Remove the existing downpipe and spreader. Flush out downpipe and re-install. Install new larger spreader with more outlet holes. Install additional downpipe and spreader approximately half way along. Repair leak to the gutter at the north east corner. Provide falls in gutters towards the outlets to ensure no stormwater is retained. Estimated cost $2,000 to $2,200.

1. I am not satisfied that the blocked spreader pipe is a building defect as distinct from a maintenance matter for the applicant. I note in particular that there is no allegation of water entering the house by reason of the allegedly defective spreader; there is no allegation of water entering the house at all.
2. I also accept Mr Smallman's evidence that the gutter is draining properly. However, I do find that there is an inadequate seal to the mitre joint of the gutter.
3. The applicant relies on a quotation by Leak Proof Roofing for $750 for:

1. Mr Smallman gave evidence that repairing just the mitre joint might take two hours at $70 per hour, because of the difficulty of gaining access to this part of the roof. The Leak Proof Roofing quotation includes two items - gutter repairs, and repoint, that I do not allow. However, I allow $500 to take into account the possible need for cranage to reach the defective part of the roof, as discussed by the applicant and Mr Smallman during the hearing.
2. The respondents must pay the applicant $500 for this item.

1. The applicant claims $2,789 to rectify alleged ponding on the balcony. The balcony is to the west of bedroom 1 and the lounge-room is below it. The Houspect report states:

At the time of the inspection, a bucket of water was emptied on to the floor at the southern end of the balcony. Some of the water found its way to the outlet near the NW corner and disappeared, presumably draining into the stormwater system. A large quantity of water remained and ponded on the surface to a depth of 20-25mm. After 30 minutes, the water was still there. This demonstrates that the fall on the balcony floor was insufficient to drain the water towards the outlet.

1. Paragraph 3.1.8 was irrelevant to this alleged defect, but recited that Mr Trevor Scott is a registered architect. The relevant item appears to be the first bullet point under "Inspectors comments":

Due to lack of fall to the outlet, water is ponding in the gutter, making use of the balcony difficult and making the building materials vulnerable to seepage. This in turn can cause moisture damage to tiles and grout and rot to the timber weatherboards. Note: The reflection on the balcony floor shows the presence of water and water stains with rot to the door sill and weatherboards under it. (please refer to Photograph 001 to 003...)

1. Assuming that the photographs provided by the applicant are numbered in accordance with the Houspect numbering, there is no clear indication of rot, the applicant neither gave evidence of rot nor applied for rectification of rot, and photographs 7 and 8 show the area of and beneath the door sill, which appears to be sound and recently painted.
2. The Houspect recommendation is:

Repairs to the balcony, including tiles, removal of the sub-strata and weatherboard and wall plate where there is rot damage. Installation of new waterproof membrane, plus new flooring and skirting tiles to the base. Ensure all tiles are laid to recommended falls to the outlet. Estimated cost $2,800 to $3,000.

1. Mr Smallman's report was that there is minimal fall to the drain, but no evidence of ponding in the gutter and no sign of rot. He remarked that after the floor has drained, the ponding is limited to 1.5mm. He also reported that there is no evidence of water penetration into the house; evidence with which the applicant agreed. Mr Smallman stated in his report that:

We did detect a depth variation in the surface of the balcony tiled floor ... [1]

This variation in level is attributed to drying of the timber frame used to construct the [balcony] floor.

1. The applicant said he first noticed some ponding when he took possession of the house, but that he did not realise it might be a defect.
2. I prefer Mr Smallman's evidence that the degree of ponding is very slight, but I note Mr Smallman's admission during the hearing that the water should drain within 30 minutes, and that ponding needs to be addressed. I am concerned that the applicant noted a potential defect and did not investigate further, but if it has been exacerbated by shrinkage of the house frame, it has characteristics of a defect that the applicant cannot be criticised for failing to pursue in the first proceeding.
3. Mr Smallman agreed that if work needed to be undertaken, the work described by Houspect is reasonable and $2,789 is a reasonable amount.
4. The respondents must pay the applicant $2,789 for this item.

1. The applicant claims $335.78 for weather-strips to internal and external doors. He said that the 5-star energy rating was not in the section 32 statement that was an annexure to the contract of sale. The amount he claims is for $100 for labour and $237.78 for various materials that he has costed but not yet bought. He claims the cost of sealing 5 external and 10 internal doors.
2. I accept the evidence of Mr Smallman that sealing internal doors is not necessary for energy rating. I accept the evidence of the applicant that he looked at the energy certificate for the first proceeding, but did not realise that sealing exterior doors was necessary until just before commencing this proceeding.
3. I allow the applicant one third of his claim of $237.78 for the materials, as an estimate of the cost of materials for the external doors only. He has not proven the basis upon which he claims $100 for labour, and I make no allowance for it.
4. The respondents must pay the applicant $79.26 for this item .

1. The applicant seeks $10,850 for this item. He claims that the paved courtyard at the rear of the house should drain to storm water outlets. He gave evidence that the paving adjacent to the garage drains in the wrong direction - away from the waste outlet - and there is no waste outlet in the paving behind the kitchen. I note that although the paving adjacent to the garage appears not to drain to a waste outlet which is close to the garage, all the paving is either level or drains away from the house towards garden beds. I note in particular that photographs accompanying the Houspect report show that the pavers closest to the house are dry, while those further from the house appear to be damp. As suggested by Mr Smallman, the dampness of the pavers could be explained in part by those areas being shaded for much of the day.
2. The parties agree there is no evidence that there has been flooding into the house, towards the house or that there is any damage to the house consistent with failure of the drainage.
3. The applicant submitted that in accordance with P3.123 of the Building Code of Australia, surface water should be directed away from a class 1 building - such as the house - and that at the end of construction there should be a fall of at least 25mm over the first metre.
4. I accept the applicant's evidence that he was not aware of the potential drainage problem until he obtained the Houspect report. This tends to support Mr Smallman's evidence that after 4 or 5 years, some movement in garden paving is to be expected. I am not satisfied that any current defect in the paving arose from a breach of the s137C warranties.
5. I make no allowance for this item.

1. The respondents must pay the applicant $500 for the gutter, $2,789 for the balcony floor and $79.26 for sealing external doors; a total of $3,368.26. Payment must be made forthwith.

[1] Mr Smallman's report was printed out with text flaws. Certain words appear to have been printed over other words. It was not possible to read by how much.