Stevens v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Stevens v Queensland Building and Construction Commission  [2020] QCAT 355

PARTIES:

PATRICIA ANN STEVENS

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR082-19

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

9 September 2020

HEARING DATE:

1 September 2020

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Kanowski

ORDERS:

1.   The decision of Queensland Building and Construction Commission made upon reconsideration on 25 July 2019 to partly disallow Patricia Ann Stevens’ claim under the statutory insurance scheme is set aside.

2.   A decision is substituted to wholly disallow Patricia Ann Stevens’ claim under the statutory insurance scheme.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – BUILDERS – STATUTORY INSURANCE SCHEME – where builder fraudulently claimed to hold a building licence – whether contractual relations formed – whether residential construction work – whether fixed price contract

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 69(2)(a)(iii)

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2003 (Qld), s 10, s 11, s 12

Queensland Building and Construction Commission v Fox [2005] QDC 129

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self-represented
Respondent:	D McNulty, solicitor employed by Queensland Building and Construction Commission

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1. The respondent (‘QBCC’) administers a statutory insurance scheme known as the Queensland Home Warranty Scheme.[1]

   [1]Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (‘QBCC Act’), s 67X(a). References in these reasons to the QBCC Act and the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2003 (Qld) (‘QBCC Regulation’) are to the versions in force as at January and February 2016.

2. The tribunal can review a decision made by QBCC to disallow a claim under the statutory insurance scheme wholly or in part.[2] This is such a review: Ms Stevens has applied to the tribunal to review a decision made by QBCC to partly disallow her non-completion claim under the statutory insurance scheme. The claim relates to airconditioning and renovation work that was to be carried out in 2016 at Ms Stevens’ home (‘the house’) and at a unit owned by her daughter (‘the unit’).

   [2]QBCC Act, s 86(1)(h).

Background

1. There was no formal contract for any of the work, but three invoices were issued to Ms Stevens. These invoices were issued in the name:

   Cool in Summer

   Airconditioning

   Warm in Winter

2. The invoices are numbered 77, 84, and 85. They are dated 12 January 2016, 27 January 2016, and 2 February 2016 respectively.

3. The following matters are undisputed:

   (a)the details and prices on the invoices were inserted by Mr Zak Mar;

   (b)Mr Mar signed all of the invoices, and Ms Stevens signed invoice 84;

   (c)invoice 77 was for the installation of airconditioning at the unit; and

   (d)invoice 84 was for the installation of airconditioning at the house and for renovations of the house.

4. Invoice 85 is more difficult to interpret. It shows the addresses of both the house and the unit. It refers to invoice 84, apparently to incorporate work from that invoice. Ms Stevens told the tribunal that invoice 85 was drawn up partly to reflect that…