Britton, P and Bailey, J (2011) New homes and consumer rights: England and Australia compared. International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, 3(3), pp. 269-295. ISSN 1756-1450
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to contrast consumer laws in England and Australia in relation to residential building projects, and considers how the laws of England may be improved in light of the Australian laws. Design/methodology/approach – The paper reviews consumer laws in both England and Australia, and examines the measures that are in place (or not) to protect consumers who engage builders or purchase a home that contains latent defects. Findings – After comparing the laws of the two countries, the conclusion is made that English law could be improved by imposing regulations on builders, including by mandating the use of written contracts for building work which are required to contain particular terms, requiring builders to be licensed and insured, and by introducing a consumer-friendly form of dispute resolution for home building disputes. Practical implications – The paper recommends that there be law reform in England. Originality/value – The paper provides (so far as the authors are aware) the first comparison of English and Australian consumer laws in relation to residential building work.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Australia; consumer protection; consumer rights; dispute resolution; England; insurance; legislation; licensing; residential building contract |
| Index terms: | methodology, regulation, law reform, legislation, licensing, builder, insurance, home building, resolution, residential building, England, dispute, Australia |
| Subjects: | dispute resolution, practitioner, knowledge transfer, construction type, legal systems, economic analysis, Geography, research methods, political science, conflict resolution |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Construction Technology, Governance, Business Strategy, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Legal Issues, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here