DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF FALSE REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING A RENOVATED BATHROOM and A NEW BATHROOM:
LEGAL NOTICE RELATING TO THIS DOCUMENT
Noosa Council documents are published on this website as :
•
 fair dealing for purpose of research or study;
•
 fair dealing for purpose of criticism or review;
•
 fair dealing for purpose of reporting news;
pursuant to the provisions of sections 40, 41 and 42 of the Commonwealth Copyright Act; AND
•
 the public interest in the exposure of misleading, deceptive, unconscionable, illegal, perhaps fraudulent and secretive conduct of a Queensland local government public body. (see BELOW for an explanation as to what can be argued as fraudulent)
This website and its author have NO affiliation with, and make NO comment on behalf of, Noosa Council
EVIDENCE OF THE REPRESENTATIONS BEING FALSE
VIDEO EVIDENCE OF PONDED WATER THAT LEAKS THROUGH THE RENOVATED & NEW BATHROOM FLOORS IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE ABOVE BUILDING CONDITIONS & BCA, MAKING:
•
 BUILDING UNDERNEATH IMPOSSIBLE; and
•
 CREATING AN ELECTRICAL HAZARD; and
•
 POTENTIALLY ROTTING THE TIMBER FLOORING.
 
Why the Decision Notice and Form 21 Final Inspection Certificate were misleading or deceptive or perhaps fraudulent
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Noosa Shire Council purchased the building and re-sited it to its current location for the purpose of selling it. In July 2006 the Council made the representations set out here to a prospective purchaser (and others), who became the current owner. Documentary evidence of the bathroom representations is here. During the 30 day conveyancing period the Council provided a statutory Form 21 Final Inspection Letter & Certificate to the purchaser.

By way of a lengthy "without prejudice" letter from the Noosa Shire Council dated 13 December 2006 and signed by its Director of Business Mr. David Thomas, the Council has now stated that pursuant to sections 61 and 266 of the Building Act 1975 there was a discretion to dispense with the requirements of the Noosa Council Building Conditions and the BCA (Building Code of Australia 2006) relating to the bathroom representations. As such, the Council has admitted that the Building Conditions and BCA in relation to the new and renovated bathrooms, were discretionally dispensed with as they were approved on the basis of earlier (former & repealed) building assessment provisions before the Council owned the building.

In verbal explanation of the above conduct, Mr. David Thomas, Business Director for the Noosa Council has stated that, as the Council must be seen to handle its own certification matters with the utmost propriety, an independent Certifier was engaged to manage the Building Conditions and BCA issues for the Council. That job was given to Noosa Building Certifiers however, it has since been discovered (as it was not disclosed by Mr. Thomas) that the registered business Noosa Building Certifiers is actually owned by the Noosa Council, BUSINESS SEARCH EXTRACT HERE.

A result of the above facts are that:
(a) the Council had in fact not built or renovated the bathrooms as had been represented to the purchaser by the Council and Noosa Property Shop (now trading as LAGUNA TEWANTIN; and
(b) the bathrooms were not compliant and cannot be compliant to the BCA or the conditions of the Decision Notice (i.e., bathroom representations) because of the dispensations.
(c) the Council in fact did its own discretional dispensing of its own development and has sought to deceive the complainants, regarding that fact.

The evidentiary documents of false representations set out above which were provided to the purchaser prior to purchase contract and during the conveyancing period (the Decision Notice being also contained within Noosa Council tender documents for the property given out to many tenderers for the property), did NOT contain notice of these intrinsic dispensations NOR did the Council make the purchaser aware of them until the letter of 13 December 06 arrived, some 5 months after completion of the sale of the property.

THE CONTENTION OF MISLEADING or DECEPTIVE or FRAUDULENT CONDUCT
By way of the facts set out above the Noosa Council knew about the intrinsic dispensations at the time of the sale of the property. It has willfully or recklessly failed to disclose the dispensations intrinsically associated with the evidentiary documents above. This has amounted too false representations to the purchaser and to all prospective purchasers of the property (EXTRACT OF COUNCIL DOCUMENT LISTING NAMES OF TENDERERS FOR LOT 766 (63) Nandroya Road, Cooroy) prior to the sale of the property by the Council. In the opinion of the publisher of this website, that amounts to at best, false and misleading conduct and at worst, a deceitful fraud to gain the Noosa Council a financial advantage.

CURRENT BELLIGERENCE OF THE NOOSA COUNCIL
Despite extensive legislation requiring ethical conduct by Queensland's local governments, the Noosa Council refuses to recognise or admit that it should have made disclosure of the intrinsic dispensations to all prospective purchasers including the actual purchaser. In fact Mr. Thomas for the Council has verbally stated that the Council was not obliged to make disclosure. In the opinion of the publisher of this website, that amounts to at best, arrogance, despotism, idiocy and/or incompetence, contravention of the ethics requirements of the Queensland local government legislation, further contraventions of the misleading or deceptive and unconscionable provisions of the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act and Queensland Fair Trading Act, and at worst, compounding and ratifying a fraud, not to mention a complete lack of common decency.

Instead of providing the purchaser with requested information and records of the building history of the bathrooms (purchased from the Council) in order to:
(c) determine bathroom legality; and
(d) determine who in fact did do the work to the bathrooms; by
(e) accessing the records of the "earlier building assessment provisions";
the Noosa Council refuses to co-operate by refusing to even reveal if the records exist and demands further fees for document searches that have already been paid for during the conveyancing process. (see a furher LETTER of DEMAND to Noosa Council that has also been ignored)

A BLOGSPOT FOR COMMENT / RIGHT OF REPLY
 

HOME