Brought to you by:

Builder fined $10,000 for breaching insurance obligations

The Victorian Building Authority (VBA) has prosecuted a man for arranging building work without insurance.

The man pleaded guilty to managing work under a major domestic building contract without insurance, in breach of Section 136(2) of the Building Act 1993, and was fined $10,000 in the Ringwood Magistrates Court.

VBA CEO Sue Eddy says the regulator takes its role to maintain the integrity of the building industry extremely seriously and will use powers available to it to protect consumers.

“The obligations on builders for carrying out building work are clearly stated in the Building Act,” she said.

“There is no excuse for breaking the law. We won’t hesitate to take all necessary action to hold you accountable for wrongdoing.

“The outcome of this case should send a clear message to practitioners that if they do the wrong thing there will be serious consequences.”

The man, who was not named by the VBA, entered into a major domestic building contract with homeowners in 2015 after their house was destroyed by fire.

The contract included the purchase and relocation of a dwelling from regional NSW to a property in Northern Victoria.

The building work was carried out between May 2016 and October 2017 by a registered builder who was sub-contracted by the man. The work was defective and left the dwelling uninhabitable, the VBA says.

“Although the man did not carry out the defective building work himself, it was due to the fact that he was the builder who managed and arranged the carrying out of the building work by subcontracting the builder, that the obligation to take out insurance rested with him,” the VBA said.

The owners paid $162,650 under the contract but received a further invoice for $20,240 in June 2017. At this point building work slowed and defects became apparent.

An inspection report was commissioned by the owners, which estimates the cost of rectification and completion at $157,820.

The owners commenced proceedings at the VCAT against both the man and the sub-contracted builder and a settlement was reached.