The builders say they aren't required and not worth the money while the inspectors say its worth it if only as an insurance policy for your investment.
Each are paid by opposing parties, so have vested interests in opposite directions and it appears each has varying degree of attention to detail.
So the M employed QA guy went through our place weeks ago and obviously prior to handover and rated it a 98.3%. How the hell that is worked out is beyond me, but a pretty good score none the less.
Our engaged Independent Inspector found quite a few obvious issues that was over looked by the QA guys including,
- A window lintel was not painted at all,
- The fire box was still not to code - frustrating given he raised it in April at his early inspection,
- The heating duct was not connected to the outlet - ok if you intend to heat and live in the roof space,
- Insulation wasn't correctly installed in all places,
- The carpet still had visible lines through it which needed replacing, and
- Two of the 5 ceiling mounted vents / fans didn't have dampeners which are required for the star rating.
With a mark of 98.3% - which is a great score - I can't help feel like I was copying the paper of the student next to me and really deserve a score less than awarded....
I must say M fixed all remaining items without fuss (although at their leisure), so we are really happy overall with our house but the question remains - QA vs Independent Inspector ?