Defective Shower Base: Who Pays and Who Decides
A homeowner paid $9,400 for a bathroom renovation completed 14 months ago. Water is now leaking through the shower base into the ceiling below. The plumber who did the waterproofing and screed says the leak is the tiler's fault for puncturing the membrane; the tiler says the plumber's fall to the waste was wrong so water pools. The homeowner has paid a separate inspector $650, who reports the fall is inadequate AND there is a screw through the membrane. Both trades refuse to return. The plumber holds a current licence; the tiler is unregistered. The homeowner wants someone to 'make a ruling' and recover her costs.
1. Explain the dispute resolution options available and which is best suited to this facts pattern.
Read the worked answer
There are three realistic routes. First, direct negotiation and a written rectification demand to both trades, setting out the inspector's findings and a deadline. Second, the regulator: it can investigate the licensed plumber's work and take disciplinary action, but it generally does not award the homeowner compensation - it polices the licence, not the money. Third, the civil and administrative tribunal, which can hear building and plumbing disputes, apportion fault between parties, and order rectification or payment.
On these facts, the tribunal is the best fit because fault is contested and split: the report identifies both an inadequate fall (plumber) and a punctured membrane (tiler). The tribunal can join both parties and allocate responsibility. The regulator is a useful parallel step for the plumber's licence, but it will not resolve the money.
The $650 report is the key evidence and should be served on both trades early.
2. The homeowner asks whether she can simply withhold payment from a future job with the same plumber. Advise her.
Read the worked answer
She should be careful. Withholding payment on an unrelated future contract is not a lawful remedy for a past defect unless the contract allows it; it can expose her to a debt claim and weaken her position. The correct approach is to pursue the defect through the tribunal or a negotiated settlement, with the inspector's report as evidence.
If she engages the plumber again, she should insist on a written contract that includes a defects liability period and a clear rectification clause. She should not use 'I'll deduct it from the next job' as leverage - that muddies the record.
Advice point: remedies must match the contract and the forum. A tribunal order or a written settlement is enforceable; unilateral deduction is not.