Taylor v Peter Finley t/as Gold Coast Boat Worx
[2013] QCAT 285
•27 May 2013
| CITATION: | Taylor v Peter Finley t/as Gold Coast Boat Worx [2013] QCAT 285 |
| PARTIES: | Michael Taylor (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Peter Finley t/as Gold Coast Boat Worx (Respondents) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | MCDO152-12 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Other minor civil dispute matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 21 May 2013 |
| HEARD AT: | Coolangatta |
| DECISION OF: | John Bertelsen, Adjudicator |
| DELIVERED ON: | 27 May 2013 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $3,143.53. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Repair and installation – adequacy of work carried out – opportunity to rectify – failure to bring to roadworthy condition – validity of repair estimate |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: | Michael Taylor |
| RESPONDENT: | Peter Finley |
REASONS FOR DECISION
Application
By application filed 29 August 2012 Mr Taylor sought a refund of the $5,000.00 that he paid Mr Finley of Gold Coast Boat Worx for the repair and installation of a braking system on his boat trailer such as to bring it up to a roadworthy condition.
Background and evidence
In mid October 2010 Mr Finley installed an electric overrider braking system on Mr Taylor’s 8 metre steel framed trailer costing Mr Taylor, he asserted, $5,000.00. Mr Finley thought it was slightly less.
Shortly afterwards in December 2010 Mr Taylor drove from the Gold Coast to Redland Bay towing the trailer and his boat weighing some 2 tonnes. According to Mr Taylor the braking system failed such that after returning to the Gold Coast he was not prepared to continue to tow the trailer.
Mr Finley stated that in early 2011 he spoke to Mr Taylor by telephone; that the trailer was booked in for inspection; that Mr Taylor failed to keep the appointments; that Mr Taylor’s original complaint was only in respect of a loose wheel; that apart from some incidents involving alleged threats Mr Finlay did not hear further from Mr Taylor until receipt of this QCAT application in September 2012. Mr Finlay initially complained of lack of opportunity to rectify any perceived installation defects.
Mr Taylor for his part asserted it was not safe to take the trailer from Tweed Heads to Mr Finlay’s premises at Miami.
The application initially came on for hearing on 4 December 2012 at which time Mr Finlay expressed a willingness to examine and if necessary rectify/repair the braking system installed by him. This was so in the light of the letter from Tweed Coast Marine (Dan Andrew) addressed to Mr Taylor dated 20 August 2012 identifying issues with the roadworthy standard of the trailer’s braking system. This letter raised the following issues:
Brake lines are not marine grade and have heavily rusted already.
Wire joiners on braking system have not been sealed from the salt water
Battery for braking system has been mounted on the lowest point of the trailer and may be at risk of water ingress.
Brake lines have not been securely mounted to the trailer frame.
Caliper bolts have not been correctly tightened.
The above issues need attention and rectifying to ensure this trailer is in a roadworthy condition.
On 4 December 2012 the Tribunal ordered:
1.The application is adjourned to a date to be fixed.
2.If no application to relist this application is made by either party by 4 February 2013 then this application is dismissed.
The order was made perhaps on the optimistic assumption that any necessary rectification/repair work would be carried out to the satisfaction of both parties and that would be an end of it.
Mr Taylor subsequently applied to relist the application which came on for hearing again on 12 March 2013. In the interim the trailer had been taken to Mr Finley’s premises and further work carried out on the trailer’s braking system but not to Mr Taylor’s satisfaction.
On 12 March 2013 Mr Taylor appeared, Mr Finley did not. Mr Taylor was directed to provide evidence of rectification/repair work required to bring the trailer braking system up to functioning roadworthy standard.
When the application again came before the Tribunal on 19 March 2013 Mr Taylor produced a letter from Scott Wischer Marine Services (Scott Wischer being a marine technician) referencing an inspection of the trailer on 12 March 2013, an “estimate to repair trailer brakes” by Scott Wischer Marine Services dated 15 March 2013 for $2,979.53 and a notation from Sunshine Auto Electrical Pty Ltd regarding hydraulic brake failure dated 13 February 2013.
On 19 March 2013 the Tribunal made a decision in favour of Mr Taylor for $3,183.03.
Mr Finley did not appear on either 12 or 19 March 2013. He applied to reopen the application on the basis that he was not made aware of the hearing dates. The application was reopened and effectively set down for further hearing on 21 May 2013.
At this final hearing Mr Finley asserted that he had attended to rectification/repair work in accordance with the letter from Tweed Coast Marine dated 20 August 2012 and that on about 8 February 2013 he had given Mr Taylor a letter incorporating a two year warranty for work carried out on the trailer braking system. Mr Taylor asserted that Mr Finley had simply painted the brake lines and returned the trailer to him. Mr Taylor took photos of the trailer some two weeks after the return of the trailer by Mr Finley to him. He asserted in particular the presence of substantial rust in the brake lines and joiners.
By reference to Tweed Coast Marine letter of 20 August 2012 the following issues with the braking system were traversed in some detail.
(a)Brake lines
Mr Finley asserted he had installed copper coated tin brake lines; that the copper coating prevented rust; that they were primed and painted. Mr Taylor asserted the brake lines were simply painted and not replaced.
Tweed Coast Marine letter of 20 August 2012 stated “brake lines are not marine grade and have heavily rusted already”. Scott Wischer Marine Services inspection statement of 12 March 2013 states:
Brake lines are rusty and the condition of these brake lines does not appear to be consistent with them being replaced in February 2013 as advised by Mick Taylor.
Scott Wischer Marine Services repair quote of 15 March 2013 nominates plastic coated steel brake lines, a marine grade component according to Mr Taylor not likely to be the subject of the same degree of short term rust. The brake lines exhibited rust in August 2012 and again on 12 March 2013.
Wire joiners
Tweed Coast Marine letter of 20 August 2012 stated, “wire joiners on braking systems have not been sealed from salt water. Mr Finley asserted that the wire joiners referred to the “electricals to plug into the back of the vehicle” and not brake line joiners as asserted by Mr Taylor and that he had resealed them.
Scott Wischer Marine Services inspection report of 12 March 2013 refers to “join is leaking at brake line fitting on the passenger side of the front axle.” His repair estimate of 15 March 2013 refers to supply and installation of “hydraulic brake line joiner” as well as “hydraulic brake line connector”. Tweed Coast Marine letter and Scott Wischer Marine Services Inspection and repair estimate are all sufficiently consistent to draw the conclusion that the joiners are brake line joiners and that as at 12 March 2013 such were leaking as to warrant repair.
Battery
The battery attaches to the trailer winch post and operates to apply the trailer brakes (attached to the trailer frame) in the event that the trailer and towing vehicle part company. The battery in this instance was a new installation. Mr Finley asserted that the battery had been mounted higher on the trailer winch post; that it was a simple 15 minutes job. Tweed Coast Marine’s letter of 20 August 2012 stated “battery for braking system has been mounted on the lowest point of the trailer and may be at risk of water ingress.” Mr Taylor asserted that the sighting of the battery box remained the same. There was no reference to resighting the battery/battery box in Scott Wischer Marine Services estimate of 15 March 2013.
Brake lines mounting
There was no evidence presented to the Tribunal that indicated that in terms of Tweed Coast Marine’s letter of 20 August 2012 that since that time brake lines had been securely mounted to the trailer frame. Scott Wischer Marine Services inspection of 12 March 2013 identified brake lines as rusty and appear not having been replaced in February 2013. That, on balance, is more consistent with the brake lines remaining insecurely mounted rather than having since been securely mounted. Additionally the replacement of existing brake lines with plastic coated brake lines would require in any event the secure mounting of such to the trailer frame.
Caliper bolts
Tweed Coast Marine letter of 20 August 2012 stated “caliper bolts have not been correctly tightened”. Mr Taylor asserted that it may be the calliper bolts were replaced but that photos taken two weeks after the trailers return in February 2013 indicated they were already rusted. Mr Finley stated all callipers are galvanised as opposed to steel; that the trailer callipers are such as to qualify as marine grade.
Pump
Whilst not specifically mentioned in the Tweed Coast Marine letter of 20 August 2012 Mr Taylor asserted that the pump which is singularly the most expensive part installed as part of the braking system was not functioning. He stated he had attended Sunshine Auto Electricals Pty Ltd on or about 13 February 2013 after the trailers return from Mr Finley to see if that entity could get the pump working. Sunshine Auto were able to initially make the pump operative but after return of the trailer to Mr Taylor the pump again failed.
Scott Wischer inspection and repair estimate
Mr Finley argued that repairs carried out by him in about February 2013 were as per the Tweed Coast Marine letter of 20 August 2013; that the Scott Wischer repair estimate amounted to a complete replacement of the braking system he installed; that the trailer frame was rusty and not roadworthy.
Mr Taylor asserted that the trailer braking system had never been to a roadworthy standard such that he has been precluded from use of a trailer for virtually the entire period from Mr Finley’s initial involvement to date.
Conclusions
The alleged rusty state of the trailer was not an issue for Tweed Coast Marine or for Scott Wischer Marine Services and does not constitute any sort of relevant defence when addressing the failure of the trailer braking system.
Whilst there was on evidence of what exactly constituted marine grade it can be reasonably implied that the grade of parts and material ought to be consistent with the use to which the trailer would be put. Here that would obviously involve the trailer coming into contact with salt water. In the event Mr Taylor’s trailer has for the bulk of the time between October 2010 to date been left unused due to its non usable condition i.e. absent a dependable functioning braking system the trailer is unroadworthy.
The Scott Wischer Marine Services repair estimate is exactly that. The costing at $2,779.53 inclusive of GST is well below the original $5,000.00 paid by Mr Taylor in October 2010.
Despite having paid this considerable sum of money Mr Taylor was not able to use the trailer. After repair/rectification work was carried out by Mr Finley in about February 2013 the trailer in terms of its braking system was still not roadworthy. That is clear from the repair estimate of Scott Wischer Marine Services. Mr Finley has been afforded opportunity to repair/rectify. Mr Taylor is entitled to a functioning trailer braking system for which he originally paid $5,000.00 or close thereto.
Mr Finley seemed to think that addressing the issues raised in Tweed Coast Marine letter of 20 August 2012 constituted his total responsibility for repair/rectification work. It is clear however that by the time he addressed some of those issues in early February 2013 that the state of the trailer braking system had deteriorated further. This is self evident in that the trailer braking system simply would not function with Mr Taylor being continuously precluded from using the trailer for its intended purpose. Scott Wischer Marine Services inspection report of 12 March 2013 makes it clear that the trailer braking system is still in an unworkable state. Mr Finley’s obligation was to complete and bring to roadworthy standard the trailer braking system not just to comply with the letter from Tweed Coast Marine of 20 August 2012 which simply identified installation short comings.
The Tribunal accepts that repairs of the nature and to the extent referred to in Scott Wischer Marine Services repair estimate of $2,979.53 are warranted. The Tribunal allows the Sunshine Auto Electric Pty Ltd invoice of $66.00 being that entity’s involvement in getting the pump into operating order for a short time and application fee of $98.00, a total of $3,143.53.
Order
The respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $3,143.53.
0
0
0