data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1811c/1811c9f1379ac527657bb4b545f6ad5217c910ed" alt="Family shocked after builders hand them back 'half a house' after finishing the construction"
A family was left shocked after builders handed them back ‘half a house’ when construction was finished up.
Having moved from Nepal to Sydney, Australia, Bishnu Aryal planned on starting a family and building a new life, paying AU $700,000 (about £392,792) to build a home in Edmonson Park.
But after three years of work, the man returned to his custom off-plan home to discover his free-standing building had instead essentially been turned into a duplex.
Advert
Featuring on Aussie news show A Current Affair back in 2021, the house literally looked like it had been halved thanks to it being flat and windowless on one side.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2daa7/2daa79b6cc215ada3e135e0a24bb3ea0d548496d" alt="Miscommunication led to the mishap. (A Current Affair)"
“It's not a free-standing house, it's not a duplex, it's half a house. And it looks embarrassing,” he said.
English is not Aryal’s first language, but he said he didn’t sign up to half a duplex.
Advert
“They were promising us the house will be ready in one year time, but we wait for three long years. When we come to see the progress of the building, we see our building was different to what we were expecting,” the dad claimed.
He said he ‘nearly fainted’ when he rang the supervisor to ask what was going on as he was apparently told ‘it’s a duplex, semi duplex’.
Having purchased a plot of land, Aryal had paid Zac Homes AU$322,400 for the build but claims he was ‘not given any notice’ of the changes to the design plans.
However, the company say Liverpool Council required the man’s lot to be an attached dwelling.
Advert
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8386e/8386e432394acf8bc74d90d3883d0b22a177851a" alt="It was a nightmare for the man. (A Current Affair)"
A legal letter to A Current Affair from Zac Homes stats Aryal was made aware and had multiple opportunities to pull out. But he said he trusted the process.
“When bank asked, I called them and said can you please send the plan and I forward the plan to the bank. I didn't look,” he explained.
But those plans were for half a duplex – not quite the whole house he was envisioning.
Advert
Making things worse, his family had to move into the place during the covid pandemic as his wife was pregnant and he was ‘losing work’.
Yet they didn’t have an occupation certificate which Zac Homes said it had been trying to get signed off for nine months. The council however wanted a guarantee that the other half of the duplex would be built on the land.
Zac Homes said on Facebook it had waived a fee ‘to alleviate some of [the family’s] stress’.
“It’s a mess. We know that. Even though this situation hasn’t been caused by us, we are doing what we can to ensure that the right thing is done by Mr Aryal and his family,” it added.
Zac Homes Statement
Zac Homes said in a statement in 2021: “Zac Homes' position is that:
Advert
“A. Mr & Mrs Aryal were aware of the change to the dwelling design from detached to attached, as evidenced by:
“i. Mr & Mrs Aryal's attempt (through their conveyancer) to negotiate a discount to the price via the Glory Group (see paragraph 12 above);
“ii. Glory Group's advice to Zac Home on 6 June 2018 that Mr & Mrs Aryal wished to onsell Lot 719 because of the change of dwelling design (see paragraph 13 above);
“iii. the Restriction registered with the Subdivision Plan (and the presumption that Mr & Mrs Aryal's solicitor advised them of the Restriction) (see paragraph 14 above); and
“iv. Zac Homes providing a copy of the amended plans and specifications on 2 April 2019 whilst Mr & Mrs Aryal continued to have a right to rescind the Land Contract (see paragraph 16 above).
“B. As Mr & Mrs Aryal were aware of the change the dwelling design, they could have elected to rescind the Land Contract (see paragraph 6 above), which would have automatically terminated the Building Agreement (see paragraphs 7 and 20 above).
“C. Mr & Mrs Aryal chose not to rescind the Land Contract, instead purchasing Lot 719 with a discount of $20,000.00 off the price in the Land Contract. 6
“D. The Certifier either invalidly issued the Construction Certificate, or has invalidly refused to issue the Occupation Certificate.
Accordingly, whilst Zac Homes appreciates the frustrations of Mr & Mrs Aryal surrounding the delay in the issue of the Occupation Certificate, these delays are not caused by Zac Homes. Instead, Zac Homes has worked diligently and at its own cost to attempt to remedy the outstanding matters so that the Occupation Certificate can issue. Zac Homes has also agreed to:
“(a) defer payment of its final progress claim from Mr & Mrs Aryal pending issue of the Occupation Certificate; and
“(b) waive a contract price increase of $22,733.20 permitted under the Building Agreement.”