(a) excessive mortar and failure to provide rolled joints (i.e. the mortar between bricks does not have a curved look) on an exterior wall of the garage; and

(b) incorrect location of the gas meter.

(a) whether the work was carried out by Royston Homes in a proper and workmanlike manner and in accordance with the plans and specifications set out in the Contract; and if not

(b) what, if any, loss or damage has Mr Wettasinghe incurred as a result.

1. Mr Wettasinghe, as the applicant in the proceeding, bears the burden of proof to satisfy the Tribunal, on the balance of probabilities, of the facts necessary to establish his claims.

1. The subject wall is the exterior face of a garage wall. The wall runs parallel to the boundary fence between Mr Wettasinghe's property and his (side) neighbour. There is a narrow gap between the garage wall and the fence. Mr Wettasinghe confirmed in his oral evidence at hearing that the gap is not wide enough to be used as an accessway or pathway.
2. Mr Wettasinghe relies on a Domestic Building Assessment Report dated 20 February 2024 prepared under section 48O of the DBC Act by a Domestic Building Disputes Resolution Victoria assessor ('DBDRV report').
3. Under section 48T of the DBC Act, a report of an assessor under section 48O of the DBC Act is admissible in evidence in proceedings before VCAT.
4. Significantly, the DBDRV report states the following:

A visual assessment was carried out to the garage boundary wall, as directed by the owner.

The assessment revealed visible mortar smears along the brick boundary wall that was visible from a normal viewing position.

In accordance with clause 3.11 of the Guide, stains, mortar smears and damage caused by cleaning are defective if they are visible from a normal viewing position. In this instance, visible mortar smears along the brick boundary wall were visible from a normal viewing position.

Therefore, this assessment item is defective and attributable to the builder.

1. The reference in the DBDRV report to the 'Guide' is a reference to the Guide to Standards and Tolerances 2015 (Guide) - 03 MASONRY - 3.11.
2. In addition, Mr Wettasinghe says rolled brickwork joints were specified in the Contract, but were not provided to the side of the garage wall which faces the boundary fence. The DBDRV report does not address this issue.
3. At the hearing, Royston Homes:

(a) admitted that there are mortar smears and:

(i) sought to explain this by saying the bricklayer could not work from the fence side of the wall due to there being such a narrow gap between the fence and the wall;

(ii) said it constructed a fence at the front of the property so that the subject wall is blocked from sight; and

(iii) disputed the amount of compensation claimed by Mr Wettasinghe as it goes beyond the cost of cleaning the mortar smears; and

(b) initially disputed that rolled joints were specified in the Contract, but subsequently during the hearing conceded that they were.

1. In respect to loss and damage, Mr Wettasinghe relies on a quotation from MJ Exteriors & Rendering dated 23 July 2025 for $5,280 to (in summary) scrape mortar joints, prepare for rendering and render the wall. Whilst the Contract did not provide for the garage wall to be rendered, Mr Wettasinghe submits that it is appropriate to order damages reflecting the cost of rendering because rolled joints cannot be installed retrospectively and rendering the wall is cheaper than demolishing and rebuilding the wall in accordance with the Contract.
2. Mr Wettasinghe also submits that the value of his property has decreased due to the state of the wall. He makes no submission on the amount of the alleged decrease in value.

1. I am satisfied on the evidence, having regard to the DBDRV report (which was not disputed by Royston Homes), that there are excessive mortar stains on the garage wall which are visible from a normal viewing position. This is a defect within clause 3.11 of the Guide to Standards and Tolerances. On this basis, a building defect exists, and I find that Royston Homes is in breach of section 8(a) of the DBC Act.
2. Similarly, having viewed the Contract specifications, I am satisfied that rolled brickwork joints were specified. As rolled joints have not been provided to the exterior face of the garage wall, the brickwork has not been constructed in accordance with the Contact. This is a breach of the Contract and of the warranty set out in section 8(a) of the DBC Act.
3. On the issue of loss, Mr Wettasinghe provided no documentary or expert evidence to support his submission that the state of the wall has impacted the value of his home. I also note that there is no pedestrian access alongside the subject wall given its very close proximity to the boundary fence, and the wall is obscured by a front fence on that side of the property. Accordingly, I am not satisfied on the evidence that there is any loss in value to the property.
4. Mr Wettasinghe claims the cost of rendering the garage wall as set out in the MJ Exteriors & Rendering quotation for $5,280. I note the Contract did not provide for the garage wall to be rendered and I am not satisfied on the evidence that rendering is appropriate for rectification.
5. I find, in relation to the excessive mortar stains, that Mr Wettasinghe's loss is the cost to clean away the mortar smears. Royston Homes has obtained a quotation dated 29 July 2025 from BullsEye Cleaning Services Pty Ltd for $770 to clean the wall. It is not evident on the face of the quotation whether the quoted figure accounts for the narrow access. Further, I am not satisfied that this is a quoted price Mr Wettasinghe, who is not a builder, would receive. This is a quotation from a contractor Royston Homes engages on its projects.
6. Mr Wettasinghe's quotation from MJ Exteriors & Rendering is itemised (in part). The quotation includes $450 for hand scraping with a trowel, floor scraper, hammer and chisel and $1,950 to make the wall 'base coat ready'. This costing includes 'all labour, preparation and materials' and 'time contingency allowed for narrow access'.
7. Whilst the wall requires cleaning, I am not satisfied that Royston Homes is liable for the cost of achieving 'base coat ready' because rendering was not in the Contract. Doing the best I can on the available evidence, including the parties' quotations, I find that Mr Wettasinghe is entitled to $1,500 to scrape the excessive mortar and clean the wall taking into account the narrow access.
8. Although the Contract specifies rolled joints for the brickwork, there is no itemised costing for this under the Contract. There is the one garage wall external face where the mortar joints are not rolled. The other walls with exposed brickwork have rolled joints. Doing the best I can on the available evidence, I allow $500 for Royston Homes' failure to provide rolled joints to the external face of this one wall to the garage as specified in the Contract.
9. Accordingly, Royston Homes must pay Mr Wettasinghe a total of $2,000 in respect of the garage wall.

1. There is no dispute that the gas meter has not been placed in the location shown on the Contract plans.
2. The gas meter is located at the front of the property. The Contract plans show the gas meter at the side of the house.
3. Mr Wettasinghe says he was not consulted about the location change and he is unhappy about the gas meter's position.
4. I note that the water meter and letter box are also located at the front of the property and are in different locations from those shown on the Contract plans. However, Mr Wettasinghe informed the Tribunal that he does not take issue with these changes, even though he was not consulted.
5. Mr Wettasinghe does not seek the cost of moving the gas meter to the location shown on the plans at the side of the house. Mr Wettasinghe has obtained quotations to move the gas meter to what he calls a 'compromise' position. This is neither its current position nor the position shown on the Contract plans. It is a different position, at the side front of the property.
6. Mr Wettasinghe claims compensation of $12,771.85. This comprises:

(a) a quotation from APA for $6,831.83 to 'extend 20mm poly service 8 meters to new position at front left of house'; and

(b) a quotation from Northcote Plumbing & Gas for $5,940 to:

(i) excavate a trench from the existing gas meter to the new location, with the trench to be 8.2 m long, 200 mm wide and 450 mm deep;

(ii) supply and install a new gas line to the gas meter; and

(iii) reinstate landscaping.

1. The Northcote Plumbing & Gas quotation includes $3,900 to excavate the trench and install a new gas line and $1,500 to reinstate landscaping.
2. Royston Homes says it had no control over where the gas line or gas meter were located. It says the gas supplier dictates the locations. Royston Homes produced an email dated 4 August 2025 from a Works Coordinator, Gas Division, Service Stream who writes, in relation to Mr Wettasinghe's gas meter, that:

The reasons the gas meter could not be position(sic) on the side of the house are as follows:

Due to the gas conduit being over halfway across the property and the fitting line being on the side of the house furthest from the gas conduit (water meter).

Gas lines can only be installed at a 45-degree angle or vertically to the conduit as per APA procedures and guidelines. The fitting line position does not allow for either method.

1. Further, Service Stream writes that the gas meter location 'was chosen for accessibility and compliance with service laying requirements'.
2. Evidently, the gas meter was placed at the front of the property for accessibility and because that is where the gas service pipe is located. I accept Royston Homes' evidence that the gas pipe location and intended location for the gas meter was information they received during the build from the supplier.
3. The Contract provides (in clauses 12, 23 and 38) for variations to be made to the Contract in certain circumstances, including as a result of circumstances beyond the builder's control, and for the Contract amount payable by the owner to be increased as a result (clause 24). In the current matter, there was no Contract variation entered into between the parties for the gas meter location change.
4. As the gas meter has not been installed as per the Contract, Royston Homes is in breach of section 8(a) of the DBC Act.
5. However, I do not accept Mr Wettasinghe's submission that his loss as a result of the breach is the claimed cost to relocate the gas meter to his 'compromise' position.
6. I find on the evidence that the gas meter is situated at the front of the property because that is where the gas service pipe is located. If Mr Wettasinghe had been consulted and requested a different location (whether that be the location on the plans or his 'compromise' position), there would have been additional cost to extend the service line and relocate the meter. Accordingly, the claimed costs in this regard are costs Mr Wettasinghe would have had to incur in any event for the gas meter to be relocated.
7. Loss arises, however, because Mr Wettasinghe was not consulted at the relevant time, and the construction is now complete.
8. I find that the loss to Mr Wettasinghe, due to Royston Homes failing to install the gas meter in accordance with the plans, is the additional cost to Mr Wettasinghe to move the meter post construction. On the available evidence, the additional cost to Mr Wettasinghe is the cost of reinstating landscaping after the work is undertaken to extend the service line and relocate the meter. On the basis of the Northcote Plumbing & Gas quotation obtained by Mr Wettasinghe, the cost of reinstating landscaping is $1,500.
9. I accept that it is reasonable and necessary for Mr Wettasinghe to carry out such work and, having regard to the Northcote Plumbing & Gas quotation, I allow $1,500.
10. Accordingly, Royston Homes must pay Mr Wettasinghe $1,500.

1. For the reasons above, Royston Homes must pay Mr Wettasinghe a total of $3,500.