Neate v Foundry One Pty Ltd trading as Rolling Homes Australia

[2021] NSWCATCD 29

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Neate v Foundry One Pty Ltd trading as Rolling Homes Australia [2021] NSWCATCD 29

Hearing dates:

26 May 2021

Date of orders:

9 June 2021

Decision date:

09 June 2021

Jurisdiction:

Consumer and Commercial Division

Before:

P Boyce, Senior Member

Decision:

(1) The applicant, Karin Neate:

(a) Is to remove all connections of services and the solar panels of the tiny house so that it can be moved;

(b) is to remove her personal items from the tiny house and vacate it;

(c) is to give not less than five (5) working days’ notice to the respondent, Foundry One Pty Ltd trading as Rolling Homes Australia, of the applicant, Karin Neate intention to move the tiny house to a safe location on a particular business day and at a particular time to outside the boundary of the land on which the tiny house is currently located to a point nominated by the respondent, Foundry One Pty Ltd trading as Rolling Homes Australia, so that Foundry One Pty Ltd trading as Rolling Homes Australia may take delivery of the tiny house.

(2) The tiny house will be at the respondent, Foundry One Pty Ltd trading as Rolling Homes Australia risk from the time that it takes delivery of the tiny house;

(3) The respondent, Foundry One Pty Ltd trading as Rolling Homes Australia will pay to the applicant Karin Neate the amount of $1200.00 upon taking delivery of the tiny house.

(4) The respondent, Foundry One Pty Ltd trading as Rolling Homes Australia, will carry out the works identified in Table 1 of these Reasons for Decision as Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6 ,7 ,8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,15, 16, 23, 24 ,25 ,26 ,27 and 28 within four (4) weeks of taking delivery of the tiny house;

(5) The respondent, Foundry One Pty Ltd trading as Rolling Homes Australia, will give the applicant Karin Neate not less than five (5) business days’ notice of the time and date of their intention to return the tiny house to the boundary of the site upon which the tiny house was located and in the position that it was picked up from.

(6) The tiny house will be at the applicant, Karin Neate’s risk from the time that it is delivered to the external boundary of the site where it is currently located.

Catchwords:

CONSUMER LAW - Contract - Supply of goods - Goods of acceptable quality

Legislation Cited:

Motor Dealers and Repairers Act 2013 (NSW)

Home Building Act 1989 (NSW)

Fair Trading Act 1987(NSW)

Cases Cited:

Makita v Sproule [2001] NSWCA 305

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Karin Neate (Applicant)
Foundry One Pty Ltd trading as Rolling Homes Australia (Respondent)

Representation:

Solicitors:
Stuart Frumar (Respondent)

File Number(s):

MV20/43208

Publication restriction:

None

REASONS FOR DECISION

Application

1. The applicant is a consumer and the respondent is a supplier of goods and services.

2. The applicant filed this application in the motor vehicle list of the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Tribunal on 13 October 2020 against the respondent seeking orders that the respondent pay to her an amount of $80,000.00 by way of refund for the cost of a “tiny house” supplied by the respondent to the applicant. The applicant alleges that the tiny house has not been supplied in accordance with the contract between the parties and it is defective.

Jurisdiction

3. On 4 March 2021 the Tribunal determined that it had jurisdiction to hear and determine the application and provided reasons. It found, amongst other things, that the tiny house, the subject of the claim, is a new motor vehicle as it is constructed on a trailer and satisfies the definition under the Motor Dealers and Repairers Act 2013.

4. The Tribunal also found that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal does not lie in a claim under the Home Building Act as Clause 2(3)(c) of Schedule 1 of the Act excludes work involved in the manufacture, assembly or erection of a moveable dwelling from the definition of a dwelling.

5. S 28 of the NCAT Act provides that the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal ("Tribunal") has jurisdiction and functions as may be conferred or imposed on it by or under this Act or any other legislation.

6. If the Fair Trading Act (NSW) 1987 (“FTA”) is to apply the Tribunal has to be satisfied that the application is a consumer claim for the purposes of the Act.

7. The applicant is presumed by s79H of the Act to be a consumer within the meaning of s79D of the FTA.

8. The respondent is a supplier as defined in s 79D of the FTA as it is in the course of carrying on, or purporting to carry on, a business, supplying the services of a designing, fabricating tiny houses .

9. The matter falls within the definition of “consumer claim” under s79E of the FTA.

10. The cause of action arose within the 3 years prior to the commencement of proceedings.

11. The value of the claim is more than $40,000.00 and section 79S(7) excludes the jurisdictional limit of $40,000 if the supply is of a new motor vehicle. The Tribunal found in its decision of 4 March 2021 that the supply is of a new motor vehicle.

12. The Tribunal is satisfied that it has jurisdiction under s79J of the Fair FTA.

13. The Australian Consumer Law (“ACL”) is contained in Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act (Cwlth) 2010.

14. The provisions of the ACL apply in NSW by virtue of the provisions of its adoption by s28 of the FTA.

15. Section 79K of the FTA provides that:

(1) The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine a consumer claim only if:

(a) the goods or services to which the claim relates were supplied in New South Wales, or

(b) a contract or other agreement to which the claim relates contemplated that the goods or services would be supplied in New South Wales (whether or not they were so supplied), or

(c) a contract or other agreement to which the claim relates was made in New South Wales (whether or not the goods or services were supplied in New South Wales).

(2) The Tribunal has such jurisdiction whether or not:

(a) a contract or other agreement to which the claim relates confers jurisdiction on any other court or tribunal (whether in New South Wales or elsewhere), or

(b) the rules of private international law require a law other than the law of New South Wales to be applied to the hearing or determination of the claim.

16. The Tribunal is satisfied that the services were supplied in NSW. The Tribunal is satisfied that it has jurisdiction to hear and determine the application.

Relevant Legislation and Statutory warranties

17. Section 54 of the ACL provides a guarantee that goods supplied by a supplier must be of acceptable quality.

18. S 55 of the ACL provides that there is a guarantee that the goods are reasonably fit for any disclosed purpose, and for any purpose for which the supplier represents that they are reasonably fit.

19. Section 60 of the ACL provides consumer guarantee that services will be rendered with all due care and skill.

20. Section 61 of the ACL provides a consumer with a guarantee that service resulting in a product will be reasonably fit for purpose.

21. s 259 of the ACL provides that in an action against suppliers of goods:

(1)  A consumer may take action under this section if:

(a)  a person (the supplier ) supplies, in trade or commerce, goods to the consumer; and

(b)  a guarantee that applies to the supply under Subdivision A of Division 1 of Part 3-2 (other than sections 58 and 59(1)) is not complied with.

(2)  If the failure to comply with the guarantee can be remedied and is not a major failure:

(a)  the consumer may require the supplier to remedy the failure within a reasonable time; or

(b)  if such a requirement is made of the supplier but the supplier refuses or fails to comply with the requirement, or fails to comply with the requirement within a reasonable time--the consumer may:

(i)  otherwise have the failure remedied and, by action against the supplier, recover all reasonable costs incurred by the consumer in having the failure so remedied; or

(ii)  subject to section 262, notify the supplier that the consumer rejects the goods and of the ground or grounds for the rejection.

(3)  If the failure to comply with the guarantee cannot be remedied or is a major failure, the consumer may:

(a)  subject to section 262, notify the supplier that the consumer rejects the goods and of the ground or grounds for the rejection; or

(b)  by action against the supplier, recover compensation for any reduction in the value of the goods below the price paid or payable by the consumer for the goods.

(4)  The consumer may, by action against the supplier, recover damages for any loss or damage suffered by the consumer because of the failure to comply with the guarantee if it was reasonably foreseeable that the consumer would suffer such loss or damage as a result of such a failure.

(5)  Subsection (4) does not apply if the failure to comply with the guarantee occurred only because of a cause independent of human control that occurred after the goods left the control of the supplier.

(6)  To avoid doubt, subsection (4) applies in addition to subsections (2) and (3).

(7)  The consumer may take action under this section whether or not the goods are in their original packaging.

22. S267 of the ACL provides:

267 Action against suppliers of services

(1) A consumer may take action under this section if:

(a) a person (the supplier ) supplies, in trade or commerce, services to the consumer; and

(b) a guarantee that applies to the supply under Subdivision B of Division 1 of Part 3-2 is not complied with; and

(c) unless the guarantee is the guarantee under section 60--the failure to comply with the guarantee did not occur only because of:

(i) an act, default or omission of, or a representation made by, any person other than the supplier, or an agent or employee of the supplier; or

(ii) a cause independent of human control that occurred after the services were supplied.

(2) If the failure to comply with the guarantee can be remedied and is not a major failure:

(a) the consumer may require the supplier to remedy the failure within a reasonable time; or

(b) if such a requirement is made of the supplier but the supplier refuses or fails to comply with the requirement, or fails to comply with the requirement within a reasonable time--the consumer may:

(i) otherwise have the failure remedied and, by action against the supplier, recover all reasonable costs incurred by the consumer in having the failure so remedied; or

(ii) terminate the contract for the supply of the services.

(3) If the failure to comply with the guarantee cannot be remedied or is a major failure, the consumer may:

(a) terminate the contract for the supply of the services; or

(b) by action against the supplier, recover compensation for any reduction in the value of the services below the price paid or payable by the consumer for the services.

(4) The consumer may, by action against the supplier, recover damages for any loss or damage suffered by the consumer because of the failure to comply with the guarantee if it was reasonably foreseeable that the consumer would suffer such loss or damage as a result of such a failure.

(5) To avoid doubt, subsection (4) applies in addition to subsections (2) and (3).

Facts adduced from evidence

23. At the hearing, Ms Neate gave affirmed oral evidence. Mr Frumar, agent for the respondent, was offered the opportunity to cross examine Ms Neate. Ms Neate tendered, and admitted by the Tribunal, the following exhibits:

1. Exhibit A1- a bundle of documents filed by the owners in compliance with the Tribunals directions, including:

1. A tax invoice for Shane Drury Automotive dated 11 September 2020;’

2. A copy of a quote from the respondent to the applicant dated 27 March 2020 for the tiny house;

3. A copy of a report from EcoView Design ”Building Defects Inspection Report” dated 20 October 2020;

4. Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule-Definitions and Vehicle Categories) 2005;

2. Exhibit A2-the reasons for seeking orders as set out in the application

24. The respondent’s director, Leon King, gave affirmed oral evidence. Ms Neate was offered the opportunity to cross examine Mr King. The respondent tendered, and admitted by the Tribunal, the following exhibits:

1. Exhibit R1- the owners bundle of documents, containing;

1. Submissions;

2. Chronology;

3. Statement by Leon King;

4. Statement by Carla Versitano;

5. Statement by Anthony Versitano;

6. Attachments to statements.

25. The applicant entered into a contract for the supply of a tiny house on 27 March 2020 for a price of $79,200.00 (“Contract”). The applicant paid a deposit for the supply of the tiny house under the Contract of $39,600.00. Pursuant to the Contract the applicant made a progress payment on 3 June 2020 in the amount of $19,800.00 at lock up stage. The final payment under the Contract was due upon completion and after a final check by the applicant. The applicant made the final payment on 1 July 2020.

26. The applicant’s tiny house was to be the subject of a television program called “The Living Room”.

27. The tiny house was not completely finished before schedule of “The Living Room” required it to be available filming. The evidence is that the tiny house was delivered by the respondent to the applicant’s land on 26 June 2020 in time for the filming and before the filming, the applicant moved into the tiny house on or about that day. The filming took place on 29 June 2020.

28. The respondent intended to return to the location of the tiny house to complete the unfinished works. The respondent was delayed in attending the site because of weather and refusal of the property owner on whose land the tiny house is located to permit access. Some works, including plumbing works were carried out in August 2020. The parties fell into dispute.

29. On 25 August 2020 the applicant sent an email to the respondent expressing her concerns with the tiny house including, but not limited to:

1. The overall weight of the tiny house and its ability to meet registration requirements of a trailer;

2. The use of standard ply on external walls rather than specified marine ply;

3. The lack of “artisan gypsy craftsmanship”, “bespoke features”, “reclaimed materials”, ‘hardwood timbers”, “stained glass”, and generally the aesthetic and quality discussed and implied from the respondent’s website.

4. The safety and functionality of the stairs;

5. Compromised and uncertified waterproofing;

6. Lack of appropriate paperwork, including a contract, detailed specification sheet, warranties, vin/registration details and certifications;

7. Minor concerns, some of which the respondent indicated it intended to address.

30. The respondent replied to the applicant to the effect that it was willing to carry out requested works and supply information as requested, when the applicant could arrange access to the location of the tiny house and areas to be worked on the be cleared of the applicants personal effects.

31. The respondent formalised its offer to the applicant on 11 September 2020. On review of the evidence the Tribunal notes that the offer was an open offer and not made without prejudice. The terms of the offer can be considered by the Tribunal. The respondent offered the applicant to:

1. Refund $72,000 and remove the tiny house from the site (the amount is the purchase price less GST); or

2. Carry out rectification works on site to the standard that it would otherwise have been had it been delivered before completion to allow for it to be filmed, with the scope of works defined. The offer included completing the works in 3 weeks and paying the applicant $400 per week towards the cost of her alternative accommodation while the works were undertaken.

32. On 22 September 2020 the respondent sent another email to the applicant stipulating that “I would like to work with you to finish your custom built Tiny House and give you the necessary documentation for you to register it”. The respondent withdrew the offer to refund the purchase price and reinstated the offer to carry out rectification and complete the works in accordance with the second arm of the offer made on 11 September 2020.

33. The applicant refused the offer and restated her demand for a full refund of the price.

34. The respondent sent to the applicant a further letter on 28 September 2020. In the letter the respondent made the offer to purchase the tiny house back from the applicant for $72,000 and set out terms for payment, including that the offer was made without admitting liability, the applicant to disconnect the services and remove the solar panels and delivering the tiny house to the boundary of the property to be picked up by the respondent. The offer was able to be accepted by 5pm Friday 9 October 2020. If the offer was not accepted by the applicant, the respondent confirmed that it was willing and able to complete the outstanding works and rectification of the tiny house on sitre as previously offered including contributing to the applicant’s rent for 3 weeks at $400 per week.

35. The applicant did not accept the offer and the offer lapsed on 9 October 2020. The respondent again restated its willingness to honour its alternative offer to complete the works.

36. The respondent made a further offer on 13 November 2020. The offer included the tiny house being returned to the respondent’s workshop in Nowra by the applicant, the respondent paying 50% of the transport costs for the delivery of the tiny house and its return, the scope of works to be in accordance with the works identified in the applicant builder’s report, EcoView Design. For the removal of doubt a list of the works was included with the offer and comprised 22 items.

37. The applicant rejected the respondent’s offer by email on 13 November 2020.

Consideration of evidence and issues

38. The applicant bears the onus or proof in establishing to the civil standard the claim they make. The applicant has only partly done so.

39. The evidence relied upon by the applicant is the report from EcoView. This report is not an expert report as it does not establish the author’s expertise, knowledge, experience and qualifications. The author does not agree to be bound by the Tribunal’s Practice Note 3 as to Expert Witnesses. Makita v Sproule [2001] NSWCA 305 sets out the principles that the Tribunal is guided and informed by. The basal principle was formed that required the facts upon which the opinion in a report is based to be proved by admissible evidence, in order “to render the opinion of any value”. This means the expert is required to identify the factual basis of an opinion so that the Tribunal is able to assess how the opinion was reached .However, it is the only evidence before the Tribunal identifying incomplete works and by their response, the respondent has adopted the identified works as the basis of their offer to complete the works. It is noted that the report is only in relation to the building elements of the tiny house and in its summary describes the incidence of major defects as “Typical”. It defines “Typical” as “The frequency and/or magnitude of defects are consistent with the inspector’s expectations when compared to similar buildings of approximately the same age which have been reasonably well maintained”.

40. The applicant contends that she was unable to adduce any other evidence to support her contention that the trailer is deficient. At best she says, in evidence, that she relies on a tax invoice from Shane Drury. That invoice states in the description of the work charged for by Mr Drury “Trailer is well made and meets all specifications for the Australian standard but has no compliance plate fitted therefore cannot be registered”. If this description of work is to be accepted, it must be considered against what the respondent says in its evidence. That is, it is willing and able to fit a compliance plate and a Vehicle Identification Number (“VIN”) to allow for the trailer to be registered, a task that it was prevented from doing because of the premature delivery of the tiny house, as required by the applicant, to accommodate the filming of the lifestyle program. Other than the applicant’s reasons for seeking the orders in the application, that the applicant relies on no other statement, there is no other evidence to support the applicant’s contentions that the tiny house trailer fails to comply with any standard or the specifications in the Contract. If there was any non-compliance with the specifications the respondent concedes that the trailer was constructed out of galvanised steel providing additional strength over the panned aluminium trailer, for which the respondent made no extra charge.

38. The evidence adduced by the applicant does not establish that there is a major defect with the tiny house or the trailer. The evidence of EcoView is that the incomplete and defective works are capable of being completed and rectified. The evidence is that the respondent was ready willing and able to complete and rectify the works. The applicant would not agree to allow the respondent access to the site to do so. The evidence shows that the attempts at resolution of the dispute all had their genesis with the respondent. The applicant being uncompromising with her claim for a full refund of the price.

39. The Contract requires the respondent to complete the works and section 54 of the ACL requires the works to be of an acceptable quality.

40. The respondent’s evidence is that it is ready and willing to complete the works.

41. The remedy available to the applicant is an order that the respondent carry out the works to restore the tiny house to the state or condition it should otherwise be in had it been completed before delivery to the applicant’s site, subject to fair wear and tear.

42. The scope of works proposed by the respondent is to an extent mostly in accordance with the recommendations of EcoView and are:

• Repair door bolt system, realign doors, repair seal and repaint doors;

• Alter gas and water piping outside of overall dimension restrictions;

• Reposition exterior power point for toilet fan plug;

• Repair or replace (if necessary) bench tops and re coat;

• Replace shelves above cooktop;

• Replace pantry wall shelves;

• Lift and glue flooring

• Recoat stair treads;

• Sheet rear wall with marine ply, reseal, replace battens and paint;

• Sheet front wall with marine ply, reseal, replace battens and paint;

• Have an onsite weight certificate issued;

• Have an onsite safety certificate issued;

• Undertake any work required to complete the registration process.

46. The Tribunal is satisfied that the respondent is liable for the completion of the work on the tiny house in accordance with the contract and also for any defective work under the statutory guarantees under the ACL.

47. The remedy available to the applicant is under the general law and the ACL at section 259.

48. The first remedy available is that the respondent be ordered to complete the works and remedy any defects.

49. The evidence before the Tribunal of the extent of the incomplete work and defective works is the list of incomplete works and defective work included in the only independent report of EcoView. The respondent has expressed a willingness to carry out those works and has attempted to reach agreement with the applicant on at least 3 occasions to do so.

50. The Tribunal sets out a comparative table of issues identified in the EcoView report and the works the respondent agrees to carry out:

Table 1

Item #	Issue	EcoView Comments	Respondents agreement to rectify
1	Window Architraves	Punch nails, fill holes and paint, ensure nails external grade, if not, replace
2	Exterior Stairs	Treat untreated stair treads to prevent decay	Recoat stair treads
3	Interior-Exterior timber Doors	Ensure timber door are external grade. If not, replace. If so, rectify delamination	Repair door bolt system, realign doors, repair seal and repaint doors
4	Interior- exterior timber door	Rectify poor finish of positioning of handle and hole filled. Restore to first rate handover finish	Repair door bolt system, realign doors, repair seal and repaint doors
5	Exterior-Wall Cladding	Replace wall cladding with marine grade ply and repaint	Sheet front and rear wall with marine ply, reseal, replace battens and paint
6	Exterior- Wall Cladding	Ensure that replacement marine ply is fixed without damage caused by nail holes over punched through veneer.	Sheet front and rear wall with marine ply, reseal, replace battens and paint
7	Exterior-Cedar Cladding	Apply finish to cedar cladding to prevent weather damage
8	Interior-metal windows and doors	Timber window reveals require nail holes punched and holes filled and surface painted to weatherproof
9	Interior Ceiling	Any splits in ply lining to the ceiling is to be made good and nail heads punched and filled
10	Interior Rafters	Make good damaged ends to rafters
11	Interior flooring	Lift and glue flooring	Lift and glue flooring
12	Interior Paint finish	Make good paint runs wherever they occur
13	Interior-Stairs	Make good uneven timber work on stairs
14	Interior-Bench tops	Material deterioration no rectification method identified	Repair or replace (if necessary) bench tops and re coat
15	Interior-Kitchen Shelf	Not attached to wall- needs to be better fixed	Replace shelves above cooktop Replace pantry wall shelves
16	Interior-Kitchen bench top	Marks on bench top due to incorrect finishes applied for a working bench top	Repair or replace (if necessary) bench tops and re coat
17	Subfloor	Building is bolted to chassis with metal brackets and bolts-this system is beyond scope of building inspection Tribunal comment: EcoView is not in a position to make any comments about the trailer
18	Roof Exterior	Flashing to edge appears to be loose and not screwed down adequately Tribunal comment: No method of rectification is advised
19	Interior-Kitchen electrical point	The location of the power point in directly behind the cooktop. The cooktop is gas fuelled. Tribunal comment: No method of rectification is made and the issue is referred to an electrician; no additional report has been obtained
20	Roof exterior-guttering	There appears to be no adequate filter installed to the first flush system- Tribunal comment: No method of rectification is made and the issue is referred to plumber; no additional report has been obtained
21	Exterior-Gas bottle compliance plate	Unable to locate gas bottle compliance plate Tribunal comment: Not satisfied to the civil standard of proof that compliance plate of an exchangeable bottle is unable to be located
22	Interior- Bathroom waterproofing	The waterproofing does not appear adequate. Provide a waterproofing certificate- Tribunal comment: No method of rectification is made and the issue is referred to the builder to provide a waterproofing certificate, which is beyond the scope of works included in the Contract
23	General rectification of doors and seals	Repair door bolt system, realign doors, repair seal and repaint doors
24	External Gas and Water piping	Alter gas and water piping outside of overall dimension restrictions
25	Toilet Fan plug	Reposition exterior power point for toilet fan plug
26	Trailer weight certificate	Have an onsite weight certificate issued
27	Trailer safety certificate	Have an onsite safety certificate issued
28	Works required to register trailer	Undertake any work required to complete the registration process

Conclusion and Orders

51. The Tribunal is not satisfied that all the issues the EcoView report identifies are all properly considered and methods of rectification identified. Those that are the Tribunal will order to be recitified. The respondent has agreed to carry certain works that include some of the significant issues identified in the EcoView report and in addition works necessary to put the trailer into registrable form as provided under the terms of the Contract. The Tribunal will order that those works be carried out.

52. At the hearing the issue of how rectification and completion work would be carried out was the subject of submission by the parties.

53. If the Tribunal was minded to order completion and rectification:

1. It is the applicant’s position that the respondent be responsible for the disconnection of the water, gas, sewer and solar panels and retrieval of the tiny house to transport it back to the respondent’s factory in Nowra or, in the alternative, for the respondent to carry out the work on site.

2. The respondents position is for the applicant to carry out the disconnections and then deliver the tiny house to the front boundary of the land on which the tiny house is located for the respondent to take delivery of the tiny house, return it to its factory, carry out the works and return it to the boundary of the site for the applicant to locate within the site and then reconnect the services.

54. The evidence is that the tiny house was delivered to the applicant’s site by the respondent before it was completed in order to comply with applicant’s desire to have the tiny house in position ready for the filming. The addition of the solar panels and connections took place after delivery of the tiny house. The respondent’s evidence is that if the works take place on site then it could double the time to carry out the work. If the tiny house can be worked on in its factory it can complete the works in about 3 weeks. The respondent has offered the applicant compensation for loss of facility in the amount of $400.00 per week while the works are carried out. It was not clear whether that offer remained at the end of the hearing. Nevertheless that is a reasonable amount of compensation to the applicant.

55. As the tiny house was delivered prematurely to accommodate the applicant’s circumstances and the solar panels and connections took place after delivery, it is reasonable that the applicant should bear the cost of disconnection and reconnection of those services. The evidence is that the land owner has not accommodated the respondent’s attendance at the site to view and carry out work on the tiny house. To avoid issues with access, the Tribunal will order that the applicant deliver the tiny house to the street side of the front boundary to allow for the tiny house to be delivered to the respondent for transport to its factory. When the works are complete the respondent is to deliver the tiny house to the applicant at the street frontage of the property.

56. The Tribunal orders:

1. The applicant, Karin Neate:

1. Is to remove all connections of services and the solar panels of the tiny house so that it can be moved;

2. is to remove her personal items from the tiny house and vacate it;

3. is to give not less than five (5) working days’ notice to the respondent, Foundry One Pty Ltd trading as Rolling Homes Australia, of the applicant, Karin Neate intention to move the tiny house to a safe location on a particular business day and at a particular time to outside the boundary of the land on which the tiny house is currently located to a point nominated by the respondent, Foundry One Pty Ltd trading as Rolling Homes Australia, so that Foundry One Pty Ltd trading as Rolling Homes Australia may take delivery of the tiny house.

2. The tiny house will be at the respondent, Foundry One Pty Ltd trading as Rolling Homes Australia risk from the time that it takes delivery of the tiny house;

3. The respondent, Foundry One Pty Ltd trading as Rolling Homes Australia will pay to the applicant Karin Neate the amount of $1200.00 upon taking delivery of the tiny house.

4. The respondent, Foundry One Pty Ltd trading as Rolling Homes Australia, will carry out the works identified in Table 1 of these Reasons for Decision as Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6 ,7 ,8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,15, 16, 23, 24 ,25 ,26 ,27 and 28 within four (4) weeks of taking delivery of the tiny house;

5. The respondent, Foundry One Pty Ltd trading as Rolling Homes Australia, will give the applicant Karin Neate not less than five (5) business days’ notice of the time and date of their intention to return the tiny house to the boundary of the site upon which the tiny house was located and in the position that it was picked up from.

6. The tiny house will be at the applicant, Karin Neate’s risk from the time that it is delivered to the external boundary of the site where it is currently located.

**********

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

Registrar

Decision last updated: 05 August 2021