A builder client of mine installed the wrong tiles in a development. Despite conceding that he needed to rectify, the owners lodged a Building Commission application.
He had been negotiating with the owners as to a solution which could be included in the Remedy Order, but they rejected his proposed solution without reasons, nor any alternative remedies.
The Commission then issued a Remedy Order requiring our client to remedy the problem “as agreed”, but there was no agreement as to the solution.
My client wanted to make an application to the SAT to dispute the Order, but instead, I contacted the Commission, and was advised that the “as agreed” referred to my client agreeing to remedy the problem.
While we could have sought a ruling on the solution to get some certainty, I suggested that the cost would be possibly 3 or 4 times the cost of his proposed solution, and success was by no means guaranteed, so the pragmatic thing to is to implement his proposed solution and fight the owners if they later claim that the remedy is inadequate, which I think is unlikely.
If you found this article helpful, please consider providing a Google Review and/or like us on LinkedIn. For help and advice with building and other disputes, see Michael Paterson & Associates (08) 9443 5383 | www.patersons.com.au