About a year ago I prepared VCAT report for a client in defence of claim by home purchaser against him. The claim was of all sort of defects and on my analysis most of them were trumped up, wishful thinking and unsubstantiated. However I heard nothing so I followed up with a phone call.
He told me that he went to a compulsory mediation where he got rolled. His barrister wasn’t there when he needed him because he was on holidays and sent someone less experienced, uninterested and that actually worked against him.
The other side came well prepared, well rehearsed and played him to perfection. They produced new expert reports on the day of mediation with outrageous new claims pushing to well over 100K.
Mediation took all day. Intimidated, bullied, worn out and tired with no help from his side at 6PM he just wanted it to be over and signed a bitter deal.
He was to pay purchaser 38K (plus his own legal costs 20K) for what? This was my report summary:
Inspection findings:
Inspection findings revealed that this is an old relocated home that was renovated and sold. Whilst weatherboard painting has failed in places there was no evidence of significant rot that would justify replacement. Repainting of affected areas following proper sanding back is all that is reasonably required and the respondent has agreed to do so.
Gutter full of leaves and twigs was found to the front left side of the home where it corresponded with rot in rafter in the position where gutter overflowed.
Schedule of complaints
ITEM BC dDc. /Work BE Dec.
| 1 |
External water tank |
Not defective/no work required |
—————————————– |
| 2 |
External eaves |
Defective/work required |
Patent defect/ no work required |
| 3 |
External painting |
Defective/work required |
Builder agreed to repair |
| 4 |
Internal painting |
Defective/work required |
Patent defect/ no work required |
| 5 |
Bathroom painting |
Defective /work required |
Patent defect/ no work required |
| 6 |
Bay window roof |
Defective/work required |
Builder agreed to repair |
| 7 |
External fascia rot |
Defective/work required |
Defective/work required |
| 8 |
Balcony decking |
Item no longer an issue |
—————————————— |
| 9 |
External weatherboards |
Defective /work required |
No substantial rot found |
| 10 |
Water pressure |
Item no longer an issue |
———————————— |
| 11 |
Floorboards insulation |
Defect not determined |
Defect not proven against builder |
| 12 |
Rusted spouting |
Defect not proven |
Defect not proven against builder |
| 13 |
External doors |
Defective/work required |
Patent defect/no work required |
| 14 |
External window splitting |
Defective/work required |
Patent defect/no work required |
| 15 |
Kitchen rangehood installation |
Defect not found |
—————————————– |
| 16 |
Loose downpipe |
Defective/work required |
Item mentioned in 137B report |
| 17 |
Doors not sealed to weather |
Defect not determined/no work required |
Defect not proven against builder |
| 18 |
Roof Gaps |
Defective /work required |
No substantial defect found |
Item summary:
- Of the 18 items, three items are no longer an issue, items 1, 8 and 10.
- No defects found by BC, items:11, 12, 15 and 17.
- Builder agreed to rectify items: 3 and 6.
- B-E agrees with item 7 however this is a very minor item that can be done during repainting.
- B-E disagrees with:
Item 4- because painting was patently obvious at the time of property sale.
5- because painting was patently obvious at the time of property sale.
9-As accredited timber pest inspector B-E declares there is no rot requiring weatherboard replacement.
13- because painting was patently obvious at the time of property sale.
14- because painting was patently obvious at the time of property sale.
18-because no substantial defect was found.
- 1. A summary of the opinion or opinions of the expert:
- As a qualified and accredited timber pest inspector, I have determined that there is no weatherboard rot present that would justify replacement of weatherboards.
- It is understood that the respondent has agreed to repaint weatherboards where required and to repair roof over bay window over the front of the house. There is no reason why this should not be allowed.
- Owner has inspected the dwelling prior to purchase and it is in my opinion estopped from revisiting quality of the painting.
- In my opinion, the remainder of complaints on the schedule has no merit as they are either frivolous or misconceived. (Complaint about loose downpipe that is clearly visible in Section 137B Report, complaint about roof space gaps and similar).
- In my opinion, the owner’s estimate of costs to repair the dwelling is based on a quotation from a commercially interested party and has no objectivity.
So what happened?
Purchaser that knew she was buying old home that was relocated to new position managed to get 38K for defects that she knew were there when the house was purchased.
My client did not think to give me a call and to ask be to attend compulsory mediation where I could explain my findings and critically examine any new defect claims form the other side.
Intimidated, outgunned and outplayed he was rolled. Expensive mistake!
Bring out your guns or else.
