| JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : COMMERCIAL & CIVIL ACT : BUILDING SERVICES (COMPLAINT RESOLUTION and ADMINISTRATION) ACT 2011 (WA) CITATION : SMITH and PETER STANNARD HOMES PTY LTD [2013] WASAT 158 MEMBER : MS L WARD (MEMBER) MR N HARRISON (SESSIONAL MEMBER)
HEARD : 6 AND 19 SEPTEMBER 2013 DELIVERED : 19 SEPTEMBER 2013 PUBLISHED : 25 SEPTEMBER 2013 FILE NO/S : CC 910 of 2013 BETWEEN : GLEN SMITH ELIZABETH SMITH
Applicants
AND
PETER STANNARD HOMES PTY LTD
Respondent
Catchwords: New two storey home - Finish of some items in dispute - Faulty or unsatisfactory - Standards to apply - Guide to Standards and Tolerances 2007 - Measurement of tolerances - Maximum deviation - Inspecting surfaces from a normal viewing position - Remedial work order - Turns on own facts
(Page 2)
Legislation: Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), s 3, s 5(1), s 10, s 11(1)(d), s 36(1), s 38, s 38(1), s 38(1)(a), s 43, s 57
Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Regulations 2011 (WA)
Home Building Contracts Act 1991 (WA), s 3
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 98 Result: Application successful in part
Summary of Tribunal's decision: On 15 April 2010, the owner applicants signed a contract with the respondent builder for the building of their new two storey home in Rossmoyne. According to the applicants, practical completion of the new home occurred sometime in December 2011 and handover was in February 2012.
On 13 February 2012, the applicants lodged a building complaint form with the Building Commission. The applicants sought an order that the respondent remedy the complaint items in dispute.
On 2 November 2012, Inspector Whittle from the Building Commission provided a written report based on his inspection of the new home. His report listed 187 complaint items. At different stages in the proceedings, the respondent agreed to remedy the vast majority of complaint items. Ultimately the Tribunal was required to determine only 13 complaint items.
In summary, the applicants remain dissatisfied with some of the finishes in their new home. The respondent submits that the building work is within the acceptable standards and guidelines.
The Tribunal accepted the respondent's submission that in accordance with the Guide to Standards and Tolerances 2007 published by the Victorian Building Commission, surfaces are to be inspected from a normal viewing position of 1,500 millimetres or greater. The Tribunal also found that the measurement of tolerances was also to be undertaken in accordance with the Guide to Standards and Tolerances 2007.
The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's complaints regarding the render on some window sills not being level, three tiles being chipped, the glass splashback not being square and two panels of glass being scratched. However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to remedy the odd coloured mullions on the glass doors and to replace the plaster beading in the cellar.
Accordingly, the application was successful in part.
(Page 3)
Category: B
Representation: Counsel:
Applicants : Self-represented
Respondent : Mr D Jones (as agent)
Solicitors:
Applicants : Self-represented
Respondent : Self-represented
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nil
(Page 4)
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Introduction 1 On 19 September 2013, the Tribunal delivered its decision and reasons for decision. At that time, the Tribunal indicated that the reasons for decision, with the relevant legislation included and some minor amendments, would be published. The Tribunal's reasons for its decision follow below.
Relevant legislation 2 This is an application under the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA) (BSCRA Act). 3 Subject to the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Regulations 2011 (WA) (Regulations), a person may make a complaint to the Building Commissioner about a regulated building service not being carried out in a proper and proficient manner, or being faulty or unsatisfactory. 4 Having accepted a building service complaint, the Building Commissioner is then required to cause an investigation to be carried out and, after having regard to any report given under s 10 of the BSCRA Act, may refer the complaint to the Tribunal for it to deal with under s 38 of the BSCRA Act. 5 This matter was validly transferred to the Tribunal pursuant to s 11(1)(d) of the BSCRA Act. The Tribunal's powers, upon referral to it of a building service complaint, are set out in s 38(1) of the BSCRA Act 6 A 'building service complaint' is defined in s 3 and s 5(1) of the BSCRA Act and is a complaint about a regulated building service not being carried out in a proper and proficient manner, or being faulty or unsatisfactory. 7 A 'regulated building service' is defined in s 3 of the BSCRA Act and includes home building work that is carried out by a person for another person under a home building work contract or other contract, or arrangement for gain or reward. 8 'Home building work' is defined in s 3 of the BSCRA Act and s 3 of the Home Building Contracts Act 1991 (WA) (HBC Act), and includes the whole or part of altering, improving or repairing a dwelling and any other works associated with such work. (Page 5)
9 A 'building remedy order' is defined in s 36(1) of the BSCRA Act and includes an order that a person who carried out a regulated building service 'remedy the building service as specified in the order'.
Factual background 10 On 15 April 2010, the applicants signed a contract with the respondent for the building of their new home in Rossmoyne. The value of the building contract was in excess of $600,000. The respondent refers to the home design as being the 'Two Storey Special'. The standard conditions of a building licence approval include that '[a]ll work carried out shall be in accordance with the relevant Codes, Australian Standards, ByLaws and lawful requirements of other authorities'. The respondent is required to build the home in accordance with the building licence. 11 On 13 December 2011, Houspect prepared a pre-handover report at the request of the applicants (Hearing Book (HB) at 7). A number of items were listed in the report and the respondent attended to some of the items. 12 According to the applicants, practical completion occurred sometime in December 2011 and handover was in February 2012. 13 On 13 February 2012, the applicants lodged a building complaint form with the Building Commission (HB at 3). The applicants seek an order that the respondent remedy the complaint items in dispute (HB at 5). 14 The applicants sent the Building Commission an email dated 22 August 2012 which attached a list, based on the Houspect report, highlighting the outstanding complaints items in red (HB at 45). 15 On 2 November 2012, Inspector Whittle from the Building Commission provided a written report based on his inspection and he listed 187 complaint items (HB at 81). 16 On 9 April 2013, Mr Ross Hall of Housecalls Property Inspections Pty Ltd (Housecalls) prepared a report at the request of the applicants (HB at 146). 17 On 8 July 2013 the Building Commission issued a Building Remedy Order (BRO) in relation to the majority of the items listed in the Building Commission inspector's report dated 2 November 2011 (HB at 162 190). (Page 6)
18 On 12 July 2013 the remaining complaint items were referred by the Building Commission to the Tribunal under s 11(1)(d) of the BSCRA Act. The Building Commission noted on the referral letter that: … the only items to be dealt with by the Tribunal are the following: • Items: 9(a), 9(b), 9(c), 12, 28, 30, 39, 41, 44, 45, 47, 54, 55, 56, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 79, 80, 86, 101, 103, 115, 118, 138, 150, 162, 164, 166, 171, 173, 175, 181, 182 and 185. 19 The Building Commission also noted on the referral letter that the respondent had already agreed to remedy some of the above items; however, they are referred to the Tribunal '… as they may be affected by items that still need determination'. The items with actions recommended that the respondent had agreed to remedy already included: • Items: 9(b), 9(c), 44, 45, 56, 62, 63, 64, 66, and 80. 20 The outstanding complaint items were listed in the Tribunal for a directions hearing on 1 August 2013. On that day, the matter was programmed for final hearing on 6 September 2013. Both parties were self represented before the Tribunal at all times.
Parties' positions 21 In summary, the applicants remain dissatisfied with some of the finishes in their new home. The outstanding complaint items relate to: • the render on some of the window sills not being level (complaint items 9(a) and 12); • the left-hand side mullions of the sliding doors are powder coated a slightly different colour to other parts of the door which are also powder coated (complaint items 30, 39 and 41); • chipped tiles (Complaint items 47, 54 and 115); • scratched glass (Complaint items 138 and 171); • glass splashback not being square (Complaint item 164); and • plaster beading is joined in the cellar and is not straight (Complaint items 181 and 182). (Page 7)
22 Before the Tribunal, the applicants relied on the report given by Mr Ross Hall of Housecalls regarding his inspection of the home on 9 April 2013 (HB at 146). 23 In response, the respondent generally submits that the work is within the acceptable standards and guidelines as set out in the Guide to Standards and Tolerances 2007 (Guide) published by the Victorian Building Commission. Further, the respondent also relies on the 'no action recommended' opinion given by Inspector Whittle in his report dated 2 November 2011 in relation to the outstanding complaint items (HB at 81).
Final hearing 24 The final hearing was held on 6 September 2013. The applicants filed additional documents on the morning of the hearing. The documents comprised of photographs of various complaint items (HB at 416 447). Mr Smith stated that he took the additional photographs following receipt of the respondent's response, in which it submitted that some of the applicants' earlier photographs at HB 194 296 were taken too close to the object in question. The Tribunal accepted that the additional photographs may be of assistance to it and accepted the documents into evidence without any objection from the respondent. 25 The applicants and the respondent gave brief opening and closing statements to the Tribunal. The Tribunal informed all witnesses that while they would not be on oath in the Tribunal, under s 98 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act), it was an offence to give false or misleading information to the Tribunal. Each witness gave evidence in person before the Tribunal and was subject to crossexamination. 26 Various documents and photographs were provided by the parties to the Tribunal. These documents formed the HB, which comprises of 447 pages.
Witnesses 27 During the final hearing, the applicants called Mr Ross Hall, a registered builder, to give evidence. Mr Hall stated that he had been in the building industry for 50 years. Mr Hall inspected the house on 9 April 2013. Mr Hall said in his evidence that he was of the view that the general finish on the home was not good and that in some places it was below the acceptable standards. Mr Hall described the (Page 8)
Australian Standards as being the appropriate starting point, although he did not specify which particular standards applied to this matter. 28 Inspector Whittle, from the Building Commission, was called by the respondent to give evidence at the final hearing. Inspector Whittle is a registered builder with 35 years experience, and he has been a building inspector for the past five years. 29 The Tribunal is satisfied that both witnesses are qualified as experts to give opinion evidence relating to their observations and concerning the workmanship issues in this proceeding. 30 Before considering the complaint items which remain in dispute, the Tribunal will deal with a number of preliminary matters.
Complaint item 82 external render to window sills not square to bedroom 1 or bedroom 2. 31 The Tribunal notes that complaint item 82 was included in the BRO (HB at 173). The BRO ordered the respondent to 'rectify the flashing and repaint to a uniform finish'. 32 However, the applicants and the respondent led evidence in relation to complaint item 82 at the final hearing on the basis that the item should not have been included in the BRO. The parties agreed that complaint items 9(a) and 12 ought to be grouped together with complaint item 82 as they all relate to the 'squareness' of the external render to the various window sills. 33 The difficulty for the Tribunal in this regard is that complaint item 82 was not one of the complaint items the Building Commission referred to the Tribunal under s 11(1)(d) of the BSCRA Act. Section 11(1)(d) of the BSCRA Act states that the complaint is referred for the Tribunal 'to deal with under s 38 or s 43, as the case requires'. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with complaint item 82 under s 38 or s 43 of the BSCRA Act. 34 Further, as the BRO is a final order made by the Building Commissioner, the correct mechanism for review is under s 57 of the BSCRA Act. Under s 57 of the BSCRA Act, a 'person aggrieved' by a BRO may apply to the Tribunal for a review of the order. Until such time as the BRO is stayed or a review sought in relation to complaint item 82, it remains on foot. (Page 9)
35 In the Tribunal's view, it is not possible for the parties to consent to the Tribunal hearing and determining complaint item 82. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that it does not have jurisdiction to determine complaint item 82. The Tribunal declines to make a building remedy order in relation to complaint item 82.
Agreement to remedy 36 The respondent agreed to remedy a number of complaint items before the matter was referred to the Tribunal, in its response of 2 September 2013 and during the final hearing on 6 September 2013. 37 In summary, the outstanding complaint items which the respondent has agreed to remedy are: • Items 9(b), 9(c) 28, 44, 45, 55, 56, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 79, 80, 86, 101, 103, 118, 150, 162, 166, 173, 175 and185.
Complaint items requiring determination by the Tribunal 38 Accordingly, the 13 complaint items requiring determination by the Tribunal are: • items 9(a), 12, 30, 39, 41, 47, 54, 115, 138, 164, 171, 181 and 182. 39 The Tribunal will now consider each of the above outstanding complaint items.
Consideration of the outstanding items in dispute 40 The evidence in relation to each complaint item comprises the written reports and oral evidence from both Mr Hall and Inspector Whittle, and also the photographs taken by Mr Smith. The relevant parts of this evidence are considered in relation to each outstanding complaint below.
Complaint items 9(a) and 12 the render on some of the window sills is not level 41 The Tribunal considered items 9(a) and 12 of the complaints together, as requested by the parties. The parties submitted that these complaint items ought to be considered together as they both relate to the 'levelness of the rendered sills' in two different locations in the applicants' home. (Page 10)
42 The photographs taken by the applicant, Mr Smith, in the HB at 417 429, relate to items 9(a) and 12 of the complaints. All of the photographs are taken from very close range. The Tribunal accepts the respondent's submission that in accordance with the Guide, surfaces are to be inspected from a normal viewing position of 1,500 millimetres (HB at 291). The applicants did not dispute the respondent's reliance on the Guide. While the Guide has no legislative basis, in the Tribunal's view, it is widely referred to and accepted in the building industry. In the circumstances of this case, particularly where the Guide is not challenged, it is applicable and relied on by the Tribunal. In the Tribunal's view, little weight can be attached to the photographs in the HB at 417 429, as they appear to have been taken from something less than a 'normal viewing position' as set out in the Guide. 43 Mr Hall stated that he could tell from the roadside, some 6.5 metres away, that the render on the lounge sill (complaint item 9(a)) was out of square at both ends. Mr Hall said that the render did not follow the mortar lines. Mr Hall said that this was clearly visible to him, and that therefore he did not need to measure how far the render on the sills was off square. 44 The photograph in the HB at 417 is one of the photographs relating to complaint item 9(a). The photograph indicates that the righthand end of the render may be up to 7 millimetres out of square with the brick wall. However, the Tribunal notes that a square appears to have been used in the photograph, together with a ruler. Based on the photograph in the HB at 417, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the square and ruler have been squared off accurately. Accordingly, the Tribunal attaches little weight to the measurement taken by the first applicant as shown in the photograph in the HB at 417. 45 Mr Hall stated that the render on the verandah sills (complaint item 12) varied by 3 4 millimetres and that, in his view, that was not good building work, whether it was within the tolerances allowed by the Guide in the HB at 290 or not. The Tribunal considers that the photograph in the HB at 423 is inconclusive, as it is not clear from the photograph where the straight edge is resting and whether it has been squared off accurately. 46 Inspector Whittle's evidence to the Tribunal in relation to both complaint items 9(a) and 12 was that, 'nothing stood out' and that the levelness of the sills seemed 'OK' to him. Further, he said that any discrepancies were not visible until a set square was put on them. In Inspector Whittle's view, this meant that the work was not faulty. (Page 11)
47 Accordingly, there is a direct conflict in the evidence regarding whether the render on the sills not being square was visible or not. In this regard, the Tribunal has great difficulty in accepting Mr Hall's evidence that he could see from the road side, a distance of about 6.5 metres, that the rendered sills were out of square by several millimetres. The Tribunal does not accept Mr Hall's evidence in this regard. The Tribunal accepts Inspector Whittle's evidence that, without instruments, a variance of 3 4 millimetres from square was not visible to the eye. Accordingly, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of Inspector Whittle over that of Mr Hall in relation to whether or not the levelness of the sills is visible from a normal viewing distance. 48 The Tribunal finds that, as stated by Inspector Whittle, the render on the sills, where it is out of square, is within the tolerances listed in the Guide and further the alleged defects are not visible from a normal viewing distance. 49 Based on all of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the regulated building service listed in complaint items 9(a) and 12 are faulty or unsatisfactory within the meaning of s 38(1)(a) of the BSCRA Act. 50 Accordingly, the Tribunal declines to make a building remedy order in relation to items 9(a) and 12 of the complaints, and they are dismissed.
Complaint items 30, 39, 41 – odd coloured mullions on the glass doors opening onto the al fresco area, guest room and family room 51 Items 30, 39 and 41 of the complaints all relate to the odd coloured powder coated mullions on three different sets of glass doors in the house. The photographs in the HB at 214 - 218 relate to items 30, 39 and 41 of the complaints. 52 Mr Hall described the lefthand side mullions of the sliding doors to the al fresco area as having a different shading and texture in the powder coated finish. Mr Hall's evidence was that no matter what the angle was, when viewing the doors, parts of them have a 'distinctly different colour and finish'. Mr Hall said that the colour difference is more noticeable on the sashes compared with the mullions, and more visible when looking at the doors from outside. Mr Hall said that the differently coloured sections of the frame of the door could be fixed by disassembling the doors. In contrast, Inspector Whittle said that he did not think that the colour difference of some of the powdered coating stood out. In the Tribunal's view the photograph in the HB at 214 confirms Mr Hall's evidence that (Page 12)
there are colour variations to the coloured sections of the door frame such that the respondent's work is faulty or unsatisfactory. The Tribunal prefers Mr Hall's evidence in this regard. 53 Based on all of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the regulated building service listed in items 30, 39, and 41 of the complaints are faulty or unsatisfactory within the meaning of s 38(1)(a) of the BSCRA Act. Accordingly the Tribunal does make a building remedy order in relation to items 30, 39 and 41 in the terms set out below.
Complaint items 47, 54 and 115 – three chipped tiles located in the master ensuite; the top jollied tile, near the bath tap, and the powder room near the eastern door frame 54 Items 47, 54 and 115of the complaints, each relate to one chipped tile in three separate locations. Photographs in the HB at 220, 222, 253, 254, 430, 433 and 434 relate to items 47, 54 and 115 of the complaints. 55 The Tribunal attaches great weight to Mr Hall's evidence in relation to items 47, 54 and 115 of the complaints that most items of complaint were pointed out to him by the applicants at the time of inspections. That is, Mr Hall did not identify all of the alleged defects for himself. In relation to complaint item 54, Mr Hall acknowledged that he would not have noticed the chip when he walked into the room. Inspector Whittle stated that at the time of inspection the owners could not locate item 47 and that he could not see it. 56 All of the photographs relevant to these complaint items are taken from very close range. In the Tribunal's view, little weight can be attached to the relevant photographs, as they appear to have been taken from something less than a 'normal viewing position' as set out in the Guide. 57 In the Tribunal's view, based on the evidence before it, the three chips in the tiles in question are minute and there is no evidence to support the chips being visible from a 'normal viewing position'. 58 Based on all of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the regulated building service listed in items 47, 54 and 115 of the complaints are faulty or unsatisfactory within the meaning of s 38(1)(a) of the BSCRA Act. (Page 13)
59 Accordingly, the Tribunal declines to make a building remedy order in relation to items 47, 54 and 115 of the complaints, and they are dismissed.
Complaint items 138 and 171 - scratched glass in two locations: bay window in the lounge room and lefthand glass sliding door in the meals area 60 Items 138 and 171of the complaintseach relate to scratched glass in two separate locations in the applicants' home. There are no photographs of the scratched glass. 61 The pre-handover eport dated 13 December 2011 undertaken for the owners by Mr Andrew Booth of Houspect (HB at 7) under 'Lounge' refers to: 'Make good scratched window frame sill to north east wall window' (HB at 19). According to the applicants, handover of the home occurred in February 2012. 62 The Tribunal notes that the email from the applicants to the Building Commission dated 22 August 2012 attaches a list, based on the Housepect report, which includes the items in red which, according to the applicants, remain incomplete as of that date (HB at 45). The comment in the Housepect report under 'Lounge' referred to above is not in red. Further, an express reference to 'scratched glass' is not included in red in the list under either 'Lounge' or 'Meals', (HB at 51 and 52). 63 However, subsequently, Inspector Whittle's report dated 2 November 2012 notes that there is scratched glass in both the lounge and the meals area. However, Inspector Whittle states that it is unclear to him when the scratches occurred and therefore who is responsible for them. 64 Mr Hall's report (HB at 146) does not address items 138 and 171 of the complaints, nor did Mr Hall give oral evidence in relation to these particular items. At the hearing, the applicants claimed that not including the scratched glass in red in the list dated 22 August 2012 was an oversight by them and that it was impossible to list all of the faults in the home. 65 The Tribunal accepts that as of 2 November 2012 the scratches on the glass existed in the two locations described above. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the respondent is responsible for the scratches. This is because these two particular scratches did not form part of the complaint as amended on 22 August 2012. There is no evidence before the Tribunal which suggests that the Housepect reference to (Page 14)
'scratched window frame' actually means 'scratched glass'. The applicants have approached the remedying of various defects in their new home in a very detailed and methodical manner. The Tribunal does not accept that the omission of scratched glass from the list given to the Building Commission on 22 August 2012 was an oversight. Rather, the Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence before it that the glass in question was scratched as of 22 August 2012 or that the respondent is responsible for the scratches. 66 Based on all of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the regulated building service listed in items 138 and 171 of the complaints are faulty or unsatisfactory within the meaning of s 38(1)(a) of the BSCRA Act. 67 Accordingly, the Tribunal declines to make a building remedy order in relation to items 138 and 171 of the complaints, and they are dismissed.
Complaint item 164 - glass splashback and range hood not square 68 Complaint item 164 relates to a gap existing between the glass splashback and the range hood which is uneven. The photographs in the HB at 262, 264, 435 and 436 relate to complaint item 164. 69 According to the applicants' photographs in the HB at 262 and 264, and Mr Hall's evidence, the lefthand side of the glass splashback is 2 millimetres beneath the range hood and between 4 - 5 millimetres beneath the range hood on the righthand side. Mr Hall's evidence was that only a 1 1.5 millimetre clearance on all edges of the glass splashback was acceptable building work. In contrast, Inspector Whittle spoke of a 3 4 millimetre clearance being acceptable over a span of 900 millimetres. 70 The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Inspector Whittle in relation to the tolerance allowed when cutting and fitting a glass splashback. The Tribunal does not accept that a tolerance of only 1 millimetre is required. Further, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the glass splashback is the issue; rather, it is possible that the range hood is not square. 71 The Tribunal accepts that the glass splashback is in a highly visible area of the applicants' home. However, it does not accept, based on Inspector Whittle's evidence, that a gap of 3 4 millimetres is visible to a person walking into the room and standing in a normal viewing position. (Page 15)
72 Based on all of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the regulated building service listed in complaint item 164 is faulty or unsatisfactory within the meaning of s 38(1)(a) of the BSCRA Act. 73 Accordingly, the Tribunal declines to make a building remedy order in relation to compliant item 164, and it is dismissed.
Complaint items 181 and 182 – plaster beading in the cellar is joined and is not straight 74 According to Inspector Whittle, items 181 and 182 of the complaints, relate to the external plastered corner in the cellar not being straight by approximately 3 millimetre when measured with a 1,200 millimetre long straight edge in that location. 75 The applicants' photographs in the HB at 277 and 278 relate to items 181 and 182 of the complaints. The Tribunal notes that the photographs are taken from very close up and, accordingly, they lack perspective and have been of little assistance to the Tribunal. 76 Mr Hall stated that the fact that the plaster beading is joined and that it is bowed was visible to him when he entered the cellar. The item was not pointed out to him by the owners. Mr Hall said that he did not need to use a level to show that the beading was bowed. Mr Hall stated that the wall is not very high and he did not think that a join should be required in the beading. 77 In contrast, Inspector Whittle stated that the beading is under a stairwell in the cellar and that it was not obvious to him. In Inspector Whittle's view, the bow in the beading does not warrant pulling it down. 78 Based on the evidence before the Tribunal, it is satisfied that the beading the subject of items 181 and 182 of the complaints should not be joined. The Tribunal is satisfied that the joining of the two pieces of beading has caused the beading to be bowed. Accordingly, a full length of beading should be installed in the area concerned. 79 Based on all of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the regulated building service listed in items 181 and 182 of the complaints are faulty or unsatisfactory within the meaning of s 38(1)(a) of the BSCRA Act. Accordingly the Tribunal does make a building remedy order in relation to complaint items 181 and 182 in the terms set out below. (Page 16)
Orders 1. All references to complaint items are as per the numbered paragraphs of Inspector Whittle's report dated 2 November 2011. 2. The Tribunal declines to make a building remedy order in relation to complaint item 82. 3. The Tribunal declines to make a building remedy order in relation to complaint items 9(a), 12, 47, 54, 115, 138, 164 and 171. 4. By 21 October 2013, the respondent shall rectify the faulty or unsatisfactory work at 9 Jennifer Way, Rossmoyne as listed in the paragraphs below: (Page 17)
The respondent to remedy the above defects in a proper and proficient manner. 5. By consent of the parties, the respondent agrees that by 21 October 2013, it shall rectify the faulty or unsatisfactory work at 9 Jennifer Way, Rossmoyne in relation to the following complaint items: 5.1 Outside Items 9(b) and 9(c) Action required: Complaint 9(b) the respondent is to paint the underside of the rendered sills to a tradesmanlike standard, ensuring that the paint colour best matches the existing paint colour in each particular location. Complaint 9(c) the respondent is to remedy the lefthand side window of the bay window in the house room, ensuring that when the window is opened, it does not scrape on the installed rendered sill. 5.2 Alfresco Item 28 5.2.1 Complaint 28 repair wall (eastern) damage above twin power point, and heater switch patched poorly (second attempt and is getter bigger). Action required: The respondent to remedy the above defects in a proper and proficient manner. 5.3 Master ensuite Items 44, 45, 55 and 56 5.3.1 Complaint 44 - bulkhead not square above vanities. (Page 18)
Action required: Complaint 44 the respondent is to remedy the bulkhead located above the vanity in the master ensuite of the dwelling, ensuring that the finished result is parallel, plumb, and finished to a tradesmanlike standard. Complaint 45 the respondent is to remedy the bulkhead located above the vanity in the master ensuite of the dwelling, ensuring that the finished result is parallel, plumb, and finished to a tradesmanlike standard. Complaint 55 the respondent to remedy the above defects in a proper and proficient manner. Complaint 56 the respondent is to remedy the painted ceiling in the master ensuite. 5.4 Master bedroom Items 62, 63, 64, 65 and 66 5.4.1 Complaint 62 patchy ceiling paint near southeast downlight and bear both western downlights. The whole ceiling needs repainting. 5.4.2 Complaint 63 make good marks on ceiling near light. 5.4.3 Complaint 64 patchy ceiling near column of ensuite. 5.4.4 Complaint 65 - straighten internal corner of cornice near ensuite entry. 5.4.5 Complaint 66 patchy painting to southeast corner cornice. (Page 19)
Action required: Complaint 62 prepare and repaint to a uniform finish. Complaint 63 as per item 62. Complaint 64 as per item 62. Complaint 65 the respondent to remedy the above defects in a proper and proficient manner. Complaint 66 prepare and repaint to a uniform finish. 5.5 Balcony - Items 79 and 80 Action required: Complaint 79 The respondent to remedy the above defects in a proper and proficient manner. Complaint 80 prepare and repaint the stirrups to a uniform finish. 5.6 Family WC Item 86 5.6.1 Complaint 86 cistern back has been cut and chipped to fit ministop. Action required: The respondent to remedy the above defects in a proper and proficient manner as agreed during the hearing on 6 September 2013. 5.7 Bedroom 3 Item 101 5.7.1 Complaint 101 lower edge of cornice over window not painted. (Page 20)
Action required: The respondent to remedy the above defect in a proper and proficient manner. 5.8 Sitting room Item 103 5.8.1 Complaint 103 vents to the ceiling and wall have been glued in with liquid nails, which shows through each corner and makes it impossible to remove to clean. Action required: The respondent to remedy the above defects in a proper and proficient manner. 5.9 Powder room Item 118 5.9.1 Complaint 118 cistern back has been cut and chipped to fit ministop. Action required: The respondent to remedy the above defects in a proper and proficient manner. 5.10 Laundry - Item 150 5.10.1 Complaint 150 cistern back has been cut and chipped to fit ministop. Action required: The respondent to remedy the above defects in a proper and proficient manner. 5.11 Kitchen Items 162 and 166 (Page 21)
Action required: The respondent to remedy the above defects in a proper and proficient manner. 5.12 Meals Items 173 and 175 Action required: The respondent to remedy the above defects in a proper and proficient manner. 5.13 General Item 185 5.13.1 Complaint 185 all toilets now have the same repair to the porcelain cistern even though one was not originally damaged. Action required: The respondent to remedy the above defects in a proper and proficient manner. 6. By 21 October 2013 the respondent to make good any damage occasioned by compliance with orders 4 and 5 above. (Page 22)
|