Lamme & Bubrle v Renmark Plumbing Services
[2015] QCAT 296
•30 July 2015
| CITATION: | Lamme & Bubrle v Renmark Plumbing Services [2015] QCAT 296 |
| PARTIES: | Bianca Lamme Anton Bubrle (Applicants) |
| v | |
| Mark Reynolds t/a Renmark Plumbing Services (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | BDL177-14 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Building matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 14 April 2015 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Member Paratz |
| DELIVERED ON: | 30 July 2015 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. Mark Reynolds trading as Renmark Plumbing Services is to pay to Bianca Lamme and Anton Bubrle the amount of $3,050.00 within 30 days. |
| CATCHWORDS: | BUILDING DISPUTE – where a plumber installed stormwater pipes – where the pipe was cracked and water could not flow to water tanks – whether appropriate bedding sand was placed in the trench – whether the plumber is liable for the cost of removing and replacing the stormwater pipes |
APPEARANCES:
| APPLICANT: | Bianca Lamme and Anton Bubrle in person |
| RESPONDENT: | Mark Reynolds in person |
REASONS FOR DECISION
Bianca Lamme and Anton Bubrle (‘the owners’) were building a house on acreage at Guanaba in Queensland. They employed Mark Reynolds (‘the plumber’) trading as Renmark Plumbing Services in the second half of 2013 to install stormwater piping leading to water storage tanks.
After the work was completed, the owners found that no water was being delivered to the tanks after rain. The plumber was consulted, but no cause was determined. The owners excavated the pipeworks themselves and found that the pipe had been smashed and was blocked.
The owners had the pipework repaired and the system then operated successfully.
The owners filed an application in the Tribunal on 22 July 2014 seeking relief from payment of amount claimed of $2,645.53 plus restitution of $300.00 plus rectification of defective work and incomplete work to be finished. The orders that were sought were expressed as follows:[1]
(1)Instruct Renmark Plumbing Services to bring the existing stormwater system installed by Renmark Plumbing Services up to as new condition.
(2)Clarify that remedial work is indeed the responsibility of Renmark Plumbing Services and that the said remedial work comes under the normal warranty of Renmark Plumbing Services.
(3)That the invoices issued by Renmark plumbing Services are not substantiated and should be rescinded.
(4)Outstanding unfinished/faulty work should be completed or rectified.
(5)To instruct Renmark Plumbing Services to pay restitution for buying water twice.
[1]Part C1 of the Application.
At a directions hearing held on 4 March 2015 the owners were granted leave to amend their claim to abandon all parts of the claim other than the claim for the sum of $3,050.00 being the costs associated with the defects the subject of the report of Dennis Cairns & Associates dated 9 December 2014.
At the hearing the owners sought damages for the removal and replacement of damaged storm water pipes of $2,500.00 plus hydraulic engineers costs of $550.00. The hearing proceeded on the basis of the claim by the owners for $3,050.00. The plumber did not make a counter-claim.
The issues revolved around whether the stormwaters pipes were properly laid initially by the proper placing of bedding sand, and whether the pipes were damaged in the course of their being laid.
The reasonableness of the quoted cost of repair of $2,500.00, from Luke Glencross, dated 18 March 2015, and of the cost of the report from Dennis Cairns & Associates of $550.00, was not in dispute.
The Owners Case
Ms Lamme said that work was being done on a Friday afternoon and she saw a rock fall off an excavator, cracking a pipe. She saw really big rocks and a lot of rubble being put into the excavation, but did not see sand being put in and onto the pipes in that area.
She said that she saw sand being put into the trenches at the sides of the house, and since it was a Friday afternoon she thought they had run out of sand. She did not realise that it was not the proper way to fill the trench.
Mr Bubrle said that he saw an excavator drop a rock into the excavation. He only saw sand being put in the trench at the left of the house. He said that he said to the supervisor, Len Tordi, that rocks were being put in the trench, but that Mr Tordi said that it was alright, that he knew what he was doing, and that it would be tested.
Mr Bubrle said that he did not see any sand being put into the trench at the area under discussion.
Mr Adrian Zambelli is a hydraulic services consultant with Dennis Cairns & Associates. He is a plumber and drainer with a Diploma in Hydraulic Services Design, and had been in the industry for 25 years. He had provided a report dated 9 December 2014. In his report he concluded that the contractor had not back filled the stormwater drainage trench in accordance with ‘AS/NZS 8500.3:2003 Part 3 Stormwater Drainage (incorporating Amendments 1.2 and 3)’ which specifies the design and installation requirements for stormwater drainage systems.[2]
[2]Report of Dennis Cairns & Associates dated 9 December 2014, p 1.
The report refers to clause 7.3.6 of the Standard which allows a Contractor to use excavated materials as bedding, side support and overlay, however it is to be free from rock or hard matter and is broken up so when placed it has soil lumps no greater than 75mm. It says there ‘is clear evidence that the bedding, side support and overlay is not free of rock and or hard matter’.
The report concludes that:
In summary, and based on the observation from Fig 1 above and all video and photographic material the client has supplied, DCA are of the opinion the Contractor did not install the bedding, side support, overlay and trench fill in accordance with the above AS/NZS 3500.3:2003 clauses as shown in Figs 2 to 6.
As such DCA believe this has caused the stormwater drainage system to fail. It would be our recommendation based again on all the video and photographic evidence provided to DCA, the entire stormwater drainage system be removed and replaced in accordance with the requirements as shown in figures 2 to 6.
Mr Zambelli gave oral evidence by telephone. He said that if the pipework was embedded properly, that driving machinery over it would not have any effect. He said that he did not see any sand in anywhere in the photos of the excavated area.
Mr Reynolds asked Mr Zambelli that if the stormwater line was charged, and there was a break, whether the water could wash away the bedding sand. Mr Zambelli replied that water could wash sand away if there was somewhere for the sand to go to, but that in his opinion that would not occur in this scenario, and that water definitely could not run uphill.
The Plumbers Case
Mr Mark Reynolds spoke about the usual practice in laying pipes. He said that a trench is dug and three plumbers would be onsite, one person would stay in the trench and measure the fall, one person would cut the pipe, and one person would watch. He said the usual procedure was to pour sand around the pipe and 300mm of cover.
He said that he did not see a rock fall on the Friday afternoon and denied that the incident occurred. He said he was there from start to finish.
He said that the next day the Council passed the stormwater without an inspection as the trenches were covered when the inspector came.
Mr Reynolds explained that the pipe was charged with high pressure, and he believes that the water flowing from the broken pipe would have washed the sand away. He said he believes that machinery was driving over the area and pushed the rocks into the ground.
Mr Reynolds drew a plan[3] which showed the affected area as being toward the right end of the line of pipes, near the water tanks.
[3]Exhibit 9.
In cross-examination Mr Reynolds said that the trench was progressively filled with bedding as they went along the trench. He said that he was not there when the pipes were laid for the second stage of the work.
Mr Frank Reynolds said that a new apprentice was being shown the procedure on this job. He argued that extra sand was used, as he got receipts for it. He said that 30 cubic metres was used.
He said that he was present when the trenching was done, and that he repaired a pipe and fitting some three months after the work was done, after being called back. He said that he was not there on the Friday afternoon when the trench was being completed.
Mr Frank Reynolds was asked in re-examination by Mr Mark Reynolds whether on the Friday afternoon, when everyone was given a beer, he was asked to repair a broken pipe.
Mr Ronald Todd was a supervisor on the job. He said that he supervised delivery of materials and helped backfill the trench. He said there was a person with little experience driving a front end loader on the site.
Discussion
The owners submitted that the area that was run over by a machine, was not the area in question; that water does not run uphill to wash sand away; and that in the future rocks will rub through the pipes; and asked for repair to be ordered.
The plumber submitted that he believed that he had used appropriate bedding sand, that receipts substantiated that enough bedding was used, and that he had repaired any defects. He submitted that he was training apprentices, so there was no reason not to do the work properly. He also submitted that the owners should have spoken up when they saw the rock fall onto the pipe.
It is clear that the stormwater pipe was cracked, and that water was unable to flow to the water tanks. Something cracked the pipe.
Whilst there is agreement between the various witnesses that a front end loader was on site and did crush some pipework which was being laid, and which had to be repaired, there is disagreement as to what occurred at the site near the water tanks.
I accept the evidence of the owners that they saw a large rock fall from a machine into the trench at the relevant site. It is entirely feasible that the fall of the rock would have cracked the plastic pipe.
It was the obligation of the plumber to supervise the work and repair any breakage, and inspect that the pipe was sound before properly backfilling the trench.
Whilst the plumber says that the receipts show that sufficient sand was brought to site to appropriately fill all the trenches, he did not provide any calculations or measurements of the actual excavated area, to support that proposition.
I accept the evidence of Mr Zambelli. That evidence is compelling in support of the claim by the owners.
If appropriate sand was placed in the trench, then why was it not there when the trench was later excavated? Where did it go? The suggestion by the plumber that all the sand was washed away from the whole of the trench, which included an area uphill from the break, is not credible.
The earth around the broken pipe as shown in the photographs is close packed which is unlikely to allow many cubic metres of sand to be washed through it – Mr Zambelli is quite clear that he did not see any evidence of sand.
The matter is to be decided on the balance of probabilities.
The most likely scenario is that the affected section of trenchwork was rushed to be finished using the available fill material (which did not include enough sand) on a Friday afternoon, when the workers (who included new inexperienced apprentices) were anxious to finish, knowing the Council inspector was coming the next day, and to have a beer at the end of the week.
I am satisfied that the pipe was broken by a falling rock, and that the plumber failed to repair the pipe as he was required to do, and failed to properly backfill the trench with sand.
I am also satisfied that the result is that the stormwater pipe must be removed and replaced as recommended by Mr Zambelli, and that the reasonable cost of doing so is $2,500.00.
The fees of Mr Zambelli were directly incurred by the owners as a result of these proceedings. As I have found in favour of the owners, I will allow these professional costs as being properly and reasonably incurred.
I order that the Mark Reynolds trading as Renmark Plumbing Services pay to Bianca Lamme and Anton Bubrle the amount of $3,050.00 within 30 days.
0
0
0