Owner builders often run out of money, their projects stall and tradies don’t get paid. This is one of my older cases (2006)where rendering contractor working on a house was not paid under excuse that the work was defective.
The owner had a particularly badly executed brickwork on his house that had been rendered by another contractor(since gone and not paid). Predictably render followed bowed and bulged walls and hollows.
My client was engaged to make good and finish the job. After speeding more than a week on the job filling bad spots and building up render to get true lines he was sent off by owner claiming filling rendering compound was incompatible with existing cement render and it is a defect.
The matter went to VCAT and I appeared as an expert witness giving evidence and expert opinion. This is synopsis of the report:
The investigation
The search of Australian Standards did not produce standard on acrylic based renders.
The search returned a Guide to Plastering HB 161-2005 which deals with application of cement based rendering
Unitex was contacted for additional information about of acrylic render and MSD information was received and is included in this report.
The MSD for Redi Render reveals that it contains Portland cement and sand among its constituents. These materials are identical to those used with cement based renders.
Conclusions
Redi render is a cement based render which is reinforced with acrylic binder. Given that the chemical composition of cement based render and Unitex Redi Render is essentially the same there be no doubt about the compatibility of application.
After reviewing all of the above information and after drawing on my extensive experience in building construction which includes many projects with rendered finishes I am able to form a conclusive opinion that :
- There is no known incompatibility of application of “Redi Render” over cement sand based render
- There is no evidence to indicate that the work as executed on site would be prove defective
My evidence and expert opinion prevailed and my client was awarded almost a full amount of the claim (less minor amount for actual small defects in rendering attributable to my client)
Owner builder and a serial offender “non payer” was ordered to pay.
