‘Really upsetting': Couple's $252k nightmare
A Melbourne couple's dream home renovation to allow them to become foster carers has turned into 'big black hole' with a bitter dispute emerging, involving an alleged bucket of poo, and the house uninhabitable after more than a year of works.
Lucy* and Leo* claim their renovation has turned into 'a disintegration of the house', ballooning costs and a disgusting find on the home's doorstep.
'(Somone) took a bucket into our home and defecated in our house and then left it outside our front door in the garden,' Lucy told news.com.au.
The couple claimed they were later locked out of their property after the building company did not return to open the locks when the contract was terminated.
'There was a huge lock and a huge chain. Leo had to get a grinder to get the lock off,' Lucy said. 'We shouldn't have to break into our own house.'
But surprisingly, while the couple who are in their mid 40s, are furious with the building company – they have also criticised National Australia Bank for what they see as its contribution to the nightmare scenario.
The bank advised reducing the construction payment schedule from 11 to six instalments resulting in what the couple claim was an alarming overpayment to the company.
'The bank made us change the payment schedule, which allowed the building company to access more money upfront,' Lucy claimed.
'It means the building company were being overpaid at each stage.'
In a letter to the building company in March this year, the couple's lawyers stated the value of the work completed sat at $168,000, despite the couple already paying out $252,000.
Demolition of part of the home began in 2023 and yet the house still resembles a building site, said Lucy, forcing the couple to end the contract at the end of March this year.
'It's so disheartening,' she said.
In March, a building surveyor made directions to the building company to fix a number of works. Defects had also been identified in an expert's report from last year with 10 issues yet to be rectified, the couple's lawyers claimed.
'My partner had to pull out the installation in the roof as the builder had allowed birds to nest and plastered over it and did not remove the bird's nest,' Lucy noted.
The couple requested immediate repayment of $87,000 from the building company earlier this year. Now the couple's lawyers are preparing a case to take to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
The building company did not respond to request for comment.
Do you have a story? Contact sarah.sharples@news.com.au
MORE: Tradie's colossal 5.5m find in Aus backyard
Lucy is worried they can't finish the house and will be forced to sell with a loss of $700,000.
Before the renovation the house was worth $1.1 million with the valuation set to jump to $1.25 million to $1.3 million after works were completed.
'We had a real estate agent come through to tell us what we can get now if we sell it incomplete and he told us we would be lucky to get $800,000,' she said.
'So we would lose $400,000 for our principal place of residence and lose $300,000 paid out on legal fees and the builder. That is a $700,000 loss and I can't do that to Leo when he has worked his arse off to pay the mortgage.
'It's a really terrible situation and it's highly stressful.'
Meanwhile, the couple claim they felt unsupported by NAB when making the second last payment of $84,000.
'I rang them and said 'I just want to pay half as we don't have what we are paying for here',' she said.
But she was told by NAB that if she didn't want to pay the full amount that an option was to either to go through an assessment with the credit team as to whether the payment schedule could be changed. Otherwise, they could terminate the building company's contract, reapply for a loan and 'start again'.
Lucy is critical that NAB touts flexibility when it comes to the loan but said that isn't the case and said terminating wasn't an option.
'In that situation, we would have half a house and would be faced with getting sued by the builder and the suing part would have exceeded us making the payment, as it could have been over $100,000,' she said.
When the couple eventually terminated the contract earlier this year they claimed the house was already more than 290 days overdue.
'We can't live there. We have to live in my one bedroom apartment as newlyweds but we've got two little dogs and have to take them out five to six times a day and it's just not fair,' Lucy said.
The couple are now paying the mortgage on the apartment and house, as well as the construction loan, with their request to remain on interest only payments rejected by NAB.
'We are typical Aussie battlers – we don't have lucrative jobs,' Lucy noted.
Meanwhile, Leo believes banks should introduce more inspections before payments are made.
'We are in debt for a house that should have been completed in May last year,' he said.
'It's been compounded by the bank giving us only one option, which was a construction loan of six repayments. If it was a broader range of say 11 repayments and proper inspections we wouldn't be in this situation.'
Lucy said the couple felt like they were 'fobbed' off after lodging complaints with NAB over the handling of the construction loan and have taken the matter to dispute resolution service, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA).
The couple knocked back an initial offer from NAB of two months repayment of interest, Lucy said.
They then declined an offer made during the AFCA proceedings, which are continuing, with another meeting being held on Tuesday.
'We are in a housing crisis and we have an empty house and have one we could offer up for rent and we can't do it. It's terrible. We would love to be in position to put our friend, who is a pensioner in the unit, but I can't help. I can't help children as I can't have foster kids in a one-bedroom apartment,' Lucy said.
'I mourn and cry about our freedom of choice as it's so limited. Our life is on hold until we can sort out the bank and the building company.'
Lucy wants to raise more awareness about construction loans, sounding the alarm that she believes consumers are being put at a disadvantage with reduced payment stages, which are generally seen as standard in the industry.
'The banks may think its efficiency or streamlining but it's actually to the detriment to the customer,' she said.
'If I was able to keep the 11 progress payments as per the original contract, I would pay interest on $56,000 for the work completed to date. But because of NAB's product design limitation, I am paying interest on $252,000 and funded the building company for 90 per cent of the work in a house we cannot occupy.'
She believes many other Aussies are also impacted by the same scenario.
NAB would not comment on the specific customer issues.
'Customers have control over releasing payments to a builder as a project progresses under a construction loan. They do this when they are satisfied with the progress of each stage the builder has reached,' said NAB executive Megan Bond.
'It is industry standard for these payments to be made in five stages. This structure ensures customers are entering into an agreement with financially solvent builder.
'Any request to deviate from the agreed payment schedule needs to go through a review process.'
Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the Victorian Building Authority (VBA) said they had received three complaints regarding the building company over the last two years.
'Two of the three have been dealt with,' they noted.
'The VBA is waiting on more information from the third complainant before progressing the matter.'
The VBA has sent out an inspector to examine the building work and complete a report.
The couple did not want to name the building company publicly as the dispute is ongoing.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
29 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Saint Haven stands down staffer after ‘extremely inappropriate' message
A staffer at an exclusive spa in Melbourne has been stood down after management became aware of an 'extremely inappropriate internal team message'. Saint Haven, a private members wellness club, made the announcement to clients on June 13 as it continues to face criticism from millionaire entrepreneur Christopher Shao. Mr Shao this month publicly accused staff of singling out his mother for carrying her phone in a club bathhouse, and has since doubled down on claims of racism. Saint Haven has said its staff were 'committed to gently upholding' its policy of a ban on taking phone calls or using laptops in public spaces. In a joint statement to members on June 13, Gurner Group executives Ahmed Fahour and Peter Crinis referenced Mr Shao's complaints saying 'this matter involved the application of our strict no-phone policy — a rule in place to protect the privacy and comfort of all members'. 'Based on our initial review, no wrongdoing has been identified on the part of our team.' Their missive continued to state that 'in the past 24 hours, we have become aware of an extremely inappropriate internal team message sent by a team member'. The message sent earlier in the year was 'unrelated' to Mr Shao's complaint, the letter said, and 'does not reflect our values or the expectations we uphold'. 'This behaviour is not acceptable and goes against everything we stand for. The team member has been stood down pending a full investigation.' The executives said Saint Haven and its sister club Saint 'have zero tolerance for racism, or any conduct that undermines the dignity, safety or wellbeing of others'. 'We hold both team members and members to the same high standards, and we take all matters of this nature extremely seriously,' they said. Saint Haven's media representatives declined to make further comment when contacted by Mr Shao had posted a series of images to his Instagram stories on Thursday night, with one purporting to show texts in a staff group chat. That text exchange appeared to show one staff member making insulting comments about Indian members. He also shared images of staff LinkedIn profiles and the costs of Saint Haven memberships – revealing the 'ultimate' package set back members $499 per week. Mr Shao spoke with the Herald Sun last week claiming he had been contacted by ex-staff since making his public complaints. 'Since speaking out a significant number of former Saint Haven staff have contacted me to share their own experiences of the club's toxic internal culture, it's clearly not an isolated issue,' he said. 'They don't necessarily have money to back it up and, you know, these people have lawyers and legal teams. They are too scared to speak up.' Saint Haven is owned by the Gurner Group, headed by Melbourne property mogul and almost-billionaire Tim Gurner. The clubs boast a range of wellness and anti-ageing offerings such as hyperbaric oxygen therapy and IV drips, and more common health facilities like gym, meditation, yoga and sauna. Mr Gurner recently announced a Sydney expansion, with a new spa set to crop up in Bondi next year, saying it would be 'an unparalleled sanctuary for those who demand more from life'.
News.com.au
4 hours ago
- News.com.au
You should delete yourself from the internet: here's how
If you feel like most of the calls you're getting at the moment are from 'The Visa MasterCard fraud department' or you're getting bombarded by texts from Clive Palmer 's lackeys, then your data has probably been bought and sold. Your name, mobile number, email address and possibly even home address are likely showing up on the databases of data brokers, available to the highest bidder or, worse, anyone who knows where to look. In the best case scenario, this data is being used to try and sell you stuff, in the worst case scenario, it's being combined with other data for identity theft. The good news is that you can take some of the control back and remove yourself from many of these databases. Turns out it's not even that complicated if you're willing to dedicate a little time or money to the problem. The only issue is that it's going to be a Sisyphean task. Dr Arash Shanghagi, a Senior Lecturer in Cyber Security at the University of New South Wales says that while this process can seem like a hassle, it's necessary. 'People opt out of data broker databases to protect their privacy and reduce risks like identity theft, fraud, or aggressive marketing. Brokers collect and sell personal details. This can include names, addresses, phone numbers, and even financial data. Often without consent,' he said. 'This exposure can make you a target. Here's a familiar example: 'Hi Alice, this is Sarah from your energy provider. We've noticed unusual usage at your home on 10 Sydney Street. To secure your account, can you confirm your billing details?' It sounds legitimate because they know your name and address. But it's a scam. That kind of info is often bought from data brokers and used to trick people into giving up payment info or login credentials. By removing yourself from these databases, you're not just cleaning up your digital footprint. You're reducing attack surface. The goal is to reclaim control and make it harder for bad actors to exploit personal data.' If you want to get a sense of what data of yours is out there, there's a free tool from Google called 'Results About You' which will periodically scan the internet to see if your name, email address, phone number and/or home address has shown up in any of the data bases or 'people search' websites it checks. If data is found, you can start the process to request its removal. It's a very simple, low stakes tool. A Google spokesperson told that Results About You is just one of the tools Google makes available so people can take control of their privacy: 'We provide people with a range of tools to help safeguard their online information and mitigate the risk of identity theft. Beyond robust security features like Security Checkup, My Activity offers valuable insight into online activity, enabling people to investigate suspicious activity on their account. Google also actively sends notifications if it detects suspicious activity on your account to help you prevent unauthorised access and secure your information. Additionally, our 'Results about you' tool allows for the removal of personal contact information from Search, further enhancing privacy.' When I tried the Results About You tool, nothing came up for me, even though I know my data is out there, judging purely on the amount of spam and prank calls I get. While those free Google tools are a good place to start, they don't cover the full breadth of what's out there. Dr Shanghagi also says that it's worth being weary of data protection and privacy tools released by a company whose primary business is selling data. 'I think a healthy dose of scepticism is justified. Google's core business is built on data-driven advertising, so when they offer a tool like 'Results About You,' it's worth noting what it actually does – and doesn't do. It only removes your personal info from Google search results, not from the original data broker sites. It is a very narrow offering from a company that thrives on data. Use it, sure. But don't mistake it for real protection. Always pair it with more comprehensive tools and be mindful of how much data you're handing over to Google and other online services.' Step two: Use premium services to go even further Services like DeleteMe, PrivacyBee, Mozilla Monitor and Optery are set up to scan the internet and, depending on what account tier you pick, delete all your data on your behalf. Lawrence Gentilello, CEO and Founder of Optery told that when it comes to the databases of data brokers, his company understands the stakes. 'The personal information collected by data brokers is compiled into extremely detailed profiles. The information in these profiles can be used against people in harmful ways. It's both a privacy issue and a security issue. Most people don't want their private details made available publicly or for sale. The scale and granularity of data collection is beyond what most people would even imagine, sometimes including tens of thousands of sub-attributes and inferences about a person's behaviour, which may or may not be accurate. There is a widespread pattern of data brokers failing to adequately vet their customers, some of whom are malicious actors. Millions of dollars have been stolen from vulnerable consumers using brokered data.' 'Data brokers get hacked, and when they do, the personal profiles they've compiled are often sold by cybercriminals on the dark web. Data broker profiles enable phishing attacks, voice and messaging scams, identity theft, and fraud. They also pose a physical danger by enabling doxing, stalking, harassment, and violence. And so personal data removal is important for both digital and physical security. People in high-profile or high-risk roles — such as executives, journalists, law enforcement, and judges — use personal data removal to prevent malicious actors from showing up at their homes.' The data that services like Optery uncover and delete goes deeper than just your name and addresses, but things like your real time location, your favourite order at that place you have a loyalty card with, political preference, mental health status, device usage, and religion. Gentilello told us 'This data is packaged and sold to marketers, political groups, law enforcement, private investigators, and virtually anyone through subscription-based platforms. The datasets include inferred characteristics, life events, spending habits, and real-time or historical geolocation data.' 'Some brokers openly advertise data on US government employees, military personnel, students, elderly Americans, and even people with Alzheimer's or cancer. This kind of profiling is used for targeted advertising, lead generation, and identity verification, but it can just as easily be used for scams, discrimination, or surveillance. Malicious actors can buy pre-packaged datasets to identify and exploit vulnerable populations. Companies may also use this data to make decisions about you — whether you qualify for a loan, get hired, or receive certain services — without you ever knowing it.' With Optery, you can sign up for free, get a report on what private data more than 645 websites have on you. You can then manually remove yourself from these databases for free, or you can subscribe to various tiers to have Optery opt out of these databases for you. Because most of these services are US-based, most of their targets are also American, but the local options appear to be limited and this is better than nothing. Step three: The nuclear option Fully deleting yourself from the entire internet is likely an impossible task, but if you want to keep going after deleting yourself from these data broker sites, there are a few things you can do: Delete your account from any social media websites you're a part of. Some will allow you to just scrub your account from the settings, while others will require you use third party tools to delete your posts, and then you have to contact the service directly to request they delete your account, this doesn't guarantee that the company won't keep their data on you, but it will usually mean it stops being public (though it won't delete it from any internet archives that may have archived). Delete your accounts in any apps that you've made accounts. This might also involve contacting the company to request your data is deleted. Then, once you've deleted the account, delete the app and all its data from your phone. Once you've deleted any public profiles or accounts of yourself from the original sites, if you want to go really scorched Earth, you can then contact The Internet Archive to delete any archives of your data by emailing info@ To then stay off the radar without completely withdrawing from society, you can use a few different tools when looking at buying devices or using apps. First, consult Mozilla's Privacy Not Included database to gauge the creepiness level of the device or service you're looking for to see if there's one whose policies you're comfortable with. Another great tool is the Terms of Service: Didn't Read website, which sums up terms of service documents so you can understand what you're agreeing to without wading through all the legalese. Alternative step three: the more alert but not alarmed option Dr Shanghagi also recommends the following habits as a middle ground if you don't want to delete yourself completely: • Use privacy-first tools: Browsers like Brave or Firefox, along with ad blockers, can cut down on invisible tracking and surveillance. • Use alias emails and phone numbers: Services like Firefox Relay or SimpleLogin let you mask your real contact info when signing up for things online. • Create a 'privacy-first' identity: For newsletters, online stores, or giveaways, use a separate email and minimal real info. Keep your primary identity for essentials only. • Be mindful on social media: Oversharing is a goldmine for data brokers. Share less, and when in doubt, leave it out. • Avoid 'Sign in with Google' or Facebook logins: They may save time, but they link your activity across platforms. This is not great for privacy. • Tighten your settings: Check your privacy settings regularly across social, email, and mobile accounts. Do not trust the defaults. • Use a VPN: It hides your IP address and encrypts your internet traffic. Very useful when on public Wi-Fi or travelling. • Opt out where you can: Unsubscribe from marketing lists and use opt-out tools or services to remove your info from broker databases. Be selective with online forms: Skip the optional fields. your birthdate or phone number often isn't necessary. The goal isn't to disappear. It's to be intentional. A little effort goes a long way in protecting your digital footprint.' Generally, if it's not something a company has to know to provide whatever service it is for require, you don't actually have to give them any real information. Have fun coming up with your alias, and make sure it's something you can remember, so your real identity stays safe. Another thing that came up repeatedly from the experts we spoke to, and the guides we read is to use privacy focused web browsers, like Firefox and Brave, and to make use of privacy focused extensions. Good luck out there.
News.com.au
9 hours ago
- News.com.au
Collingwood: ‘The Lamington' pad's red hot auction result
An ultra-cool Collingwood apartment known as the Lamington has smashed expectations after selling for more than $1m on Saturday. The two-bedroom home at 3F/68 Oxford St with red tiles, metals and glass throughout was advertised with a $900,000-$950,000 asking range. Short-listed for an Australian Institute of Architects' interiors award, the warehouse conversion is located within a factory complex that formerly belonged to one of Australia's first department store chains, Foy & Gibson. The apartment's owner commissioned architectural practice Rexroth Mannasmann Collective to transform its shell into an eclectic abode with a wall of tall windows, 3.6m-high steel-trussed ceilings and polished hardwood floorboards. A horizontal red line features on many of the walls including in the open-plan living and dining area is much like a strip of jam inside a lamington – contributing to the apartment's unofficial name. There's also a central pod within the home containing a laundry and bathroom. One of the pod's walls has a flip-top desk and foldaway bed. The residence has been featured in both Vogue Living and the Architectural Review magazines. Jellis Craig inner north partner Simon Shrimpton said a $900,000 bid started the auction as three bidders competed for the 'very cool' apartment. It was placed on the market at $950,000 and ended up fetching $1.025m. 'The apartment sold a young couple from Fitzroy and the underbidders were a couple downsizing from the eastern suburbs,' Mr Shrimpton said. 'The couple who bought were very excited, they were the first to inquire and the first ones through the door at the first open for inspection,' Mr Shrimpton said. 'They were absolutely in love with the place and all the design aspects and nuances it has.' Mr Shrimpton said that for inner Melbourne apartments, well-designed homes with stylish flair tended to attract a lot of interest. 'Bespoke, architecturally-designed apartments are few and far between and when they are offered to the market, buyers will always line up to compete for them,' he added. Also on Saturday, a double-fronted, Victorian-era house at 1 Peel St, Newport, sold for $1.21m. The three-bedroom house, in need of some work including replastering, had a $1.05m reserve. The Agency property partners Leigh Melbourne and Noah Lautman-Wurt had the listing. Mr Melbourne said that a young couple from the western suburbs purchased the property, out of three bidders. 'The bidding was fast and furious,' Mr Melbourne said. He noted that homes at Peel St's bottom end, near The Strand in Williamstown, did not often come up for sale. 'In my 25 years covering the area, it's the second property I have sold down here,' he said. Mr Lautman-Wurt said the auction started with a $1m bid, with a buyer's advocate and family among the underbidders.
