Charging a deposit six times the maximum amount and disregarding an official rectification order were among the building offences leading to $24,000 in fines for a Perth kitchen renovator.
Following prosecution by Building and Energy, Christopher Laurance Reich was convicted at Perth Magistrates Court for breaching WA’s laws for home building contracts and building complaints.
The court was told a couple in Oakford engaged Mr Reich in 2022 to carry out kitchen renovation work valued at $18,711.
The homeowners paid an $8,000 deposit, or 42.7 per cent of the contract price, but by law the deposit cannot exceed 6.5 per cent before home building work commences. Mr Reich was fined $3,000 for this offence.
A fine of $1,000 was also handed down because the contract failed to comply with legal requirements such as having all terms and conditions in writing, being signed by all parties and including a notice for homeowners about their rights.
The court heard that during the project, Mr Reich sought three progress payments – valued at $6,000, $1,615 and $3,616 – when the corresponding work had not been carried out. The non-genuine progress payments resulted in a $5,000 fine.
The largest fine of $15,000 related to Mr Reich’s failure to comply with a building remedy order issued by the Building Commissioner, which required him to address defects and incomplete work including installation of a missing window that had resulted in weather and vermin damage.
Mr Reich did not carry out any of the required remedial work. He was convicted in his absence on 25 October 2024 and ordered to pay $631.74 in costs.
Building Commissioner Saj Abdoolakhan said disregard of legal protections for consumers was unacceptable.
“The limits and requirements set by the ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Building Contracts Act 1991 ensure homeowners are not left out of pocket for excessive deposits or premature progress payments, as well as having the correct contractual documents, in the event of issues with a project,” he said.
“Similarly, compliance with a building remedy order is mandatory. The penalties in this case should remind building service providers of their legal obligations and community expectations.”
