Roof restorer Michael Shadlow has been ordered to pay $3,500 after a Mandurah court found he did not have a valid reason for disregarding an official order to fix defects after completing a roofing job in Falcon.
On December 6 at Mandurah Magistrates Court, Mr Shadlow of Emerald Roofing Services was charged with one count of fail to comply with an order of the Building Commissioner or State Administrative Tribunal.
Agreed facts presented to the court, according to a statement by the Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety. showed that Mr Shadlow was contracted in March 2019 to carry out a full roof restoration at a home in Falcon, valued at $6,150.
The job was completed in July of 2019, but according to the department, the homeowner withheld final payment and arranged for another company to inspect the roof.
After this inspection, the homeowner later lodged a workmanship complaint with Building and Energy, which resulted in a building remedy order which required Mr Shadlow to rectify seven areas of faulty or unsatisfactory work at the property within 28 days.
Issues, the department said, included unclean tiles where leaves, dirt and moss had been painted over, paint spray on surfaces such as the skylight, solar panels and patio, washed-off paint and not replacing 30 damaged tiles or the ridge capping.
Mr Shadlow did not comply with any parts of the order, and while all parties agreed with the facts of the case, the matter proceeded to trial because Mr Shadlow claimed he had a reasonable excuse for not complying.
Reasons presented by Mr Shadlow included being interstate, not wanting to use subcontractors due to pride in his work, the homeowner's withheld payment and lack of access to the property.
The department stated that Magistrate Leanne Atkins noted evidence that Mr Shadlow was only interstate for a few days during the compliance period and the homeowner had not prevented access.
Magistrate Atkins said the outstanding payment was a separate issue to the building remedy order and the refusal to engage a subcontractor had not been a reasonable excuse.
Mr Shadlow was fined $2,000 and ordered to pay costs of $1,500.
Magistrate Atkins acknowledged that Mr Shadlow had no prior criminal or building compliance history, but said that his inaction "thumbed your nose at the Building Commissioner", according to the department.
Department Building and Energy Division executive director Saj Abdoolakhan stated that the building complaints process applies to all paid home building work carried out under a contract even if the provider is not a registered builder.
"The building complaint resolution process is an important mechanism to ensure parties get a fair go," Mr Abdoolakhan said.
"Building service providers who do not follow through with their responsibilities will face consequences.
"Failure to comply with a Building Commissioner's order is not only illegal, it can leave home owners feeling uncomfortable or even unsafe at their own properties if building issues are not rectified."
