(a) Building Remedy Order 02023-1130 Building Service at Unit 1, 11 McCabe Street, North Fremantle (premises) made by Mr Peter Verrall, Complaints Manager, authorised delegate of the Building Commissioner, dated 19 February 2024 (BRO);

(b) Building Commissioner's reasons for transfer of a matter dated 30 September 2025 (BC reasons);

(c) Application to Tribunal under s 55 of BSCRA Act to transfer a matter with the consent of the Tribunal dated 3 October 2025 (BC application);

(d) Applicant's submissions for orders to transfer complaint BC 2023-1130 back to Building Commissioner filed on 4 December 2025 (applicant's submissions); and

(e) Respondent's submissions for orders to transfer application BC 2024-2527 back to the Building Commissioner filed on 19 December 2025 (respondent's submissions).

1. On 30 May 2023, the Building Commissioner accepted a complaint lodged by the applicant against the respondent who built the apartment block at the premises (complaint BC 2023-1130).
2. On 19 February 2024, the BRO was made under s 11(1)(c) of the BSCRA Act. It required the respondent 'to rectify the building service not being carried out in a proper and proficient manner or being faulty or unsatisfactory' in relation to complaint items 1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13 and 14. The BRO states that complaint items 2, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 were withdrawn by the applicant. According to the parties, complaint item 11 which appears in the BRO but not in the BC reasons has been rectified.
3. The BRO provides, amongst other things:[3]

The respondent is to make good all areas affected by repairs.

This order is to be complied with within 28 days of the date of this order.

To facilitate this order, the complainant is to provide the respondent and/or its representatives with reasonable access to the premises ... upon reasonable notice being given by the respondent to undertake the required remedial work.

Failure to comply with an order of the Building Commissioner may result in penalties of up to $50,000 for an individual or $250,000 for a company.

Complaint BC2023-1130 is now closed[.]

1. On 15 July 2024, the applicant complained to the Building Commissioner that the respondent had failed to comply with the BRO, in particular that remedial work had not been carried out satisfactorily in relation to complaint items 1, 3, 6, 8, 12, 13 and 14.
2. On 1 August 2024, Mr Parker of the Building and Energy division of the Department of Energy, Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety (DEMIRS)[4] informed the parties that the applicant had complained that the BRO had not been complied with.[5]
3. On 16 September 2024, the applicant's complaint about the BRO became application BC 2024-2527 (BRO complaint). The BRO complaint was referred to the Building & Energy Technical Branch (BEI) for consideration. Following review, the BEI concluded that complaint items 1, 3, 6, 8, 12, 13 and 14 were 'non-compliant'.
4. On 25 June 2025, the parties were notified by DEMIRS that a new complaints officer had been assigned to the BRO complaint. That officer, Mr Stephen Bartley, stated:[6]

...as the Complaint's quotations for works exceed $100,000, this precludes the Building Commissioner's Delegate from issuing an order, and that the matter would instead be referred to the State Administrative Tribunal for determination.

1. On 30 September 2025 Mr Bartley prepared the BC Reasons and on 3 October 2025 an application was made to the Tribunal under s 55 of the BSCRA Act.
2. On 22 October 2025, the Tribunal held a directions hearing. Neither party was legally represented at the directions hearing. As is the usual practice with these types of matters, the Tribunal referred the matter to mediation on 11 December 2025.
3. On 10 November 2025, the applicant gave notice to the Tribunal of her legal representation.
4. On 14 November 2025, the applicant's legal representative requested an extension of time to comply with the orders made on 22 October 2025 and for the mediation listed for 11 December 2025 to be vacated and relisted. On the same day, I made orders adjourning the matter to a directions hearing on 20 November 2025.
5. On 19 November 2025, the respondent gave notice to the Tribunal of its legal representation and requested the directions hearing listed for 20 November 2025 to be vacated and relisted. On the same day, I made orders vacating the directions hearing and relisting it to 24 November 2025.
6. At the directions hearing on 24 November 2025, both legal representatives sought leave to make submissions on the primary issue. Consequently, I made orders at that directions hearing to vacate the mediation listed for 11 December 2025 and for each party to file written submissions on the primary issue. The orders also provided that the primary issue would, subject to any further order, be determined on the documents pursuant to s 60(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA).
7. The Tribunal received written submissions on the primary issue from the applicant on 4 December 2025 and from the respondent on 19 December 2025.
8. On 22 December 2025, I reserved my decision for the Tribunal.
9. I turn now to set out in summary, the reasons given by the Building Commissioner for seeking to transfer the proceeding to the Tribunal, followed by a summary of the written submissions made by the applicant and the respondent. Following that is my consideration of the primary issue and ultimately my conclusion.

1. It is useful to start by setting out s 55(1) of the BSCRA Act. It provides:

(1) The Building Commissioner may, with the consent of the State Administrative Tribunal and in accordance with the rules of the Tribunal, transfer a matter that the Building Commissioner has decided to deal with under s 37 or 42, or that is before the Building Commissioner under section 51, to the Tribunal.

1. The BC reasons set out the following outline for the transfer of the BRO complaint before the Building Commissioner under s 55(1) of the BSCRA Act to the Tribunal:[7]

On 19 February 2024 as resolution to complaint BC2023-1130, Building Remedy Order 02023-1130 (BRO) was issued requiring the respondent to perform certain remedial works in connection with the building service at Unit 1/11 McCabe Street, North Fremantle. The BRO was required to be complied with by 18 March 2024.

On 15 July 2024, the complainant alleged that the respondent had failed to comply with the BRO, in particular that remedial work has not been carried out satisfactorily in relation to items 1, 3, 6, 8, 13, 16 [sic].

The Building and Energy inspectorate (BEI) have considered that items 1, 3, 6, 8, 12, 13 and 14 are non-compliant. The complainant has advised that due to heavy rains and issues with non-compliance of item 1, they had a third-party company attend to the matter for the sum of $72,144.60.

The BEI have advised that there is potential for remedial work to exceed $100,000 due to the ongoing water ingress. Further, they were unable to determine the full extent of work to be quoted for as the issues include timber flooring damages and the BEI could not determine how many boards would need to be replaced or if matching boards could be found etc.

As there is potential for remedial work to exceed $100,000 BEI cannot make a determination as to the extent of required work, Building and Energy seek a transfer of the matter to the SAT for determination under Section 55 of the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011.

1. In short, on the basis that the remedial works would potentially exceed $100,000, an authorised delegate of the Building Commissioner made the application to the Tribunal seeking to transfer the proceeding to the Tribunal under s 55 of the BSCRA Act. The limit of $100,000 is set out in s 37(2) of the BSCRA Act read with s 37(3) as follows:

(2) The Building Commissioner cannot make a building remedy order requiring -

(a) work to be done of a value estimated by the Building Commissioner to exceed the prescribed amount; or

(b) an amount exceeding the prescribed amount to be paid.

(3) Unless a greater amount is prescribed by the regulations, in subsection (2) the prescribed amount is $100,000.

1. The Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Regulations 2011 (WA) does not prescribe a greater amount than $100,000.

(a) following notification to the Building Commissioner that the respondent failed to comply with the BRO, the applicant, on 14 August 2025, provided the Building Commissioner photographs of the alleged non-compliance;

(b) the applicant was notified by the respondent's insurer on 5 September 2025 that the respondent is not able to claim on its insurance as the claim amount is below the respondent's insurance policy excess amount and therefore the respondent is left to deal with the remedial works directly with the applicant;

(c) on 30 June 2025, the applicant informed the Building Commissioner that she had attended to complaint item 1 and paid the invoice from LuxProWA;

(d) on 21 August 2025, the applicant informed the Building Commissioner about the removal of some elements of complaint item 1 because those parts had been attended to;

(e) the respondent has no reasonable excuse for failing, neglecting and/or refusing to comply with the obligations imposed on it by the BEI pursuant to the BRO;

(f) the respondent has not complied with its obligation imposed by the BEI pursuant to the BRO and therefore the applicant seeks reimbursement of $72,144.60 that she paid to LuxProWA and payment of $20,570 to repair complaint items 6 and 8 as set out in quote QU-0050 from LuxProWA. The applicant seeks a total of $92,714.60 ($72,144.60 + $20,570) from the respondent for rectification of the complaint items in the BRO; and

(g) as the amount claimed is less than $100,000 the Building Commissioner has authority to deal with the matter and therefore the matter should be referred back to the Building Commissioner for determination under s 51(2) of the BSCRA Act.

(a) the BRO was made under s 11(1)(c) and s 37 of the BSCRA Act;

(b) the respondent does not accept that the applicant is entitled to compensation in the amount claimed of $92,714.60 or at all. Further, the respondent does not accept that the sum sought by the applicant reflects the value of remedying any of the outstanding complaint items;

(c) the amount claimed is less than the $100,000 limit of the Building Commissioner's powers under s 37(3) of the BSCRA Act; and

(d) the matter is to be referred back to the Building Commissioner for determination pursuant to its authority under s 51(2) of the BSCRA Act.

1. The BRO refers to the building service at the premises and sets out in some detail the eight complaints which concern the lounge/living/dining room, bathroom 1, ensuite and kitchen and the action required to be taken by the respondent. Although a copy of the complaint to the Building Commissioner is not before the Tribunal, it is uncontroversial and I find that the applicant made a complaint to the Building Commissioner about a regulated building service at the premises not being carried out in a proper and proficient manner or being faulty or unsatisfactory. This satisfies the requirements of s 5(1) of the BSCRA Act.
2. Having received the complaint, it is uncontroversial and I find that the Building Commissioner caused an investigation of the complaint to be carried out by one or more authorised persons, and that an authorised person prepared a report on the investigation in accordance with s 9 and s 10 of the BSCRA Act. Following this, an authorised delegate of the Building Commissioner issued the BRO pursuant to s 11 and s 37 of the BSCRA Act.
3. Next, after the applicant complained that the respondent had not complied with the BRO, it is uncontroversial and I find that the BRO was referred to the BEI for consideration where the BEI reached the conclusion that 'there is potential for remedial work to exceed $100,000' and therefore could not make a determination as to the extent of required work. Because of this, it is uncontroversial and I find that the matter before the Building Commissioner under s 51 of the BSCRA Act - failure to comply with the BRO, that an authorised delegate of the Building Commissioner made an application to the Tribunal seeking to transfer the proceeding between the applicant and the respondent to the Tribunal under s 55(1) of the BSCRA Act. Such an application under s 55(1) of the BSCRA Act requires the consent of the Tribunal.

Whether the Tribunal is to consent to the transfer of the proceeding from the Building Commissioner?

1. While the respondent does not accept the applicant's claim to be paid all or any part of the claimed amount of $92,714.60, the applicant and respondent agree that the amount claimed by the applicant is less than prescribed amount of $100,000 as set out in s 37(3) of the BSCRA Act and therefore the Building Commissioner has jurisdiction to deal with the BRO complaint under s 51(2) of the BSCRA Act. I respectfully agree that the Building Commissioner has jurisdiction to deal with the BRO complaint as the amount claimed is less than $100,000.
2. Having reviewed the BC reasons, it appears, in my view, that the authorised delegate of the Building Commissioner in filing the application with the Tribunal on 3 October 2025 may not have been across all the information provided by the applicant including the information provided on 21 August 2025 about the removal of some elements of complaint item 1 because those parts had been attended to.
3. Finally for completeness, I note that the parties were not legally represented at the first directions hearing on 22 October 2025. I have had the benefit of reviewing the transcript from that directions hearing and I am satisfied that the issue concerning s 55 of the BSCRA Act was not dealt with at that directions hearing.
4. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal does not consent to the transfer of the matter (complaint number BC 2024-2527) from the Building Commissioner. This means that the Building Commissioner must deal with the matter (complaint number BC 2024-2527) pursuant to s 51(2) of the BSCRA Act. That section provides:

(2) If the responsible adjudicator [in this case the Building Commissioner] is satisfied that a building remedy order referred to in section 36(1)(a) to remedy a building service has not been complied with, or has been complied with in part only, by the person to whom it was given by the responsible adjudicator may -

(a) revoke the order in relation to remedying the building service or the part in question; and

(b) make a building remedy order referred to in section 36(1)(b) or (c) in relation to that building service.

1. In addition, s 51(6) and s 51(7) of the BSCRA Act are relevant to dealing with a matter under s 51(2) of the BSCRA Act. Those sections provide:

(6) Sections 37, 38, 42 and 43 apply to the making of an order under this section.

(7) The revocation of an order under subsection (2) or (3) does not affect-

(a) anything done under the order before the revocation; or

(b) a penalty that has or may be imposed under section 53, or the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 section 95 in respect of the failure to comply; or

(c) any action that has or may be taken under the Building Services (Registration) Act 2011 section 57 or 58 in respect of the failure to comply.

1. The Tribunal does not consent to the transfer of the matter (complaint number BC 2024-2527) by the Building Commissioner under s 55(1) of the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA).

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.

[1] The 'Building Commissioner' is defined in s 3 of the BSCRA Act by reference to s 85 of the same Act.

[2] A 'building service complaint' is defined in s 3 of the BSCRA Act by reference to s 5 of the same Act which provides that a person may make a complaint to the Building Commissioner about a regulated building service not being carried out in a proper and proficient manner or being faulty or unsatisfactory.

[4] From 1 July 2025 the relevant department is the Department of Local Government, Industry Regulation and Safety (LGIRS).

[7] Reasons for Transfer of a Matter, date document prepared 30 September 2025.