DG Certifiers Pty Ltd

Further to the above comment, unless the builder has significantly improved his properly made applications (e.g. drawings & other legislative documents required under legislation) to his new Certifier, we would question the time frame of 3 days for an approval that has been stated by Andrew & Mattina We also provide a 3 - 5 day fast track service on the proviso that the application is properly made (e.g. with all documents required under the Building Act).



As you can see, there is always 2 sides to a story. Once the third approval has been finalised, we are only too happy to part ways with this building company. For those that are reading these comments, by all means we always invite discussion. On many other sites, we have fantastic reviews on the service that D G Certifiers has provided over the years, due to those builders, individuals & general public meeting the minimum building standards under legislation and also following approved plans issued.

It is not out being "tough" or "difficult". As a licenced Certifier, there is a duty of care that our company follows all minimum legislative requirements as set down by local, state and federal regulations and building codes. In the case above, we have followed these legislative requirements as the licenced Certifier is required to do. We have not performed any building approval work for "Andermat" (Andrew and Mattina) for over 20 months and now find it necessary to respond to a review that does not provide any accurate history of events, considering that the job in question, the builder had 13 months to rectify. We too offer a 3 to 5 day service for building approvals on properly made applications e.g. all drawings complete for assessment etc. We are perplexed on what fees Andermat has had to forego? We provided the service, the approvals, completed inspections etc.

An initial onsite consultation to look over unacceptable built structures (payment for our callout on the day,) Clients given more than 6 items to rectify. Did not hear from clients for at least 4 months after initial consultation. A former council inspector? Legislation, codes change. When approving structures today, it must meet today's standards. Pull the front portico down? No, we asked for sheets to be removed so that the unacceptable built structure, i.e. ridge beams could be sized to ensure that it met today's standards-it is unreasonable to be able to inspect and assess a structure when it is covered over. Clients were given option to use an engineer to re-assess the ridge beams structural adequacy& clients were requested by engineer to provide extra tie-down details. 3 â?? 4 additional inspections@no charge and we were difficult to deal with? Apparently unaware of building requirements. We have repeat business!

Keep in mind that these particular clients went ahead and built structures before obtaining a building approval and such structures did not meet the required building standards.

Hard to take peoples reveiws seriously when they log in with the user name DGcertRbad - is this just a total joke? DG is a professional certifier - stop wasting his time and accept responsibility for the predicament you got yourself into by building those things without a BA.