You neglected to mention the insurers! Who paid for the flood restoration and what was her (Betty’s) attitude towards the insurance company decisions? Agreed, it is definitely “buyer-beware” out there in the big flood-prone city of Brisbane; but not just with the issue between agent and prospective buyer, but between prospective policy holder and insurance company too.

Agreed again, it is a case that some prefer the lifestyle choice of water views and leafy parks (parks where often stood dwellings in the watery past) and are prepared to accept the inevitable devastation from flood with full knowledge and possibly total ignorance of the catastrophe these can wreak on life, limb and home; but what of those who were told a half-truth by an unscrupulous agent before signing on the dotted line?

Again, you underscore the significance of the turmoil called “Flood” with Betty’s example who on two occasions knowingly bought into a serious flood zone and on those two occasions either had an option of a legal out before the ink dried on the contract, as in the first case, or as in the second case, knowingly purchased a flood prone property.

A critical question arises when a buyer attempts to identify all the negatives of a potential property in Brisbane; the glaring obvious, “who alone holds records of flood zones indicating the varying local severity of flood, and why is there an appearance here of a real or tacit attempt to hide the fact by the agents or the relevant local authorities, especially when that local authority is directly involved in all home purchases”?

The Local Council Authority not only hold information on flood zones, which should be (one would think) a mandatory requirement to disclose, but should be disclosed to the prospective buyer before the ink marks the contract to purchase

I think the land is subject to a one in one hundred year flood. Which you will find on your section 32 document, which everyone gets before you buy.

So, implicated in this criminal silence are the federal politicians, the State politicians, the estate agents the law society and the local Council’s.

Vive la Democracy

Thanks 579:

But how specific is the section 32 document mentioned? Does it indicate flood water depth of past events, or simply the property is flood prone? I don’t wish to harp about NSW, but in towns and cities here one cannot help but notice Local Council installed survey markers indicating the top water level on all corner electricity poles of all affected streets, and clearly labelled indicating the TWL and the year of occurrence of the flood event referred to.

The action of installing surveyed indicator markers is simple and inexpensive and fills an immediate need-to-know gap for any citizen with an interest in that knowledge. Agents (and others) with their vested interests in “profits first” mentality are short circuited while Councils are “seen” to be squeaky clean.

Diver Dan,
The Flood Markers for the 1955 Maitland flood have ALL mysteriously disappeared in the last three years. They clearly showed water levels to the roof line or higher.

Who removed them? Who knows.

There is no section 32 in QLD. Con land reps and FPs are the lowest forms of life !

This " tongue-in-cheek " humoristic article is worthy of recognition indeed. Tim tells a good yarn - sans all the plethora of jingoistic euphemisms our Politicians, and Australian's-of-the-Year, are so hyped up about today.

There's an old aussie saying, that rings true, even today: " after Politicians, used-car salesmen, quacks, and estate agents, nothing they spruik or do - is further from the truth, as we know it. Blind Freddie, Ned Kelly, Pirillo Ponzi etc, have nothing on these " fabricators of the truth " advocates. Odd, because there is NO shortage of aspirants fighting tooth and nail, and over every dog's body, to get there ? There must be something in their soup or makeup, to want to aspire to those dizzy heights ?

Tim's proverbial " nurse Betty " is very much alive and well, and after the horrendous Queensland Floods, will be at the forefront of peddling their mischief - wholesale. Again.

I have been a victim of their sales pitch, many years after the 1974 debacle, and the irony is, State Authorities ie. Fair Trading, R E Institute, Attorney General etc have accepted the ' status quo ' and are quite happy, and equivocal to go along with the charade ?

As a practicing Lawyer, T O, must come across this atrocious anomaly daily, and for want of trying is the deception permissible and acceptable ? We know, it's an unconsciousable Act, but, at the end of the Day - just what are we doing about it ?

That Nurse Betty conspired and fully participated in this " susceptible practice " speaks volumes. It doesn't make it fit and proper because everybody is doing it. That generally people have short memories. Fact remains, that a time will eventuate, soon, when people will sue for false advertising, fabrication, and blatant falsehoods, when they knowingly conspire to commit a criminal Act, and felony.

For all her chicanery Nurse Betty got her just deserts.

Bully for her !