Philip Britton is a Visiting Professor at the University of Melbourne Law School and former Director of the Centre of Construction Law and Dispute Resolution, King's College London. Prior to this, he taught law at the University of Warwick from 1970 to 1991, when he became Production Director at Television Education Network in London, making news and current affairs video programs for professional audiences on legal topics, including construction law. He has also taught at the Universities of Buckingham, Birmingham, Lille II and the National University of Singapore and is a consultant to the law firm of Fairweather Stephenson in Aldeburgh (UK).
The potential remedies available to consumers are relatively broad, however the outcome will ultimately depend on what is provided for in the contract, and how the remedies can be used to make up for what is not provided for in the contract.
• Retention and Escrow Funds – retention of money otherwise owed to the contractor, available to fund rectification of defects. If a contractor fails to respond or becomes insolvent, these funds give owners a chance of recourse against the cost of remedying defects.
• Contract claim – where no other protections may be available, enforcing their rights pursuant to the construction contract may be a consumer’s only chance for recourse of the costs of rectifying defects.
• Sue the Statutory Officer – taking action against the building certification body involved that certified the building following completion. Generally a tortious action, this option can be exercised in cases where the claimant has no claim in contract, or such a claim has timed out under limitation rules, or where the party against whom a contract claim would be made has disappeared.