Crownview can't become another Mascot Towers, says Building Commissioner

Residents of the defect-riddled Mascot Towers had to leave the building in 2019 over concerns about cracking in the primary support structure.

Despite not being able to live there, the residents still had to pay mortgages and levies.

After five years, owners have now been able to sell their apartments to a third-party consortium and walk away.

The Crownview complex on upper Crown Street had been plagued with a series of prohibition orders from the Building Commissioner over "serious defects", including problems with a load-bearing column in the basement, shower tiles not affixed appropriately and inadequate drainage from balconies.

A prohibition order banning anyone from moving in is still in force and Mr Chandler is unsure when that could be lifted given that all remediation work now under way has not yet been inspected.

Also, he said he could not say whether there were more as-yet undiscovered faults.

"The contemplation I have on my mind are the unknowns and the residual risks where they put purchasers of that building in harm's way," Mr Chandler said, "in the same way that the Mascot Towers owners were put in harm's way because my clear instructions in my role are 'no more Mascot Towers'.

"I'm going to take a very, very conservative position on that mandate."

Meanwhile, in a meeting with developer Robert Huang, Mr Chandler was told that 45 purchasers in Crownview have had their contracts rescinded and four more contracts were in the process of being refunded.

Also, a further 39 could be rescinded once the July sunset date was reached and four commercial purchasers have had their contracts refunded.

Mr Chandler said he had been advised by Mr Huang that this was the status of the project and that everybody should be in a position to have their contracts rescinded by the July 25 sunset date.

But he added rescinding any contract was not automatic, they had to contact the developer.

That sunset date had been an issue for those buyers who wanted their money back, because of a clause that allowed the developer to repeatedly extend it.

The Mercury understands that had happened twice to at least one buyer.

The contract clause in question - point three in clause 37.5 - relied on Mr Huang's architects supplying a letter stating changing the sunset date was okay.

"The parties agree that a certificate by the vendor's architect in relation to an extension of the sunset date is final and conclusive and binding on the parties," the clause states.

The Mercury understands that the architects will not be providing any further letters extending the sunset date.