Our experience of the sales process was positive at the time. Communication was generally prompt, the salesperson was approachable, and the information presented gave us confidence to proceed.

We recall being told that, because ours was a relatively small home, it would most likely be completed within 12 months. That was an important consideration in our decision.

The builder also promoted a 12 Month Build Time Assurance, using strong language about trust, transparency, reliability and putting commitments into action. Read together with the shorter timeframes discussed during the sales process, we understood that the builder had reliable systems in place to deliver homes within a clearly understood timeframe.

Although the annexure later states that the 12-month period is calculated from the date the first brick is laid, the practical significance of that condition was not clearly explained to us during the sales process.

We also do not believe the information presented to us about the builder's current construction timeframes accurately reflected the delays and overall build durations we have since experienced.

From our perspective, customers should receive clear, accurate and complete information before signing a building contract. When a builder makes strong claims about trust and reliable build times, the responsibility rests with the builder to ensure customers understand how those claims operate in practice.

Had we understood how the assurance operated, together with the likely overall build timeframe, we would not have chosen to proceed with this builder.

Our consultant was knowledgeable, organised and genuinely helpful throughout the process. They offered thoughtful suggestions on colours, finishes and product selections, and helped us make decisions that suited the style of the home.

We appreciated that they took the time to explain the available options clearly and answer our questions. The process was well organised, and we felt supported in making informed decisions about our home.

Although our overall building experience has been challenging, prestart stands out as a particularly positive part of the journey. We remain grateful for the professionalism, knowledge and assistance we received during that stage.

Earthworks were completed on 27 February 2026, and the slab was poured on 17 March 2026.

We were not advised beforehand that the slab pour was proceeding earlier than the timeframe we were given. As a result, neither we nor our independent building inspector had the opportunity to attend before the concrete was placed.

Afterwards, we requested quality management documentation relating to the slab pour. Beyond a compaction certificate from 18 days prior, we have received nothing. We have been advised that the builder was not required to provide that documentation.

From our perspective, the concern extended beyond the documentation itself. We were hoping the builder would work with us to find a practical way of addressing our concerns or provide alternative reassurance about the quality assurance process that had been followed.

Instead, we felt our concerns were dismissed rather than genuinely considered.

For many homeowners, the slab is one of the most significant stages of the build because it forms the foundation for everything that follows. We believe clear communication and cooperation at this stage are particularly important.

After the slab was completed, no substantive construction activity was observed on site for 108 days.

During this period we repeatedly sought information about when work would recommence, how the delay would affect the construction program and what revised timeframe we should expect for completion.

Construction restarted with Bricklayers commencing on 3 July 2026. While construction restarting was genuinely encouraging, the prolonged stoppage had already created significant uncertainty. We continued to seek a revised construction schedule and clearer written communication so we could understand how the remainder of the build would progress.

We were later advised in writing that the revised Practical Completion Inspection (PCI) date had become 3 July 2027—approximately 491 days after earthworks for a modest three-bedroom home.

Following the start of brickwork, the builder issued an Extension of Time (EOT) notice.

Our understanding is that an Extension of Time Notice should be supported by evidence explaining the basis for the additional time claimed. We requested that evidence but did not receive it.

We therefore disputed the Extension of Time Notice.

As the matter remained unresolved, we lodged a complaint with Building and Energy WA for independent consideration.

Homeowners are directly affected by any extension to the contractual construction period. They have legitimate interests under the building contract and, from our perspective, should receive Extension of Time notices that are properly supported and sufficiently clear to allow the basis of the claim to be understood and, where necessary, questioned.

Our concern is not that a builder should be prevented from claiming a legitimate Extension of Time where the contract allows it. Rather, significant extensions to the construction timeframe should be transparent, properly supported and capable of independent scrutiny.

More broadly, our experience has highlighted what we see as a broader issue within residential construction. Builders generally control the construction program and determine revised timeframes, while homeowners have limited practical ability to assess whether those revised timeframes are reasonable.

We believe there should be clearer and more practical mechanisms for homeowners to understand and, where appropriate, question significant changes to the expected completion of their home.