Gordon v Ottawa

[2011] QCAT 624

CITATION: Gordon v Ottawa [2011] QCAT 624

PARTIES:	Mr Craig Graeme Gordon
v
Mr Trent Ottawa

APPLICATION NUMBER:   OCL026-11  

MATTER TYPE: Other civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE:     On the papers

HEARD AT:  Brisbane

DECISION OF: Patricia Hanly, Member

DELIVERED ON: 9 December 2011

DELIVERED AT:      Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: The application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS : 

Compensation for damage caused during repositioning of manufactured home

Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act2003, ss 35(1)(b), 35(4)(c)

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

The matter was determined on the papers without an oral hearing.  There were no appearances by either party.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Mr Gordon seeks an order against Mr Trent Ottawa, a director of Harvest Investment No 4 Pty Ltd trading as Nestle Inn Tourist Village, for compensation relating to the repositioning of his manufactured home after it was removed from Nestle Inn Tourist Village, plus the cost of damage and repairs.

2. In an earlier application in this Tribunal (OCL108-10), brought by Harvest Investment No 4 Pty Ltd trading as Nestle Inn Tourist Village against Mr Gordon, consent orders were made on 20 October 2010 in the following terms:

   1.   By 28 February 2011, the Respondent will relocate his manufactured home from the Nestle Inn Tourist Village to a place nominated by the respondent to the applicant.

   2.   The applicant will pay the relocation costs of the relocation of the caravan, annex and shed of the applicant to a site within a 300 km radius of the Nestle Inn Tourist Village.

   3.   The relocation will be undertaken by Maurice Walters trading as Caravan and Annex Relocations unless otherwise agreed to in writing between the parties.

   4.   All current arrears of rent owing by the respondent to the applicant are hereby waived.

   5.   The respondent will pay on and from 27 October 2010 rent in the sum of $132.00 per week until relocation of the manufactured home.

   6.   The respondent will be responsible for the relocation of all personal effects and motor vehicles located in or about the manufactured home owned by him or any other person residing with him.

   7.   If in the relocation of the home of the respondent, the applicant is unable to connect power, water and sewerage to the home on the site nominated by the respondent, the applicant will pay to the respondent the sum of $750.00 within 48 hours of the relocation as a contribution to connection costs.

   8.   Both parties by themselves, their office bearers or employees undertake to be of good behaviour towards each other and all other residents of the Nestle Inn Tourist Village in dealings between the partes generally and in relation to the relocation of the home of the respondent.

   9.   The parties acknowledge that this agreement is in full and final settlement of all matters in proceedings numbered OCL108-10.

3. Mr Gordon was provided with a quote, dated 24 October 2010, by Mr Maurice Walters of Caravan & Annexe Relocations, for the relocation of his manufactured home from Nestle Inn Tourist Village to another location outside of the village.  On 1 November 2010 Mr Ottawa wrote to Mr Gordon stating that an interim quote had been obtained for the relocation, and requesting advice of the relocation destination so that the contractor could inspect the site and assess what was required to relocate the dwelling.[1]

   [1]        Annexure 3 applicant’s reply received 9 May 2011.

4. On 2 November 2010 Mr Gordon wrote to Mr Ottawa and advised him that he did not intend to reveal his relocation destination.[2]

   [2]        Annexure 2 respondent’s response to application received 21 March 2011.

5. Although the consent orders included a provision that Harvest Investment No 4 Pty Ltd was to pay for the costs, because Mr Gordon did not wish to have his new address revealed to Mr Ottawa, the contract for the service was of necessity between Mr Gordon and Mr Walters, albeit that the cost of same was paid by a third party, namely Harvest Investment No 4 Pty Ltd.

6. On 18 November 2010 the relocation commenced.  It was completed on 1 December 2010.[3]  At the completion, the costs of relocation were paid by Harvest Investment No 4 Pty Ltd, as agreed. 

   [3]        Statement of Maurice Walters dated 9 May 2011.

7. Furthermore, because Mr Gordon did not wish his new address to be disclosed to Mr Ottawa, Harvest Investment No 4 Pty Ltd paid the sum of $750.00 directly to Mr Gordon, at his request, as a contribution to connection costs of power, water and sewerage, rather than connecting those services itself[4].

   [4]        Order 7 – Consent Order 20 October 2010 (OCL108-10).

8. On 17 February 2011, Mr Gordon wrote to Mr Walters requesting delivery of certain items by 24 February 2011 which Mr Gordon considered should have been part of the relocation undertaken by Caravan & Annexe Relocations.

9. On 23 February 2011 Mr Gordon lodged this application against Mr Ottawa, stating that the dispute related to “incorrect positioning of structure on site, extensive damage to property, some structural items not delivered”[5]. Mr Gordon also alleged contravention by Mr Ottawa of section 35(1)(b) and (4)(c) of the Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act2003 (the Act).  His allegations in this regard were misconceived, as the agreement which was terminated in Application OCL108-10 was not an agreement to which section 33 of the Act applied.  Furthermore, the Tribunal’s consent order addressed compensation under section 40 of the Act.

   [5]        Part D General Dispute Details.

[10]  The Act defines a home owner[6].

[6]        Section 8 MH(RP)A 2003.

[11]  Once Mr Gordon’s manufactured home was relocated from Nestle Inn Tourist Village, he was no longer a home owner as defined, in respect of that Village. 

[12]  It appears from Mr Gordon’s application that he has issues with the relocation of his manufactured home.  However, those issues appear to relate to Mr Walters and the work that he performed for Mr Gordon under the contract entered into between them.  Mr Gordon may have remedies against Mr Walters.  However, he does not have any remedy against Mr Ottawa under the Manufactured Homes Act.

[13]  The Tribunal is satisfied that the application is misconceived.  It is therefore dismissed.[7]

[7] Section 47(1)(a) Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.