DDEG

Update: the Building and Plumbing Commission officially changed their ruling. Instead of finding a substantiated complaint against DDEG, their letter implies that it’s acceptable for DDEG to prepare a report explicitly claiming that the following meets fire safety requirements: installing timber to cover one of the airgaps in a shared boundary wall with many defects, while refusing to accept evidence regarding the “as constructed” state of that wall and refusing to conduct a site inspection.

The BPC said they closed my complaint because DDEG received emails from me raising issues. DDEG responded to my emails by saying that my input was not acceptable and all communication had to go through the builder. The same builder who failed to construct a fire safe wall between two houses during construction and who has, for over a year now, continued to refuse to meet fire safety requirements and instead wants to slap on a bit of timber instead of using noncombustible materials in a boundary wall. According to the BPC’s letter where they closed my complaint, this is acceptable. Either that, or the BPC chose to ignore fire safety noncompliance and only focus on whether letters were exchanged.

I would have thought fire safety noncompliance would be paramount. I thought they’d (the BPC as well as the builder and DDEG) would want to act pre-emptively to prevent a possible local version of the Grenfell Tower fire. This feels like they’re gambling with people’s lives.

Original review follows:

YHB Group (builder) and/or Peet Limited (trading as one or more of a few companies, acting as developer, real estate agent and vendor) engaged DDEG to develop a “performance design proposal” after I discovered that the boundary wall between my house and my neighbour’s house does not meet minimum fire safety standards.

Yesterday the Victorian Building Authority found that my complaint against DDEG was “Substantiated”. I’m not quite sure what that means or what exactly happens now, but the VBA said they are going to discuss the matter with the “person” involved and will later make a decision regarding possible disciplinary procedures.

DDEG prepared FOUR versions of a ”report” for the builder and/or developer. The text of the documents said that it was compliant with fire safety requirements. I can’t find anywhere in DDEG’s text that says something to the effect that, for example, fire safety standards prohibit use of timber in load bearing firewalls. The report/s also say they assume the original construction was compliant but DDEG refused to inspect and refused to look at relevant documents and photos. The watermark on these reports said “NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION”, which is the only indicator I recognise as an admission that their proposal does not comply with legislated standards.

The builder, the developer and their solicitors claimed the DDEG report was legit and strongly implied they could enforce that as the only solution. They harassed me and threatened retaliation, including threatening defamation proceedings for trying to get my house rectified.

On 9 December 2024 the builder entered my house after I refused permission. He allegedly implemented some of the DDEG design on that wall and it certainly seemed like he installed TIMBER to extend the wall closer to the roof. Nails visible in the photo below show that the house was NOT constructed as per DDEG’s design and photos taken when the builder closed the roof show that the work done on 9 December does NOT comply with DDEG’s design. The builder did not provide a building permit or compliance certificate from a fire safety engineer for the proposal or the work done on 9 December either.

In April 2025 the builder again sought access to my house to implement the DDEG design. I sent that email to the VBA and cc-ed DDEG with comments about their design, which recommends installing timber into what should be a firewall. Shortly after, DDEG replied to all and said they withdrew their proposal, claiming all four versions were just a preliminary “design brief”. (Before the VBA said my complaint was, to some extent, “substantiated”, I sent the VBA some of the correspondence between all parties to show how the DDEG report was developed and used.)

The DDEG report/proposal explicitly stated that wood would be installed to cover air gaps between the existing wall and the roof sheeting instead of using noncombustible materials as is required of a wall between two townhouses. There are other issues with the wall and the report/s, which I won’t go into here. My point: this is serious noncompliance that could cost lives. I do NOT want to die in a fire.

I told the developer’s solicitor that I wanted a wall that meets minimum legal standards. He told me in writing that wasn’t enough justification for refusing the DDEG “solution”. The builder’s solicitor threatened to sue me for defamation because I refused to accept the DDEG report as a solution and had continued trying to get my house rectified to meet minimum legal standards. It’s been HUGELY traumatic and is still ongoing.

If a builder or developer engage DDEG to provide a solution for defective construction, BE VERY CAREFUL. Find your own expert. Read the legislation, the national construction code, etc. It is stressful and expensive but it could save lives.