Childs v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2019] QCAT 72

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Childs v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2019] QCAT 72 PARTIES: JONATHAN CHILDS (applicant) v QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: GAR 320-17 MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters DELIVERED ON: 18 March 2019 HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Paratz ORDERS: 1. The application for miscellaneous matters filed on 29 August 2018 by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (to dismiss the Application to Review a Decision made by Jonathan Childs) is dismissed. I Direct That: 2. Jonathan Childs is to file two (2) copies in the Tribunal, and give one (1) copy to the Queensland Building and Construction Commission, of a precise statement of: (a) the items which he says should constitute the Scope of Works for Rectification, and (b) the Orders which he is seeking in the Application to Review a Decision, within 30 days of the date of this decision. 3. The matter is to be set for a Directions Hearing at a time and date to be advised (not before 30 days after the date of this decision). 4. If Jonathan Childs precisely identifies the items which he says should constitute the Scope of Works for Rectification, and the Orders which he is seeking in the Application to Review a Decision, then directions may be given at the Directions -- 1 of 13 -- 2 Hearing as to further submissions and possible amendment of the Application to Review a Decision, and as to further steps in the matter. 5. If Jonathan Childs does not precisely identify the items which he says should constitute the Scope of Works for Rectification, and the Orders which he is seeking in the Application to Review a Decision, as directed, then the Application to Review may be dismissed without further submissions. CATCHWORDS: CONTRACTS – BUILDING ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – THE CONTRACT – STATUTORY WARRANTY FOR RESIDENTIAL WORK – Where a homeowner made a complaint to the Queensland Building and Construction Commission about defects in the construction of a home – where the Queensland Building Construction Commission gave the builder a Direction to Rectify – where the builder failed to rectify the defects as directed – where the Queensland Building and Construction Commission produced a scope of works for rectification of certain items – where the homeowner claims that the scope of works for rectification is not comprehensive – where the Queensland Building and Construction Commission amended the scope of works for rectification to add complaint items – whether a homeowner may review a scope of works for rectification to add additional items of work REPRESENTATION: Applicant: Self-represented Respondent: Self-represented APPEARANCES: This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld). REASONS FOR DECISION [1] Mr Jonathan Childs (‘the homeowner’) filed an Application to Review a Decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (‘the QBCC’) on 31 October 2017. [2] The Application to Review a Decision referred to a decision of the QBCC which was made on 19 September 2017. The decision identified some items that appeared in the building inspection report as not covered under the Queensland Home Warranty Insurance Scheme. -- 2 of 13 -- 3 [3] The QBCC filed an Application for Miscellaneous Matters on 29 August 2018, to dismiss the Application to Review a Decision of the homeowner. [4] Directions were given on 3 September 2018 that the application to dismiss would be determined on the papers after 17 September 2018. The matter was referred for decision on 16 November 2018. [5] This is the decision on the application to dismiss. The decision being reviewed [6] The homeowner entered into a contract on 24 February 2015 with Benix Pty Ltd (‘the builder’) to build a new residential dwelling at 42 Forest Ridge Drive, Bonogin, on the Gold Coast. [7] The homeowner lodged a complaint in relation to the work with the QBCC. [8] The QBCC issued a Direction to Rectify and/or Complete, numbered 0102093, to the builder on 19 May 2017, with respect to 17 items of defective building work undertaken by the builder at the property: 1. The installation of the waste drainage pipe to the bath has not been finished in a manner expectant of a tradesman with a relevant licence. 10. The QBCC finds the finish to the LVL roof bearers of the front and rear decks defective in that there are noticeable defects in the surface of the LVLs this is causing a visual defect in the finish of the bearers. 11. The QBCC finds installation of the guttering above the laundry door defective in that it can become overwhelmed and allow water to escape the stormwater system. 12. The QBCC finds installation of the timber strips under the thresholds of the external doors that meet the decks defective in that the timbers are not fixed in position and are falling out. 13. The QBCC finds the painting to the mouldings on the front deck roof structure defective in that the paint is starved. 14. The QBCC finds the painting to the posts on the front deck structure defective in that the posts are not painted below the deck level. 15. The QBCC requires confirmation the joint is compliant with AS1684 and the private certification/engineered drawings. 16. The QBCC finds the cladding installation defective in that some butt joins have a PVC trim however other joins do not, also there are a number of nails throughout that are protruding from the cladding this is detracting from the finish of the external walls of the dwelling. 17. The QBCC finds the installation of the sarking defective in that it is visible under the gym wall. 2. The QBCC finds installation of the aluminium windows defective in that there are a number of marks on the powder coat finish to the window frames. -- 3 of 13 -- 4 3. The QBCC finds the cavity sliding doors throughout the dwelling are defective in that: the door does not close flush against the doorjamb the screws used in the finger pull protrude out past the door and do not allow the door to close tight against the doorjamb there is no pelmet installed to the head of the door, this leaves a gap at the head of the door 4. The QBCC finds the following walls defective in that they are bowing and out of square outside the Australian Standard. This is resulting in an unsatisfactory finish to: the wall linings. The front wall behind entrance door the feature wall in front of the main entrance door the return walls during the study 5. The QBCC finds the paint application to the powder room door defective in that it has a run. This is detracting from the visual appearance of the door. 6. The QBCC finds the paint application to the powder room door defective in that it has not been top coated. This is detracting from the visual appearance of the door. 7. The QBCC finds installation of the sliding doors x 2 to the garage defective in that they have not been installed correctly. This first resulted in packing being added to the doors to close the gaps. This has not been finished in a matter expectant of a tradesman. 8. The QBCC finds that all the downpipe installation is defective in that they are inadequately fixed to the dwelling. This is not in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. 9. The QBCC finds the decking installation defective in that a minimum 3 mm gap was not evident to all decking boards. The underside of the decking boards was not sealed. Bolts were missing from the bearer/post connections throughout (complaint items and 67 – 173) a number of decking boards appeared to be prematurely degrading. This will lead to premature failing of the decking boards and is not in accordance with AS 1684 and Timber Qld Data Sheet 4. [9] The builder undertook rectification works, but these were incomplete, and a Failure to Rectify notice was issued on 4 July 2017. [10] The homeowner subsequently made a claim under the Queensland Home Warranty Scheme. [11] The QBCC decision of 19 September 2017 identified items that were not covered under the scheme. The advice on the letter as to the items was as follows: -- 4 of 13 -- 5 I am writing about your claim under the Queensland Home Warranty Scheme. I have assessed your claim and some items that appear in your Building Inspection Report have been identified as not covered under the scheme. I have listed these item (s) and reasons below. Items 1, 2, 39, 55, 63, 85, 185 and 220. These items have been rectified by the builder Benix Pty Ltd Items 10, 140, 146, 166. These items are non-structural items that have been notified to the QBCC outside the 7 months from the date of practical completion. [12] The letter of 19 September 2017 went on to advise the process as to the formulation of a scope of works for rectification as follows: We use home warranty specialists Sergon Building Consultants to assess what work is needed, arrange quotes and manage the work on your building site. The details of your claim have been sent to Sergon Building Consultants who will contact you to arrange an inspection of your property. The purpose of this inspection is to allow the consultants to prepare a Scope of Works for the QBCC. The Scope of Works describes the work that needs to be carried out. Sergon will then call for quotations, and licensed contractor(s) will be appointed to carry out the work. You will receive a copy of the Scope of Works once it has been approved by us. [13] The QBCC sent the homeowner an initial Scope of Works dated 8 May 2018. It then sent him a letter dated 27 July 2018 which amended the previous Scope of Works and included additional items as follows: I am writing to let you know that the Scope of Works you received dated 8 May 2018 has been amended by us and now includes items 10, 140, 146 and 166 which were accepted by the QBCC on 22 March 2016. This Scope of Works dated 27 July 2018 supersedes and renders void all previous Scopes of Works issued by the QBCC. I have included the amended Scope of Works needed to fix/finish the building work at your property. Please read the amended scope carefully. If there is anything in the Scope of Work that you disagree with or don’t understand, please contact me to talk about your concerns. Or, you can seek an Internal or External Review of the Scope of Works. Your rights are explained below. Sergon will use the approved Scope of Works which details the necessary building work to get quotes and choose a licensed contractor(s) to carry out the work. [14] On 30 July 2018 the QBCC wrote to the homeowner requesting clarification whether he sought to substitute the Final Scope of Works Decision as the decision under review in GAR320-17, and he responded that he sought to have ‘not only this decision -- 5 of 13 -- 6 reviewed, but the matter as a whole’ because ‘QBCC has not looked at or made any reference to our inspection reports’.1 [15] The Tribunal directed on 9 August 2018 that the homeowner must tell the Tribunal and the QBCC in writing what reviewable decision it is that he was seeking to review. [16] The homeowner filed submissions on 17 August 2018 stating that it was the decision of 27 July 2018 that was the subject of the review application; and that he wished to pursue further defects listed in reports by Jeffrey Hills & Associates (‘JHA’) dated 26 May 2016 and 28 May 2018, and have those rectified under the statutory insurance scheme: 3. The applicant respectfully requests that the Tribunal review the respondent’s decision dated 27 July 2018 in relation to the scope of works to be rectified by the respondent under the applicant’s claim for assistance under the statutory insurance scheme (‘Decision’). Exhibited hereto and marked hereto ‘JC-1” is a true copy of the decision. 4. The decision allows certain defects identified by the respondent at the applicant’s property to be rectified under the statutory insurance scheme, but does not allow a claim for the defects listed in the applicant’s defects reports prepared by Jeffrey Hills and Associates (‘JHA’) dated 26 May 2016 and 28 May 2018 to be rectified under the statutory insurance scheme. [17] The QBCC have proceeded, since 29 August 2018, on the basis that the application is a review of the decision of 27 July 2018, and submitted as follows:2 The review application in GAR 320-17 (‘Review Application”) is a review of a decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (‘QBCC’) dated 27 July 2018 about a scope of works to be undertaken under the statutory insurance scheme to rectify or complete tribunal work (‘Final Scope of Works Decision’) at 42 Forest Ridge Drive, Bonogin, Qld 4213 (‘Property’). This is a reviewable decision pursuant to 86(1)(g) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991(Qld) (‘QBCC Act’). [18] The homeowner had engaged JHA on 10 May 2016 to undertake a defects inspection of the property. On 26 May 2016 JHA produced its first report titled ‘six months defects inspection’. A number of structural and non-structural defects were listed in that report, including (a) defective decking and railing to the upper-level bedroom 4 and study; (b) opening to the ceiling space between bedroom 4 and the study; (c) missing window and door trims/surroundings; (d) defective joints to the cladding above windows; (e) defective timber trims to garage roller doors; 1 QBCC's submissions in support of the application to dismiss the review application, filed 29 August 2018, [20]. 2 QBCC's submissions in support of the application to dismiss the review application, filed 29 August 2018, 1. -- 6 of 13 -- 7 (f) missing joist bolts; and (g) defective expansion joints to laundry/gym concrete slab QBCC submissions [19] The QBCC seeks that the review application be dismissed as:3 (a) The tribunal’s jurisdiction to review the Scope of Works Decision is limited to a consideration of whether the scope of works is reasonable and necessary to rectify the defects subject of the direction to rectify; and (b) A proper characterisation of the review application reveals that the application is actually seeking a review of a decision of the QBCC dated 19 May 2017, not to give Benix Pty Ltd a Direction to Rectify. The applicant is out of time to review the Direction to Rectify decision and has not filed an application to extend time. In any event, the applicant has not indicated that he wishes to review the Direction to Rectify decision. [20] The homeowner was directed by the Tribunal to advise in writing by 17 August 2018 what reviewable decision he was seeking a review of. The QBCC submit that the homeowner’s submissions filed on 17 August 2018 clarify that he is seeking a review of the final Scope of Works decision, on the basis that the QBCC has allegedly failed to consider all the evidence before it, in respect of the number and nature of the defects at the property, when making the Scope Of Works decision.4 [21] The QBCC submits that the amended Scope of Works decision issued on 27 July 2018 was a Final Scope of Works decision, and comprised all complaint items allowed by the QBCC in the Applicant’s claim under the statutory insurance scheme.5 [22] The QBCC submit that when reviewing the scope of works decision, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to a consideration of whether the scope of works is reasonable and necessary to rectify the defects the subject of the direction to rectify. [23] The QBCC submit that although the homeowner seeks a review of the scope of works decision in name, the proper characterisation of the decision sought to be reviewed by the homeowner reveals that he is actually seeking a review of the Decision to Rectify (‘DTR’) decision, and that the proper avenue to do so would have been through a review of the DTR decision:6 40. The applicant does not seek a review of the scope of works decision on the basis that they are not reasonable and necessary to rectify the defects subject of the DTR decision. Instead, he seeks to include, in the scope of works decision, defects which the QBCC had already investigated and decided not to direct on, as set out in the DTR decision. 41. The proper avenue to review the decision not to direct the contractor, in respect of the omitted defects, would have been via a review of the DTR 3 QBCC submissions in support of the application to dismiss the review application, filed 29 August 2018, [2]. 4 Referring to the Applicant’s submissions filed 17 August 2018, [13]. 5 Ibid, [3]. 6 Ibid, [40] and [41]. -- 7 of 13 -- 8 decision. However, the applicant has filed neither an application to review the DTR decision nor an application to extend time to review the DTR decision. [24] The QBCC notes that it would object, in any event, to any application to extend time to review the DTR decision. [25] The QBCC submits that the review is not within Tribunal’s jurisdiction and should be dismissed:7 (a) the applicant’s basis of his review of the scope of works decision is not a proper basis within the limits of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review the scope of works decision; and (b) the review application is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived and should be dismissed. The homeowner’s submissions [26] The homeowner submits in turn that the dismissal application by the QBCC is misconceived and vexatious, and that the matters raised in the dismissal application are not grounds to summarily dismiss the applicant’s application, and are instead matters to be determined at a final hearing of the applicant’s application.8 [27] I will set out the basis of the homeowners submissions in full, rather than paraphrasing them:9 5. The applicant submits that his application raises a serious question to be tried and determined by the Tribunal and the Tribunal does have jurisdiction to hear and determine the applicant’s application. To not unnecessarily repeat matters already filed in the Tribunal, the applicant asks that the tribunal review and consider the submissions filed by the applicant on 17 August 2018 in response to the dismissal application. 6. Further, the respondent erroneously submits in the dismissal application that the applicant is seeking a review of the DTR decision. This is incorrect. The applicant respectfully request that the tribunal review the respondent’s decision dated 27 July 2018 in relation to the scope of works to be rectified by the respondent under the applicant’s claim for assistance under the statutory insurance scheme on the basis that, inter alia, the respondent failed to consider all the evidence before it when making the decision. Please refer to the applicant’s submissions filed 17 August 2018 for more detailed submissions on this point. Discussion [28] At the time when the homeowner lodged his original application to review a decision on 18 December 2017, he was seeking the following outcome:10 7 Ibid, [47]. 8 Applicant's submissions regarding respondent's application filed 29 August 2018, filed 14 September 2018, [3]. 9 Ibid, [5]. 10 Application to review a decision filed 31 October 2017, part C. -- 8 of 13 -- 9 The decision be reviewed to include items 10, 140, 146 and 166 in the claim under the scheme. [29] The amended Scope of Works as set out in the letter from QBCC dated 27 July 2018 is as follows: I am writing to let you know that the Scope of Works you received dated 8 May 2018 has been amended by us and now includes items 10, 140, 146 and 166 which were accepted by the QBCC on 22 March 2016. This Scope of Works dated 27 July 2018 supersedes and renders void all previous Scopes of Works issued by the QBCC. [30] That letter from the QBCC dated 27 July 2018 is confounding, as it refers to items 10, 140, 146 and 166 as having been accepted by the QBCC on 22 March 2016. I have been unable to locate an advice from the QBCC dated 22 March 2016 in the materials. [31] However, the QBCC in its earlier letter of 19 September 2017 clearly stated that those items were excluded as non-structural items that had been notified to the QBCC outside the seven months from the date of practical completion. Those two letters from the QBCC contradict each other. [32] Further, the QBCC in its Statement of Reasons for the decision made on 19 September 2017, stated that the homeowner was not entitled to payment for the items:11 35. The works included the non-structural defects number 10, 140, 146 and 166 that were completed on 10 December 2015. 36. The applicant lodged a complaint on 28 October 2016 including with respect to the non-structural defects number 10, 140, 146 and 166. 37. The complaint was not made within seven (7) months of practical completion and thereby in accordance with clause 4.5 (b) of the Insurance Policy Conditions the applicant is not entitled to payment for the loss. [33] The homeowner refers back to his submissions filed on 17 August 2018 to support his opposition to the application to dismiss. [34] The items that the QBCC have agreed to include, being items 10, 140, 146 and 166, are among items numbered in the complaint made to the QBCC by the homeowner. [35] The homeowner filed a ‘residential and commercial construction work complaint form’ (reference code VV F6ZC)12 . The complaint attached three documents: – o Jeffrey Hills and Associates - six months defects inspection dated 26 May 201613 o Queensland Building Inspections (QBI) report14 11 Statement of reasons 22 December 2017, [36] and [37]. 12 Statement of reasons, 67-74. 13 Ibid, 75 – 86. 14 Ibid, 87-131. -- 9 of 13 -- 10 o Benix construction practical completion report15 [36] The item numbers referred to in the amended scope of works dated 27 July 2018 appear to be the numbers referred to in an initial inspection report prepared by the QBCC dated 7 February 2017.16 That report contained the following description of the complaint numbers:17 The complaint items relate to the alleged defective and incomplete works by the licensee during construction of the dwelling. Benix Pty Ltd lodged a QCAT application BDL096-16 and subsequently the QCAT application was withdrawn and QBCC would conduct a defects inspection. Both parties agreed to be bound by the defects identified (Item 6 QCAT agreement). Any complaint items deemed rectified or outside the QBCC’s jurisdiction have not been included in the report. If a complaint item is a double up of another item or included in another item in the report it will also be omitted from the report. [37] It seems that the homeowner is seeking to go beyond the complaint items referred to in the QBCC report dated 7 February 2017. His submission filed on 17 August 2018 was expressed to be a response to Direction 2 of the directions made by the Tribunal that he must tell the Tribunal and the QBCC in writing, what the reviewable decision is that he is seeking to review. [38] The homeowner submits that the QBCC report prepared by Mr Adams and dated 7 February 2017 (which he refers to as the ‘First QBCC report’) fails to identify a number of structural and non-structural defects which are listed in the Jeffrey Hills and Associates report dated 26 May 2016.18 [39] The homeowner says that Mr Adams attended the property again on 15 May 2017 to conduct a re-inspection to determine what defects listed in the First QBCC report remained unrectified, and on 16 May 2017 produced a report detailing the defects that remained unrectified (which he refers to as the ‘Second QBCC Report’)19 [40] The homeowner says that he was unaware of the contents of the First or Second QBCC report until around September 27:20 36. The applicant did not receive copies of the First QBCC Report or Second QBCC Report until September 2017 when copies of the QBCC reports were shown to the applicant by Sergon Building Consultants, rectification builders for the respondent whom attend the applicant’s property to quote to indicate rectification works listed in the QBCC Reports. 37. It was in or around September 2017 when the respondent made its initial decisions in respect of the applicant’s claim for assistance under the statutory insurance scheme that the applicant became aware that the respondent had failed to take into account any of the defects reports procured by applicant when 15 Ibid, 132-136. 16 Ibid, 173-185. 17 Ibid, 173. 18 Applicant’s submissions regarding decision to be reviewed by the Tribunal, filed 17 August 2018, [31]. 19 Ibid, [33] 20 Applicant's submissions regarding decision to be reviewed by the tribunal filed 17 August 2018, [36] and [37]. -- 10 of 13 -- 11 determining what defects the respondent would allowed to be rectified under the statutory insurance scheme that the First QBCC Report and the Second QBCC Report had failed to report the Omitted Defects. [41] The homeowner then engaged Jeffrey Hills and Associates to prepare a second report on or about 28 May 2018. That second JHA report stated that the QBCC reports did not cover all identified defects:21 The QBCC resolution services re-inspection report for file number 81512 and dated 16-5-2017 by David Adams has not reference (sic) the original six months defects inspection report as undertaken by JHA for this property. There are a number of outstanding issues that require completion and other areas of identified defects have not been covered by this report. [42] In his submissions, the home owner sets out the remedies sought from the Tribunal as follows:22 49. The applicant respectfully requests that the tribunal amend the Decision to include the allowance of the rectification of the Omitted Defects under the statutory insurance scheme, including the replacement of the deck with Merbau timber. 50. Alternatively, the applicant respectfully requests that the Tribunal set aside the decision and return the matter for reconsideration to the respondent with directions that: (a) the respondent conduct a fresh defects inspection and report using a third party building inspector agreed upon by both the applicant and the respondent: (b) the respondent pay the costs of the third party building inspector; (c) the defects identified in the report produced by the third party building inspector form the claim allowed under the statutory insurance scheme; and (d) should the deck be identified as defective by the third-party building inspector, the deck be rectified and replaced with Merbau timber; or (e) in the alternative to paragraph (c) above, should the deck be identified as defective by the third-party building inspector, the deck be rectified and the applicant be allowed to supply the Merbau timber for the deck at the applicant’s own cost. [43] The homeowner is apparently seeking to amend the application filed on 31 October 2017, by substituting paragraphs 49 and 50 quoted above in place of the current description in part C to ‘briefly describe what you want to happen’, which refers only to including items 10, 140, 146 and 166, and is now not in contention. 21 Ibid, [39]. 22 Ibid, [49] and [50]. -- 11 of 13 -- 12 [44] The difficulty with such an amendment is that there is no clear identification in the material as to what the ‘Omitted Defects’ are, and the homeowner does not make it clear what they are in the proposed amendment. [45] The homeowner’s submissions refer only to the First QBCC Report, and says that it fails to identify a number of defects listed in the JHA report, which ‘include’ a list of seven named defects - that suggests that there are other defects which are not included in that list, and which the homeowner wants to be considered in the proceedings:23 31. The First QBCC Report fails to identify a number of structural and non— structural defects which are listed in the JHA report (which were required to be included in the list of defects pursuant to the Agreement as the defects identified in the JHA report are defects which were identified during the defects liability period pursuant to paragraph 26 (b) above) and include: a) defective decking and railing to the upper level bedroom 4 and study: b) opening to the ceiling space between bedroom 4 and the study: c) missing window and door trims/surroundings; d) defective joints to the cladding above windows; e) defective timber trims to garage roller doors; f) missing joist bolts; and g) defective expansion joints to laundry/gym concrete slab (“Omitted Defects”) [46] It is puzzling how this matter has progressed this far, with a plethora of reports obtained by both the homeowner and the QBCC, but with no evident single list of defects being produced. [47] It is also puzzling as to how the QBCC could add complaint items, and issue the amended Scope of Works on 27 July 2018 – but then bring this application, and submit that the homeowners should not also be able to add complaint items to the Scope of Works. Either items can be validly added to a Scope of Works following the issue of a Direction to Rectify which is not complied with, or they cannot. [48] The result is that the QBCC is saying that adding items is a valid exercise in consideration of the Scope of Works when proposed by itself; but is not a valid exercise when proposed by the homeowner. [49] It is not enough for the homeowner however, to just put forward a bundle of reports and say that somewhere within them there are defects that have not been considered. It should not be the task of the Tribunal, or the QBCC, to trawl through the various reports provided by the homeowner to try and draw out what the alleged defects are. [50] It should be a straightforward matter for the homeowner to make a numbered list of items that he wishes to constitute the Scope of Works. 23 Ibid, [31]. -- 12 of 13 -- 13 [51] It is understandable why the QBCC would be frustrated and seek to strike out the application in light of the confused position of the homeowner. [52] The homeowner needs to make a clear statement as to what he contends the Scope of Works should comprise. [53] I am not convinced that the submission of the QBCC that the applicant, by seeking to add items, is actually seeking a review of the Direction to Rectify, is correct – particularly in light of the QBCC’s own actions in amending the Scope of Works by adding items itself. [54] The matter is confused, and should proceed, at least to a point of clarification of the situation, but it is necessary that the homeowner make a precise claim. [55] If the homeowner cannot make a precise claim, then there is nothing left in the original application, as items 10, 140, 146 and 166 have now been included in the Scope of Works, and the Application to Review should be dismissed as being misconceived. [56] I will not dismiss the Application to Review a Decision at this stage, and will dismiss the Miscellaneous Application filed by the QBCC to do so; but will direct that the homeowner file a precise statement as to the items he says should constitute the Scope of Works for rectification, and the Orders which he is seeking, within 30 days. [57] If the homeowner precisely identifies the items he says should constitute the Scope of Works for rectification, and the Orders which he is seeking, the matter is then to proceed to a Directions Hearing, and Directions can then be given as to further submissions and possible amendment of the Application to Review a Decision, and as to further steps in the matter. [58] If the homeowner does not precisely identify the items he says should constitute the Scope of Works for rectification, and the Orders which he is seeking, as directed, then the Application to Review a Decision may be dismissed without further submissions. -- 13 of 13 --