Cautionary Note No 1 – Accessibility Subfloor Spaces

Provided it is safe to do so, it has been accepted industry practice [1] for many years to inspect those parts of a subfloor space where the vertical clearance between the ground and the underside of the timber floor structure (the bearer) is 400 mm or greater.

Having a nominated vertical clearance has made it perfectly clear as to what is expected of inspectors in the undertaking of a standard inspection report. If a problem arises with the findings of the report, the consumer or another inspector could easily ascertain by using a tape measure whether the area in question was in fact readily accessible and should have been thoroughly inspected.

Such clarity minimises the risk of consumer misunderstandings and helps the inspector meet their obligations under the scope of inspection with the minimum of fuss and risk.

On 20th December 2007, the new Australian Standard AS 4349.1-2007 “Inspection of Buildings, Part 1: Pre-Purchase Inspections – Residential Buildings” was published.

This new Standard has deleted all reference to vertical clearance measurements in subfloor spaces whilst keeping the previously accepted minimum measurement (600 mm x 600 mm) for the inspection of roof interiors.

AS 4349.1-2007 states:

• “The extent of accessible areas shall be determined by the inspector at the time of inspection, based on the conditions encountered at the time of inspection. The inspector shall also determine whether sufficient space is available to allow safe access.”
• “The report shall identify any area or item within the scope of inspection that was not inspected and the factor that prevented inspection.”

Where a subfloor space is deemed safe to inspect, having uncertainty as to areas that should be inspected will most likely lead to many disputes between clients and inspectors. For example, in the case of a timber framed suspended floor, Inspector A may deem a subfloor space with 400 mm vertical clearance readily accessible, where Inspector B may deem the same subfloor space as not readily accessible.

Where does such uncertainty leave the consumer?

Also having to document in detail all areas within an accessible subfloor space that were not inspected due to height restrictions will increase the inspector’s reporting obligations. It will take longer to complete the inspection and also increases the risk of errors or omissions in the report.

In the following scenario, the inspector does not inspect a (safe) subfloor space with 600 mm vertical clearance. The inspector’s report indicates that there was no inspection of the subfloor space due to height restrictions. The consumer relying on the report suffers financial loss arising from a defect in the subfloor space. The consumer seeks independent advice. In the view of third party advice, it is deemed that safe and reasonable access was available and the defect would have been apparent at the time of inspection.

Where does this leave the inspector?

Inspectors need to consider that the deletion of the objective measure of accessibility in AS4349.1-2007 has opened up the inspection process to a broader range of subjective criteria which have to be administered by the inspector.

This means that on the one hand, the inspector has more flexibility in how he approaches his work but with every power comes the possibility of abuse, e.g. the ‘lazy’ inspector syndrome.

If an inspector declines to inspect an area that normally is accessible and fails to locate an otherwise reasonably observable defect, then arguably, he has breached his duty of care.

Without strong professional standards it will be difficult to police this conduct as the standards do seem in this area to make it easier for insurers to refuse claims.

It could certainly be argued that the current subjective standards favour insurers. However, inspectors are provided with a more flexible work environment, but with flexibility there is always the risk of business liability that may not be easily defended if the flexibility offered by the standard is not used reasonably.

In conclusion, inspectors should maintain the highest inspection standards and only use paperwork that reflects and supports their level of service. If an inspector has any queries regarding compliance issues, seek (written) advice from your professional indemnity insurer. Email is an appropriate medium for seeking and recording such advice.


Notes:
1. Australian Standards AS4349.1-1995, AS4349.3-1998 & AS3660.2-2000

Back to News