Ben Alsop Trustee for B & R Alsop Family Trust t/as Waterwise Plumbing and Gas v Riley - [2014] QCAT 654

CITATION:

Ben Alsop Trustee for B & R Alsop Family Trust t/as Waterwise Plumbing and Gas v Riley [2014] QCAT 654

PARTIES:	Ben Alsop Trustee for B & R Alsop Family Trust t/as Waterwise Plumbing and Gas (Applicant)
v
Moira Riley (Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER:	MCDOQ123-14

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE:

7 November 2014

HEARD AT:

Pine Rivers

DECISION OF:

Member Favell

DELIVERED ON:

15 December 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

The respondent pay the applicant $1963.00 by 4pm 24 December 2014.

CATCHWORDS:

Minor Civil Dispute – work done – money owing

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:

Ben Alsop

RESPONDENT:

Moira Riley

REASONS FOR DECISION

This is a minor civil dispute claim made by the Applicant in respect of $1,958 claimed to be the cost of work done at the request of the Respondent to complete a bathroom renovation and a kitchen renovation.
The Applicant contends that the amount of $1,958 become due and owing on 27 June 2014.
He says that the work for the bathroom and kitchen renovation with a new dishwasher installation and a new LPG gas system with gas stove installation was completed and the Respondent was invoiced for the work, labour materials a PIC form 4 and gas safety certificate.
The ‘Respondent’ requested a breakdown of the materials which request was initially refused. During the hearing it became clear that the Respondent was suspicious of the charges claimed by the Applicant and unless she was satisfied reasonableness of the claims she was not going to pay the claim.
It was also clear during the hearing that there was some animosity between the parties which has developed over the period the work was completed until the hearing.
After numerous attempts to be paid the Applicant engaged the services of a professional debt collector but the Respondent was unresponsive to their demands unless she was provided with a breakdown of the materials.
That breakdown has now been provided but the Respondent still remains suspicious.
The Applicant contends that the full amount of the material list is much greater than the amount which he invoiced the Respondent. He denies that there is any overcharging for materials. Nevertheless at the hearing the Respondent maintained her suspicions.
At no stage did the Respondent call evidence to support her submissions. Rather she pointed to various items in invoice which she said involved quantities which were excessive for the job completed.
On the other hand the Applicant gave evidence that the quantities of the materials that he used were properly detailed in the invoice and were reasonable.
There is no claim of defects with respect to the materials or the work done.
Tax invoice #1280 dated 20 June 2014 details the work said to be completed as:
“Assemble and install new shower rail, tap wear etc.
Install new dishwasher supply and install new isolation valve, pipework and fittings for water supply drainage
Install new vanity basin and tap ware supply and install new pipework fittings to suit
Cut hole in stainless steel sink and install new kitchen mixer tap
Supply and install new LPG gas system
Supply and install LPG regulator with test point
Supply and install new copper gas fitting line from regulator, up through to oven location
Install new gas stove
Testing commission
Gas safety certificate
PIC Form 4 for notifiable works”
The labour charge was for 11.5 hours. The Applicant says that all of the tradesmen are GPS tracked and they are able to pinpoint precisely how long they’re at the job. He says that there was a second tradesman on the job at times who was not charged for.
The materials charged were $621.50 inclusive of GST. The labour charge was $1,138.50 inclusive of GST. The cost of PIC Form 4 for notifiable works was $33.00. The gas safety certificate was $55.00. There was also a charge for an administration fee for overdue account of $110.00.
The Applicant produced a page which had on it terms and conditions of trade. Clause 14 of those terms and conditions included provisions for default and consequences of default part of which was an interest on overdue invoices. No written contract was present to the Tribunal and the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the terms and conditions of trade were presented to the Respondent prior to the work being done or that there was any agreement with respect to those terms and conditions. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there was any agreement for the charging of administration fees for an overdue account.
In support of the claim for materials the Applicant provided a quote from Reece Pty Ltd addressed to Waterwise Plumbing and Gas (Qld). It purported to be quotation and not a sales docket. It set out materials which the Applicant says were used on the job. I accept that those materials based on what I was told by Applicant were used. The concerns as to quantities and amounts expressed by the Respondent are not supported by any evidence. The total of the quote is $717.23 which I note is less than the claimed cost of materials of $621.50.
The charge for labour was $90/hr. That is said to be reasonable and I have no evidence to suggest to the contrary. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that the claimed number of hours was not performed. I note that on previous occasions the Applicant has worked for the Respondent.[1]
[1]See Appendix 1 Invoice dated 29/01/2014.
Exhibit 3 is a letter addressed to the Tribunal from the Respondent dated 26/09/2014. The Respondent spoke to it during the hearing. It contains her complaints and the matters which she sought to put before the Tribunal. Much of what is contained in Exhibit 3 is not particularly relevant to the matter that the Tribunal has to decide. It is apparent however that the relationship between the parties became antagonistic resulting in allegations of avoidance and rudeness and consequently a stand-off.
Some of the material in Exhibit 3 deals with labour on site and work carried out. She complains about delay and a lack of compassion and resistance towards her. She complains about being charged for a stainless steel hole cover however I can see no evidence of that unless it is said to be the charge of $23.49 for a Morse hole saw.
There are some complaints about some of the work however there is no evidence to support that contention or any quantification.
A perusal of what is said to be transcripts from phone messages demonstrates the animosity between the parties. However that is not really relevant to the matters that have to be decided.
The relevant matters are whether the work was done, whether it was done competently, whether the amount charged for the work and materials was justified and reasonable.
The Respondent in her material lists various items which she contends were not necessarily used or supplied. She contends that there is an amount of $244.54 being charges for items which she says are reasonably questionable. I accept that the $55 delivery charge on the Reece quote would not be charged but there is no evidence that it was.
In the absence of any evidence to support the contentions made by the Respondent I accept the evidence of the Applicant that the work was done, the materials were supplied and that charges were reasonable and appropriate. I do not accept that the Applicant was entitled to charge $110.00 for administration fees there being no evidence of any agreement concerning the terms and conditions. Similarly was no agreement as to interest on any overdue amounts and I do not intend to allow them.
During the course of the hearing the Respondent made a concession that if the work had been carried out it was reasonable then the invoice should be paid.
In my view the amount of $1,858 should be allowed for the work and materials with filing fee of $105 should be allowed. There has been no evidence that a bailiff service fee was incurred.
The order will be the Respondent pay to the Applicant the sum of $1,963 by 4pm 24 December 2014.