Complaint Review: Boutique Homes

Referring to the above, the associated terms are located as follows: www.66.boutiquehomes.com.au

Andrew de Weerd

Paul, through our investigations we are acquiring evidence to link you to the above comments. We would therefore like to offer you a final opportunity to remove them. Should you choose to do this within 7 working days, no further action will be taken against you. To read the associated terms, click the following link: Here However, should you opt not to remove your comments, or respond to this offer by 8 December 2004, we will instruct our lawyers to issue a writ for damages without delay.

Boutique Homes Melbourne Pty Ltd
Operations Manager

The accusations that this author has levelled against us are totally without foundation and have no basis of fact whatsoever. They break Australian laws and amount to mischievous lies. We suspect that this author is a rival building company, or a sales consultant from a rival building company, who seeks to intentionally injure our company and its employees for their respective financial gain. This matter has been handed over to the Australian Federal Police, The Australian Broadcasting Authority and our lawyers. The author is advised to remove all statements immediately to limit the very substantial damages claim we are now preparing and will serve once investigations are carried out and the author's identity is revealed.

Andrew de Weerd
Operations Manager
Boutique Homes Melbourne Pty Ltd

It is obvious that the rebuttal prepared by Boutique homes must have my complaint confused with another dissatisfied customer.

The home I bought was a duplicate of a display home. There were no structural changes and the permit was issued 30 days after it was applied for.

The reason Boutique Homes is able to assert that they have no prior claims against them through VCAT and other agencies is because as they have indicated they were just the marketing agency for builders. In Australia claims are brought against the builder and not the marketing agency.

The chief officers of Boutique homes have peviously been before VCAT and other agencies when they were working under a different company name. They can deny it, but they themselves know it's true.

It is quite common for builders in Australia to change their company entity when things get hot. This allows them to avoid creditors and claims by current homeowners. It also allows them to start with a new identity and a clean track record.

Boutique claims "We are very happy to inform you that we have not experienced any complaints from our clients ...", obviously they must have forgotten my complaint as a client, which shows they have ignored others, I wonder how many???????????

Boutique prides itself on winning several awards with HIA, MBA and Delfin Lend Lease for their quality designs. The only thing they have achieved is design awards. You do not see any awards from consumer affairs organisations or quality construction awards and that is part of my complaint.

I too got sucked in by all the marketing hype and design, as did the other disgruntled client they refer to, Boutique Homes is very good with the deceptive sales pitch, but they can't deliver the rest of the package.

Furthermore they are full of propaganda, false promises and once you've signed the contract, they put you on hold and don't return any calls.

As for the good and cheerful terms of departure with the builder (NSD) Boutique Homes refers to, it was that the builder that gave Boutique homes the flick and to my understanding it was not under pleasant terms.

It is now obvious that from Boutique Homes' own admission, there are at least 2 dissatisfied clients (including myself). My young children are still recovering from the ordeal.

All I have to say is BUYER BEWARE!!!!! DON'T become another Boutique Homes victim........

It is obvious that the rebuttal prepared by Boutique homes must have my complaint confused with another dissatisfied customer.

The home I bought was a duplicate of a display home. There were no structural changes and the permit was issued 30 days after it was applied for.

The reason Boutique Homes is able to assert that they have no prior claims against them through VCAT and other agencies is because as they have indicated they were just the marketing agency for builders. In Australia claims are brought against the builder and not the marketing agency.

The chief officers of Boutique homes have peviously been before VCAT and other agencies when they were working under a different company name. They can deny it, but they themselves know it's true.

It is quite common for builders in Australia to change their company entity when things get hot. This allows them to avoid creditors and claims by current homeowners. It also allows them to start with a new identity and a clean track record.

Boutique claims "We are very happy to inform you that we have not experienced any complaints from our clients ...", obviously they must have forgotten my complaint as a client, which shows they have ignored others, I wonder how many???????????

Boutique prides itself on winning several awards with HIA, MBA and Delfin Lend Lease for their quality designs. The only thing they have achieved is design awards. You do not see any awards from consumer affairs organisations or quality construction awards and that is part of my complaint.

I too got sucked in by all the marketing hype and design, as did the other disgruntled client they refer to, Boutique Homes is very good with the deceptive sales pitch, but they can't deliver the rest of the package.

Furthermore they are full of propaganda, false promises and once you've signed the contract, they put you on hold and don't return any calls.

As for the good and cheerful terms of departure with the builder (NSD) Boutique Homes refers to, it was that the builder that gave Boutique homes the flick and to my understanding it was not under pleasant terms.

It is now obvious that from Boutique Homes' own admission, there are at least 2 dissatisfied clients (including myself). My young children are still recovering from the ordeal.

All I have to say is BUYER BEWARE!!!!! DON'T become another Boutique Homes victim........

It is obvious that the rebuttal prepared by Boutique homes must have my complaint confused with another dissatisfied customer.

The home I bought was a duplicate of a display home. There were no structural changes and the permit was issued 30 days after it was applied for.

The reason Boutique Homes is able to assert that they have no prior claims against them through VCAT and other agencies is because as they have indicated they were just the marketing agency for builders. In Australia claims are brought against the builder and not the marketing agency.

The chief officers of Boutique homes have peviously been before VCAT and other agencies when they were working under a different company name. They can deny it, but they themselves know it's true.

It is quite common for builders in Australia to change their company entity when things get hot. This allows them to avoid creditors and claims by current homeowners. It also allows them to start with a new identity and a clean track record.

Boutique claims "We are very happy to inform you that we have not experienced any complaints from our clients ...", obviously they must have forgotten my complaint as a client, which shows they have ignored others, I wonder how many???????????

Boutique prides itself on winning several awards with HIA, MBA and Delfin Lend Lease for their quality designs. The only thing they have achieved is design awards. You do not see any awards from consumer affairs organisations or quality construction awards and that is part of my complaint.

I too got sucked in by all the marketing hype and design, as did the other disgruntled client they refer to, Boutique Homes is very good with the deceptive sales pitch, but they can't deliver the rest of the package.

Furthermore they are full of propaganda, false promises and once you've signed the contract, they put you on hold and don't return any calls.

As for the good and cheerful terms of departure with the builder (NSD) Boutique Homes refers to, it was that the builder that gave Boutique homes the flick and to my understanding it was not under pleasant terms.

It is now obvious that from Boutique Homes' own admission, there are at least 2 dissatisfied clients (including myself). My young children are still recovering from the ordeal.

All I have to say is BUYER BEWARE!!!!! DON'T become another Boutique Homes victim........

Dear Sir/ Madam.

Thank you for the opportunity to explain the background behind the claims made by the person who purports to be named Paul'.

Firstly, this unfortunate outcome has its beginnings some years ago when Boutique was a marketing company associated with NSD Developments Pty Ltd. At that time, Boutique was paid on a commission basis for signed contracts, which were forwarded on to NSD who constructed the homes. With the growth of the businesses however, Boutique decided approximately 18 months ago to become a building company in its own right, and brought to an end its relationship with NSD on good and cheerful terms. We are very happy to inform you that we have not experienced any complaints from our clients and have an impeccable record with VCAT and industry bodies. We are very proud to have won several awards with the HIA, MBA and Delfin Lend Lease for our quality and designs.

Secondly, we do not know who Paul' is, as we have never built a home for a Paul' before. However, we think it to be the one client who became frustrated with the delay in the start of their home a number of years ago. In this one case, the client, lets call him Paul', made hundreds of variations (changes) to their home, which caused us much difficulties and delays. You can imagine having almost secured a building permit and to then have the client request further structural changes. When this happens, it requires us to have drawings re-prepared and new engineering and structural computations re-calculated. This led to long delays in achieving a site start for the client, but in explaining this to them; they appeared not to appreciate the effect of their requests.

What is unfortunate about all of this is that Paul' chose not work through their issues with us, or to even seek a remedy through fair government mediators such as VCAT. Instead, Paul' chose to take his issue to a medium outside of proper arbitration, which limits the ability for a fair hearing. Certainly, if Paul's' allegations were in any way true, we would be in breach of the Trade Practices Act and would be in breach of our obligations to industry Associations that we are members of. We have never been involved in a situation where we were required to address a problem with even one of our clients with an industry or government body.

We hope that fairer minds will view Paul's comments as unhelpful and disappointing. I am convinced that if we were offered an avenue of re-dress in Australia, there is no doubt in my mind we would be found to have acted in a proper and just manner at all times.

Yours faithfully.

Operations Manager
Boutique Homes Melbourne Pty Ltd

Dear Sir/ Madam.

Thank you for the opportunity to explain the background behind the claims made by the person who purports to be named Paul'.

Firstly, this unfortunate outcome has its beginnings some years ago when Boutique was a marketing company associated with NSD Developments Pty Ltd. At that time, Boutique was paid on a commission basis for signed contracts, which were forwarded on to NSD who constructed the homes. With the growth of the businesses however, Boutique decided approximately 18 months ago to become a building company in its own right, and brought to an end its relationship with NSD on good and cheerful terms. We are very happy to inform you that we have not experienced any complaints from our clients and have an impeccable record with VCAT and industry bodies. We are very proud to have won several awards with the HIA, MBA and Delfin Lend Lease for our quality and designs.

Secondly, we do not know who Paul' is, as we have never built a home for a Paul' before. However, we think it to be the one client who became frustrated with the delay in the start of their home a number of years ago. In this one case, the client, lets call him Paul', made hundreds of variations (changes) to their home, which caused us much difficulties and delays. You can imagine having almost secured a building permit and to then have the client request further structural changes. When this happens, it requires us to have drawings re-prepared and new engineering and structural computations re-calculated. This led to long delays in achieving a site start for the client, but in explaining this to them; they appeared not to appreciate the effect of their requests.

What is unfortunate about all of this is that Paul' chose not work through their issues with us, or to even seek a remedy through fair government mediators such as VCAT. Instead, Paul' chose to take his issue to a medium outside of proper arbitration, which limits the ability for a fair hearing. Certainly, if Paul's' allegations were in any way true, we would be in breach of the Trade Practices Act and would be in breach of our obligations to industry Associations that we are members of. We have never been involved in a situation where we were required to address a problem with even one of our clients with an industry or government body.

We hope that fairer minds will view Paul's comments as unhelpful and disappointing. I am convinced that if we were offered an avenue of re-dress in Australia, there is no doubt in my mind we would be found to have acted in a proper and just manner at all times.

Yours faithfully.

Operations Manager
Boutique Homes Melbourne Pty Ltd

Dear Sir/ Madam.

Thank you for the opportunity to explain the background behind the claims made by the person who purports to be named Paul'.

Firstly, this unfortunate outcome has its beginnings some years ago when Boutique was a marketing company associated with NSD Developments Pty Ltd. At that time, Boutique was paid on a commission basis for signed contracts, which were forwarded on to NSD who constructed the homes. With the growth of the businesses however, Boutique decided approximately 18 months ago to become a building company in its own right, and brought to an end its relationship with NSD on good and cheerful terms. We are very happy to inform you that we have not experienced any complaints from our clients and have an impeccable record with VCAT and industry bodies. We are very proud to have won several awards with the HIA, MBA and Delfin Lend Lease for our quality and designs.

Secondly, we do not know who Paul' is, as we have never built a home for a Paul' before. However, we think it to be the one client who became frustrated with the delay in the start of their home a number of years ago. In this one case, the client, lets call him Paul', made hundreds of variations (changes) to their home, which caused us much difficulties and delays. You can imagine having almost secured a building permit and to then have the client request further structural changes. When this happens, it requires us to have drawings re-prepared and new engineering and structural computations re-calculated. This led to long delays in achieving a site start for the client, but in explaining this to them; they appeared not to appreciate the effect of their requests.

What is unfortunate about all of this is that Paul' chose not work through their issues with us, or to even seek a remedy through fair government mediators such as VCAT. Instead, Paul' chose to take his issue to a medium outside of proper arbitration, which limits the ability for a fair hearing. Certainly, if Paul's' allegations were in any way true, we would be in breach of the Trade Practices Act and would be in breach of our obligations to industry Associations that we are members of. We have never been involved in a situation where we were required to address a problem with even one of our clients with an industry or government body.

We hope that fairer minds will view Paul's comments as unhelpful and disappointing. I am convinced that if we were offered an avenue of re-dress in Australia, there is no doubt in my mind we would be found to have acted in a proper and just manner at all times.

Yours faithfully.

Operations Manager
Boutique Homes Melbourne Pty Ltd

Dear Sir/ Madam.

Thank you for the opportunity to explain the background behind the claims made by the person who purports to be named Paul'.

Firstly, this unfortunate outcome has its beginnings some years ago when Boutique was a marketing company associated with NSD Developments Pty Ltd. At that time, Boutique was paid on a commission basis for signed contracts, which were forwarded on to NSD who constructed the homes. With the growth of the businesses however, Boutique decided approximately 18 months ago to become a building company in its own right, and brought to an end its relationship with NSD on good and cheerful terms. We are very happy to inform you that we have not experienced any complaints from our clients and have an impeccable record with VCAT and industry bodies. We are very proud to have won several awards with the HIA, MBA and Delfin Lend Lease for our quality and designs.

Secondly, we do not know who Paul' is, as we have never built a home for a Paul' before. However, we think it to be the one client who became frustrated with the delay in the start of their home a number of years ago. In this one case, the client, lets call him Paul', made hundreds of variations (changes) to their home, which caused us much difficulties and delays. You can imagine having almost secured a building permit and to then have the client request further structural changes. When this happens, it requires us to have drawings re-prepared and new engineering and structural computations re-calculated. This led to long delays in achieving a site start for the client, but in explaining this to them; they appeared not to appreciate the effect of their requests.

What is unfortunate about all of this is that Paul' chose not work through their issues with us, or to even seek a remedy through fair government mediators such as VCAT. Instead, Paul' chose to take his issue to a medium outside of proper arbitration, which limits the ability for a fair hearing. Certainly, if Paul's' allegations were in any way true, we would be in breach of the Trade Practices Act and would be in breach of our obligations to industry Associations that we are members of. We have never been involved in a situation where we were required to address a problem with even one of our clients with an industry or government body.

We hope that fairer minds will view Paul's comments as unhelpful and disappointing. I am convinced that if we were offered an avenue of re-dress in Australia, there is no doubt in my mind we would be found to have acted in a proper and just manner at all times.

Yours faithfully.

Operations Manager
Boutique Homes Melbourne Pty Ltd

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/29/1035683412404.html

http://www.nsw.liberal.org.au/media/view.cfm?media_id=695

These and other articles and sites on bad building in Australia were found by doing a search for "shonky builders" on the net. I prefer the www.google.com search engine.

You probably already know about these...and it doesn't sound like any new attempt to regulate builders helped you. We have the same huge problem with bad building in the USA, and laws are not enforced with consistency.