Deen v Queensland Building Services Authority

CITATION: Deen v Queensland Building Services Authority
 & Ownit Homes Pty Ltd [2010] QCAT 502

PARTIES:	Mr Mohammed Abdul Gaffar Deen
v
Queensland Building Services Authority and Ownit Homes Pty Ltd

APPLICATION NUMBER:   QR183-08     

MATTER TYPE: Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:     23 March 2010

HEARD AT:  Brisbane

DECISION OF: Mr Scott Gregory

DELIVERED ON: 11 October 2010

DELIVERED AT:      Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.    The Review Application is dismissed; The decision of the Authority of 11 July 2007 is confirmed; and In view of section 100 of the QCAT Act 2009 I make no order as to costs

CATCHWORDS :  Review of Respondent’s decision not to issue a direction to rectify: whether defective building work Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991, section 72. Braund, J&D v Queensland Building Services Authority [2007] QCCTB 100; Queensland Building Services Authority v O’Brien & Ors [2002] QDC 329.

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION:

APPLICANT:	Mr Mohammed Abdul Gaffar Deen represented Andrew Carroll of Carroll Fairon Solicitors.
FIRST RESPONDENT:	Queensland Building Services Authority represented by Angela Cochrane.
SECOND RESPONDENT:	Ownit Homes Pty Ltd represented by Adam Carlton-Smith of Hopgood Ganim Lawyers.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The Applicant, Mohammed Abdul Gaffar Deen (”Mr. Deen”) is the owner of           a residential property at 3 Waterville Close Oxley Queensland (“the     Property”).

1. Mr Deen applied to the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal to review a decision of Queensland Building Services Authority (“the Authority”) not to direct rectification or completion of Tribunal work under section 86 (1) (e) of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (“the QBSA Act)”.

1. Jurisdiction to resolve matters of this type has now been transferred to      Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“QCAT”).

1. Both parties agree that in early 2005 Mr Deen and Ownit Homes Pty Ltd    (‘the Builder”) entered into a building contract for residential construction     work at the Property.

1. On or about 5 September 2007, Mr. Deen made a complaint to the Authority and, subsequently the Authority investigated the complaint and     having engaged experts to undertake a test of the sanitary and stormwater         drainage and to investigate and report on geo-technical and structural       issues authority advised Mr. Deen on or about 11 July 2008, that no further            action would be taken due to the defects being “owner responsible”.

1. The plumbers retained by the Authority to test the sanitary and stormwater           drainage advised that:

• a final plumbing inspection had never been carried out on the property;

  • stormwater system failed the test; and
  • there were several broken sections in the main line and storm water drain lines close to the dwelling.

The geo-technical and structural consultants retained by the Authority reported that “distress and damage” to the Property” consists of:

• cracked brickwork;

  • opening of joints in brick walls;
  • cracked plaster wall linings and corners of openings;
  • cracked ceiling linings;
  • cracks in cornices; and
  • doors out of square in openings.”

1. Mr Deen lodged his review application within time.

1. The Commercial and Consumer Tribunal ordered the preparation of a joint           engineering report and, subsequently such a report was obtained…