regulations NSWFT 2016) having to disclose ( not recommend ) to all other proposed Purchasers, a reports been executed. Do this void of the Vendor and Agent having any knowledge as to the reports construction and findings. Then run the same old risk of seeing a proposed Purchaser come back to your Vendor, seeking to revisit the sale price, as the Agents appraisal has failed to consider a very critical component being the independent expert report on building structural integrity and/or timber pest matters. Matters beyond the Agents expertise not considered in terms of reference for costing. Agents have a very good understanding as to this situation as history shows. Poor, assumed reporting, often disclosing costs for remedial work void of instructions, specifications and taking off quantities. All of this void of sufficient time for proper evaluation ( debating ) resulting in an offer being made ( normally unsupported ) and price reduction. No one benefits from a service that proves to be a poor compromise or erroneous. This traditional way of executing work along with NSWFT legislation as it stands today, disadvantages the Vendor, you the Agent and a proposed purchaser. In concluding Any suggestion the Vendor reports are not able to be relied on would be erroneous and misleading. A report of integrity, constructed for the Vendor or proposed Purchaser, such as the KAV service, must now encapsulate a declaration to be signed by the recipient ( client ) and/or any other advisor including legal advisor where third party advice has been sought This is to make certain all parties encapsulated in the entire process, execute their separate tasks fully. NSWFT audit Agents to make certain they comply to present day legislation. If a proposed purchaser executes a report using KAV. KAV will forward to you the Agent the reference number as to that service and provide details to you and the Vendor as to the report. This we do to assist Agents not taking advantage of the Vendor report service and/or where a Vendor rejects that service. However any Agent not recommending the Vendor report service (using it ) and relying on the alternative is falling well behind. Vendors today recognise the prior noted and move to execute their own reports to avoid the risks as noted. To assist the Agent and a proposed purchaser. To avoid having their property assessed by others unknown to them and receiving a shock as to the reporting. The Vendor report service also provides an opportunity to identify concerns that may require addressing prior to sale. Many Agents call on KAV to execute a preliminary inspection and if required update the report post work being executed. In most cases ( over 90% ) this is not required at all. The service certainly supports the Agents appraisal disclosing the sale price has been evaluated in consideration of an independent expert report. NSWFT are likely to revisit legislation, yet at this time both means of executing tasks are available. I thank you for informing me as to that put to you and allowing me to respond. Your faithfully K A Valstar

22.01.2022 The strata building bond and inspections scheme (the scheme) started on 1 January 2018. The new scheme will resolve building issues earlier in the life of the building, and more cost effectively. It includes a building bond of 2% of the contract price to be paid by the developer before the issue of an occupation certificate, and mandatory defect inspections and reports on the development by an independent building inspector who is also a member of a strata inspector panel.

18.01.2022 KAV wish all a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Visit KAV web page for services. We provide a variety of inspection services. Designed to suit your needs. Regards Klaas

01.01.2022 KAV wish all a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Visit KAV web page for services. We provide a variety of inspection services. Designed to suit your needs. Regards Klaas

29.12.2021 These photos show a two story BV dwelling protected by bait and monitoring stations set to the perimeter of the dwelling. Spacing about 3 metres apart. Numbering 38 in total, the units were being inspected at 6 monthly intervals. On every occasion the units inspected separately showed negative. No activity and/or signs of workings. Further to this, the dwelling had been inspected to exterior and interior in accordance to the (Australian Standards) AS 4349.3. Again all clear. ...The damage noted took place over a period estimated at two years. (It’s actually impossible to date the age of termite workings) KAV constructed a report as to this matter. Void of elaborating on the outcome, our findings showed the dwelling required removal. Proposed remedial was so extensive, salvaging was limited to the concrete slab set to the foundation. That limited the footprint related to any new work. The entire structure was removed in preference to a poor alternative and/or compromise. Significantly, this situation was only located with a cleaner taping a skirting board, finding it sounded hollow. No other signs existed. All prior non intrusive, visual inspections failed to located activity and/or damage. This dwelling housed three bivouacs (commonly and erroneously called colonies or nests) A properly executed inspection, using a moisture meter may have located the high readings, if the surface of the walls were accessible. (In most situations only 60% of wall surfaces are accessible within an occupied property.) Protection of any property seen as vulnerable and conducive can be executed adequately. Contact KAV for independent advice as to this. There should never be a conflict of interest, seeing a proposal for work presented post an inspection. The manner and method of protection utilised in this case study was not in any way a primary or reliable means of protection. At best a secondary contingency. The firm responsible for this situation inspected the property and put forward a proposal for work as noted. This was accepted in good faith. In concluding, make certain you obtain reliable independent separate advice as to protecting your property. See more

08.12.2021 We now have a new FREE vendor report service. Visit https://www.kav.com.au/services/vendor-reports/ for all the details.

12.11.2021 Here is a better quality version of the flyer. https://d17oy1vhnax1f7.cloudfront.net//Vendor-Leaflet-A5.j