[1] On 23 June 2023 Dimitar Konstantinov Zhivkov ('the Applicant'), entered into a fixed price contract with a QBCC-registered contractor "Cre8tive Construction Group Pty Ltd" ('the Contractor') for domestic building work, in the sum of $12,437.50.
[2] In late June 2023, the Applicant paid a further 35% of the contract sum ($4,353) at the Contractor's request (ostensibly for materials), in the expectation that site works would commence in the third week of July 2023. However site works did not ever commence.
[3] On 2 February 2024 the Contractor's licence was cancelled, and on 1 March 2024 the Contractor went into liquidation.
[4] On 1 March 2024 the Applicant lodged a "Non-Completion" claim with the Respondent ('') under the statutory Home Warranty Scheme.
QBCC
[5] On 8 March 2024 the QBCC declined the claim, on the basis the work was assessed by the QBCC not to be primary insurable work ('original decision').
[6] On 28 March 2024 the Applicant applied to the QBCC for an internal review of the original decision. Pursuant to s 86C(3) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) ('QBCC Act'), on 30 April 2024 the QBCC was deemed to have made a decision, confirming the original decision ('reviewable decision').
[7] On 24 May 2024 the Applicant commenced an application to review in this Tribunal, pursuant to sections 86(1)(h), 86E, and 87 of the QBCC Act.
[8] On 1 May 2025 the QBCC filed an application for directions. Amongst other things, the QBCC sought that the Tribunal make a direction pursuant to s 23(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ('QCAT Act') inviting the QBCC to reconsider the reviewable decision.
[9] On 19 May 2025 the Tribunal issued directions, including that the QBCC reconsider the reviewable decision.
[10] On 30 June 2025 the QBCC set aside the reviewable decision, and in lieu thereof made a fresh decision, to allow the claim by the Applicant under the Home Warranty Scheme.
[11] Pursuant to the fresh decision, the QBCC determined that in the case of works not started, the Applicant was entitled under the terms of the Home Warranty Scheme to 10% of the contract amount for works valued at under $20,000; thus making for an eligibility amount of $1,243.75.
[12] On 2 July 2025 the QBCC issued a notice of cover to the Applicant with a premium of $279.05. By correspondence with the Applicant over the period between 3 and 8 July 2025, the QBCC required that the Applicant either pay (or agree to have deducted) that premium amount, as a precondition to the QBCC making payment of the eligibility amount under the Home Warranty Scheme. Under protest, the Applicant acceded to payment of $963.95 in lieu of the eligibility amount.
[3]
[13] On the basis of matters conceded by the QBCC in its submissions dated 4 August 2025, the following matters are now uncontentious:
[4]
(a) The Applicant is a "consumer" under s 67WA of the QBCC Act.
(b) The works to be performed by the Contractor were works to be carried out under a "fixed price residential contract".
(d) The contract came to an end on 1 March 2024, within two years after the day on which it had been entered into between the Applicant and the Contractor.
(e) For purposes of s 71F of the QBCC Act, residential construction work had not been started at the time when the contract came to an end.
(f) Pursuant to s 5(2) of the terms applicable to the statutory insurance scheme the Applicant is entitled to claim the amount of the "insurable deposit".
(g) Pursuant to s 5(4)(c) of the terms applicable to the statutory insurance scheme the "insurable deposit" is 10% of the contract amount.
[5]
[14] In light of the foregoing, the only outstanding issues for determination by the Tribunal are:
[6]
(a) Whether the Tribunal should order the QBCC to repay the $279.05 Home Warranty insurance premium; and
(b) Whether the QBCC should pay any costs to the Applicant.
[7]
[15] The Applicant concedes that in circumstances wherein no work had been commenced, and the contract amount is under $20,000, the maximum benefit available under the terms of the cover afforded by the Home Warranty Scheme is 10% of the contract price. On the basis that the contract price was $12,437.50, the Applicant accepts therefore that the maximum recovery amount available to him under the Home Warranty Scheme is $1,243, and that he is now unable to recover any amount for the further sum of $4,353 also paid by him to the Contractor, prior to the commencement of works.
[16] Unfortunately, in the case of domestic building contracts for minor building work, it is not uncommon for homeowners to be persuaded by contractors to pay more than the deposit amount prior to the commencement of building works, on the pretext of thereby putting contractors into sufficient funds to be able to purchase materials necessary for construction, only for the homeowner to subsequently discover that should no work be performed by a defaulting contractor, the Home Warranty Scheme will not cover any payments in excess of the insurable deposit amount. This is a structural limitation of the Home Warranty Scheme. In the interests of improved consumer awareness, it would be desirable for the QBCC to go to further efforts to inform homeowners regarding these limitations on recovery under the scheme.
[8]
[17] The Applicant contends that on 2 July 2025 he was issued with a Notice of Cover under the Queensland Home Warranty Scheme, thereby indicating that Policy Number 014970284 came into effect on 23 June 2023 in respect of residential construction works at his residential address to be performed by Cre8tive Construction Group Pty Ltd as the Contractor. The Notice of Cover indicates that the Insurable Value of the construction work was $12,437.50, and that the premium paid was $279.05.
[18] At the base of the Notice of Cover, the following is specified:
[9]
This Notice of Cover is issued in respect of residential construction work as described in the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (QBCC Act) and confirms for the assessment manager or compliance assessor that the appropriate insurance premium has been paid as required by section 68E of the QBCC Act. These particulars are current as at the date of issue....
[10]
[19] Notwithstanding the words used on the Notice of Cover, on 3 July 2025 the Applicant says that he received another e-mail from the QBCC advising:
[11]
Unfortunately, as the builder did not obtain the policy for the works, the responsibility to pay for it now falls to you, the homeowner.
No evidence [has been] provided that the builder collected the premium fee from you when you entered into the contract. The quote you provided (attached) does not mention QBCC Home Warranty Insurance, nor does it include any amount for the policy premium. It only refers to a manufacturer's warranty on products. Since the contractor did not pay for the policy, the responsibility ultimately lies with you.
Until the policy payment is made, I am unable to approve your claim and proceed with a refund. Alternatively, if you prefer, I can deduct the amount of the payment from your refund amount.
[12]
[20] On 4 July 2025 the Applicant contacted the QBCC, raising the fact of the Notice of Cover, and the wording as now excerpted (above), before contending:
[13]
This document demonstrates that the policy was created and the premium has already been paid. Accordingly, I should not be required to pay the premium again, nor should any amount be deducted from the refund on that basis.
[14]
[21] On 8 July 2025 the QBCC contacted the Applicant by email and in response advised:
[15]
Dear Dimitar
Thank you for your email.
It is confusing when you receive the notice of cover stating that you have been "paid" the premium cost for the deemed policy from the QBCC insurance policy officer. I have further sought clarification from the insurance policy team regarding the premium payment for the deemed policy created and issued to you on 2/7/25 and the below email is what the insurance policy officer states:
....
To issue a Notice of Cover in this instance we make the payment option cash/counter and then we create a tax invoice. This is the only way they can receive the deemed policy. The policy has not been paid for and the owner will need to make payment as outlined in the invoice. Premium amount not collected by Cre8tive Construction Group Pty Ltd (QBCC licence number :15363039 and not paid
[16]
[22] Although not agreeing with the QBCC, and expressly preserving his right to pursue the point as part of QCAT proceedings GAR370-24, on 8 July 2025 the Applicant authorised the QBCC to proceed and deduct the amount of the insurance premium, before remitting the balance of the contract deposit amount.
[23] The Applicant now submits that he is entitled to the benefit of the Notice of Cover and that the QBCC had no authority to deduct the premium amount.
[17]
[24] The QBCC submissions dated 4 August 2025 are 15 pages in length. Most unhelpfully,[1] these do not seek to deal with the key question remaining for the Tribunal's determination, which is whether the QBCC is entitled to deduct the premium amount from the insurable deposit.
[18]
[25] The Applicant is a "consumer" for purposes of s 67WA of the QBCC Act.
[26] Division 4 in Part 5 of the QBCC Act contains the relevant provisions.
[27] Pursuant to s 68A, it is the licensed contractor who is required to pay an insurance premium on behalf the consumer.
[28] In the specific circumstances as they pertain in the Applicant's case, section 68B(2) of the QBCC Act provides that the licensed contractor 'must', on pain of penalty, collect the insurance premium from the Applicant before the first of either the elapse of 10 business days from the day on which the contract was entered into or the date of commencement of the residential construction work.
[29] In accordance with s 68H(1), statutory cover comes into effect when a consumer enters into a contract for residential construction work with a licensed contractor, and s 68H(2) provides that cover under the statutory insurance scheme commences, irrespective of whether an insurance premium has been paid, or a notice of cover has been issued.
[30] Section 68H(4)(a) of the QBCC Act provides that in the event that cover under the statutory insurance scheme comes into force under subsection 68H(1), yet in circumstances in which the insurance premium has not been paid as required under s 68B(2), the QBCC may recover the amount of the premium as a debt from "the consumer required to pay the premium". Accordingly, s 68H(4) is determinative of the point that the QBCC was entitled to require the Applicant to pay the premium amount as a debt owing, before paying the insurable deposit to the Applicant.
[31] In hindsight, it would have been far preferable for the QBCC to not issue the Notice of Cover in the manner that it did on 2 July 2025, without first seeking to explain to the Applicant the requirement raised by s 68H(4)(a) of the QBCC Act. The standard wording used on the face of the Notice of Cover was always apt to cause confusion and consternation given the seemingly contrary approach then taken by the QBCC. So too, Tribunal time and resources have had to be applied in resolution of the issue in circumstances that may well have been obviated had the QBCC taken the simple further step of seeking to point out the operative effect of s 68H(4)(a) to the Applicant.
[19]
[32] The Applicant seeks costs under ss 100-102 of the QCAT Act.
[33] Pursuant to s 100, the presumption is that each party will ordinarily bear their own costs, yet in accordance with s 102, the Applicant here seeks an award of at least his QCAT filing fee,[2] as some recompense of his needing to commence the Application for Review on 24 May 2024 and then doggedly persisting within the administrative review labyrinth until the QBCC managed, eventually, to resile from its original position and arrive at the fresh decision, more than 12 months later, and then in a manner that was essentially consistent with the Applicant's original position.
[34] The Tribunal notes paragraphs [49] and [50] of the QBCC submissions dated 4 August 2025, which are to the effect that the QBCC's view of matters changed only after the QBCC taking internal technical advice from Mr Darren Girling, a senior claims inspector in the employ of the QBCC, which did not transpire until as recently as 29 April 2025. That advice - properly informed by an actual site inspection conducted by Mr Girling - was that the Applicant's claim was for "primary insurable work", and therefore a matter covered by the Home Warranty Scheme.
[35] Had Mr Girling's advice to the same effect been sought by the QBCC far earlier in the piece (conceivably sometime around 21 March 2024, being the date when the QBCC first received the Applicant's application for internal review), then it appears doubtful that the Applicant would have been compelled to commence these review proceedings on 24 May 2024. Seemingly therefore, these proceedings have been caused by reason of the QBCC not sending a technical expert to site soon enough to comprehend the true nature of the claim against the Home Warranty Scheme, before it was refused. The QBCC not taking the logical step of seeking appropriate technical advice until very late in the piece is assessed by the Tribunal under s 102(3) of the QCAT Act as amounting to conduct by the QBCC which is disadvantageous to the Applicant, and as now affording sufficient grounds for the Tribunal to exercise its discretion to order that the QBCC pay the Applicant his QCAT filing fee, in the sum of $379.50.
[20]
(a) The Tribunal affirms the decision under review dated 30 June 2025.
(c) The Queensland Building and Construction Commission is to pay the Applicant his QCAT filing fee ($379.50) within 14 days of the date of these orders.
[21]
[1] Section 21 of the QCAT Act provides that in any proceeding for the review of a reviewable decision, the decision maker "must use his or her best endeavours to help the Tribunal so that it can make its decision on the review".