HERCZEG and FOALE - [2012] WASAT 245

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM: COMMERCIAL & CIVIL

ACT: BUILDING SERVICES (COMPLAINT RESOLUTION and ADMINISTRATION) ACT 2011 (WA)

CITATION: HERCZEG and FOALE [2012] WASAT 245

MEMBER: MR S ELLIS (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)
MR C PARKER (SESSIONAL MEMBER)

HEARD: 2, 3, 11 AND 17 JULY 2012 AND 17 SEPTEMBER 2012

DELIVERED : 14 DECEMBER 2012

FILE NO/S: CC 502 of 2012

BETWEEN: LUCY LIM HERCZEG
Applicant
AND
PATRICK FOALE
Respondent

Catchwords:

Building and construction Meaning of 'builder' Defective and incomplete work

Legislation:

Builders Registration Act 1939 (WA), s 12A
Building Code of Australia
Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), s 3, s 10, s 36(1)(b), s 38, s 38(1)(a), s 134
Home Building Contracts Act 1991 (WA), s 3(1)
Listening Devices Act 2006 (WA)

Result:

Building remedy order made

Summary of Tribunal's decision:

These were proceedings under s 38 of the Building (Complaints Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA) for a building remedy order. The applicant sought $26,886.50, being the cost of remedying various aspects of the building services provided by the respondent at the applicant's dwelling.
The Tribunal found that the respondent provided regulated building services to the applicant.
Those services were not carried out in a proper and proficient manner or were faulty or unsatisfactory, in the following respects:
(a) the eastern wall of bedroom 3 was off level by about 10 millimetres, contrary to the relevant provision of the Building Code of Australia. This part of the work had been finished by the respondent before the roof was put on. The defect was not the result of the conduct of the applicant;
(b) incorrectly sized bricks were used in the ensuite wall; and
(c) the respondent improperly cut wires in the applicant's roof.
A building remedy order of $6,275 was made under s 36(1)(b) of the Building (Complaints Resolution and Administration) Act 2011.
The Tribunal was not satisfied that other aspects of the building service provided by the respondent warranted a building remedy order being made.

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Self-represented
Respondent: Self-represented

Solicitors:

Applicant: N/A
Respondent: N/A

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

In May 2011, Ms Herczeg (applicant) was carrying out alterations and improvements to her dwelling at 28 Waratah Avenue, Dalkeith. Mr Foale (respondent) provided building services to her, principally bricklaying, in connection with those alterations and improvements. The applicant alleges that the building services were not carried out in a proper and proficient manner and that they were faulty or unsatisfactory in a number of respects. She seeks payment of a total of $26,886.50 for the cost of remedying the work. The respondent denies her claim.

The procedural background and the issues in dispute

The applicant made a complaint under s 12A of the Builders Registration Act 1939 (WA) (BR Act) on 28 July 2011. A month later, that Act was repealed and the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration)Act 2011 (WA) (BSCRA Act) came into force.
An inspector from the Building Commission (Commission), Mr Sturmer, inspected the premises on 13 January 2012 and wrote a report dated 20 January 2012 (Report). The parties were given the opportunity to comment on the Report, which they did, but the matters in dispute were not resolved.
Pursuant to s 10 and s 134 of the BSCRA Act, the matter was referred to the Tribunal on 26 March 2012.
On 17 April 2012, Senior Member Raymond made an order requiring the applicant to file a Scott Schedule setting out, amongst other things, each respect in which it was alleged that the building work was faulty, unsatisfactory or had not been carried out in a proper or proficient matter. The respondent was required to respond to the Scott Schedule. The items identified in the Scott Schedule are:

Item	Description of Defects and Claims
1	Brickwork on left wall is 20 millimetres off and is not level.
2	Steel beam decking is 37 millimetres off.
3	Steel beam was held by only one bolt instead of two bolts and is packed with five pieces of steel plate. Even then, it was wobbly.
4	No roof ties installed.
5	No flashings above or below five windows and no flashings above door.
8 and 9	Interior bathroom walls are bowed and 'skewiff'. Door frame is not straight because the walls are out of angle. Parts of the walls have bricks protruding and still showing, even after render.
12	Security cables were physically cut off.
13	Telephone and internet lines were damaged when builder put his foot through the ceiling plaster boards, pulling the lines along with it.
15	An excessive overcharge of 2,404 bricks, when about between 1,096 and 1,275 bricks were laid.
16	Due to obvious defective work, a building inspector had to be hired.

(The Scott Schedule refers to issues by their corresponding number in the Report. The applicant did not pursue all issues dealt with in the Report. Accordingly, the issues identified in the Scott Schedule are not numbered consecutively.)

It is also necessary to consider, as preliminary issues:
1)whether the BSCRA Act applies to the activities of the respondent; and
2)the credibility of the parties.
These preliminary matters will be dealt with first, before considering the items identified in the Scott Schedule.

Does the BSCRA Act apply?

The respondent argued that the BSCRA Act did not apply to him or to the work done by him because he was not 'the builder'.
Section 38 of the BSCRA Act provides that the Tribunal may make a building remedy order where it is satisfied that a 'regulated building service' which was the subject of a building service complaint was 'faulty, unsatisfactory or had not been carried out in a proper or proficient manner'.
'Regulated building service' is defined in s 3 of the BSCRA Act as follows:
regulated building service means any of the following
(a)a building service carried out by a registered building service provider or an approved ownerbuilder;
(b)home building work that is
(i)carried out by a person for another person under a home building work contract or other contract or arrangement for gain or reward; and
(ii)not carried out for a person who is in turn obliged to perform the work under another contract;
…
The definition of 'home building work' in s 3 of the BSCRA Act incorporates the definition of that term in s 3(1) of the Home Building Contracts Act 1991 (WA), which includes altering or improving a dwelling.
The parties did not dispute that:
a)the applicant and the respondent agreed that the respondent would provide bricklaying services to the applicant in connection with the renovation of her dwelling. (Whether the respondent provided other services was disputed and will be addressed later in these reasons);
b)the respondent provided bricklaying services during May 2011; and
c)the respondent rendered invoices to the applicant for those services.
The invoices were dated 19 May 2011 and were for $1,803. They appear to have been paid on 23 May 2011. The invoices were subsequently reissued in amended form and a dispute subsequently arose about the applicant's liability to pay the invoices, but that dispute does not affect the fact that the respondent's services were provided for gain or reward.
On its face, the arrangement between the parties clearly falls within paragraph (b)(i) of the definition of 'regulated building service': it was a contract for the performance of alterations or repairs on a person's dwelling, that is to say, home building work, for gain or reward.
The respondent argued that the contract was not, in reality, a contract with the applicant. He argued that it was, in reality, a contract with a person named Mr Tom Stephens. Mr Stephens was a builder or a bricklayer who had previously been engaged by the applicant to perform work on the dwelling. If the respondent's services were, in fact, provided to Mr Stephens, then the building services provided by the respondent might fall within the exception in paragraph (b)(ii) of the definition of 'regulated building service'.
The applicant gave evidence that her relationship with Mr Stephens had come to an end before she engaged the respondent. The respondent accepted that his discussions about undertaking the work had been entirely with the applicant and that he had never met Mr Stephens and that, to the best of his knowledge, Mr Stephens had not been on site while the building work was being carried out. The respondent's invoices were addressed to the applicant, not Mr Stephens. The respondent has commenced proceedings in the Magistrates Court of Western Australian in connection with his invoices. Those proceedings name the applicant as the defendant, not Mr Stephens. There is, therefore, no basis for concluding that the respondent's contract was 'really' with Mr Stephens rather than with the applicant. Consequently, the BSCRA Act applies to the work performed by the respondent pursuant to the oral contract between the parties.
The respondent also argued that the applicant was really 'the builder' for the contract. There is some substance to this factual contention. However, it does not, in this case, affect the application of the BSCRA Act. Home building work does not fall within paragraph (b) of the definition of 'regulated building service' if it is carried out for a person who is, in turn, obliged to perform the work under another contract. Whether or not the applicant could properly be described as 'the builder', she was not obliged to perform that work under another contract. Consequently, the respondent's work was not excluded from paragraph (b) by virtue of subparagraph (ii). The respondent also raised this argument in the broader context that the applicant, rather than he, had a broad responsibility to manage events on site. The question of the responsibilities of the applicant and the respondent is best dealt with in the context of the particular items in the Scott Schedule.

Credibility

The other preliminary matter is the credibility of the parties.
The applicant attacked the credibility of the respondent. She relied, in particular, on three matters.
First, she referred to two versions of an invoice submitted by the applicant. The first was at page 28 of Exhibit 1. It was a charge for $1,803 for laying 2,404 bricks in bedroom 3 at $0.75 per brick, totalling $1,803. The invoice did not indicate that GST was charged. The second appeared at page 27 of Exhibit 2. It, too, was for laying 2,404 bricks in bedroom 3 at $0.75 per brick, and totalled $1,803. However, on this occasion, the invoice identified a GST component of $163.90 which gives a net figure of $1,639.10. The Tribunal does not draw any inference of dishonesty from this conduct. GST does not need to be separately identified in an invoice for it to be payable. Certainly, it is not possible to conclude that the respondent was trying to cheat the applicant by submitting these two invoices, because the total amount payable is the same. The applicant alleged that the respondent was trying to cheat the Australian Taxation Office by failing to declare GST. The respondent made a similar allegation against the applicant. The parties appear to have discussed the invoices on a number of occasions. The evidence about these conversations was disputed and demonstrated little, beyond the fact that the applicant and the respondent's relationship has broken down.
Second, the applicant provided six copy invoices from Brikmakers, which is a supplier of bricks. The invoices are for quantities of 'Tamala' bricks. The invoices indicate that the bricks were shipped to 'Dinkum Dwellings … 23 Brockman Ave CRN Waratah Dalkeith, WA'. The applicant's dwelling is at the corner of Brockman and Waratah Avenues, and is number 23 Brockman Avenue as well as 28 Waratah Avenue. However, the applicant denies that these bricks were delivered to her. She says, on the basis of her visit some time ago to the respondent's house, a photograph of the house and a pamphlet from Brikmakers, that they were the same type of bricks that the respondent used in his house. The applicant alleged that bricks the subject of the invoices had been used for the respondent's own home but had been processed through the respondent's business so he could claim a tax deduction on them (T:159; 03.07.12).
The respondent agreed that the bricks were not delivered to the applicant's dwelling. He gave oral evidence of a conversation he had had with a representative of Brikmakers who had informed him that the use of the applicant's address was, in effect, a computer error. Apparently, Brikmaker's computer could only cope with a single address for each account so that, when bricks were eventually delivered to the applicant's dwelling as part of this contract, that address became the address for the account.
The Tribunal accepts the explanation given by the respondent. The applicant's name on the copy invoices probably is a hiccup in the paperwork. Computer errors, and limitations on the ability of computers to accurately update events, are not uncommon. In addition, the invoices are from September/October 2009, although the applicant did not start work on the project until 2010 (T:93; 11.07.12). It appears an initial meeting between the applicant and the respondent took place on 13 May 2010 (T:42; 17.07.12). It does not appear that the respondent had any involvement with the applicant's renovations at the time of the invoices. This makes use of the invoices in the manner suggested by the applicant even more unlikely.
Third, the applicant alleged that the respondent taped conversations between them without her consent on two occasions. The respondent admitted that he had taped the conversations. It may be that the respondent's conduct was in contravention of the Listening Devices Act 2006 (WA). However, the respondent said that he was not aware of that Act, which is perhaps not a particularly wellknown piece of legislation. The respondent gave evidence that he had prepared for the conversations which he taped by preparing a series of questions or topics which he planned to go through during the course of the conversation. He also indicated that he had, in effect, tried to draw the applicant out during the taped conversation. This conduct may be described as surreptitious and somewhat underhanded. The applicant was justifiably upset by it.
The Tribunal was also unimpressed by the following conduct. There was an inspection of the applicant's house on 6 July 2012 of defects in the wall to the ensuite. The inspection was foreshadowed during the hearing on 3 July 2012. It was contemplated that Mr Sturmer would conduct the inspection. The respondent sought orders enabling him to attend, with an expert if he chose. During the course of the hearing, the respondent left the immediate area of the ensuite wall, lifted one of the loose boards of the floor of bedroom 3, and took a photograph of one of the supporting beams the subject of a different issue in this dispute. This caused disputation between the parties. After the intervention of Mr Sturmer, the respondent desisted. The Tribunal accepts that the respondent had become frustrated with the applicant's conduct in connection with these proceedings. However, the respondent did not inform either the Tribunal or the applicant that he wished to make inquiries of his own while apparently attending to witness the inspection by Mr Sturmer.
These matters led the Tribunal to treat the respondent's evidence with scepticism. His evidence was partisan, and coloured by illwill towards the applicant. He was prepared to advance explanations for the applicant’s conduct without a solid foundation in evidence. However, the Tribunal is not prepared to conclude that the respondent's evidence was generally untruthful.
In addition, the respondent gave evidence about a number of technical issues to do with the performance of the works. The respondent was not a registered builder and does not appear to have received formal training, either as a builder or as a bricklayer. The respondent is a mechanical engineer who graduated from the University of Western Australia in 1976 and who had worked for 30 years in the oil and gas industry as a wireline logging engineer. His experience with bricklaying work appears to have been confined to redevelopment of a property owned by him or his family. The respondent is not, therefore, qualified to give evidence of an expert nature about building practices.
The Tribunal has similar reservations about the reliability of the applicant's evidence. She vigorously disclaimed any familiarity with building in her oral evidence. She did not have a detailed involvement in actually carrying out the work. She relied on what she was told by tradesmen she had engaged. She did not, for example, personally inspect the bolts by which one of the beams, UB8, was fixed to the wall. While this is not unreasonable in itself, secondhand information is less reliable than firsthand information. Further, the applicant had a significant emotional involvement in the project. This is an attitude that many home renovators take, but it clearly coloured her evidence. During the course of the applicant's evidence, the applicant did not, or would not, recall the dates on which events occurred. This extended to an inability or an unwillingness to address the order in which events occurred. She, too, was prepared to make serious allegations of fraud and dishonesty, as outlined above, without sufficient evidence to support those allegations. This adversely affects the weight the Tribunal places on her evidence.
Although it appears that the applicant has arranged 'makeovers' of a number of properties owned by her over the years, she does not have any professional expertise in buildingrelated matters either. She is not qualified to give technical expert evidence.
The Tribunal notes that it was significantly assisted by the evidence of Mr Sturmer, the inspector employed by the Commission in this matter. The opinions expressed by him about technical matters were both balanced and practical. At the instigation of the applicant, he carried out a further inspection of work at the dwelling on short notice, which also assisted the Tribunal.
We will now consider the items identified in the Scott Schedule.

Item 1: Brickwork not level (eastern wall)

Introduction

The applicant alleges that the respondent constructed the eastern wall of bedroom 3 defectively and that the respondent should be ordered to pay her $11,228, being the costs of repairing the eastern wall.
The respondent argued that an order should not be made under s 38 of the BSCRA Act in respect of this item because:
a)the respondent had not finished the eastern wall at the time when the roof carpenters started work on the roof; and
b)the eastern wall was damaged after the respondent finished work on it.
He contended, in effect, that the defective condition of the eastern wall was not the consequence of the building services which he provided.
The respondent also argued that the applicant had not given him the opportunity to fix the eastern wall.
After setting out the background, each of the respondent's arguments will be considered. It will then be necessary to consider the terms of the specific building remedy order.

Background

The work giving rise to the proceedings was the construction of a third bedroom on the first floor of the applicant's existing dwelling. The third bedroom was shown on plans dated 14 July 2008 (2008 plans) as having northern and southern walls about 6 metres long, and eastern and western walls about 3.8 metres long (Exhibit 1, page 311). Bedroom 3 included an ensuite on the western side of the room, which appears to have been about 1.5 metres wide. The ensuite was separated from the bedroom by a single brick wall. The wall had a door in it, for access to the bathroom.

There were a number of changes to the design of the third bedroom. The eastern wall was moved to the west by about 1 metre. A small portion of the northern wall of the room was moved a little to the north, creating a small alcove in the northeastern corner of the room. Additionally, the 2008 plans showed a balcony on the eastern side of bedroom 3. The balcony, as drawn, wrapped around to the north of bedroom 3 and continued around the southeastern corner about 2.7 metres along the southern wall of bedroom 3. This balcony was subsequently reduced in scope to be a smaller, Juliette balcony located entirely on the eastern side of the southern wall. The Juliette balcony was subsequently completely excised from the work, in circumstances which are discussed later. These changes were not documented. They were not made in consultation with the structural engineer (Exhibit 2, page 15).
The Report records that:
(a)the roof frame had been installed on top of the eastern wall of bedroom 3 at the date of inspection (13 January 2012);
(b)the timber roof plate was low on the southern part of the eastern wall;
(c)'packers' had been inserted between the timber wall plate and the brickwork in an endeavour to keep the timber plate level;
(d)the amount of packing increased towards the south of the eastern wall; and
(e)the wall plate was still about 10 millimetres out of level.
Mr Sturmer concluded that the masonry work was out of level by more than 10 millimetres in 10 metres, contrary to an applicable Australian Standard, and that it should be rectified by the respondent. The respondent did not dispute that factual basis of the Report, or the conclusion that the brickwork was out of level. The Tribunal considers that the work was defective.
The respondent had engaged the services of a gentleman by the name of Mr Camilo Falcone to assist with the bricklaying work. Mr Falcone is a very experienced bricklayer. During the course of 18 and 19 May 2011, Mr Falcone laid most of the bricks for the walls of bedroom 3. At about 2 pm on 19 May 2011, the respondent told Mr Falcone that he could go home. The respondent continued with the bricklaying work until about 5 pm, when he left the site and went to Brookton for the weekend.
During the course of the night of 19/20 May 2011, it rained heavily. There was inadequate protection against the elements. As a consequence, in the morning, water was pouring into bedroom 3. The applicant gave evidence that the water also got into her home and damaged some of her possessions. The roof carpenters arrived on the morning of Friday, 20 May 2011. When the roof carpenters arrived, they saw the applicant bailing out water with a bucket. They provided some assistance to her but they were unable to do any work because it was too wet and they left the site.
The roof carpenters returned and started work on the following Monday, which was 23 May 2011. That morning, the applicant sent an email to the respondent which, amongst other things, described her experiences on the previous Friday.
The respondent returned to the site on the evening of Tuesday, 24 May 2011. At that time, the roof timbers had been installed, although the roof carpenters were still on site. The respondent did some work, had a conversation with the applicant and then left the site.

Was the eastern wall finished?

The respondent argued that he was not responsible for the condition of the wall because the roof carpentry was placed on the wall before his work had been completed.
The respondent gave evidence (Exhibit 1, page 130) that at the end of Thursday, 19 May 2011, work which still had to be done included:
a)placing about 50 bricks at the new roof gable once roof carpentry had been redesigned;
b)placing mortar to support the wall plates once the roof height had been specified;
c)grinding back any protruding bricks; and
d)installing waterproof membranes.
The applicant called Mr Campbell as a witness. He was a plasterer engaged by the applicant who came to the site after the roof carpenters. In crossexamination, he conceded that a number of bricks needed to be placed, particularly in the gable (T:102 T:104; 02.07.12). Photographs of the wall showed that there were numerous gaps where bricks were to be inserted. Mr Jenkinson, was principal of the firm of roof carpenters engaged by the applicant to put the roof on. He was called as a witness by her. He complained that roof ties had not been installed. This is work that would usually be done by the bricklayer. The site had not been cleaned up and the respondent's equipment had not been removed from the site.
The Tribunal accepts that the contract between the applicant and the respondent had not been completely performed by the respondent at the time the roof timber was installed. This is not, however, the end of the matter. Building projects are frequently completed on a piecemeal basis. Completion of the eastern wall, for present purposes, does not depend on whether all the other work had been completed. That said, the state of the work as a whole is some evidence that the wall was not finished.
The respondent also supported his argument that the eastern wall was not finished by asserting that he did not have enough information to finish off the wall. There had been changes in the design, particularly the location of the eastern wall. Because the roof sloped, moving the wall meant that the height at which the wall intersected the line of the roof changed as a result. The wall had been moved outwards, so the roof plate would have to be lower to properly support the roof in the wall's new position. The new height of the roof plate would ordinarily be worked out by the roof carpenters. Mr Sturmer accepted that a bricklayer would be justified in downing tools if the height was not provided to him or her (T:190, 03.07.2012).
The respondent gave evidence that he had endeavoured to find out the proper height of the roof plate from the roof carpenters and that he had anticipated meeting with them for that purpose. The respondent's evidence about the meeting with the roof carpenters was disputed. Mr Bourne was the other principal of the applicant's roofing contractors. He too was called as a witness by the applicant. He gave evidence of a conversation he had with the respondent. His evidence was that the respondent had told him that the brickwork was ready and that he could come to put on the roof.
At the end of the day, it is not necessary to come to a conclusion about the arrangements with the roof carpenters, because it appears that the respondent went ahead without the benefit of their input. The respondent said:
… I just took it upon myself to dictate where the gable was going to be and if the roof carpenter decided otherwise later, just like the wall plate height, I'd have to knock some bricks off and re[-]lay them. That happens all the time. Like the situation with the east wall, it could have gone, as far as I could tell, the roof design was going to cause it to move by some 400 millimetres so I laid it up to what I thought was a guess. It was just a plain, outright guess. The fact that the roof carpenters actually used that wall is even amazing to me, because the design could have easily required either an extra course of Longreach to be laid or it could have required knocking off two, two courses of Verticlay. … (T:13; 17.07.12)
The respondent was an engineer by profession, with a university degree, not a bricklayer. The respondent would have been able to do the calculations required to ascertain the plate height. Although the respondent expressed 'amazement' that the roof carpenters went ahead with the work, this is evidence that the respondent had finished off his work, at least in relation to the wall.
This evidence is confirmed by the 'transcript' of the recordings of the respondent's taped conversations with the applicant which was prepared by the respondent. A portion of the transcript of the conversation of 10 June 2011 reads (at page 17):
P:Now, on Thursday the nineteenth of May, you came up stairs … on top of the slab there …
L:I do not remember the day you know, but what's the conversation[?]
P:It was the day that Charlie and I were … finishing up what we could do on Bedroom three … the walls were fully erected and so forth, and you came up and you appeared to be pretty happy …
L:Yehh[.]
P:You were mentioning that 'this would look good in your [portfolio]' and 'we should take [s]ome pictures' and so forth.
'L' is a reference to the applicant. 'P' is a reference to the respondent. The respondent presented the transcript as an accurate record of that conversation. The reference to 'the day that Charlie and I were finishing up' is clearly a reference to 19 May 2011. The respondent's statements in that conversation show that he treated the walls as having been completed. He certainly did not tell the applicant that the wall might not be at the correct height and would need to be changed and that she should put off the roofing till he returned after the weekend.
There is other evidence that the respondent had finished his work on the eastern wall:
a)The respondent went back to the site on Tuesday, 24 May 2011, after he had returned from Brookton. The roof timbers were obviously in place. The respondent did not object to the fact that the applicant and the roof carpenters had gone ahead with the roofing. The respondent said he did not complain because the applicant had already complained about his work when he came back on the Tuesday, and that he felt something of a pariah at the time. This explanation is not persuasive.
b)The house was open to the elements where work was being done. It was the middle of winter. Rain had threatened on the weekend of 14 and 15 May 2011 and the parties had taken steps to protect the house by buying a tarpaulin. It was important for the roof to go on so that the house would be better protected from the weather. The respondent was going away to Brookton on 20 May 2011, which was an ordinary working day. It would have been natural for him to bring the job to a milestone, such as finishing the walls, before going away.
c)Mrs Foale knew the applicant socially before she and the respondent had business dealings with the applicant. On the afternoon of 19 May 2011, she brought scones. She and the applicant had afternoon tea before she and the respondent left for the weekend. This event is consistent with a milestone having been reached. The respondent gave evidence that while the applicant and Mrs Foale were having tea, he was counting the number of bricks required to finish off the job. He said that he then came back and said words to the effect, 'there are just enough bricks to finish the work'. The applicant disputed that the words were said. However, even if the words were said, it does not mean that the respondent had not substantively finished off the work on the eastern wall. Other aspects of the work needed additional bricks.
d)The respondent rendered invoices for bricklaying work dated 19 May 2012. This suggests that the bricklaying work was complete or had reached a milestone. The respondent argued that the applicant was a slow payer, so he needed to get the invoices sent. He said the applicant had bought materials through his business on a costs recovery basis and he had been waiting for payment for some time, so that he was eager to send a bill as soon as possible. This is not inconsistent with the bill reflecting a milestone.
e)The invoices were sent by an email dated 19 May 2011, which said, 'Attached are the invoices as discussed. It will be great to see the plasterers and roof carpenters complete this area of your house!' This comment suggests that his work was ready for the plasterers and roof carpenters to start work.
The matters referred to in paragraphs (c) and (d) are less significant and more equivocal than the other evidence mentioned above, but are still supportive of the conclusion that the work was complete.
On the balance of the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the respondent had finished building the eastern wall, at least to the stage where the roof could go on.

Was the eastern wall damaged?

The respondent also argued that the reason the eastern wall was not level was because it was damaged after he finished work on 19 May 2011. The respondent argued that:
a)the mortar was damaged by rain on the morning of 20 May 2011; or
b)the mortar was damaged by the plastic sheeting used to protect the brickwork from the rain.
There was no direct evidence that the mortar had been damaged.
The applicant also called Mr Jenkinson to give evidence on her behalf. He was the other principal of the firm of roof contractors. In crossexamination, Mr Jenkinson conceded that the brickwork was possibly raindamaged (T:43; 02.07.12). However, Mr Bourne took a contrary view. In crossexamination, Mr Bourne pointed out that rainaffected mortar will run in the rain and stain, and that there were no stains on the brickwork (T:93; 02.07.12). The respondent put two photographs to Mr Jenkinson and contended that they showed waterdamaged brickwork (Exhibit 1, page 330). Although the photographs are unclear, the photographs do not show any staining, and also show mortar protruding beyond the sides of the bricks which appears inconsistent with significant exposure to rain. Mr Sturmer conceded that rain damage was possible, and accepted that wet weather and covering the brickwork in impermeable plastic would have kept the mortar wet, but he did not go further and say that the brickwork was raindamaged.
The argument that brickwork was raindamaged is somewhat inconsistent with the alternative argument that the brickwork was damaged by the steps taken by the applicant to protect the brickwork from rain. To the extent that the fresh brickwork was protected from rain, the rain did not damage the brickwork or alter its levels. It appears that the applicant had draped plastic sheets over the brickwork and then weighted down the corners of the plastic sheets by tying bricks to them. The weight of the sheets and the bricks might have squashed the soft mortar.
Mr Sturmer conceded in crossexamination that it was 'possible' that the steps taken to protect the brickwork had damaged it. However, there is no evidence that it actually had caused the defect in the eastern wall. The brickwork appears to have been consistently off level, rather than being low only in parts.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the defect in the eastern wall was caused by damage sustained after the building service was provided in relation to the eastern wall. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the regulated building service provided by the respondent has not been carried out in a proper and proficient manner or was faulty or unsatisfactory within s 38(1)(a) of the BSCRA Act.

What order should be made?

The applicant claimed $11,228 as the cost of remedying the defective eastern wall.
The respondent argued that if there was, or had been, a defect in the eastern wall, he should have been entitled to fix it. The respondent's argument had two aspects. The first was that the roof carpenters should not have proceeded to put the roof on if the eastern wall was defective. The applicant's decision to proceed with the roofing meant that the repairs necessary to make the eastern wall level were more extensive than would have been the case if the roof had not been put on when it was. The second aspect of the argument was that, even after the roof had gone on, the respondent should have been given the opportunity to repair the eastern wall, so that amount of the building remedy order should be limited to the costs to the respondent of carrying out the repair work. The costs to the respondent of remedying the defect would have been less than the amount claimed by the applicant.
The Tribunal does not accept these arguments.
First, the applicant's decision to proceed with the roofing was a reasonable one. The effect of the conversation recorded in the respondent's transcript, set out above, was that the eastern wall was finished. The applicant had a legitimate interest in going ahead with the roofing because it was the middle of winter. Also, it would have cost money for the roof carpenters to wait until the respondent came back and fixed up the eastern wall. The decision by the applicant to proceed with the roof carpentry did not amount to 'acceptance' of the work, given the applicant's state of knowledge of the work and the need to get the roof on.
As to the second aspect of the respondent's argument, there was a deal of controversy between the applicant and the respondent about whether and when the applicant asked the respondent to remedy the defects in the work. The Tribunal considers it likely that the applicant told the respondent to stop work during the conversation between the parties on 24 May 2011. Thereafter, the dispute between the parties was broader than simply completing the outstanding work on the dwelling. The parties were also in dispute about payment of the respondent's invoices. The respondent took the position that the dispute about his invoices needed to be resolved before further work would be done by him (Exhibit 1, page 229). The respondent did not offer to fix up the defects while the other matters in dispute were resolved. The applicant did not, therefore, unreasonably fail to have the respondent carry out the remedial work.
There is a further hurdle in the way of accepting the argument that the respondent should have had the opportunity to fix the work. The respondent is not a registered builder or even a professional bricklayer. He trades under the name 'Dinkum Dwellings'. His invoices indicate that the nature of the business is 'Residential Development', 'Property Management' and 'Project Management'. The work required to remedy the defect in the eastern wall extends beyond just bricklaying. There was no basis to conclude that the respondent had the range of skills necessary to carry out the remedial work.
The applicant relied on a proposal to carry out the work provided by Buildwest Pty Ltd (Buildwest) dated 18 May 2012 to establish the amount of compensation she claimed. This document provided a brief description of the work required to remedy each of the items identified in the Scott Schedule, followed by a figure for carrying out that work. The proposal does not contain a detailed breakdown of the work involved or any indication of the hours involved. Hourly rates for carrying out work are not included. No evidence was given to support the Buildwest estimates. Significant weight cannot be placed on the Buildwest estimates for these reasons.
The respondent also provided an estimate of the costs of carrying out the remedial work. However, his estimate was based on the assumption that he would only be responsible for the bricklaying component of the remedial work, while the applicant would have to pay other trades. This is not a proper basis for assessing the amount of an order under s 36 of the BSCRA Act. If the respondent is obliged to pay the costs of remedying defective work, he must pay all the costs of doing so.
Fortunately, Mr Sturmer gave evidence about the likely costs of carrying out remedial work. Mr Sturmer qualified his evidence on the basis that it had been sometime since he had carried on business as a builder. However, his evidence was the best available to the Tribunal.
Mr Sturmer did not agree with the scope of work suggested by Buildwest to remedy the eastern wall. He considered that the work would only have been a few bricks short if the roof tilers had proceeded with their work. He agreed with Buildwest that it would be necessary to erect scaffolding and prop up the roof to carry out the work. He considered that it would only be necessary to demolish the top two or three courses of the wall rather than the wall as a whole. He considered it would not be necessary to scrabble back the plaster on the whole of the wall, which Buildwest had suggested. Mr Sturmer said that it would be sufficient to scrabble back only a few additional courses of brick. On this basis, the Tribunal is satisfied that a building remedy order should be made requiring payment of between one third and one half of the Buildwest estimate. Doing the best it can with the limited evidence available, the Tribunal considers that an order for payment of $5,000 should be made.

Item 2: Steel beam decking is 37 millimetres off

This item relates to a small Juliette balcony that was to have been built at the southeast corner of bedroom 3. The Juliette balcony was to have been supported by steel beams protruding from the southern wall of bedroom 3. The two beams which protruded were to have been joined by another beam running eastwest, and the Juliette balcony would have been constructed on top of the beams.
It was accepted by both parties that the western beam protruded by 1,028 millimetres and the eastern beam protruded by 991 millimetres (Exhibit 1, page 280 at paragraph 7). The Juliette balcony on top of the beams was to have protruded 1,100 millimetres. It is not clear how long the balcony was to have been, possibly about 1,700 millimetres. The length and design of the Juliette balcony were the subject of an undocumented design change.
The applicant decided not to go ahead with the Juliette balcony. She gave evidence that she made this decision because the discrepancies in the length of the supporting beams made the Juliette balcony so small as to be unusable. The applicant claimed $2,900, of which $2,680 was the wasted cost of supplying, delivering and installing the beam, and $220 was for the cost of removing the beams.
To deal with this item, it is necessary to consider:
a)the scope of the building service provided by the respondent; and
b)the defect in the beams of the Juliette balcony.
The scope of the building services provided by the respondent determines the matters about which a building remedy order can be made against the respondent. The respondent is not responsible for services provided by other people. The applicant contended that the respondent provided building services of a general nature so that he had obligations to the applicant in respect of some works not actually carried out by the respondent or his employee/subcontractor, Mr Falcone. She contended that she was paying the respondent 'over the odds' for bricklaying work and that this was compensation for the performance of more general building duties. She also said that she had reached a similar arrangement with Mr Stephens.
It is clear that the respondent did not have overall responsibility for the whole of the renovation work because:
a)the applicant was registered as the owner builder;
b)other trades were engaged and paid directly by the applicant; and
c)the respondent did not give directions to the plasterers or the roof carpenters both these contractors looked to the applicant for decisions about work, and recognised that they were engaged by her.
The steel beams in question were not supplied by the respondent. They were supplied and delivered to the site by Metwest Steel, an independent steel fabrication contractor. The applicant was invoiced by Metwest Steel and paid Metwest Steel directly. There does not appear to have been any contractual relationship between the respondent and Metwest Steel.
The respondent asserted that his duties were confined to bricklaying. This is not correct. The respondent had a role in liaising with Metwest Steel about the construction of the beams (see, for example, Exhibit 2, page 4). Further, the respondent rendered invoices which included charges for services other than just bricklaying. On 13 June 2011, the respondent issued itemised invoices (Exhibit 1 at 111A 111D). The itemisation refers to calls to Metwest Steel on 10 May 2011 planning the steel delivery and liftin on 12 May 2011, slinging the steel loads on 13 May 2011, and 'extending brick tbar rests to accommodate moved east wall boundary by 2 feet'. In addition, the respondent participated in email correspondence with Metwest Steel about the dimensions of the structural beams.
The Tribunal concludes that the building services provided by the respondent included services in relation to the steel beams. Those services did not include the supply of the beams, but the respondent's building services did include liaising with Metwest Steel about the dimensions of the beams and their delivery. Metwest Steel also provided building services to the applicant in connection with the steel beams.
It was not disputed at the hearing that the beams protruded different distances from the wall. However, the reason this occurred was not explored in the evidence before the Tribunal. The applicant did not point to any particular feature of the email exchange between the respondent and Metwest Steel which might have led to the discrepancy in the dimensions of the beams. It may be that the beams were constructed incorrectly. After the beams were delivered to the site, the applicant made a decision to move the beams. It may be that the wall into which the beams were placed was not exactly square, so that the movement of the beams caused the difference in projection. In these circumstances, there is no basis upon which the Tribunal can conclude that the limited building service provided by the respondent in relation to the beams fell within s 38 of the BSCRA Act. The discrepancy in the beams may well have been the result of the building services provided by Metwest Steel.
The Tribunal also notes that the discrepancy in the length of the beams was not great 37 millimetres. Even allowing for the fact that the Juliette balcony was small to start with, this discrepancy is not such that it would have made the difference between a workable Juliette balcony and an unworkable Juliette balcony and, in itself, would not have justified removing the Juliette balcony completely.
The Tribunal rejects this part of the application.

Item 3: Steel beam held by only one bolt

UB8 is one of the large steel beams installed in the house as part of the renovations. It runs in a northsouth direction about 2 metres to the east of the western wall of bedroom 3. The applicant alleged that:
a)the respondent only affixed the beam to the wall with a single bolt; and
b)the beam was not firmly affixed to the wall.
She claimed $675, being the cost of affixing the beam to the wall by welding an angle plate to the beam and securing the plate to the wall.
There was dispute whether the respondent put two bolts in, or only one bolt. The applicant was adamant that the respondent only installed one bolt. However, she had not personally inspected the beams at the relevant time (T:153; 03.07.12). She had relied on reports from the roof carpenters. In crossexamination, Mr Jenkinson conceded that he could not remember whether there was a missing bolt or whether he had installed a bolt (T:70; 02.907.12 and T:74; 02.07.12). Mr Bourne gave evidence that one of the tradesmen working with him and Mr Jenkinson would have put in a bolt. He did not do it himself. Both men were definite that the beam was not properly attached to the wall and was 'wonky'.
The respondent, on the other hand, gave very definite evidence that he had installed two bolts in UB8. He gave evidence that he had used mortar anchors to fix UB8 in place, but that one of the anchors had not 'taken', with the consequence that it was necessary to continue to tighten that bolt (T:66; 17.07.12 and T:200; 03.07.12). In particular, he gave evidence about using a bolt with a mortar anchor. A mortar anchor is a metal collar around a bolt for use in mortar. As the nut on the bolt is tightened, the collar expands into the mortar, securely anchoring it in place. The respondent stated that the anchor did not 'take' readily, so that it was necessary to keep tightening the nut.
The Tribunal accepts the respondent's evidence that he did install two bolts in UB8.
During the course of his crossexamination, Mr Jenkinson suggested to the respondent that his method of affixing the beam was defective because it was inappropriate for old brickwork. However, the drawings produced by the structural engineers, Structerre Consulting Engineers, stipulated the use of masonry anchors such as that adopted by the respondent. The packing appears to have been a matter of necessity caused by the shape of the wall.
The Report described the beam as 'wobbly'. This description of the beam was confirmed by Mr Jenkinson and Mr Bourne. The Tribunal finds that the beam was 'wobbly' and not firmly affixed to the wall despite two bolts having been used.
In the Report, Mr Sturmer recommended that the respondent remedy the fixing of the steel beam. This recommendation was based, at least in part, on information provided to him by the applicant at the time of inspection that the beam was part of the fabricated structural steel and supported the upper floor (Exhibit 1, page 78). Mr Sturmer also pointed out that the situation was potentially dangerous, and stated that a certificate from a structural engineer was needed before further work was carried out. He also recommended that the applicant take precautions to exclude access to the area until that was done.

When he gave evidence at the hearing, Mr Sturmer was shown plans of the works, which led him to modify his views. His conclusion from the plans was that UB8 did not perform a structural function, in the sense that it was essential to the structural integrity of the dwelling. He qualified his view by pointing out that he was not a structural engineer, and said that a structural engineer's report was required. He stated that there was no need to repair the beam if it did not perform a structural function. The applicant did not provide any evidence that UB8 performed a structural function. There was no indication that the applicant had followed Mr Sturmer's advice to consult a structural engineer, either for the purposes of the hearing or to find out whether the dwelling is structurally sound. If beam UB8 had been loadbearing, then remedial work may have been necessary whether or not both bolts had been put in place.
In the circumstances, it is not appropriate to make a building remedy order against the respondent in respect of this item. It is not apparent that the services provided by the respondent in connection with this item were defective; two bolts were inserted, as far as possible in accordance with the details on the structural engineering drawings supplied by the applicant. There might, nevertheless, have been a basis for a remedy order if the dwelling was structurally unsound as a result. However, the evidence before the Tribunal does not allow it to conclude that the dwelling was unsafe because of any shortcoming in the way the beam was affixed to the wall. Accordingly, no order will be made in respect of this item of work.

Item 4: No roof ties installed

The applicant asserts that the work was defective in that no roof ties were installed by the respondent. She claims $275, which was the amount charged by her roof carpenters for installing roof ties while they were carrying out the roof carpentry. In this claim, she is supported by the Report, which is emphatic that roof ties should have been installed.
The respondent agreed that roof ties were necessary, but he said that he had intended to go back and install them at a later date (T:54; 17.07.12). Mr Jenkinson gave evidence that roof ties can be installed either while brickwork is being carried out or after the bricks have been laid. It takes more time to install roof ties once the brickwork has been done, and the cost is greater, but the result is no less effective (T:10; 02.07.12). Mr Sturmer agreed that installing the roof ties after the wall had been built was an acceptable building practice.
The respondent gave evidence that the reason he did not install the roof ties as the brickwork was done was because the drawings provided to him did not detail the tie downs and he needed to discuss with the roof carpenters precisely where to put them. The drawings state that roof forms were for illustrative purposes and that the roof carpenter should 'measure and modify to suit existing roof' (Exhibit 1, page 311). The respondent gave evidence that the number of roof ties required depended on the alignment of the gable (T:22; 17.07.12), about which he had not received instructions by 19 May 2011.
The Tribunal accepts:
a)that installing roof ties after a wall had been completed is an acceptable method of construction; and
b)the respondent's evidence that he intended to go back and add roof ties, and that he would have done so in due course had not the applicant on 24 May 2012 put a halt to further work by the respondent.
It follows that the Tribunal cannot conclude that this aspect of the building services supplied by the respondent was 'not carried out in a proper and proficient manner or [was] faulty or unsatisfactory'. Rather, this aspect of the work was unfinished at the time the applicant called a halt to further work on 24 May 2012. Section 38 of the BSCRA Act does not empower the Tribunal to make a building remedy order in such circumstances, and no order should be made.

Item 5: No flashings above or below five windows and no flashings above door

The applicant complains that there was no flashing above or below the windows in bedroom 3 and no flashing above the doors. She claims $5,280 for the costs of installing the flashings. This would involve removing sections of brickwork to the head and the sill of two windows and above the door, installing flashings, and then making good the areas affected by the repairs.
The respondent admitted that flashings had not been installed, but disputed that the absence of flashings fell within s 38 of the BSCRA Act.
The Report did not recommend any remedial action in respect of the lack of flashings. The Report states that Mr Sturmer considered that the eaves over the east wall of bedroom 3 provided protection for the window. The Report went on to refer to item P2.2.2 of the Building Code of Australia, which deals with weatherproofing and, in general terms, states that openings around windows and doors must prevent the penetration of water. According to the Report, in the absence of evidence that the wall had failed to prevent water ingress, no order for remedial work could be made. In his oral evidence Mr Sturmer explained that item P2.2.2 is a performance standard, which largely leaves it to the builder to decide how that standard will be achieved. If the wall does not let in water, the standard has been met. If the wall lets in water, the standard has not been met. The standard does not specify any particular method to ensure the wall is watertight. In his oral evidence, Mr Sturmer said that, in his opinion, a builder was entitled to rely on the performance standard but, in his view, it was not best practice (T:210; 03.07.12). He accepted that item P2.2.2 was commonly relied on. He expressed no opinion about the risk that the unflashed windows would leak.
Both Mr Jenkinson and Mr Campbell were clear that the windows should have flashings. The applicant said that she should not be exposed to the risk of water damage at some indeterminate time in the future because of work done now.
The issue for the Tribunal is not whether the method of work adopted by the respondent was 'best practice'. The standard under the BSCRA Act is directed to the existence of a defect or inadequacy in the work. There was no evidence before the Tribunal that the windows or the door let water in. Given Mr Sturmer's evidence that it was common not to install flashings, it cannot be said, on the evidence before the Tribunal, that the respondent's mode of work was not 'proper' or 'proficient', or that the work was 'faulty or unsatisfactory'.
This part of the applicant's claim must be dismissed.

Items 8 and 9: Interior bathroom walls

This item relates to the wall which separates the ensuite bathroom from the rest of bedroom 3. When Mr Sturmer originally inspected this wall, it had been plastered on both sides. He concluded that the wall was not straight and vertical. It leaned in towards the main part of the bedroom by more than 10 millimetres. This evidence was contested by the respondent. Mr Sturmer also observed that some bricks on the bathroom side of the wall protruded beyond the plaster.
During one of the adjournments of the hearing, the applicant arranged to have the plaster removed from the ensuite side of the wall and for a further inspection by Mr Sturmer. Mr Sturmer reported that the wall had been built using bricks of different widths. The bricks in the courses above the door frame were 96 millimetres wide, while the other bricks were 90 millimetres wide. The bedroom face of the wall was vertical and plumb, but the different widths of the bricks meant that the ensuite face of the wall was not smooth and had bricks projecting from it. Mr Sturmer also remarked that the defects he had originally observed in the plastering were the result of the efforts by the plasterers to minimise the effect of the protruding bricks. Although there remained a slight lean at the top of the wall, it was within acceptable tolerances (T:17; 11.07.12).
In addition, it appears that the wall itself was not square to the eastern wall. There was a disparity of about 4 millimetres (T:14; 11.07.12). Mr Sturmer considered that this did not mean that the wall was not fit for purpose (T:14; 11.07.12).
The respondent argued that:
a)the applicant was responsible for supplying the bricks used by the respondent, and she had not established that she had not supplied the inappropriate 96 millimetre wide bricks (see 'Respondent's Submission and Summation dated 2 October 2012'); and
b)he had intended to return to the worksite and grind back the bricks.
Although it may be accepted that the applicant paid for the bricks used by the respondent, it is not clear that she was responsible for selecting the bricks that were to be used in the works. The respondent knew that the applicant was not a building professional who was able to distinguish between the types of brick to be used and who gave specific direction about the particular bricks to be used in particular situations. Although not 'the builder', the respondent had an organisational role in respect of the bricks. He could, and should, have said if the bricks were not suitable. The respondent cannot, therefore, abrogate responsibility for the bricks used in carrying out the job. As the 96 millimetre bricks were not suitable for use in the ensuite wall, the respondent should not have used them, or, at the very least, should have objected to their use and warned the applicant of the adverse consequences of using the wrong bricks. The Tribunal notes that this defect is not a matter of incomplete work. The bricks were the wrong size and needed to be fixed, which falls within s 38(1)(a) of the BSCRA Act.
The Tribunal is prepared to proceed on the basis that the respondent intended to grind back the oversized bricks. For the reasons given in relation to Item 1 in the Scott Schedule, the circumstances in which it came about that the respondent did not return to the site are not such as to deprive the applicant of her entitlement to a building remedy order. The Tribunal does not consider that it was unreasonable for the plasterers to try and minimise the effects of the defects in the wall.
Mr Sturmer gave oral evidence that grinding back the protruding bricks on the ensuite side of the wall was an acceptable remedy (T:17; 11.07.12), as was completely removing the wall (T:18; 11.07.12). The applicant's estimate of the cost of remedying this defect was based on the assumption that the wall would be completely removed and rebuilt. The Tribunal does not consider that it is necessary for the wall to be replaced.
Mr Sturmer estimated that grinding back the bricks would involve about half a day's work. His estimate for replastering the wall was about an hour and a half to float the wall and another hour and a half to set it, although Mr Sturmer expected that a tradesman would charge a half day for each of these phases of the work. Mr Sturmer estimated that the plastering would cost $400 $600, with materials of $50 (T:20; 11.07.12).

Mr Sturmer's estimate of costs as the most reliable evidence available to the Tribunal. The respondent should pay the applicant $550 for the plastering and $250 for half a day's work grinding back the bricks.

Item 12: Security cables were physically cut off

The applicant claimed $435, being the cost of assessing and repairing security cables that were damaged during the course of the respondent's work.
The respondent did not deny that he damaged the security cable. He said that he needed to install a work platform, which sat on the ceiling joists above the kitchen in what had been the roof cavity, and that he cut as few cables as possible. He said that there were many wires running loose in the ceiling area (T:57; 17.07.12). The respondent gave evidence that the applicant had told him to go ahead with installing the work platform and that this saved the applicant the expense of rewiring before the work was done. He also gave evidence that, on one occasion, the applicant told him to cut a particular wire. He did not, however, give evidence that she said he could cut whichever wires he thought appropriate.
The Tribunal considers that proceeding to cut wires without express authorisation was not a proper way of providing the building service. Accordingly, this item falls within s 38 of the BSCRA Act and an order should be made in respect of it.
The respondent also contended that this claim was really in respect of the cost of relocation of some junction boxes, rather than the cost of repairing the wires. This is not reflected in the invoice of the applicant's electrical contractor (Exhibit 1, page 207). The respondent accepted that this allegation was just his opinion and was not supported by hard evidence (T:60; 17.07.12). The Tribunal rejects the respondent's contention on this point. The respondent must pay the applicant $475.

Item 13: Telephone lines and internet lines were damaged

The applicant claims $150, being the cost of reconnecting telephone lines and internet lines that were damaged by the respondent while work was being carried out. The respondent gave evidence that the damage was caused when he accidently slipped (T:60; 17.07.12). The applicant was not in a position to give any direct evidence about how the damage was done. The occurrence of an accident of this nature does not establish that the building service has 'not been carried out in a proper and proficient manner or is faulty or unsatisfactory'. The Tribunal will not make a building remedy order in respect of this item.

Item 15: Excessive charge for bricks

The applicant alleged that the respondent had charged for 2,404 bricks, when only between 1,096 and 1,275 bricks had been laid. This item does not relate to the manner in which the building service provided by the respondent was carried out within s 38 of the BSCRA Act. It is a claim for breach of contract. This aspect of the application must be dismissed.

Item 16: Hire of consultant

The applicant claimed $323, being the cost of engaging a building consultant in connection with the works. The Tribunal does not accept this aspect of the claim. The issues upon which the applicant has been successful are not matters requiring particular expertise or about which the applicant had been advised by the tradesmen she had engaged.

Summary

The Tribunal considers that the respondent should pay the applicant the following sums in respect of the costs of repair of the following items in the Scott Schedule:

Item	Description	Amount
1	Brickwork on left wall is 20 millimetres off and is not level.	$5,000
8 and 9	Interior bathroom walls are bowed and 'skewiff'. Door frame is not straight because the walls are out of angle. Parts of the walls have bricks protruding and still showing, even after render.	$800
12	Security cables were physically cut off.	$475
Total	$6,275

Order

1.The respondent pay the applicant $6,275 within 21 days.

I certify that this and the preceding [118] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR S ELLIS, SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER