Canberra builder says his life's work is 'tarnished' over orders to pay home owners almost $25,000

Australia Broadcast Center

5 days ago

A Canberra builder has told the ABC his reputation has been been "tarnished" and he was forced to close his business after ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) findings against him.
The matter relates to a new home build in Throsby in Canberra's north, with the homeowners successfully suing the building company they engaged which belongs to David Ryan.
The builder was known as Wombat Hillton Pty Ltd, trading as David Reid Homes ACT, when the homeowners first engaged the company in 2018 — but the tribunal's report noted the business name had changed in 2020 to David Ryan Homes.
Mr Ryan, who has since retired, said he has "nothing to hide" after a career in which he said he prided himself on "his detail, costings and transparency".
"I can't sell the business now. I've closed the business down. I can't sell it because of this case and the bad name caused by ACAT to my business," Mr Ryan said.
In the proceedings, the burden of proof fell to the homeowners, meaning they had to convince the tribunal of their claims on the balance of probabilities.
The tribunal heard a number of disputes between the homeowners and Mr Ryan's previous building company had surfaced by early 2019.
Those issues prompted the couple to hire an independent building consultant to "assist in the handover" of their new home.
The homeowners had also complained to Access Canberra which investigated the complaints and found that there were "defects associated with the construction of the premises".
That resulted in two rectification orders, with the latter in March 2023 listing a number of defects, including water ingress into bedrooms, the kitchen and an ensuite, faulty door seals, and overdriven roofing screws.
Mr Ryan argued the water was leaking into the home only through cables that were installed by a solar company post-construction.
He asked the tribunal to review the rectification orders but discontinued that action after preparing a program of works which were accepted.
But that's not where the dispute ended.
In mid 2024, the homeowners sued the builder for compensation, costs and damages, "including building consultant and expert report fees".
The applicants claimed they were owed more than $25,000 but "compromised the value of the claim" so it could sit within ACAT's monetary jurisdiction.
Mr Ryan responded by denying the claims and made a counter claim against the homeowners of $15,000 on top of his tribunal filing fees.
He went on to withdraw that counter claim but reiterated his company's "denial of liability".
Mr Ryan submitted to the tribunal that the homeowners paid for a consultant of their own volition and not because they were required to by authorities. The tribunal agreed.
He also argued he had complied with the rectification order and said his program of works was approved by the relevant authorities. He insisted there was no evidence to begin with that supported claims of improper cladding installation.
'There was a small chip ... one tiny scratch which you couldn't see from three metres away," Mr Ryan said.
"And one sheet was put on back-to-front during construction. Two years it sat there facing the street and no one knew about it.
'Somehow, someone picked it up and we replaced that sheet ... it was done.'
But the applicants had submitted that "panels were installed backwards; there was improper fastener placement; bowing or cupping of the panels and that the panels were damaged".
"Although the respondent has attempted some rectification, the applicants alleged ongoing problems caused by the respondent's acts during the attempted rectification," the tribunal member added.
Mr Ryan did not accept those findings.
ACAT has ordered Mr Ryan's building company to pay the homeowners $24,584 which includes rectification costs for damages to cladding.
The amount also covers variations to what was agreed upon, including window, skylight and hot water system positions.
But Mr Ryan argued the clients had not given selections for the placements of many elements and they kept changing their minds.
"If the client doesn't give their selections, we rely on estimates and allowances that we leave during construction," Mr Ryan said.
"During construction, the client changed on changed on changed everything, over and over and over. In fact, we were getting three to four phone calls every day," he said.
"The whole home was changed with the best you could put in it … and the home came to ... 60 or 70 thousand dollars above what we were allowing for."
In their considerations, the tribunal member remarked that "building a home is a costly and often stressful event for clients and builders".
"The builder has a multitude of complex tasks to perform, and the client has a multitude of complex choices to make on fixtures and fittings whilst maintaining their budget.
"Builder and client relationships can become strained or even fail entirely."
The tribunal member said it would be "ideal" if parties could resolve their disputes but acknowledged that in cases such as this, it was not always possible.
The builder has 28 days to pay the amount.