Holmes v Luckner

[2015] QCAT 181

CITATION: Holmes v Luckner [2015] QCAT 181

PARTIES:	Julie Frances Holmes and Steven Holmes (Applicant)
v
Raymond Luckner (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: BDL284-14

MATTER TYPE: Building matters

HEARING DATE: 22 May 2015

HEARD AT: Townsville

DECISION OF: Member Carey

DELIVERED ON: 26 May 2015

DELIVERED AT: Townsville

ORDERS MADE:

1.    The Respondent pay the Applicant the sum of $1,895.00.

2.    No order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS: Building matters – Domestic Building Dispute

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT: Self

RESPONDENT: Self

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The Respondent gave a quote to grind down expansion joints, repair concrete and spray and apply sealer to the driveway and pool area of the Applicant’s home. 

2. The price was $4,000.00 inclusive of GST.

3. The Applicants complain that the job was not done properly.  Queensland Building and Construction Commission (‘QBCC’) issued a Direction to Rectify #40492 on 19 September 2014.  The Respondent did not comply with that direction.  The Respondent states he could not find any contractors to do the work.

4. The Applicants state that as a consequence of the Respondent’s failure to comply with the Contract they have obtained a quote from Protecta-Seal in the sum of $6,600.00 inclusive of GST to repair the defective works.

5. The Applicants request an order for $6,600.00 plus cleaning of $450.00, plus filing fees for $295.00.  This is a total of $7,345.00, less the $4,000.00 that they would have had to pay the Respondent.  The total amount they are seeking is $3,345.00.

6. The Respondent asserts that the scope of work from Protecta-Seal exceeds the scope of work that he was contracted to perform.  In particular, the scope items ‘base coat and level exposed to agg to flat plain concrete surface’ is different from the scope he provided in his quote.

7. The Respondent’s quote says ‘grind down expansion joints and cracks’ and ‘repair expansion joints and cracks’.

8. The Respondent also says that one of the Applicants, Mr Holmes, agreed that he would not be required to grind the surface down so that it was a flat concrete surface.

9. The Respondent states that in his view the Protecta-Seal quote is excessive and that he should not pay for the extra item of scope mentioned above.

10. I accept that to this extent the Protecta-Seal quote exceeds the original scope quoted by the Respondent.

11. The Respondent said that he thought the cost of that scope item would be $1,000.00.

12. I accept that to require the Respondent to pay for the extra scope item would be unreasonable.

13. I do not accept that the Respondent should pay a “cleaning fee” of $450.00. There is no evidence that fee was incurred.

14. I find in favour of the Applicants to the following extent:

    $6,600.00
    Plus filing fee  $295.00
      $6,895.00
    Less original quote               $4,000.00
      $2,895.00
    Less extra scope item          $1,000.00
    TOTAL  $1,895.00