Practitioner
Surname
Fitzgerald
Practitioner's
First Name
Peter
Registration
Austin
John
BS-U 1116
Juric
Daniel
BS-U 31016
DB-U 3651
Project Site Suburb
Allegation Summary
Canterbury
Peter Fitzgerald - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation concerning the construction of a residential dwelling in Canterbury. The
practitioner was found to have failed to have performed his work in a competent manner and to a professional standard in contravention of regulation 1502(a) of the
Building Regulations 2006 in that he had undertaken excavation work that encroached onto a neighbouring property, thereby undermining its footings.
10/11/2016 Cancel Registration & Costs $3865.00
Warragul and Drouin
John Austin - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 4 allegations. Three allegations related to the practitioner issuing a building permit in
respect of a site in Drouin. The endorsed plans showed that the retaining walls were to be constructed over an easement, however, the report and consent of the
relevant authority as required by regulation 310(1) of the Building Regulations 2006 ('Regulations') had not been obtained. The building permit application also did not
show sufficient information in relation to the construction of the retaining walls and the contract price specified in the application was substantially lower than that which
was normally payable. The Board also found the practitioner guilty of one allegation relating to a site in Warragul. The practitioner was found to have contravened
section 24(1) of the Building Act 1993 ('Act') in that he had issued a building permit in circumstances where he could not have been satisfied that the building work
would comply with the Act and Regulations in that the approved plans did not show the layout of the stormwater drains to the point of discharge as required by
Regulation 302 of the Building Regulations.
26/10/2016 Reprimand, Fine $2500 & Costs $3033.50
Gisborne, Clifton Springs and
Attwood
Daniel Juric - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 5 allegations in respect of 3 sites. The practitioner was found to have contravened section
Determination Board Decision
Date
16/11/2016 Reprimand & Costs $2077.50
24(1) of the Building Act 1993 ('Act') on two occasions in that he had issued building permits, when he could not have been satisfied that the required report and
consent of the authority had been obtained. The Board also found that the practitioner had twice failed to lodge building permit documentation with Council within 7
Thomson
Ross
BS-U 1290
26/10/2016 Reprimand, Fine $3000 & Costs $4287
Ringwood
McDonald
Andrew
CB-L 32110
25/10/2016 Reprimand, Fine $5000 & Costs $1914
Brighton East
Chadwick
Reginald
BD-M 1065
20/10/2016
Brighton
days in contravention of section 30(1) of the Act and that he had failed to notify Council within 7 days of his appointment in contravention of section 80 of the Act.
Ross Thomson - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation in relation to a site in Ringwood. The practitioner had issued two building
permits for the construction of a residential dwelling. The plans that accompanied the building permit application did not comply with the Council's planning scheme
setback requirements and regulation 414 of the Building Regulations 2006. As such, the report and consent of the Council was required prior issuing the building
permits. The practitioner had failed to obtain the report and consent of Council prior to issuing the building permits and was therefore found to have contravened
section 24(1) of the Building Act 1993.
Andrew McDonald - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation with respect to a site in Brighton East. The practitioner is a director of
a company that was engaged to carry out the construction of two townhouses. The Board found that the practitioner had contravened section 16(1) of the Building Act
1993 in that some of the building work performed by the company was not in accordance with the approved plans and specifications forming part of the building permit.
Shaw
Michael
BS-U 1165
20/10/2016 Reprimand, Fine $5320.74 & Costs $3861
McKinnon and Malvern East
Reginald Chadwick - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations in relation to a site in Brighton. The practitioner was responsible for
the demolition of an existing dwelling, swimming pool, sheds and retaining walls and a building permit had been issued for these works. The practitioner had also
carried out the demolition of a masonry boundary wall and brick storeroom, for which no building permit had been issued. Accordingly, he was found to have
undertaken building works without a permit in contravention of section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993. He was also found to have breached regulation 317(2) of the
Building Regulations 2006 as although the building permit information was displayed on the site, it was not accessible to the public and it was obscured by foliage.
Michael Shaw – The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 4 allegations in respect of two sites. In relation to the Malvern East site, the practitioner
was found to have failed to perform his work in a competent manner and to a professional standard in contravention of regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations
2006 on three occasions in that he had issued a building permit which incorrectly classified the building, he failed to rectify this error when he had opportunities to do so
and he failed to consider the Building Code of Australia requirements for fire safety when issuing the permit. The practitioner was also found to have contravened
section 30(1) of the Building Act 1993 in relation to a site in McKinnon in that he failed to lodge the building permit documentation with Council within 7 days of issuing
the permit.
Lotauro
John
EC- 2075
Reprimand, Suspension of Registration for
18/10/2016 three (3) months, Fine $9327.60 & Costs
$1483.50
Brunswick
John Lotauro - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations concerning a site in Brunswick. The practitioner is an engineer who
inspected and issued certificates of compliance in respect of the concrete slab and structural framework, even though the work was non-compliant. The practitioner
was therefore found to have failed to perform his work in a competent manner and to a professional standard in contravention of regulation 1502(a) of the Building
Regulations 2006.
Sorrento and Prahran
Marshall Hill - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations. The first allegation related to a site in Prahan. The practitioner's company
had been engaged to undertake renovations to a residential dwelling. Seven years later, it became apparent that there were defects in the building work, when the
property was severely damaged during a storm. The practitioner was found to have contravened section 45 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 in that he
failed to rectify these defects pursuant to the recommendations contained in an inspector's report. The second allegation concerned a site in Sorrento, where the
practitioner had been engaged to carry out alterations to a residential dwelling. The practitioner’s company had carried out excavation work to the site prior to a building
permit being issued and as such, the practitioner was found to have contravened section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993.
Fine $2000 & Costs 2968.50
Hill
Marshall
DB-U 9006
18/10/2016
Reprimand, Fine $2954.24, Costs $1200 &
Cert IV in Building & Construction
D'Aquila
Frank
BS-U 24084
18/10/2016 Reprimand, Fine $3418.92 & Costs $1778.57 Brunswick East
Frank D'Aquila - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of five allegations relating to a site in Brunswick East. The practitioner had been appointed
as the relevant building surveyor for the construction of a medical centre at the site. He was found to have breached regulation 314(2) of the Building Regulations 2006
on three occasions, in that he failed to provide the site owners with copies of the building permit within seven days. The practitioner had issued a building permit when
an appeal was pending in relation to a protection works determination he had made and which did not include documentation that demonstrated how the remaining
portion of the brick wall would comply with the Building Act 1993 and Building Regulations 2006 as required by regulation 304(1)(c) of the Building Regulations 2006.
The practitioner was therefore found to have also breached section 24(1) of the Building Act 1993 and regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006.
Rule
Christopher
DB-U 31807
18/10/2016 Reprimand, Fine $3504.60 & Costs $1386.00 Kyneton
Christopher Rule - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation in respect of a site in Kyneton. The practitioner is a domestic builder
and had been engaged to construct a residential dwelling at the site. During the course of carrying out building works at the site, the practitioner had installed a
combustion heater, which under the Building Act 1993, constitutes plumbing work. The practitioner was therefore found to have carried out plumbing work when not
registered to do so in contravention of section 221D(1) of the Building Act 1993.
Di Raco
Rocco
BS-U 14813
18/10/2016 Reprimand, Fine $6,000 & Costs $2820.00
Caulfield East
Rocco Di Raco - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two contraventions of regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in relation to
two sites. The findings included that he had issued an occupancy permit when he had not inspected the building works and that he had failed to issue a building notice
under section 106 of the Building Act 1993 when building work had been carried out that was not in accordance with the building permit.
Van Huizen
Dean
CB-U 7135
27/09/2016 Fine $2331.90 & Costs $866.75
Dandenong South
Dean Van Huizen - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation in relation to a site at Dandenong South. The practitioner is a director
of a company that was engaged to undertake building works at the site. The company had engaged two agents to carry out the boring of piers, site clearing, site
levelling and preparation of footings. The agents had carried out this work prior to a building permit being issued. The practitioner was therefore found to have
contravened section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993.
Pettenuzzo
Mark
DB-U 22067
27/09/2016 Fine $2331.90 & Costs $866.75
Dandenong South
Mark Pettenuzzo - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation in relation to a site at Dandenong South. The practitioner is a director
of a company that was engaged to undertake building works at the site. The company had engaged two agents to carry out the boring of piers, site clearing, site
levelling and preparation of footings. The agents had carried out this work prior to a building permit being issued. The practitioner was therefore found to have
contravened section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993.
McGregor
Hamish
DB-U 37420
26/09/2016
Soldiers Hill
Hamish McGregor - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations in relation to a site in Soldiers Hill. The practitioner had entered into
a major domestic building contract that was not in writing and did not comply with the requirements of section 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995. The
practitioner had also carried out work under that contract, when he was not covered by the required warranty insurance, contrary to section 136(2) of the Building Act
1993.
Maginnity
Brian
DB-U 7829
26/09/2016 Fine $7,773 & Costs $1,484
West Wodonga
Brian Maginnity - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations concerning a site in West Wodonga. Both allegations related to the
practitioner carrying out domestic building work when he was not covered by the required warranty insurance.
CB-U 2576;
DBL-1347
Reprimanded, Fine $9,383.40, Costs
26/09/2016
$3,057.00 & Course of Training
Highton
Stephen Hope-Johnstone - - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of six allegations in relation to a site in Highton. The findings included that the
practitioner had entered into a non-complying major domestic building contract for the construction of a shed on the site, when he was not registered, thereby
breaching sections 29 and 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act. The practitioner was also found to have contravened sections 16(1), 136(2) and 176(2A) of
the Building Act 1993 in that he carried out building work when he was not registered and not covered by the required warranty insurance and a building permit had not
been issued.
Hope-Johnstone Stephen
Reprimand, Fine $8,000, Costs $3,499 &
Course of Training
Reprimand, Fine $3609.00, Practitioner
26/09/2016
Undertaking & Costs $1885.60
Zaya Zaya - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner of two allegations in relation to a site in Albion. The practitioner is the director of a company, which
had been engaged to carry out underpinning works at the site. The practitioner was found to have contravened section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993 and regulation
1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he had carried out the building work prior to a building permit being issued and when he was aware that the adjoining
owner had not agreed to protection works.
Zaya
Zaya
DB-L 23647
Rothman
Saul
DB-L 29091
31/08/2016 Reprimand, fine $12,000, costs $968 and to St Kilda East
undertake and complete the contracts and
legal obligation modules of the certificate IV in
Building & Construction.
Saul Rothman - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of four allegations in relation to the renovations to an existing dwelling at St Kilda East.
The practitioner had not obtained a building permit for the work in breach of s16(1) of the Building Act 1993, not obtained domestic building insurance in breach of
s136(2) of the Building Act, not entered into a compliant major domestic building contract as required by s31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995, and
demanded and received deposits in excess of 5% of the contract value in breach of s11(1)(a) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
Uren
Jeffrey
BS-U 1069
30/08/2016 Reprimand, Suspend registrations for 6
Kew, Elsternwick and Fitzroy
months, Fine $4,974.72 and Costs $1,648.50.
Jeffrey Uren - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of four allegations in relation to alterations and additions to existing dwellings at Kew and
Fitzroy sites and also demolition at the Elsternwick site. For the Kew site the Board found the practitioner had failed to comply with s24(1)(a) of the Building Act in not
being satisfied the building work would comply with the Building Regulations in that the approved drawings showed raised terraces and did not show how it would
comply with overlooking provisions at Reg 419 of the Building Regulations. For the Elsternwick site, the Board found the practitioner had breached s24(1)(c) of the
Building Act for not being satisfied that a planning permit required for the demolition of the dwelling and outbuildings at the site had been obtained. For the Fitzroy site,
the Board also found the practitioner had breached s80 and s30 of the Building Act for failing to notify the council of the practitioners appointment as the relevant
building surveyor and provide the council building permit, plans and associated documents within the required 7 days respectively.
Franklin
Robert
DB-U 31756
26/08/2016 Reprimand, fine $9383.40 and costs $2827
Robert Franklin - The practitioner was found guilty of one allegation pertaining to the construction of an extension to an existing dwelling at Aspendale. The practitioner
had failed to perform work as a building practitioner in a competent manner and to a professional standard and therefore failed to comply with regulation 1502(a) of the
Building Regulations 2006 by failing to competently supervise and control the building work carried out. Items of concern included poor installation of of the foam
cladding, the render to the foam cladding not installed due to incomplete and out of sequence work leaving the dwelling exposed to water ingress and damage, large
amount of rubbish left on site and building materials left on the roof causing damage to existing concrete tiled roof.
Onley
Peter
DB-U 1968
22/08/2016 Costs of $900 and suspend registration
U 1968) for 12 months
Psaila
Justin
DB-M 31054
15/08/2016 Fine $4,352.88, Costs $2,937 and
Disqualification for 18 months
Caroline Springs
Al Badry
Sati
EC 39854
10/08/2016 Reprimand, Fine $10,882.20, Cancel
registration, Disqualification for 3 years and
Costs $1,452
Various Sites
Lawrence
Craig
DB-U 10519
Reardon
James
BS-U 17998
Reardon
James
Daher
Albion
Aspendale
(DB- Macleod, Beaumaris and
Trafalgar
1/08/2016 Fine $500 and Costs $825
Peter Onley - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of five allegations in respect of construction of new dwellings at Macleod, Beaumaris and
Trafalgar. The Board found the practitioner had failed to complete the work by the end of the building period or at all in relation to the Macleod and the Trafalgar sites.
The practitioner was found to have failed to have perform his work as a building surveyor in a competent manner and to a professional stand in contravention of
regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he demanded or received payments not related to the progress of the building work yet to be completed in
relation to the Beaumaris and Trafalgar sites.
Justin Psaila – The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of four allegations in relation to a site in Caroline Springs. The practitioner was found to
have contravened section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993 in that he carried out building work that was contrary to the approved plans and therefore did not comply with
the building permit and moreover, included items that were not in accordance with the Building Act 1993 and the Building Regulations 2006 . The practitioner was also
found to have incurred three breaches of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 in that on two occasions he demanded a progress payment for work that was not
yet complete and further, he had given effect to a contract variation without obtaining the signed consent of the owner.
Sati Al Badry – The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation in having provided false or misleading information to a body carrying out
functions under the Building Act 1993 in contravention of section 246 of the Act. In completing an application for registration as a domestic builder unlimited in Victoria,
the practitioner falsely stated that he was employed as a site supervisor by a company and nominated four sites at which he had worked. It was subsequently
confirmed that the practitioner was not employed by the company and had had no involvement in the projects he had nominated.
Moe
Craig Lawrence – The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation in respect of a residential site at Moe. The practitioner was found to
have breached section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993 in that he had constructed an additional veranda at the rear of the property over a spa and safety barrier without
obtaining a building permit that was not part of the original building permit. The practitioner gave evidence that he had received advice that the building works were
exempted by Schedule 8 of the Building Regulations 2006 . Ultimately, the Board was satisfied that the building works were not exempted and that a building permit
was not in place at the time of construction.
27/07/2016 Fine $6,062.94 and Costs $1538.50
Greenvale
James Reardon – The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of three allegations concerning the construction of a dependant persons unit in
Greenvale. The practitioner was found to have failed to have perform his work as a building surveyor in a competent manner and to a professional stand in
contravention of regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to ensure the cost of the building work reflected the amendments to the building
design and failed to issue a building permit form 2 for the significant variation, namely the weatherboard clad structure on stumps to a brick veneer building on concrete
slab footing. The practitioner also failed to comply with s24(1)(b) of the Building Act upon issuing an amended building permit and not being satisfied that the consent
and report of the reporting authority had been obtained for the front entry porch construction over an easement.
BS-U 17998
27/07/2016 Fine $2,953.74 and Costs $347.63
Thornbury
James Reardon – The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation concerning a site in Thornbury. The practitioner was found to have
failed to have perform his work as a building surveyor in a competent manner and to a professional stand in contravention of regulation 1502(a) of the Building
Regulations 2006 . The practitioner had issued a building permit for stage 1 building works only. He subsequently received an application for an occupancy permit,
despite the fact that he had not yet issued the stage 2 building permit and it was not until 11 months later that the practitioner issued a building notice in respect of noncompliant building work. Accordingly, the Board found that the practitioner had failed to inspect the unauthorised building work and take necessary enforcement action
within a reasonable time.
Danny
DB-U 9585
27/07/2016 Cancel registration, Disqualification for 3 years Bentleigh, Brunswick, Caulfield,
and Costs $2937
Coburg and Oakleigh.
Pham
Hong
BS-L 39332
27/07/2016 Reprimand and Costs $1318.50
St Albans
Ridolfi
Domenic
DP-AD 249
19/07/2016 Fine $500 and Costs $2,967
Ringwood
Clonan
Sean
DB-U 17527
15/07/2016 Reprimand, Fine $8,500 and Costs $2,967.00 Safety Beach
Carvill
Jason
BS-U 1026
13/07/2016 Reprimand, Fine $2331.90, Costs $568.99
Toomey
Ritchie
DB-M 30982
6/07/2016 Costs $853.50
Danny Daher – The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 34 allegations in total in relation to 5 properties. The building practitioner had been
engaged to undertake domestic building projects by the homeowners. He was found to have failed to perform his work in a competent manner and to a professional
standard on 25 occasions, in contravention of regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 . 19 of those breaches related to the practitioner demanding
progress payments from the homeowners for work that had not been completed, 3 breaches related to defective work and 3 breaches concerned variations to the
contract in the absence of the homeowners’ consent. The Board also found the practitioner guilty of 4 contraventions of section 16 of the Building Act 1993 in that he
failed to perform work in accordance with the building permit and 1 contravention of section 136(2) in that he carried out building work without the required insurance.
The remaining 3 allegations concerned the practor and provide the council building permit, plans and associated documents within the required 7 days respectively.
ischarge as required by Regulation 302 of the Building Regulations. r. mit.sued by him; issued 2 occupancy permits which incorrectly classified the building work;
failed within 7 days of issuing a certif
Hong Pham – The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations in respect of a site in St Albans. The Board found that the practitioner had
failed to carry out her work as a building surveyor in a competent manner and to a professional standard on two occasions, in contravention of regulation 1502(a) of the
Building Regulations 2006 as she had issued a Certificate of Final Inspection when the work relating to the carport which did not comply with the building permit and
Australian Standards (AS 1684). Also upon subsequently becoming aware that the building work was non-compliant, she failed to take appropriate enforcement action.
Domenic Ridolfi – The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation in relation to a site in Ringwood. The Board found that he had failed to
perform his work in a competent manner and to a professional standard in contravention of regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to
ensure that architectural drawings prepared by him complied with the council planning scheme’s set back requirements and Regulation 414 of the Building Regulations
2006.
Sean Clonan - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of four allegations concerning the construction of a residential dwelling at Safety Beach.
The Board held that there were two contraventions of section 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 (Vic). The first was that the practitioner carried out work on the
construction of the internal garage door seal and first floor stairs that did not comply with the Building Code of Australia and was therefore defective. Secondly, the
practitioner was found to have breached section 1502(a) on the basis that he understated the construction price when obtaining warranty insurance and therefore did
not obtain adequate insurance. The practitioner was also held to have breached section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993 (Vic) in that he carried out construction of a
veranda before a permit was issued and section 246 in that he understated the construction price to the building surveyor, thereby providing false and misleading
information.
Preston
Jason Carvill - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation in relation to a site in Preston. The practitioner issued a building permit in
respect of the construction of an apartment complex. It was found that the practitioner failed to comply with section 24(1)(a) of the Building Act 1993 (Vic) in that he
issued a building permit when he could not have been satisfied that the building work would comply with the Act and Building Regulations 2006 (Vic). This was
because the plans that formed the basis for the permit did not make adequate provision for disabled access as required by the Building Code of Australia (BCA).
Moreover, the permit did not adequately justify its application of the 2009 edition of the BCA in lieu of the 2011 edition as required by section 10 of the Act.
Pentland Hills and Woodend
Ritchie Toomey - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of three allegations in respect of two sites. Two of the allegations concerned the
construction of a residential dwelling in Pentland Hills and one allegation concerned the construction of a residential dwelling in Woodend. In both cases, the
practitioner was the director of a company which had been contractually engaged to complete the work. In relation to the Pentland Hills site, he was found to have
contravened section 1502(a) of the Building Act 1993 (Vic) on two occasions as a result of the company making claims for payment for the frame stage and the lockup stage respectively, contrary to the terms of the contract. In relation to the Woodend site, the practitioner was also found to have contravened section 1502(a) of the
Building Act 1993 (Vic) as a result of the company making a claim for payment for the frame stage, before the frame had been approved.
Bucay
Robert
BD-L 28898
17/06/2016 Fine $1,000 and Costs $1,483.50.
Reservoir
Hogan
Kevin
DB-U 37057
17/06/2016 Reprimand, Fine $5,500 and Costs $1,574.00 Warragul/Drouin
Kevin Hogan – The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of five allegations in total. Two allegations concerned a site in Drouin and the balance
related to a site in Warragul. In relation to the Drouin site, the practitioner had constructed a retaining wall that ran diagonally across the full width of the easement and
accordingly, not only did the work fail to comply with the building permit, but it was also found to be defective. The practitioner was therefore held to have contravened
section 16 of the Building Act 1993 and regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006. In relation to the Warragul site, a building permit had been issued. The
building work undertaken by the practitioner manifested significant and numerous discrepancies with what was provided for in the permit and this constituted a
contravention of section 16 of the Act. The practitioner had further contravened section 16 in that he had constructed a stormwater drainage system which had not
been approved by the building surveyor and therefore, it did not comply with regulation 610(1) of the Regulations. Moreover, issues in relation to the construction of the
garage step, driveway slab and stormwater drainage systems evidenced defects which resulted in a further finding that the practitioner had failed to carry out his work
in a competent manner and to a professional standard in accordance with regulation 1502(a) of the Regulations
Curtain
Matthew
BS-U 1590
15/06/2016 Costs $1,468
Matthew Curtain – The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations in respect of two sites in Yallourn North. The practitioner had received
applications for building permits for each site, which did not contain sufficient information so as to satisfy the requirements of regulation 301 of the Building Regulations
2006. The practitioner had issued building permits nonetheless and as a result, it was held that he had failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to a
professional standard in accordance with regulation 1502(a) of the Regulations.
Molinaro
Dino
BS-U 14142
Raikes
Kenneth
DB-U 2108
&CB-L 43089
Simmie
Andrew
DB-U 5097
27/05/2016 Reprimand, Fine $9,000, Costs $1483.50 and Shepparton
Undertaking. The Panel require the
practitioner too complete course subjects
'Apply Legal Requirements to Building and
Construction Contracts' and 'Select and
Prepare a Construction Contract' and to
provide a certificate of attainment before any
application is made to become re-registered.
Andrew Simmie - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of three allegations in respect of a site in Shepparton. The practitioner was found to have
incurred three breaches of section 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 by failing to perform his work in a competent manner and to a professional standard. The
first breach related to his failure to adequately control, manage or supervise a delegate he had engaged to carry out works on the site, who was not authorised under
the Act to carry out such works. The practitioner had also allowed the delegate to enter into a major domestic contract which did not comply with the requirements of
section 31(1)(e) and (f) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 and this constituted the second breach. The third breach arose as a result of the delegate
demanding and receiving a deposit pursuant to the contract, which exceeded the amount that was permitted under section 11(1)(a) of the Domestic Building Contracts
Act 1995.
Van Heuzen
Michael
DB-L 1691
27/05/2016 Fine $4500, Costs $741.75 and Undertaking. Clayton South
The Panel require the practitioner to complete
course subjects 'Apply Legal Requirements to
Building and Construction Contracts' and
'Select and Prepare a Construction Contract'
by 31 January 2017 and to provide a
Certificate of Attainment to the Board and to
provide the BPB Registrar with a Building
Contract by 27 August 2016.
Michael Van Heuzen - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations arising from a quotation he had provided for building works at a
site in Clayton South. The practitioner’s written quotation for the work exceeded $5000, and accordingly, the agreement constituted a ‘major domestic building contract’.
The practitioner was found to have contravened section 179(1)(fc) of the Building Act 1993 by failing to comply with the requirements for major domestic building
contracts as stipulated in section 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act (1995). The practitioner had also subsequently applied for a building permit, in which he
falsely stated that the cost of the respective works was $4960.This constituted a breach of section 246 of the Building Act 1993 as the practitioner had knowingly
provided false information to the building surveyor.
Calabro
Alessandro
BS-L 34767
27/05/2016 Reprimand and Costs $1409
Alessandro Calabro - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation concerning a site in Keilor. The practitioner had issued a building
permit in respect of the construction of a residential dwelling including a garage, pool barrier, pool and retaining walls. It was held that the practitioner had breached
regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 by failing to require that protection work be undertaken at the property adjoining the site, which had ultimately been
impacted by the building works.
Vuu
Chi
DB-U 10279
& CB-U 5541.
19/05/2016 Reprimand, fine $12,890, Costs $2,967 &
Maribyrnong
undertaking. The Panel required the
Practitioner not to enter into any Domestic
Building Contracts until the 3 required Course
Modules in contracts and legal obligations are
successfully completed by 1 January 2017.
Chi Vuu - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in respect of one site in Maribyrnong. The findings included that the practitioner
failed to comply with section 25A(3) of the Building Act 1993 in that the practitioner failed to give the relevant building surveyor written notice of the engagement of the
Company to carry out building work and details of the required insurance. The Practitioner was found to have breached section 136(2) of the Building Act 1993 by
carrying out, managing or arranging domestic building work under a major domestic building contract without the required insurance. The Company had also entered
into a major domestic building contract for building work which did not include information required by section 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995, and,
as a director of the Company and registered building practitioner responsible, the Practitioner is responsible for this failure.
Spence
Garry
BS-U 1238
17/05/2016 Fine $5000, Costs $2637
Echuca
Garry Spence - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in respect of one site in Echuca. The practitioner had failed to comply with
section 24(1)(a) of the Building Act 1993 in that he issued a issued a building permit in circumstances where the practitioner could have been satisfied that the building
work would comply with regulations 302(1)(c) & 302(2)(c) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that the practitioner issued a building permit for the demolition of an
existing building in circumstances where the site plan did not identify locations or distances of adjoining properties.
Fogarty
Russell
BS-U 1245
Healesville
Russell Fogarty - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in respect of one site in Healesville. In breach of regulation 1502(a) of the
building regulations, the practitioner failed carry out work in a competent manner and to a professional standard in that he issued a building permit in circumstances
where the building work required a planning permit, and no planning permit had been obtained for the erection of the dwelling.
Cassar
Paul
BS-U 22903
Mattiske
Simon
BS-L 37806
Torkkola
Yrjo
CB-U 1042 &
DB-U 4013
22/04/2016 Costs $500
Chiorny
Yuri
DB-M 30997
& 36600
Lam
Wei Min
CB-U 16725
& DB-U
11842
1/04/2016 Reprimand, Fine $13,650.30, Costs $8674.00 Caulfield South
& Completion of three specified course
modules including supervising building works
and occupational health and safety in the
building and construction workplace by
30/06/2017
31/03/2016 Reprimand, Fine $6000, Costs $1707 &
Noble Park
Completion of three specified course modules
including applying to structural principles to
commercial low rise construction by 30/9/16
Yallourn North
6/06/2016 Reprimand, Fine $1000, Costs $1318.50 and Tullamarine
Undertaking. The Panel required the
practitioner to complete a course of study
(BSB ADM 505 - Plan & Administrative
Systems or equivalent) and provide a
certificate of attainment to the Board no later
than 30 June 2017.
1/06/2016 Reprimand, Fine $2,200, Costs $2,852 and
Wy Yung
Undertaking. The Panel require the
practitioner to complete the Building
Designers Association of Victoria workshop.
6/05/2016 Reprimand and Costs $1540
Keilor
29/04/2016 Reprimand, Fine $4548.30, Costs $1663.50, Craigieburn
completion of Course of Training and
provision of Certificate of Attainment from the
AIBS for a total of 30 hours/points by 1 May
2017
28/04/2016 Reprimand, Fine $3000 & Costs $2000
Mount Waverley
South Melbourne
Robert Bucay – The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation in relation to the demolition of a garage and rear wall at a site in
Reservoir. Although the practitioner had applied for a building permit prior to commencing the building work, one had not in fact been issued when the demolition work
was performed. The practitioner had therefore contravened section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993 by carrying out building work without a building permit.
Dino Molinaro – The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations in respect of a building permit he had issued for a site in Tullamarine.
The practitioner had failed to make proper enquiries in relation to the estimated cost of the building works prior to lodging the building permit with the Council.
Accordingly, the practitioner was deemed to have failed to carry out his work in competent manner and to a professional standard, thereby contravening section
1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006. The practitioner was further found to have contravened section 30(1A) of the Building Act 1993 by failing to provide the
Council with a copy of the Fire Engineering Report upon which he sought to rely within 7 days of issuing the building permit.
Kenneth Raikes - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation in relation to the construction of a prefabricated residential dwelling that
was to be situated at a site in Wy Yung. The practitioner was found to have breached section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993 by commencing building works prior to the
issuing of a building permit, notwithstanding that the construction had taken place off-site, at the practitioner’s company’s workshop.
Paul Cassar - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to one site in Craigieburn. The practitioner had failed to comply
with section 24(1)(a) of the Building Act 1993 in that he issued a issued a building permit in circumstances where the practitioner could have been satisfied that the
building work would comply with regulation 417 of the Building Regulations relating to the southern boundary set back. The practitioner had also breached s24(1)(b) for
not obtaining a report and consent from the council given the non compliance of the design plans with regulation 417.
Simon Mattiske - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to two sites in Mount Waverley. For the first site the practitioner
had failed to comply with section 24(1)(a) of the Building Act 1993 in that he issued a issued a building permit in circumstances where the practitioner could have been
satisfied that the building work would comply with regulation 409 of the Building Regulations relating to the minimum street set backs. The practitioner had also
breached s24(1)(a) for the second site for issuing a building permit and not being satisfied the works would comply with Regulations 414 and 419 relating to the non
complying side setback and overlooking into an adjoining allotment respectively.
Yrjo Torkkola - The Building Practitioners Board found the Practitioner guilty of two allegations in relation to one site in South Melbourne. In breach of section 16(1) of
the Building Act 1993, the practitioner caused, permitted, counselled or procured building work to be carried out which was not in accordance with the approved plans
forming part of the building permit being a fence constructed to a height in excess of 6 meters in circumstances where the building permit required the fence not to
exceed 2.7 meters. The Practitioner also failed to comply with section 33(1) of the Building Act 1993 in that he, as a person who is in charge of the carrying out of
building work for which a permit has been issued, failed to notify the relevant building surveyor without delay after the completion of the frame stage.
Yuri Chiorny - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to one site in Caulfield South. In breach of section 16(1) of the
Building Act 1993, the practitioner caused, permitted, counselled or procured building work to be carried out which was not in accordance with the approved plans
forming part of the building permit being floor trusses on the second floor not affixed to waling plates in accordance with the Pryda specification in that trusses were
affixed by a single nail applied from above with no skew nails into the waling plates. The practitioner also failed to carry out work in a competent manner and to a
professional standard and therefore failed to comply with regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to ensure that the floor framing was
completed at the time of delivery and loading of the floor sheeting.
Wei Min Lam - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in Noble Park. The practitioner failed to comply with
regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 (the regulations) in that he failed to identify that documents forming part of the building permit application did not
contain sufficient information to show that the building work would comply with the Building Act 1993 and the regulations and he adopted an Alternative Solution in the
construction of the building which had not been assessed for compliance with the Performance Requirements of the Building Code of Australia. Finally, in breach of
section 16(1) of the Act, the practitioner carried out work that was not in accordance with the Building Permit.
Vosti
John
IN-L 20111
31/03/2016 Reprimand, Fine $4000 & Costs $3038.50
Greenvale
Macleod
Donald
BS-U 1550
21/03/2016 Fine $3000 & Costs $3730
Echuca
John Vosti - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Greenvale. The practitioner failed to comply with
regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed carry out work in a competent manner and to a professional standard. The practitioner carried out
and approved a final inspection for a swimming pool and associated barriers when the safety barrier did not comply with the relevant Australian Standard (AS 1926.11993 Clause 2.6 & 2.9). Further to this, having carried out the inspection, the practitioner failed to notify the relevant building surveyor that the swimming pool safety
barrier had not been sighted in accordance with the building permit issued.
Donald Macleod - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 4 allegations in relation to 1 site in Echuca. The practitioner was found guilty of a
number of breaches of the Building Regulations 2006 (regulations) and the Building Act 1993 (the Act). The practitioner failed to comply with section 24(1) of the Act in
that he issued a building permit which did not comply with the regulations, namely, regulation 504. In breach of regulation 1502(a) of the regulations, the practitioner
failed carry out work in a competent manner and to a professional standard in that he issued a building permit without having considered or actioned any fire safety
measures as required by the Building Code of Australia and he required only a final inspection as a mandatory notification stage when the permit should have also
Tamturk
Muammer
DB-U 37221
Michael
Shugg
Craigieburn
21/03/2016 Reprimand, File $4000 & Costs $1617
Mildura
Michael Shugg - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation in relation to building work carried out at a site in Mildura. The
practitioner breached section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993 by commencing work including excavation of top soil, levelling , compaction, formwork preparation, and
installation of waffle pods and reinforcing steel relating to the construction of a dwelling and garage when a building permit was not issued in respect of that work.
Mark Rechichi - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of a s24(1)(a) Building Act breach for issuing building permits for various sites for
swimming pools without being satisfied the permit would comply with Reg. 302 and Reg 201 Building Regulations. For Reg. 302, the permit application failed to include
swimming pool barrier drawings, and specifications of the barriers. For Reg. 201, no contract price for details of the cost of labour and materials for the barrier were
included.
Dale Goucher - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations in relation to construction of a veranda at a site in Williamstown and the
installation of a structural bean across two existing but widened openings and removal of two structural posts at another site in Williamstown. The practitioner had
breached s16(1) of the Building Act for commencing these works prior to a building permit having been issued.
DB-U 14216
Rechichi
Mark
BS-U 21569
16/03/2016 Reprimand & costs $3937
Various
Goucher
Dale
DB-U 3132
11/03/2016 Reprimand & costs $3140
Williamstown
Ebeyer
Clint
DB-U 38797
9/03/2016 Fine $1516.70 & costs $1648.50
Mavridis
Lazarus
BS-U 1588
9/03/2016 Reprimand, fine $1400, costs $2093.50 &
Flemington
undertaking not to recommence the issuing of
building permits in accordance with VCAT /
BPB consent orders until such time as he has
completed and lodged 2 annual returns with
the AIBS as part of their formal CPD program.
Daher
Danny
DB-U 9585
3/03/2016 Reprimand, fine $2000, costs $6042.50 & the Flemington
practitioner is to complete the contracts and
legal obligation part of the certificate IV
building and construction course and provide
attainment of completion within 6 months.
Burnell
Robert
BS-U 1018
2/03/2016 Reprimand, fine $5200 & costs $3750
Clayton
Arborea
Vincenzo
BS-U 20113
2/03/2016 Reprimand, costs $2497.50 and require the
practitioner to provide his current work
practice checklist
Wallan
Singh
Patrick
DB-U 11686
1/03/2016 Reprimand, fine $4000, costs $2088 & require Carnegie
the practitioner complete 3 units of contracts
and legal obligations course and provide the
certificate of attainment by 30 August 2016.
Lebdeh
Mahmoud
DB-L 28313 &
DB-M 28312
Brayer
David
DB-U 15369
Cole-Sinclair
Daryl
BS-U 1354
required a frame inspection. The practitioner also issued certificates of final inspection which were not in the form of Form 7 as required by regulation 1006.
Muammer Tamturk -The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation in relation to building work carried out at a site in Craigieburn. The
practitioner breached section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993 by excavating footings when a building permit was not issued in respect of that work.
21/03/2016 Complete specified Contracts & Legal
Obligation course within 6 months & Costs
$2417
18/02/2016
Bentleigh East
Danny Daher - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of three allegations in relation to alteration, addition and renovation building work at a site
in Flemington. The practitioner had carried out building work that was not in accordance with the issued building permit in breach of s16(1) of the Building Act. The
practitioner had breached s179(1)(fb) for failure to carry out a recommendation containing in an inspectors report under s48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act
1995. The practitioner had also failed to comply with s42(a) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act by demanding final payment when the work had not been
completed in accordance with the plans and specifications set out in the contract such as subfloor columns and drain spools not installed in accordance with the
engineering plans and reduced finished floor levels from documented levels by more than 40mm.
Robert Burnell - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of five allegations in relation to the construction of an extension, alteration and change of
use at a site in Clayton. The practitioner failed to comply with s24(1)(a) of the Building Act in issuing a building permit when not being satisfied the works would comply
with the Act and the Regulations as the approved plans and permit documentation did not comply with Class 3 building requirements such as fire hazard properties and
sprinkler and smoke hazard management. The practitioner had also failed to work in a competent manner and to a professional standard in breach of Reg. 1502 (a) in
issuing an occupancy permit when all of the class 3 requirements had not been met, there was non compliance with s45 Building Act relating to not specifying live
loads, non compliance of Reg 1203 regarding the listing of the essential safety measures, and non compliance with Reg. 1007 relating to the display of the occupancy
permit at an approved location.
Vincenzo Arborea - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations in relation to the construction of a garage/shed at a site in Wallan.
The practitioner had failed to comply with s24(1)(a) of the Act for issuing a building permit when not being satisfied it would comply with the Regulations or the Act,
particularly Reg. 415 of the Building Regulations relating to wall heights on boundaries. The practitioner also breached s24A(2)(a) of the Act in that at the time of issuing
the permit, he could not have been satisfied that the building work was being carried out by a builder registered under Part 11 in the appropriate class of domestic
builder and was covered by the required insurance.
Patrick Singh - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations in relation to carrying out alteration and renovations of a dwelling at a site
in Carnegie. The practitioner had failed to comply with s31(1) and s11(1)(a) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act for not having the prescribed information in the
major domestic building contract and that more than 5% deposit was demanded and received on a contract which was greater than $20,000 respectively.
Hadfield
Mahmoud Lebdeh - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to construction of a deck and roofing around and existing
swimming pool at a site in Hadfield. The practitioner had failed to comply with s16(1) of the Building Act by carrying out works inconsistent with the building permit in that
he constructed foundations and framework around the existing pool when the building permit described the works as extension/sunroom deck and the contract and
insurance stated the works as construction of veranda and decking around an existing pool. The practitioner had failed to comply with s31(1) of the Domestic Building
Contracts Act in that the contract did not specify 9 subsection requirements. The practitioner had also failed to carry out work in a competent manner and to a
professional standard as required by Reg. 1502(a) of the Building Regulations in that the veranda and decking around the existing pool was constructed without a
compliant safety barrier.
Diamond Creek
David Brayer - The practitioner was found guilty of 4 allegations in relation to the construction of 69 townhouses in an estate in Diamond Creek. The practitioner had
breached s16(1) of the Act by building walls between the townhouses that did not meet fire separation standards in accordance with Part 3.7.1.8 of the Building Code
of Australia. The practitioner had also breached Reg. 1502(a) for failing to carry out work in a competent manner and to a professional standard for failing to adhere to
performance requirements and Reg 109 in relation to construction of the walls and also carrying out a variety of other defects at the properties including water ingress,
poor standard of painting, lack of sound proofing between walls, no awnings over the balconies, and external timber cladding being buckled and warped. The
practitioner was also found guilty of s179(1)(d) of the Act for conduct which constituted gross negligence or gross incompetence showing that he is not a fit and proper
person to practise as a building practitioner.
Daryl Cole-Sinclair - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 5 allegations in relation to 3 sites regarding the alterations and additions of an
existing dwelling at the Edithvale site, construction of a dwelling, garage and retaining wall at the Ashburton site, and the construction of a farm shed at the Gruyere
site. The practitioner had failed to comply with Reg 1502(a) Building Regulations for failing to carry out work in a competent manner and to a professional standard in
discovering non-complying building works including Reg 414 (side and rear setbacks) and Reg 419 (overlooking) breaches and failing to take appropriate action in a
timely manner. The practitioner also failed to comply with Reg 322(b)(ii) by failing to forward the authority details of the lapsed building permit within 7 days for the
Edithvale site. For the Ashburton site the practitioner had failed to carry out work in a competent manner and to a professional standard by failing to take appropriate
enforcement action in a timely manner in relation to the steep excavation works damaging the adjoining property due to the erosion under the dividing fence and the
concrete driveway. The practitioner had failed to carry out work in a competent manner and to a professional standard at the Gruyere site by failing to take appropriate
action upon becoming aware that the farm shed was being occupied prior to the issuing of the certificate of final inspection and also issuing the certificate of final
inspection where the works did not accord with the approved building permit in that the shed had been fitted with a kitchen, bathroom and toilet.
Reprimand, Suspend both DB-L and DB-M
registrations for 6 months effective from 31
March 2016, fine $15,167, the practitioner be
required to successfully complete a contracts
and legal obligations course and be provided
to the Board by 30 September 2016, and
costs incidental to the Inquiry of $21,024.
24/05/2016
Determination
on appeal of the
Cancellation of registration effective from
11/02/2016
3/02/2016, disqualification from being
BPB decision
registered in any category until 16/08/2018
and fine $45,501.00.
20/01/2016 Reprimand, fine $7500 & costs $5775
Clint Ebeyer - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of an allegation in relation to building works for an alteration and extension at a Bentleigh
East site. The practitioner had failed to carry out work in a competent manner and to a professional standard contrary to Reg. 1502(a) of the Building Regulations in
that inconsistent documentation using similar builder company names were provided on the contract compared to the warranty insurance and various invoices and
variations.
Lazarus Mavridis - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of an allegation in relation to alteration, addition and renovation building work at a site in
Flemington. The practitioner had failed to carry out work in a competent manner and to a professional standard contrary to Reg. 1502)(a) of the Building Regulations for
issuing a certificate of final inspection when the building work was defective and a direction under the Act had not been complied with.
Edithvale, Ashburton, Box Hill &
Gruyere
Austin
John
BS-U 1166
18/01/2016 Reprimand, costs $5993.50 & undertaking not Warragul, Leongatha & Mount
to issue any new building permits as of 1st
Waverley
June 2014 with no end date.
Talevski
George
DB-M 33753
24/12/2015 Reprimand, fine $9000, costs $2857 and
Ivanhoe
require the practitioner to complete 3
subjects/modules of contracts and legal
obligation course and provide the certificate of
attainment to the Board prior to 30 June 2016.
Morris
Mark
DB-U 5685
CB-L 36083
22/12/2015 Reprimand, fine $4000 and costs $2857
Wilson
Alan
DB-L 1353
16/12/2015 Reprimand, Suspend registration for 12
Leongatha & two sites in
months effective from determination date, fine Korumburra
$2400, costs $2967 and require the
practitioner to complete 3 subjects/modules of
contracts and legal obligation course and
provide the certificate of attainment to the
Board by 30 June 2016.
Zand Basiri
Kamran
BS-U 18530
7/12/2015 Reprimand, fine $4000 and costs $3467
McDonald
Andrew
DB-U 25867
Goddard
Ronald
BS-U 22544
7/12/2015 Fine $500, costs $1058 and require the
Carlton North
practitioner to complete 3 subjects/modules of
contracts and legal obligation course and
provide the certificate of attainment to the
Board within 6 months.
Mordialloc, Corack East & Crib
2/12/2015 Reprimand, fine $10,332 and costs of
Point
$13,557
Lindkvist
Anthony
DB-U 5960
Glen Iris
Dandenong & Noble Park
30/11/2015 Reprimand, costs $2904 and impose a
Invermay
condition that prior to renewal of registration,
the practitioner must provide the Registrar a
certificate of completion of the three units of
contracts and legal obligations component of
the certificate four in building and construction.
30/11/2015 Fine $4000 and $1707 costs.
South Geelong
Pascoe Vale & Caulfield North
Isaacson
Antony
CB-U 1939
Lewin
Peter
DB-U 10829
CB-LR 1111
25/09/2015 Reprimand, Fine $4500 & costs $1740
Mavridis
Lazarus
BS-U 1588
21/12/2015 On appeal, VCAT orders by consent of
Boronia & Bulleen
21/12/15 confirmed the following penalty
following the Board determination of
20/11/2015: Fine $7380.50, Costs $3444.00
& that the registration be subject to a
conditional limitation for 24 months from 25
January 2016 whereby the practitioner will be
unable to be appointed the relevant building
surveyor (RBS) for this period however can
continue excersing functions where he has
already been appointed the RBS prior to 25
January 2016.
Cachia
Leslie
DP-AD 1044
Hick
Danny
BS-U 1363
23/11/2015 Fine $1500, Costs $2904 & require
Mt Waverley
completion of a 2 day BDAV course on
improving building permit documentation and
provide the certificate of attainment by 30
June 2016
10/11/2015 Reprimand, Fine $1500 & Costs $1500 &
Sunbury
require the practitioner to complete a 35 hour
risk course.
John Austin - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of eight allegations in relation to three sites relating to alterations and additions to an office
building in Warragul, and the construction of a swimming pool and safety fence at both Leongatha and Mount Waverley sites. The practitioner had failed to carry out
work in a competent manner and to a professional standard in accordance with Reg, 1502(a) Building Regulations in not requiring protection works where it was
apparent that the proposed works could damage the adjoining property. Also in accepting a Performance Assessment as an alternative solution for fire resistance
levels when it was not a properly formulated solution as required by the Building Code of Australia, and for failing to adequately document decision making process
regarding non-compliance of Energy Efficiency provisions of the existing building in Warragul. For the Leongatha site, the practitioner had failed to carry out work in a
competent manner and to a professional standard for amending the building permit for the additional building work to also include the pool and barrier when a separate
permit should have been issued. He had failing to refer the non-compliance with a building order for minor work to the Authority within 14 days after the specified final
date for compliance in the order, and he had issued a certificate of final inspection when the mandatory footing inspection for the pool had not been carried out or
approved and nominating the incorrect date on the final certificate. For the Mount Waverley site, the practitioner had failed to work in as competent manner and to a
professional standard for failing to take appropriate enforcement action in a timely manner in relation to outstanding concerns including the self closing pool gate
mechanism not operating effectively.
George Talevski - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation relating to excavation and preparation of foundation building works for
the construction of three townhouses at the site. The practitioner had failed to work in a competent manner and to a professional standard in non compliance of
Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations for commencing work on the site prior to the planning permit expiring which had been issued by the Victorian Civil and
Administrative Tribunal and prior to a building permit being issued.
Mark Morris - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner of two allegations relating to the construction of two double storey dwellings at the site. The
practitioner was found guilty of carrying out building work in contravention of s16(1) of the Building Act in not complying with the building permit conditions as the works
encroached over the title boundary. These works undertaken were also found to be defective or not of a sufficient standard.
Alan Wilson - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 5 allegations relating to restumping building works at three sites. The practitioner had
breached s16(1) of the Building Act for carrying out building works prior to the building permit being issued for the three sites. The practitioner had also breached s31(1)
of the Domestic Builder Contracts Act for entering into contracts not containing the required information as per the section for two of the sites.
Kamran Zand Basiri - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations for works in relation to the construction of multi storey apartments
and basement car parks on the two sites. The practitioner had failed to work in a competent manner and to a professional standard in non compliance of Regulation
1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 for issuing the building permits over the two sites when not or ought not to have been satisfied that the building work would
not adversely affect the stability of, or cause damage to the adjoining property.
Andrew McDonald - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations relating to the alteration, addition and renovation building works at
the site. The practitioner had breached s16(1) of the Building Act for carrying out building works prior to a building permit having been issued. The practitioner also
failed to comply with s136(2) of the Building Act for carrying out building work and not being covered by the required insurance.
Ronald Goddard - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 21 allegations in relation to the construction of units with base car park at the
Mordialloc site, re-erection of a dwelling and a verandah at the Corack East site, and the relocation of a prefabricated home dwelling at the Crib Point site. With respect
to the Mordialloc site, the practitioner was found to have breached s80, s30, s73(1) Building Act and Regulation 1012 (a) & (b) Building Regulation requirements for not
notifying council with 7 days in writing of the accepted appointment, the issued building permit and plans, the occupancy certificate, and provide inspection approval
dates for mandatory notification stages for building works respectively for the staged building permits. Also the practitioner had breached s24(1)(a), (b) and (d) of the
Building Act for issuing staged building permits when not being satisfied they would comply with Regulations and BCA in relation to alternative solutions for fire
performance requirements, not obtaining the report and consent from CFA prior to the issuing, and issuing the permit inconsistent with the planning permit respectively.
The building permits had also been issued without requiring owners to serve protection work notices on adjoining owners. Regulation 313(1) and of the Building
Regulation had been breached as the staged permits had not issued in the prescribed forms identifying performance requirements. In relation to the occupancy
permit, the practitioner had breached Regulation 1203 for failing to list all essential safety measures conditions and was found to have breached s44(a) of the Building
Act for issuing the occupancy permit when a couple of conditions for the staged permit had not been achieved. In relation to the Corack East site, the practitioner had
failed to comply with s30 and s24(1)(a) of the Building Act for not notifying council in writing of the issued building permit and plans, and issuing the permit when not
being satisfied it would comply with the Act or Regulations in that the practitioner did not have the engineered footing system as required by AS2870-2011 for that type
of soil. For the Crib Point site the practitioner had breached s80 of the Building Act for not notifying council in writing of the accepted appointment as the private building
surveyor.
Anthony Lindkvist - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations in relation to the construction of a dwelling at the site. The
practitioner had breached s22(a)(iii) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 by the contract not providing any basis for the calculation of additional charges with
respect to labour including hourly rates and method of calculation and subsequently demanding the excess labour amounts. The practitioner was also failed to carry
out recommendations contained in an inspectors report under s48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act.
Antony Isaacson - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations in relation to the construction of a light tower at the site. The
allegations included failing to ensure that the footing for the one light tower did not encroach beyond the title boundary and failing to have adequate systems, practices
and procedures in place to identify the location of the title boundary to prevent the footing from encroaching beyond the site title boundary. The second allegation
related to failing to ensure that there were sufficient safety precautions, systems and procedures in place at the site to protect members of the public from danger
during the construction and erection of one of the light towers hence failing to perform work as a practitioner to a competent manner and to professional standard
contrary to Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006.
Peter Lewin - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of six allegations in relation to the construction of residential apartments, carpark and shop
at the sites. Allegations included failing to rectify defective works at various units, failure to respond in a timely manner to owners concerns, and failing to progress
building work without delay thereby failing to carry out work as a practitioner in a competent manner and to a professional standard contrary to Regulation 1502(a) of
the Building Regulations 2006.
Lazarus Mavridis - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations in relation to a construction of a verandah at the rear of the property
at the Boronia site and guilty of four allegations relating to the construction of two new dwellings at the Bulleen site. The practitioner had breached s24(1)(c) of the
Building Act for not being satisfied that a planning permit or prescribed approval had been obtained prior to the issuing of the Building permit for the verandah and had
also breached s188(7) of the Building Act for not having regard to the Ministers Guideline (MG11) in making this determination for the Boronia site. The practitioner had
failed to comply with s24(1)(a) of the Building Act in not being satisfied the building work would comply with the Building Regulations in that the allotment plan provided
with the building permit application did not detail the position and dimensions of the buildings on either side of the adjoining properties at the Bulleen site. The
practitioner had also failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to a professional standard for 3 allegations for the Bulleen site for issuing a building permit
prior to receiving a response notice to the form 4 protection work from the adjoining owners, for not being satisfied that the works would not adversely affect the stability
of or cause damage to the adjoining properties, and did not ensure the protection work process was followed given the receipt of the inadequate Form 3 protection
work notice received which did not comply with s84(2) of the Building Act.
Leslie Cachia - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of four allegations in relation to two sites in Mount Waverley relating to the preparation of
the drawings of the buildings for construction. The practitioner failed to carry out work in a competent manner and to a professional standard contrary to regulation
1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 by failing to comply with regulations 414 and 419 for non complying side setback and direct line sight into a habitable room or
secluded adjoining private open space respectively. The practitioner also failed to comply with regulations 302 and 409 as the plans did not show relevant easements
and distance to intersecting streets, and did not have the required minimum street setbacks respectively.
Danny Hick - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of three allegations for the construction of a swimming pool and safety barrier at a site in
Sunbury. The practitioner failed to comply with s24(1)(a) of the Building Act in issuing a building permit that would not comply with the Act or the Regulations in that the
submitted plans did not contain sufficient information to show that the building work would include a compliant barrier in accordance with Parts P2.5.3 and 3.9.9 of the
Building Code of Australia. The practitioner had also failed to comply with regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in failing to perform work in a competent
manner and to a professional standard in that the issued building permit did not specify a completion date consistent with regulation 315(1)(b)(i). The practitioner also
failed to comply with s201(6)(c) of the Building Act in that the building permit application did not contain sufficient information to enable the practitioner to estimate the
cost of the building work as required by s201(4)(b) of the Building Act 1993.
Adami
Justin
IN-U 19363
11/11/2015 Reprimand, Fine $2600 & Costs $4400
Hadfield
Justin Adami - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations in relation to carrying out inspections for an extension and sunroom deck
at a site in Hadfield. The practitioner had failed to carry out work in competent manner and to a professional standard contrary to regulation 1502(a) of the Building
Regulations 2006 by not consulting with the relevant building surveyor verbally or in writing that there were deficiencies in the building work following a mandatory
foundation inspection in that the pool remained on site with no permanent or temporary safety barrier. Also the foundation stage was not complete as not all pads and
stump holes were excavated.
David Fergusson - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of an allegation relating to the construction of a shop and apartments in Caulfield
South. The practitioner had been engaged as a subcontractor by another registered building practitioner to erect the frame on this site. The practitioner was found guilty
of failing to ensure the temporary stacking of floor sheeting on the second storey floor trusses was carried out in accordance with Pryda specifications in relation to
weight limits which led to the collapse of the trusses and hence failed to comply with clause BP1.1 of the Building Code of Australia 2012 which specifies performance
requirements for reliability of the building or structure during construction activity including stacking of material. In doing so, the Board found that the practitioner had
failed to carry out work in a competent manner and to a professional standard contrary to regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006.
Fergusson
David
DB-U 16456
9/11/2015 Reprimand, Fine $5000 & Costs $2589
Caulfield South
Wright
Craig
DB-L 13874
4/11/2015 Reprimand, Fine $3000 & Costs $4894.50
Williamstown
Bond
Stephen
BS-L 36361
Al Jobore
Majed
DB-L 37063
Anastasi
David
IN-U 26962
26/10/2015 Reprimand & Costs $899
Wallan
Cooper
Wayne
BS-U 1273
14/10/2015 Reprimand. Fine $2000 and pay $899 costs
incidental to the Inquiry.
Ballarat
Nelson
Shaun
BS-U 23391
Shaun Nelson - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations in relation to the construction of an extension/sunroom deck at the site.
The practitioner had failed to comply with s24(1)(a) of the Building Act 1993 in that when issuing the building permit, the application did not mention the incorporation of
the existing swimming pool despite the accompanying design plans showing the position of the existing pool whilst the structural plans did not. Given the inconsistency,
no enquiries were made as to whether the pool would be removed. The practitioner had also breached Regulation 322(b) of the Building Regulations 2006 by failing to
forward to the Victorian Building Authority details of the lapsed building permit within 7 days, 2 years after the building permit issue date.
Smith
Maxwell
DP-AD 1831
9/10/2015 Suspend registration for 6 months effective
Hadfield
from 8 December 2015. Fine of $2500, pay
costs $2994 incidental to the Inquiry and
require the practitioner to complete Risk
assessment and management for building
surveying and performance based
compliance graduate diploma of building
surveyors subjects with a certificate of
attainment if the registration is renewed after
the suspension.
28/09/2015 Suspend registration for 120 days effective
Narre Warren
from 1/01/2016. Fine $2500, pay $1524 costs
and require the practitioner to complete the
specified course offered by BDAV being
"Improving Building Permit Documentation"
with a certificate of attainment to be provided
prior to reinstatement of registration after the
suspension.
Sorgiovanni
Alex
EC 22626
Alex Sorgiovanni - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation in relation to the construction of a two double story homes with
basement car parking in Caulfield. The practitioner failed to comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that as the design engineer, he failed to
carry out his work in a competent manner and to a professional standard and prepared structural computations and drawings which were deficient, incomplete,
inadequate and inconsistent. This included missing computations for certain design beams and columns, and no computations for the reinforced concrete and Bondek
ground floor slab.
Chernih
Vasil
DB-U 2162
Basic
Halil
DB-U 4956
18/09/2015 Reprimand , Fine of $1,500, pay $30,000
Caulfield North
costs incidental to the Inquiry & an
undertaking for the practitioner to complete
two parts of the Engineering CPD course
pertaining to Design and Due Dilligence with a
certificate of attainment to be provided within
12 months of determination.
8/09/2015 Reprimand. Fine $5,500, pay $5354 costs
Leopold & Barwon Heads
incidental to the Inquiry & an undertaking for
the practitioner to complete contract and legal
obligation courses with a certificate of
attainment to be provided by 30 June 2016.
28/08/2015 Reprimand, Fine of $1500 and pay costs of
Burwood
$1058 incidental to the Inquiry.
Lee
Ian
DB-L 22305
27/08/2015 Cancel registration, Fine of $15,167 and pay
costs of $1080
Beveridge (x2), Kilmore, Oxley,
Wangaratta (x2), Boralma,
Killawarra, Everton, Bowmans
Forest, Glenrowan, Whittlesea,
Boonie Doon and Mansfield (x2)
Hutchinson
Rodney
DB-U 37906
18/08/2015 Fine $2700 & Costs of $1587 & an
undertaking for the practitioner to complete
three contract and legal obligation courses
with a certificate of attainment.
Brunswick
Craig Wright - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation relating to a construction of a swimming pool regarding excavation works
within the immediate proximity of the boundary near the adjoining property. The piers and the wall on the adjoining property had collapsed into the excavated pool area
and the practitioner was found guilty of failing to carry out work in a competent manner and to a professional standard contrary to regulation 1502(a) of the Building
Regulations 2006 for carrying out excavation work in an unsafe and unworkmanlike manner.
23/10/2015 Reprimand & Costs $3557
Traralgon, Briagolong, Coongulla, Stephen Bond - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of ten allegations in relation to 6 sites consisting of construction of sheds for most sites,
swimming pool and a caretakers residence. Allegations included failing to notify the council of appointment within 7 days and failure to provide council with permit
Flynns Creek, Rosedale &
Seaspray
documents within 7 days in breach of s80(1) and s30(1) of the Building Act respectively. The practitioner had failed to correctly classify one of the sites and specified an
incorrect completion date in breach of Regulation 112 and 315(1)(b)(iv) of the Building Regulations 2006 respectively. The practitioner had failed to comply with
s24(1)(a) and s24(1)(b) of the Building Act 1993 for issuing a permit when not being satisfied that the building work would comply with the Act or the Regulations in that
the plans forming part of the building permit did not contain allotment plans and drawings to suitable scale, and report and consent was not obtained from the council
respectively. The practitioner also failed to comply with s205I of the Building Act by failing to properly estimate the cost of the building work having regard to the
building permit application.
26/10/2015 Reprimand, Costs $1212.00 & completion of 3 Birchip
Majed Al Jobore - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of three allegations in relation to the restumping and improvement work to a home in
specified modules of certificate IV in the
Birchip. The practitioner had failed to comply with s31(1) and s37(2) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 as the major domestic building contract failed to
Building & Construction Course.
contain certain required information and the practitioner had failed to obtain the owners consent to give effect to a variation respectively. The practitioner had also failed
to competently manage or control the work site in a safe or workmanlike manner by leaving behind debris and building material in the rear yard.
David Anastasi - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of three allegations in relation to the construction of a new dwelling at Wallan. The
practitioner had failed to carry out work in a competent manner and to a professional standard contrary to Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 for
carrying out and approving the frame inspection subject to conditions when it was not appropriate to do so given the identified and unidentified deficiencies and noncompliances with the frame.
Wayne Cooper - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations in relation to the construction of a new café and the upgrade of the
existing fire service at the site. The practitioner had failed to comply with s24(1)(a) of the Building Act 1993 by not being satisfied the building work would comply at the
time of issuing the building permit in that the drawings submitted with the application lacked sufficient detail in relation to the fire extinguishers not being on site during
construction as required by Building Code of Australia Part E1.9. Also the water storage tanks were not connected to a facility that would permit the tanks to be
automatically refilled within 24 hours as required by Australian Standards AS 2419.1. The practitioner had also breached s24(1)(b) of the Building Act in that a report
and consent from the Chief Officer was not obtained prior to the issuing of the building permit as the drawings (and subsequently the built location) forming part of the
building permit documentation did not have the hydrant booster assembly located within sight of the main entry to the building as required by AS 2419.1. Report and
consent is required given that the booster assembly is a prescribed matter at Regulation 309 of the Building Regulations 2006.
Maxwell Smith - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner being retained to provide draftsperson services for the site, guilty of two allegations in relation to
the construction of a carport and enclosed verandah. The practitioner had failed to comply with section 246 of the Building Act 1993 by knowingly providing false and
misleading information to the relevant building surveyor by providing forged signatures for the purposes of a Form 4 protection work response notices from the
adjoining owners on either side of the site property.
Vasil Chernih - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations in relation to the construction of homes at two sites in Leopold and
Barwon Heads. The practitioner failed to comply with section 79(1)(fb) of the Building Act 1993 when he failed to carry out a recommendation contained in the report of
an inspector issued pursuant to section 48 of the Domestic Building Contract Act. The report included directions to remove damaged and incomplete floor tiles, ensure
waterproof system is achieved, rectify concrete cut and exposed to satisfaction of the design engineer to enable concrete paths to be constructed, rectify colour
variation in the brickwork, and adjust door operation and install weather strips to hinged doors.
Halil Basic - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of four allegations in relation to the construction of a home and garage in Burwood. The
practitioner failed to comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to a professional
standard in that he failed to back fill and batter soil where required and failed to erect temporary fencing as directed by the relevant building surveyor via a Building
Order for minor work pursuant to section 113 of the Building Act 1993. Further the practitioner failed to comply with regulation 317(2)(a) of the Building Regulations
2006 when he failed to display the registration number/contact details of the building surveyor and the building permit number on the signage at the front of the site.
The practitioner had also failed to comply with a 'Stop Work Order' pursuant to section 112 of the Building Act.
Ian Lee - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of one hundred and three allegations in relation to the construction of swimming pools across
thirty different sites over ten different municipal councils in Victoria between November 2008 and September 2012 prompted by a Victorian Building Authority audit
across thirteen regional councils. The practitioner was found guilty of not obtaining a building permit for the thirty sites in breach of s16(1) of the Building Act 1993, not
obtaining domestic building insurance for twenty nine of the sites in breach of s136(2) of the Building Act, not entering into a compliant major domestic building contract
for twenty three of the sites as required by s31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995, and demanding and receiving deposits in excess of 5% of the contract
value relating to sixteen sites in breach of s11(1)(a) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995. As a result of the breaches over the thirty sites, the practitioner was
also found guilty of s179(1)(d) Building Act 1993 for conduct constituted by a pattern of conduct which shows the practitioner is not a fit and proper person to practise
as a building practitioner.
Rodney Hutchinson - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of five allegations in relation to the construction of a new pergola , replacement of the
rear boundary fence and rear existing timber deck of a dwelling in Brunswick. The practitioner had failed to provide a major domestic building contract in accordance
with section 31 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995. Work had been carried out prior to the application for a building permit contrary to section 16(1) of the
Building Act 1993 and work was carried out without the required insurance as required by section 136 of the Building Act 1993. The value of the works listed on the
permit application was listed as $10,500 which differed from the agreed value of the works being $15,850 and hence failed to comply with regulation 1502(1) of the
Building Regulations by providing misleading information to the building surveyor. The practitioner had also failed to obtain written authorisation to apply for a building
permit on behalf of the owners as their agent required at section 248 of the Building Act 1993.
Hogben
Rodney
DB-U 2781
31/07/2015 Costs of $968 & an undertaking for the
practitioner to complete three contract and
legal obligation courses with a certificate of
attainment.
Carrum Downs
Rodney Hogben - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of three allegations in relation to the construction of a new home in Carrum Downs. The
practitioner had failed to comply section 40(2) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 for requesting payment for the frame stage when the frame stage had not
been approved by the relevant building surveyor. The practitioner refused the building owner reasonable access to the building site and thereby breaching section 19
of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995. The practitioner was also found guilty for failing to progress the building work in a timely manner in that the contract
provided for works to be completed by 1 September 2013 and as of this date, the frame work was yet to be approved by the relevant building surveyor.
Shaaya
Robert
DB-M 25304
& DB-L 25305
30/07/2015 Fine $2000 & Costs $1058
Craigieburn & Hadfield
Robert Shaaya - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of three allegations in relation to the construction of homes at two sites in Craigieburn and
Hadfield. The practitioner had also failed to properly manage, supervise or control the building sites due to the defective nature of the works and also failed to rectify the
Hadfiled site as per section recommendation from an inspector in accordance with 48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
Giese
Stuart
DB-L 36279
27/07/2015 Reprimand, Fine $4100 & Costs $1542 &
complete the certificate IV in Building &
Construction with a certificate of attainment.
Wheelers Hill
Rustom
Sayed
DB-U 20263
21/07/2015 Fine $7000 & Costs of $1542 & an
undertaking for the practitioner to complete
three contract and legal obligation courses
with a certificate of attainment.
Fawkner
Stuart Giese - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of seven allegations in relation to the alteration and extension of a home in Wheelers Hill.
The practitioner had failed to obtain foundations data prior to carrying out building works as required at section 30(2) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995. The
practitioner had also failed to comply with sections 31(1) and 32(1) of that Act as the contract did not contain the required prescribed information required by the
subsections. The practitioner had received a deposit greater than 5% contrary to section 11(1)(a) of the same Act. Works had been carried out prior to a building permit
having been issued and prior to the practitioner being covered by the required domestic building insurance in breach of sections 16(1) and 136(2) of the Building Act
1993 respectively. The practitioner had also failed to comply with section 176(2A) of the Building Act 1993 for carrying out works when not registered in the appropriate
class to carry out work of a class or type.
Sayed Rustom - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of four allegations in relation to carrying out alterations and additions to the bathroom,
laundry and porch of a dwelling in Fawkner. The practitioner had carried out works prior to the building permit being issued and did not have the required insurance in
breach of sections 16(1) and 136(2) of the Building Act 1993 respectively. The major domestic building contract did not contain all the required prescribed information in
breach of section 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995. The practitioner had also beached section 176(2A) of the Building Act 1993 for carrying out work
outside of the registered category of the practitioner at the time.
Lawrence
Geoffrey
DB-U 1347
14/07/2015 Fine $6500 & Costs $7418.60
Kalimna
Geoffrey Lawrence - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of six allegations in relation to the construction of a dwelling in Kalimna. The
practitioner failed to comply with Section 16 of the Building Act 1993 where the retaining wall, garage door and chimney were not constructed as specified on the
approved building permit and the position of the dwelling was not sited in accordance with the allotment plan. The practitioner failed to comply with Regulation 302(2)(e)
by not specifying the drain layout to a point of discharge on the allotment plan. The practitioner also failed to comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations
2006 in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to a professional standard in that the brickwork was not of a competent or professional standard,
there was excessive lippage and sharp tile edges in the ensuite shower unit and the paint finish on some of the walls did not exhibit the uniformity of gloss and opacity
expected from a 3 coat finish. The practitioner also failed to comply with Section 37 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 by varying the specifications of a major
domestic building contract without first giving a notice of variation to the owner and he failed to comply with Section 16(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995
by demanding and recovering a sum of money in excess of the contract price.
Chai
Christina
BS-U 14426
8/07/2015 Fine $2800 & Costs $1038 & an undertaking
to complete a minimum of 5 hours of
Continued Professional Development (CPD)
during the next 12 months.
South Geelong
Stockdale
William
BS-U 1426
3/07/2015 Fine $500 & Costs $1542 & an undertaking
from the practitioner that if he were to renew
his registration within the 3 year voluntary
suspension period that he would need to
undertake the AIBS required CPD, prior to
renewing his registration.
Strathbogie
Christina Chai - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of four allegations in relation to the construction of four light towers. The practitioner failed
to comply with section 24(1)(a) of the Building Act 1993 on two occasions in that she issued a building permit when she could not have been satisfied that the building
work and the building permit would comply with the Building Act and Building Regulations 2006. The practitioner failed to comply with Section 24(1)(a) of the Building
Act 1993 in that she issued a building permit when she could not have been satisfied that any consent of a reporting authority required under the Act or Regulations
had been obtained. The practitioner also failed to comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that she failed to carry out her work in a
competent manner and to a professional standard in that during construction of one of the towers the footpath was completely blocked and she failed to ensure the
safety of pedestrians who were forced to walk onto the road to pass the building site.
William Stockdale - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of ten allegations in relation to the construction of a swimming pool, office and staff
facilities in Strathbogie. The practitioner failed to comply with Regulation 313 and 315 of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to include time limits on the
building permit for the commencement and completion of the swimming pool. The practitioner failed to comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006
in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to a professional standard in that he failed to include details of domestic building insurance on the
building permit, issued a building permit that listed a domestic builder for commercial building work, used an incorrect address and registration number for the builder,
approved a mandatory frame inspection failing to note that an office indicated on the plans had not been constructed, failed to direct the builder to cease work until the
building permit had been amended, failed to amend the building permit to domestic building work and failed to identify that the building work did not comply with the
approved building permit, plans and engineering drawings. The practitioner also failed to comply with Section 21 of the Building Act 1993 by nominating that a
certificate of final inspection was required rather than an occupancy permit for building work where an occupancy permit was required.
Carapina
Ante
DB-U 14741
24/06/2015 Reprimand, Fine $2000 & Costs $1542 &
Complete a Contracts & Legal Obligations
Course
Lara
Critelli
Robert
DB-L 36851
24/06/2015 Reprimand & Costs $1592
Reservoir
Reardon
James
BS-U 17998
19/06/2015 Reprimand, Suspension of Registration (BS-U
Maidstone
17998) for three (3) months & Costs $1103
Heber
James
DB-U 4373
19/06/2015 Reprimand & Costs $2056
Farag
Emad
DB-U 10252
17/06/2015 Reprimand & Costs $1527
determination
on appeal
Lynch
Paul
DB-U 18316
12/06/2015 Reprimand, Fine $3000 & Costs $3991.33
Mordialloc
Pendavingh
Johannes
DB-U 1282
10/06/2015 Reprimand & Costs $7698
Ringwood
Azzopardi
Ian
DB-U 21864
5/06/2015 Fine $1000 & Costs $968
Brown Hill
Renn
Andrew
DB-L 38760
3/06/2015 Cancel Registration (DB-L 38760), Fine $10,000 & Hawthorn
Hawthorn East
Dandenong
Costs $1058
Hall
Peter
DB-U 21238
3/06/2015 Reprimand, Suspension of Registration (DB-U
21238) for 4 months & Costs $1058
Craigieburn
Ante Carapina - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations in relation to the renovation of a dwelling in Lara. The practitioner failed
to comply with Section 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 in that he entered into a major domestic building contract that did not include certain
information required under this section. The practitioner also failed to comply with Section 11(1)(a) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 by receiving a deposit
for building work that was greater than 5% of the contract price.
Robert Critelli - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation in relation to the construction of a verandah. The practitioner failed to
comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to a professional standard in that he
carried out unauthorised building work by constructing the verandah right up to the boundary of the adjoining property rather than in accordance with the specified
distance on the approved building permit.
James Reardon - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of seven allegations in relation to the construction of a shopping/office/community
complex in Maidstone. The practitioner failed to comply with Section 24(1)(a) of the Building Act 1993 in that he issued three staged building permits when he was not
or ought to have not been satisfied that the building work would comply with the Building Act and the Building Regulations 2006. The practitioner failed to comply with
Section 30(1) of the Building Act 1993 in that, having issued three staged building permits he failed to provide copies of architectural plans lodged with the applications
to the relevant council within 7 days. The practitioner failed to comply with Section 44 and 73(1) of the Building Act 1993 by issuing occupancy permits when he could
not have been satisfied that the building was suitable for occupancy and failed to give copies of the permits to the relevant council within 7 days. The practitioner also
failed to comply with Regulation 1003 of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to provide the report and consent of the chief officer with the applications for the
occupancy permits. The practitioner also failed to comply with Section 125(1) of the Building Act 1993 in that as the relevant building surveyor he failed to give the
relevant council a copy of the building notice within 7 days after issuing the building notice. The practitioner was found guilty of unprofessional conduct under Section
179(1)(a) of the Building Act 1993 in that after having become aware of fire safety concerns in the building, he failed to take appropriate action in a timely manner.
James Heber - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation in relation to the construction of a dwelling in Hawthorn East. The
practitioner failed to carry out the recommendations in an inspectors report produced under Section 48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
Emad Farag - The practitioner was found guilty of two allegations in relation to the construction of two multi-storey residential developments at two sites in Dandenong.
The practitioner failed to comply with Section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993 in that excavation work was carried out on both sites that was not in accordance with the
approved building permit. Both sites were over-excavated and had the potential to cause substantial subsidence or damage to the neighbouring properties. On one
site, the site cut was six metres deep, within one metre of the adjoining boundary and had been excavated without the sequential construction of retaining walls and
bored piles.
Paul Lynch - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations in relation to the construction of 25 dwelling units and a basement carpark
in Mordialloc. The practitioner failed to comply with Section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993 in that building work at the site was not in accordance with the building
regulations as it did not comply with fire safety and accessibility standards. The practitioner also failed to ensure that the windows on the east and west sides of the
development were obscured or screened to address issues of overlooking.
Johannes Pendavingh - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations in relation to the alteration and renovation of a dwelling in
Ringwood. The practitioner failed to comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and
to a professional standard in that he issued a final progress claim alleging that the building work was complete when the final inspection had not been approved and the
defects rectified. The practitioner also failed to comply with Section 37(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 by varying the contract without first obtaining
signed consent from the building owner.
Ian Azzopardi - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations in relation to the construction of a dwelling in Brown Hill. The practitioner
failed to comply with Section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993 in that he constructed a retaining wall when a building permit had not been issued. The practitioner also
failed to act to rectify defective building work that was recommended in an inspectors report produced under Section 48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
Andrew Renn - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of four allegations in relation to the construction of a timber deck, pergola, carport and
associated landscaping in Hawthorn. The practitioner failed to comply with Section 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 by failing to include required
details in the contract and he also failed to comply with Section 11(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 by demanding and a receiving a deposit of more
than 5% when the contract price was more than $20,000. The practitioner failed to comply with Section 40(3) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 in that he
demanded and received a payment not directly related to the progress of the building work being carried out. The practitioner failed to comply with Regulation 1502(a)
of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to a professional standard in that the building work was not carried
out in a timely manner and was abandoned prior to completion.
Peter Hall - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations in relation to the construction of a new dwelling in Craigieburn. The
practitioner failed to comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to a professional
standard in that he demanded and received a payment for the frame stage prior to the completion of that stage. The practitioner also failed to properly manage,
supervise and control the building work and to ensure that the work progressed in a timely manner.
Papanastasiou
Thomas
DB-U 10571
3/06/2015 Fine $3000 & Costs $1058
Altona
Thomas Papanastasiou - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of three allegations in relation to the renovation of a dwelling in Altona. The
practitioner failed to comply with Section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993 in that he commenced the demolition of a load bearing wall when a building permit had not been
issued. The practitioner also failed to comply with Section 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 by failing to include required details in the contract and
failed to comply with Section 136(2) of the Building Act 1993 by carrying out building work whilst not being covered by the required insurance.
Saad
Boulos
DB-U 22248
2/06/2015 Fine $1000, Costs $300 & complete a Contracts
Essendon
Boulos Saad - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations in relation to the construction of a dwelling in Essendon. The practitioner
failed to comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to a professional standard in
that the building work was defective and/or did not comply with accepted industry standards. The defects included; the construction of a boundary wall without
reinforced engaged brick piers, construction of a flat roof to the verandah and porch when a pitched roof was required and poor finishing to brickwork. The practitioner
also failed to complete the work within the agreed construction period.
Stefan Seketa - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations in relation to the construction of a new modular home in Mallacoota. The
practitioner failed to comply with Section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993 in that he commenced building work when a building permit had not been issued. The
practitioner also failed to rectify defective building work within the required timeframe that was identified in an inspectors report produced under Section 48 of the
Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
John Moore - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation in relation to the construction of an office and staff facilities in Strathbogie.
The practitioner failed to comply with Section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993 in that he carried out building work other than in accordance with an approved building
permit by substituting the specified masonry (brick) walls with weatherboard material.
Steve Theodore - The practitioner was found guilty of two allegations in relation to the construction of a dwelling in Doncaster East. The practitioner failed to comply with
Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to a professional standard in that the building
work was defective and/or did not comply with accepted industry standards. The practitioner failed to comply with Section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993 in that he
carried out building work other than in accordance with the approved building permit by constructing internal stairs with inconsistent riser heights and failed to provide
sufficient ventilation with sub-floor vents.
Robin Kristof - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of three allegations in relation to the additions and alterations to a dwelling in Heidelberg
Heights. The practitioner failed to comply with Section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993 in that he carried out building work other than in accordance with an approved
building permit by constructing a stairwell wall in the incorrect location, using double studs supported on brick piers when triple studs were specified and floor wastes
were not located in the specified position. The practitioner failed to comply with Section 25(A)(3) of the Building Act 1993 in that he failed to give the relevant building
surveyor written notice of his engagement and details of the required insurance within 14 days of his engagement. The practitioner failed to comply with Section 40 of
the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 in that he demanded and received a payment for the frame stage prior to the completion of that stage.
and Legal Obligations Course
Seketa
Stefan
DB-U 26892
2/06/2015 Fine $1500 & Costs $948
Mallacoota
Moore
John
DB-U 7851
2/06/2015 Reprimand, Fine $1000 & Costs $1058
Strathbogie
Theodore
Steve
DB-U 23346
2/06/2015 Reprimand, Fine $6684 & Costs $3304
determination
on appeal
Kristof
Robin
DB-U 23948
1/06/2015 Reprimand, Fine $2000, Costs $3715 & complete
Doncaster East
Heidelberg Heights
a Contracts & Legal Obligations Course
Kidd
Roger
BS-U 1235
29/05/2015 Reprimand, Fine $8000 & Costs $899
determination
on appeal
Loch Sport
Tsaganas
Jim
BS-U 1392 &
IN-U 1282
Paulding
John
DB-U 4264
22/05/2015 Reprimand & Costs $1542
Yarraville
Maloney
Stephen
BS-U 29705
22/05/2015 Reprimand, Fine $1000 & Costs $3417
Surrey Hills
Turner
Shane
IN-L 1003
20/05/2015 Reprimand, Fine $1500 & Costs $450
Leongatha
Stefanovski
Aleksandar
BS-U 33252
20/05/2015 Reprimand, Fine $10,000 & Costs $1542
Williamstown
Aleksandar Stefanovski - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of five allegations in relation to the construction of a swimming pool in
Williamstown. The practitioner failed to comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent manner
and to a professional standard in that he inspected and approved work that did not comply with the building permit, approved protection work that was not confined
within the boundary of the site and failed to provide the adjoining owners with adequate information on a protection work notice. The practitioner failed to comply with
Section 24(1)(a) of the Building Act 1993 in that he issued a building permit where he could not have been satisfied that it would comply with the Act and Regulations
and he failed to comply with Section 30 of the Building Act 1993 by failing to provide structural drawings and protection work notices with the building permit.
Shaw
Michael
BS-U 1165
Berwick
Ikosidekas
Peter
DB-U 14642
29/04/2015 Reprimand, Fine $1500 & Costs $900
Bulleen
Michael Shaw - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of three allegations in relation to the construction of a swimming pool, fencing and a
pergola in Berwick. The practitioner failed to comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent
manner and to a professional standard where he issued a building permit when he was aware that construction had already been commenced on two of the four gate
columns. The practitioner failed to comply with Section 24A(2)(a) of the Building Act 1993 in that he issued a variation to the building permit for the construction of a
pergola when the registration for the builder was limited to building swimming pools and retaining walls. The practitioner also issued a final certificate of inspection for
Peter Ikosidekas - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation in relation to the construction of an adjoined dwelling in Bulleen. The
practitioner failed to comply with Section 48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 by failing to carry out rectification work to a sound insulated party wall in
accordance with the recommendations identified in an inspectors report.
Alexiou
Theo
DB-U 19706
27/04/2015 Reprimand, Fine $2500 & Costs $817
South Morang
Omarr
Michael
DB-L 23668
27/04/2015 Reprimand, Fine $8000 & Costs $680 and
complete a Contracts & Legal Obligations
Course
Toorak
Mathews
James
DB-M 14510
27/04/2015 Reprimand, Fine $1000 & Costs $817
Craigieburn
Vinton
Travis
DB-U 25292
27/04/2015 Reprimand & Costs $204
Bundoora
26/05/2015
Cancellation of Registrations (BS-U 1392 & IN- Various Sites
Supreme Court U 1282)
determination to
dismiss leave
application to
appeal VCAT’s
decision
refusing to stay
the Board’s
decision
cancelling
registrations
6/05/2015 Reprimand, Fine $2000 & Costs $2796
Roger Kidd - The practitioner was found guilty of one allegation in relation to the construction of a dwelling in Loch Sport. The practitioner failed to comply with
Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to a professional standard, in that he issued a
certificate of compliance for the frame stage of the project when he knew or should have known that the sub floor was not constructed in accordance with the approved
building permit.
Jim Tsaganas - The Building Practitioners Board determination in relation to allegation findings is subject to a VCAT appeal.
John Paulding - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation in relation to the construction of 10 townhouses in Yarraville. The
practitioner failed to comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to a professional
standard in that he failed to construct the footings of a wing wall between the townhouses in accordance with the approved building permit. As a result, the wing wall
was demolished and rebuilt.
Stephen Maloney - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation in relation to the construction of a new dwelling and garage in Surrey
Hills. The practitioner failed to comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to a
professional standard in that he failed to identify and take appropriate action to rectify defective framing and building work to ensure that it complied with the approved
building permit.
Shane Turner - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation in relation to the additions to a dwelling and construction of a swimming
pool. The practitioner failed to comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to a
professional standard in that he approved the final inspection when he could not have been satisfied that the mandatory footing inspection for the swimming pool had
been conducted.
Theo Alexiou - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation in relation to the construction of a retaining wall in South Morang. The
practitioner failed to comply with Section 16 of the Building Act 1993 by conducting building work without a building permit. The retaining wall was built during the
construction of an apartment block and was not exempt from needing a building permit.
Michael Omarr - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of five allegations in relation to conducting underpinning work to the wall of a dwelling in
Toorak. The practitioner failed to comply with Section 136(2) of the Building Act 1993 by failing to be covered by the required insurance and failed to include the
necessary contents of a contract as required by Section 31 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995. The practitioner failed to comply with Section 176(2A) of the
Building Act 1993 by carrying out domestic building work outside his registration limitations and failed to comply with Section 246 of the Building Act 1993 by knowingly
providing false information by understating the value of the proposed work. The practitioner also failed to comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations
2006 in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to a professional standard by failing to provide the building owner with an invoice for payments
made.
James Mathews - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations in relation to the construction of a verandah in Craigieburn. The
practitioner failed to comply with Section 176(2A) of the Building Act 1993 by carrying out domestic building work and construction of the verandah that was outside his
registration limitations as a domestic building manager. The practitioner also failed to comply with Section 16 of the Building Act 1993 by failing to ensure that the
building work was properly managed or supervised to ensure compliance with the approved building permit.
Travis Vinton - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation in relation to the construction of a dwelling in Bundoora. The practitioner
failed to rectify defective building work within the required timeframe that was identified in an inspectors report produced under Section 48 of the Domestic Building
Contracts Act 1995.
22/04/2015 Reprimand, Fine $3500 & Costs $2052
Croydon
Gillam
Anthony
DB-U 2829
Melchiori
Rudolph
BS-U 1067
Vella
Darren
DB-U 20672
Shaw
Peter
BS-U 1283
Wilson
Alan
DB-L 1353
Romas
Arthur
DB-U 14797
9/04/2015 Reprimand, Fine $4000 & Costs $899
Bulut
Habib
DB-M 29124
1/04/2015 Suspension of Registration (DB-M 29124) for Keilor East & Jacana
6 months & Costs $1313 and complete a
Contracts and Legal Obligations Course or
Introduction to Low Rise Contract
Administration course or approved equivalent
Pendavingh
Johannes
DB-U 1282
31/03/2015 Reprimand, Fine $7380 & Costs $62,419 and Donvale
complete a Contracts and Legal Obligations
Course or Introduction to Low Rise Contract
Administration course or approved equivalent
Johannes Pendavingh - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of four allegations in relation to the construction of a dwelling in Donvale. The
practitioner failed to comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to a professional
standard, in that he carried out building work in relation to the installation of deck joists and bearers that did not comply with the structural drawings and left natural rock
directly against a fibre cement wall, allowing moisture to enter the subfloor space.
Wenck
Garry
EC- 27590
20/03/2015 Reprimand, Fine $1500 & Costs $4500
Coco
Frank
BS-U 1082
4/03/2015 Reprimand & Costs $3394
Broadmeadows
Garry Wenck - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation in relation to the supervision of engineering plans issued for the
underpinning of an adjoining wall and outbuilding as part of the construction of a swimming pool. During excavation of the swimming pool, the underpinning failed and
the bored piers collapsed. As a result, the adjoining wall collapsed and fell into the swimming pool excavation. The practitioner failed to comply with Regulation 1502(a)
of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to a professional standard by failing to sufficiently investigate the site
and issued plans that were based on assumptions and misinformation.
Frank Coco - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation in relation to the construction of a brick fence and garage wall that
exceeded the height restrictions that were on the approved building permit contrary to Regulation 424(2) of the Building Regulations 2006. The practitioner failed to
comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to a professional standard by failing
to take sufficient action to properly resolve the non-compliant building work after being notified of the non-compliance by a municipal building surveyor.
Wright
Craig
DB-L 13874
3/03/2015 Reprimand, Fine $2000 & Costs $8052.60
Montrose
Danic
Zeljko
DB-L 26682
25/02/2015 Cancellation of Registration (DB-L 26682),
Fine $11,882 & Costs $750.00
Numurkah
Sumic
Mario
DB-U 7614
18/02/2015 Reprimand, Fine $2000 & Costs $3823
Aberfeldie
Smith
Allan
DB-U 5614
18/02/2015 Suspension of Registration (DB-U 5614) for
18 months & Costs $2854.00
Ashwood
Donaldson
Ian
DB-U 4475
13/02/2015 Suspension of Registration (DB-U 4475) for 2 Montrose
years & Costs $6992.00
Brown
Colin
DB-U 23917
11/02/2015 Fine $1500 & Costs $899
20/04/2015
Determination
affirmed on
appeal at VCAT
on 14/10/2016
Cancellation of Registration (BS-U 1067) &
Attwood and various sites in
Ordered to Pay $6634 for Costs Incidental to Campbellfield.
BPB Inquiry were affirmed on appeal. In
addition VCAT also ordered the practitioner to
pay a portion of the costs of the appeal
proceeding of $5000.
20/04/2015 Reprimand, Costs $1058 and complete a
Contracts & Legal Obligations Course
14/04/2015 Reprimand, Fine $2000 & Costs $8691.73
determination
on appeal
Williamstown
Hawthorn
14/04/2015 Suspension of Registration (DB-L 1353) for 3 Pheasant Creek
months, Fine $4000 & Costs $1422 and
complete a Contracts and Legal Obligations
Course or Introduction to Low Rise Contract
Administration course or approved equivalent
Oakleigh East
Williamstown
Keilor
Anthony Gillam - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of three allegations in relation to underpinning and rectification work to a dwelling in
Croydon. The practitioner failed to comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to
a professional standard, in that the packing installed between the stumps and bearers was defective or not of a sufficient standard, failed to consult with a structural
engineer before installing steel posts between the floor bearers and the strip footing and failed to ensure that the mandatory final inspection of the underpinning was
undertaken in a timely manner.
Rudolph Melchiori- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 17 allegations in relation to 1 site in Attwood and 9 sites in Cambellfield. In relation to
the Attwood site relating to the construction of a dwelling and garage, the Board found that at the time of issuing the building permit, the practitioner could not have
been satisfied that the works would comply with the Regulation 302 in that the endorsed documents was insufficient in that it did not clearly show the location, depth
and extend of the site cuts. Also the practitioner had failed to require appropriate protection work to protect the adacent properties at this site. In relation to the
Cambellfield sites the Board found the practitioner had failed to perform work as a practitioner in a competent manner and to a professional standard and not comply
with regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 for failure to require protection works to protect adjacent properties, deficiencies of the documentation
depended upon in issuing the building permits and dificiencies in the occupancy permits. The Board also found the practitioner guilty in accordance with s179(1)(d)
Building Act consituted by a pattern of conduct to show he is not a fit and proper person to practise as a building surveyor.
Darren Vella - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation in relation to the construction of a detached dwelling in Williamstown. The
practitioner carried out building work in contravention of Section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993 by changing the layout of a bathroom, ensuite and walk-in wardrobe,
adding a powder room in the basement and conducting further site excavations and construction of retaining walls that did not comply with the approved building
permit.
Peter Shaw - The practitioner was found guilty of two allegations in relation to the construction of a dwelling in Hawthorn. The practitioner failed to comply with Section
24(1)(a) of the Building Act 1993 in that a building permit was issued where he could not have been satisfied that the building work would comply with Regulation 419 of
the Building Regulations 2006 in respect to overlooking into the habitable rooms and secluded private open spaces of an adjoining property. The practitioner also failed
to comply with Section 87(1) and 87(4) of the Building Act 1993 in that he failed to make a determination as to the appropriateness or otherwise of protection work and
failed to make a determination in writing to the adjoining property owner.
Alan Wilson - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of five allegations in relation to the resiting of a house in Pheasant Creek. The practitioner
failed to comply with Section 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 by failing to include required details in the contract. The practitioner also failed to
comply with Section 136(2) of the Building Act 1993 by carrying out re-stumping work and building work to roof trusses whilst not being covered by the required
insurance. The practitioner failed to carry out the recommendations in an inspectors report produced under Section 48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
The practitioner also failed to comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to a
professional standard by failing to rectify defective building work that resulted in water damage to the interior of the building.
Arthur Romas - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations in relation to the construction of a dwelling and retaining walls in
Oakleigh East. The practitioner failed to comply with Section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993 in that he carried out building work other than in accordance with a building
permit by filling a cavity behind a retaining wall with building debris rather than the stipulated granular material and for failing to install an agricultural pipe. The
practitioner also failed to comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to a
professional standard, in that he failed to ensure that the building works avoided damaging neighbouring property. During the excavation of the site, the existing footing
for the laundry and garage on the neighbouring property was undermined, exposed and left unsupported. Also, along the adjoining boundary at the rear of the property,
a retaining wall was not appropriately backfilled, causing the fence and the neighbours clothesline to collapse.
Habib Bulut - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of ten allegations in relation to three sites. The practitioner failed to comply with Regulation
1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to a professional standard, in that he demanded and
received payment for the frame stage of the project when it had not been approved by the relevant building surveyor, failed to properly manage the building work to
ensure that it was completed to required timelines, abandoned the project before it was completed, failed to respond to correspondence by the owner, agreed to
variations of the building work without first obtaining the signed consent of the owners and for not building in accordance with the building permit.
Craig Wright - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations in relation to the construction of a swimming pool in Montrose. The
practitioner failed to comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to a professional
standard, by failing to take responsibility for the conduct, training and supervision of his employees, leaving an excavation site in an unsafe and open condition and
causing the owner to sign a variation order under duress. The practitioner also entered into a major domestic building contract without first obtaining foundations data
as required by section 30(2) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
Zeljko Danic - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of seven allegations in relation to carrying out re-stumping work and construction of an
addition to one site in Numurkah. The practitioner failed to comply with section 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 by entering into a major domestic
building contract that was not in writing and contravened section 16 of the Building Act 1993 by carrying out construction work without a building permit. The
practitioner also failed to comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to a
professional standard by producing defective work and not to a sufficient standard. The practitioner also failed to comply with section 136 of the Building Act 1993 by
engaging in work without the required insurance and contravened section 176(2A) of the Building Act 1993 for engaging in roofing works and construction of an
additional dwelling outside the registration limitation of subfloor works.
Mario Sumic - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of three allegations in relation to the construction of a unit in Aberfeldie. The practitioner
failed to comply with section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993 in that he carried out building work when a building permit had not been issued. The practitioner failed to
comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to a professional standard by
constructing framework that was defective. The practitioner also applied to amend the building permit without first obtaining the owners consent as required by section
248(1) of the Building Act 1993.
Allan Smith - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations in relation to the construction of two units in Ashwood. The practitioner
failed to comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to a professional standard in
that the framing work, wall sarking and pre-plaster preparation was not completed to a sufficient standard. The practitioner also failed to complete the building work
within the 300 day period for practical completion as per the contract.
Ian Donaldson - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of three allegations in relation to the construction of a dwelling in Montrose. The
practitioner failed to comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to a professional
standard in that the building had approximately 140 identified defects and the first floor and ground floor were not constructed in accordance with the contract drawings.
The practitioner also replaced a stairwell balustrade with a wall contrary to the contract drawings without first obtaining a variation signed by the owners as required by
section 37(2) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
Colin Brown - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of three allegations in relation to the renovation and alteration of a dwelling in Keilor. The
practitioner failed to comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to a professional
standard in that he failed to adequately secure the site and maintain adequate weather protection resulting in several thousand dollars worth of plumbing equipment
being stolen and the dwelling being damaged. The practitioner also failed to complete the building work within the agreed period for practical completion as per the
contract and some works were found to be defective.
11/02/2015 Reprimand & Costs $899
Torquay
Shane Keown - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation in relation to construction of a dwelling in Torquay. The practitioner failed
to comply with section 16 of the Building Act 1993 by commencing building work without a building permit.
South Mandurang
Neville Tolliday - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations in relation to a site in South Mandurang and various other sites. The
practitioner failed to comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to a professional
standard in that he failed to competently supervise and control the relevant building work. The practitioner allowed his registration to be used repeatedly to obtain
building permits for work that he did not control, manage or adequately supervise. The practitioner also failed to maintain adequate weather protection resulting in water
damage to the new addition of the building at the South Mandurang site.
John Vosti - The practitioner was found guilty of two allegations in relation to the construction of a dwelling in Donvale. The practitioner failed to comply with Regulation
1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to a professional standard in that in his capacity as an
inspector, carried out and approved the frame stage and final inspections when there were defects and deficiencies in the building work which should have been
rectified before the inspections were approved. Some of the defects and deficiencies included; inadequate support of the upper floor steel posts supporting the roof, the
timber floor joists and bearers used in the deck were not in accordance with the structural drawings, natural rock was left directly against a fibre cement wall allowing
moisture to enter the subfloor space and midspan and end blocking of the E-joists of the upper floor were missing.
Keown
Shane
DB-U 4100
Tolliday
Neville
DB-U 11200
Vosti
John
IN-L 20111
05/02/2015 Reprimand, Fine $4000 & Costs $3000
determination
on appeal
Hick
Danny
BS-U 1363
4/02/2015 Reprimand, Fine $7500 & Costs $1285
Fuzaty-Hagh
Faramarz
EC1407
4/02/2015 Reprimand, Fine $5000 and Costs $1028
Rizio
Nino
DB-U 18946
27/01/2015 Reprimand, Complete the Contracts & Legal
Obligations Course by 30th June 2015 &
Costs $2904.
Bundoora
Lavados
Rodrigo
BS-U 1567
21/01/2015 Reprimand, Fine $10,000.00 and costs
$2577.00
St Kilda East and Glen Iris
Cerra
Tullio
DB-U 12732
30/12/2014 Suspension of registration (DB-U 12732) for Caroline Springs
two (2) months, require the practitioner to
undertake and complete the Contracts and
Legal Obligation Course by 30 June 2015 and
Costs $899.00
Tullio Cerra - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of five allegations in relation to one site at Caroline Springs for the construction of a single
storey dwelling including car accommodation. As the registered director of a company, the practitioner failed to comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building
Regulations 2006 in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to a professional standard by allowing it to demand and receive payments for lockup stage, plaster stage and fixing stage which were not directly related to the progress of the building work being carried out under the contract contrary to section
40(3) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995. The practitioner also allowed the company to engage in building work that was defective or incomplete and did not
comply with accepted industry standards. The Board further found that the practitioner was guilty of unprofessional conduct in relation to distancing himself from the
administrative care and control of the company including taking steps to completing works prior to the expiration of the building permit.
Casaceli
John
DB-U 5629
18/12/2014 Suspension of Registration (DB-U 5629) for
six (6) months & Costs $2370.00
Black Rock
Van Halen
Geoffrey
IN-U 1179
18/12/2014 Reprimand, Fine $1000.00 and Costs
$1058.00
Leopold
Van Der Nol
Nicholas
DB-U 28352
15/12/2014 Reprimand, Require the practitioner to
undertake and complete the Contracts &
Legal Obligation Course by the 30th June
2015 and Costs $1020.00
North Balwyn
Doyle
Adrian
DB-L 21704
11/12/2014 Suspension of Registration (DB-L 21704) for
two years and Costs $1542.00
Thorpdale
Donohue
Dennis
BS-U 1065
4/12/2014 Reprimand, an undertaking that the
practitioner reform his management and
administrative procedures and inform the
Board of his continuing professional
development and mentoring arrangements
and costs $3917.00
McCammon
Christie
DB-U 12161
John Casaceli - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of four allegations in relation to one site in Black Rock for the construction of a dwelling. It
was found that the practitioner failed to comply with section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993 in that he carried out building work that was not in accordance with a building
permit that was issued and in force in respect of the building work. Regulation 1502(a) was breached also in that the practitioner in that the practitioner being the
registered building practitioner director of JACCS Development P/S trading as Casa Design and Construction failed to carry out work in a competent manner and to a
professional standard and allowed the company to breach section 25(a) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 by not giving to the building owner a copy of the
major domestic building contract within five clear days after entering into that contract. The company also breached section 40(2) of the Domestic Building Contracts
Act 1995 by having entered into a major domestic building contract of a type listed in column 1 of the Table then demanding more than the percentage of the contract
price listed in column 2 at the completion of the stage referred to in column 3. The practitioner also failed to properly oversee subcontractors involved in the building
work who caused the over excavation causing the lower floor level finish.
Geoffrey Van Halen - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations in relation to one site in Leopold for the construction of a dwelling
and garage. It was found that the practitioner failed comply with regulation 1502(2) of the Building Regulations 2006 that he approved the footings system which had
not been constructed in accordance with the building permit and stamped approved plans. The practitioner also failed to notify the relevant building surveyor of the
existence of a retaining wall despite having reason to suspect that it had been built without a building permit and did not notify the relevant building surveyor that the
footing system had been constructed other than in accordance with the building permit and stamped and approved plans.
Nicholas Van Der Nol - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of three allegations in relation to one site in Balwyn for the alteration and renovation
of a dwelling. It was found that the practitioner failed to comply with section 16 of the Building Act 1993 in that he carried out building work without a building permit,
failed to comply with section 136 of the Building Act 1993 in that he engaged in building work without the required insurance and the practitioner failed to carry out his
work as a building practitioner in a competent manner and to a professional standard contrary to Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that the
practitioner's work was defective and not of a sufficient standard.
Adrian Doyle - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of eight allegations in relation to one site in Thorpdale for the re-erection of a dwelling. The
practitioner failed to comply with section 33(1) of the Building Act 1993 by failing to notify the relevant building surveyor without delay of the completion of the mandatory
notification stage prior to placing a footing. The practitioner failed to comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to carry out his
work in a competent manner and to a professional standard by ensuring the building work relating to the sub-floor was not defective or of a sufficient standard, failing to
Dennis Donohue - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of various allegations across nine regional areas in Victoria. The practitioner had failed
to comply with section 24(1)(a) of the Building Act 1993 in that he issued a building permits when he could not have been satisfied that the building work and the
building permit would comply with the Building Regulations 2006 in relation to the construction of the new medical centre (access for people with a disability), the
construction of a verandah, construction of a garage, construction of an extension to existing dwellings , restumping of dwellings, construction of a new dwelling,
removal of a dwelling, construction of a storage building and construction of a storage building. The practitioner failed to comply with section 24A(2) of the Building Act
1993 in relation to a building permit he when he was not or could not have been satisfied that the work would be carried out by a builder who was registered under Part
11 of the Building Act 1993 in the appropriate class of domestic builder and was covered by the required insurance. The practitioner failed to comply with Regulation
1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he accepted applications for building permits that were unsigned and undated and issued building permits that were
contrary to Regulation 315 of the Building Regulations 2006. The practitioner also failed to comply with Clause 4(1) of Schedule 2 of the Building Act 1993 in that he
decided an application for a point of discharge from the allotment when that report had not been obtained in relation to the construction of new dwellings, constructions
of storage buildings and construction of a garage.
Christie McCammon - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to the renovation of a bathroom at a property in Boronia.
The findings included that the practitioner failed to comply with section 136(2) Building Act 1993 in that he carried out the building work without being covered by the
required insurance and that he failed to comply with sections 31(1) and 11(1) Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 by failing to put the major domestic building
contract in writing and demanding and receiving a deposit of more than 10% of the contract price.
9/02/2015 Suspension of Registration (DB-U 11200) for
3 months & Costs $1278.00
Donvale
Craigieburn and South Melbourne Danny Hick - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of five allegations in relation to three sites at Craigieburn and South Melbourne. The
practitioner failed to comply with section 24(1)(a) and section 24(1)(b) of the Building Act 1993 in that he issued building permits in relation to the construction of a
detached dwelling, garage, a bike shed and bin enclosure when he could not have been satisfied that the building permit would comply with the Building Regulations
2006. The practitioner also failed to comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and
to a professional standard in that he issued an amendment to a building permit when he was aware that the building work to which the amendment related had already
been completed.
Maribyrnong
Faramarz Fuzaty-Hagh - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations in relation to one site in Maribyrnong. The practitioner failed to
comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to provide adequate engineering computations and design for the construction of the
dwellings such as providing a bracing design for wind forces. The practitioner's structural design also presented a risk to structure and people such as concrete panels
or various columns not being structurally adequate and the front facade panels having inadequate support.
Wonthaggi, Venus Bay, Berry
Creek, Korumburra, Leongatha,
Kongwak, Pound Creek,
Walkerville and Foster
12/11/2014 Reprimand, Costs $1302.25 & practitioner to Boronia
complete a Contract & Legal Obligation
course within 6 months of the expiration of the
60 day appeal period.
Nino Rizio - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations in relation to one site in Bundoora. The practitioner managed and arranged
aspects of the building work related to the renovation and extension of a dwelling. The practitioner failed to comply with section 136(2) of the Building Act 1993, in that
he managed or arranged the carrying out of domestic building work under a major domestic building contract when he was not covered by the required insurance.
Further, the practitioner entered into a major domestic building contract which did not comply with the requirements of section 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts
Act 1995.
Rodrigo Lavados - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of five allegations in relation two sites at St Kilda and Glen Iris. The practitioner issued
a building permit for the Glen Iris site but did not forward the applicant two copies of the plans, specifications and other documents lodged with the application with
evidence of approval stamped and endorsed on them contrary to Regulation 314 (1)(b) of the Building Regulations 2006. At the St Kilda site the Board found that the
practitioner failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to a professional standard contrary to Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 (in
relation to alterations and additions) in that the practitioner failed to carry out an enforcement action in an appropriate manner, failed to attend a final inspection and
failed to respond to the owner's communication regarding this concern in writing. The practitioner was also found guilty also of being unprofessional for failing to pay
outstanding penalties imposed by the Board by the due date as a result of a previous Inquiry.
Nascarella
Romando
CB-U 4258
12/11/2014 Reprimand, Fine $1000.00 & Costs $3917.00 Tottenham
Short
David
BS-L 36489
22/10/2014 Reprimand & Costs $1058.00
Walker
Marie
BS-U 1068 &
IN-U 1059
22/10/2014 Cancellation of Registrations (BS-U 1068 & IN- Abbotsford
U 1059) & Costs $1058.00
Molinaro
Dino
BS-U 14142
8/10/2014 Reprimand, Fine $1000.00 & Costs $1542.00 Glen Waverley
Golz
Bernd
BS-U 27630
1/10/2014 Reprimand & Costs $1058.00
Govorcin
Thomas
BS-U 1270
1/10/2014 Reprimand, Fine $2000.00 & Costs $1058.00 Craigieburn
Hutchison
Paul
IN-U 39597
1/10/2014 Reprimand, Fine $2000.00 & Costs $1058.00 Brown Hill
Mavridis
Lazarus
BS-U 1588
Leeworthy
Ricky
DB-U 19401
Ross
Lucas
IN-L 22980
Martan
Zdenko
Comer
Jacana & Newtown
Williamstown
25/09/2014 Reprimand, Fine $3000.00 & Costs $2567.50 Berwick
10/11/2014 determination
on appeal
Reprimand
Romando Nascarella - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Tottenham for the building of a car showroom,
workshop and carpark. The findings included that the practitioner failed to comply with section 16(1) in that as a Director of the Company, he permitted building work to
be carried out contrary to the building permit being the deemed agreed protection works requiring the practitioner to expose the footings of the building on the adjoining
allotment by excavation of a trench the base of which was to be battered at 45 degrees at a section on the northern boundary and to excavate and pour the retaining
wall at a section on the northern boundary in 1200mm lengths in a hit and miss sequence. Instead the section was excavated with vertical walls with no batter and
excavation of the trench occurred in one continuous trench. Section 118(1) of the Act was also breached by the practitioner as building work continued to be carried out
on the northern boundary that contravened a building order to stop works.
David Short - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 2 sites in Jacana and Newtown. It was found that the
practitioner contravened sections 30(1) and 24(1)(a) Building Act 1993 by failing to provide the council with a copy of the permit, plans and other relevant documents
within 7 days of issuing a building permit for a swimming pool and safety barrier at a site in Jacana and issuing a building permit for demolition works when he had not
received all relevant information in relation to the boundaries of the allotment and adjoining buildings to meet the requirement of regulation 304(1)(b) of the Building
Regulations 2006 for the Newton site.
Marie Walker - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to the modification of a device-deletion of monitoring system
(building work) in Abbotsford. The findings included that the practitioner failed to comply with section 24(1)(a) of the Building Act 1993 and regulation 1502(a) Building
Regulations 2006 in that she issued a building permit for the building work which lacked of information and that she issued a Certificate of Final Inspection when the
sprinkler system had not been decommissioned as required as an essential safety matter.
Dino Molinaro - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to the construction of a new dwelling, garage and ramp in Glen
Waverley. It was found that the practitioner failed to comply with section 24(1)(a) of the Building Act 1993 by issuing a building permit when he could not have been
satisfied that the building work would comply with the Building Regulations 2006 (Regulation 419) in relation to windows overlooking into the neighbouring habitable
room windows and secluded private open spaces.
Bernd Golz - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to the construction of a double storey dwelling in Williamstown. The
findings included that the practitioner failed to comply with section 24(1)(d) of the Building Act 1993 in that he issued a building permit without being satisfied that the
building permit was consistent with the planning permit including an increased floor area of the roof terrace, northern elevation wall and height of the garage ceiling. He
did not comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to take appropriate action on becoming aware that building works did not
comply with the relevant plans and approved a frame inspection when relevant building work did not comply with the plans.
Thomas Govorcin - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to the construction of a verandah in Craigieburn. The
findings included that the practitioner did not to comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 (the Regulations) in that he failed to identify building
work which was non-compliant with the building permit being a downpipe in the incorrect location and side set back on the northern boundary was 750mm in lieu of the
required 1000mm on the building permit. He also failed to comply with section 24(1)(a) Building Act 1993 in that as the relevant building surveyor, he issued a building
permit when he could not have been satisfied that the permit would comply with Regulation 302(2) in that the allotment plan contained insufficient details in respect of
the levels shown.
Paul Hutchinson - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to the construction of a retaining wall in Brown Hill. The
findings included that the practitioner failed to comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he purported to approve documents in the
relevant building surveyor's name when he was not the relevant building surveyor and that as an inspector for the city of Ballarat he failed to notify the relevant building
surveyor that a retaining wall had been constructed without building permit approval.
Lazarus Mavridis - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to the construction of a new dwelling in Berwick. It was found
that the practitioner failed to comply with section 24(1)(a) Building Act 1993 (the Act) by issuing a building permit when he could not have been satisfied that the building
work complied with the Act and Building Regulations 2006 including that clarification should be been sought in relation to location and extent of retaining walls and the
proposed protection works on the western garage boundary wall were deficient.
Osbornes Flat
Ricky Leeworthy - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to the construction of a home in Osbornes Flat. It was found
that the practitioner failed to perform his work in a competent manner and to a professional standard (Regulation 1502(a) Building Regulations breach) in that defective
works were identified were by an inspector appointed by Building Advice and Conciliation Victoria (BACV) and in relation to those defects, the practitioner failed to carry
out recommendations contained in the inspectors’ report under section 48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
17/09/2014 Reprimand & Costs $1058.00
Rowville
DB-U 18824
17/09/2014 Reprimand, Fine $7000.00 & Costs 1058.00
Avondale Heights
Lucas Ross - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Rowville. It was found that the practitioner failed to
perform his work in a competent manner and to a professional standard (Regulation 1502(a) Building Regulations breach) by failing to identify a non-compliant pool
safety barrier in accordance with Australian Standards AS 1926.1-2007 when approving a final inspection.
Zdenko Martan - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in Avondale Heights. It was found that the practitioner
failed to perform his work in a competent manner and to a professional standard (Regulation 1502(a) Building Regulations breach) by failing to ensure that variations
were agreed to by written request and signed by the owner and failing to competently supervise and control the alterations and additions to an existing dwelling.
Furthermore, he failed to comply with section 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (DBCA) by entering into a major domestic building contract which did
not contain required information.
Paul
BS-U 22784
10/09/2014 Reprimand, Fine $2000.00 and Costs
$3025.00
Bendigo
Paul Comer - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in Bendigo. It was found that the practitioner failed to
comply with section 24(1) Building Act 1993 by issuing a building permit when he could not have been satisfied that the building permit would comply with the Building
Regulations 2006 in that it contained insufficient detail in relation to the dimensions of the proposed building work to the boundaries and the layout of the drains to the
point of discharge as required by Regulation 302(2) of the Building Regulations 2006. He also failed to carry out work in a competent manner and to a professional
standard (Regulation 1502(a) Building Regulations breach) by failing to identify that concrete footings encroached over the allotment boundary in breach of the building
permit conditions and allowing works to proceed on the basis of amended plans which did not comply with the planning permit.
Bettens
Peter
DB-L 31975
10/09/2014 Reprimand, Fine $3000.00, Complete
Contract & Legal Obligations Course within 6
months & Costs $1681.50
Echuca
Priestley
Charles
DB-U 7047
Gibcus
Paul
BS-U 1470
Cole-Sinclair
Daryl
BS-U 1345
Peter Bettens - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 4 allegations in relation to 1 site in Echuca. It was found that the practitioner failed to
comply with sections 16(1) Building Act 1993 in that he carried out building work which was not in accordance with the building permit in that he carried out work
beyond restumping of the dwelling including re-erection of a dwelling, new stumps and new infill sections. He failed to comply with s176(2A) when he was not registered
in the appropriate class of domestic builder to carry out and failed to comply with s136(2) when he entered into a major domestic building contract when not covered by
the required insurance. Furthermore, he failed to comply with section 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (DBCA) by entering into a major domestic
building contract which did not contain certain information required by that section.
Charles Priestley - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 6 allegations in relation to 1 site in Marlo. It was found that the practitioner failed to
comply with Regulations 414 and 415 Building Regulations 2006 (the Regulations) in that the garage wall exceeded the maximum allowable height specified in the
Regulations and he failed to comply with sections 31(1), 16, 40(3), 42(b) and 32 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (Vic) (DBCA) in that: he entered into a
major domestic building contract and failed to supply a certain information which meant the contract fell considerably short of the DBCA requirements; he demanded,
recovered or retained money under the contract in excess of the contract price when it was not authorised; he demanded instalments that were not directly related to
the progress of the building work; he demanded final payment when the work had not been completed and he failed to allow for delays and time estimates in the major
domestic building contract.
Paul Gibcus - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Canterbury. It was found that the practitioner issued a
building permit and an occupancy permit which did not comply with Regulations 410 and 419 Building Regulations 2006; the building permit application did not contain
compliant information regarding overlooking restrictions and the height and set back of the front and rear wing walls and the occupancy permit did not comply in that
the front and rear wing walls extending to the western boundary were over height.
Daryl Cole-Sinclair - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Hampton. It was found that the practitioner failed
to comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he issued a building permit with a specified cost for the proposed work, being the
construction of a carport, Gazebo and front fence, when the cost of the proposed building work was substantially higher than the amount specified in the permit.
McDermott
Arron
BS-L 34264
20/08/2014 Reprimand, Fine $1000.00 & Costs $899.00
Cvetkovski
Mick
DB-U 29820
18/08/2014 Suspension of Registration (DB-U) for 2 years Maribyrnong
& Costs $9071.00
8/09/2014 Reprimand, Fine $6000.00; limited to the
Marlo
undertaking of works of a contract value of not
more than $16,000.00 for 1 year; Complete
three course modules within 1 year and Costs
$968.00
28/08/2014 Reprimand, Fine $750.00 & Costs $300.00
26/09/2014determination
on appeal
Reprimand & Fine $4000.00
Canterbury
Hampton
Dandenong
Arron McDermott - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 3 sites in Dandenong. The findings included that the
practitioner, as the director of the Company and the registered building practitioner responsible, failed to comply with section 18A(2) Building Act 1993 (the Act) in that
he failed to notify the Urban Renewal Authority in writing of the application and cost estimate of the building work. He also failed to await Urban Renewal Authorities
notification relevant to the 3 sites in Dandenong prior issuing the building permits in breach of section 24(3) of the Act.
Mick Cvetkovski - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 7 allegations in relation to 1 site in Maribyrnong, in that as the director of the Company
and the registered building practitioner responsible, he failed to carry out building work, namely the construction of a new dwelling and garage, in a competent manner
and to a professional standard in contravention of Regulation 1502(a) Building Regulations 2006. The findings included that: he demanded and received a deposit in
relation to the building work of more than 5% of the contract price before starting any work under the contract; he demanded and received a payment for the frame
Uren
Jeffrey
BS-U 1069
18/08/2014 Reprimand, Fine $14,436.00 (Max Amount) $ Prahran, Ivanhoe, West Preston
Costs $9276.40
and various sites.
Board
Callum
DB-U 24492
& CB-L 29803
15/08/2014 Reprimand & Costs $3187.00
Leopold
Nouri
Kenan
DB-U 12791
Pheasant Creek, Wollert,
Craigieburn, Clarkefield and
Woodend.
Cassar
Paul
BS-U 22903
14/08/2014 Reprimand, Costs $899.00, suspension of
registration (DB-U) for 1 year and completion
of six (6) specified course Modules prior to
renewing.
30/07/2014 Reprimand, Fine $2500.00 & Costs $3729.50
Cleveland
Richard
BS-U 1352 &
IN-U 1355
30/07/2014 Reprimand, Fine $1500.00 & Costs $2278.00 Waratah Bay
Kerr
David
DB-L 34773
23/07/2014 Reprimand, Fine $3000.00 & Costs $968.00
Camberwell
David Kerr - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Camberwell for commencing building works having
undertaken digging of the hole and steel shell construction of a pool 2 days prior to the building permit being issued in breach of section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993.
Sekhon
Manninder
DP-AD 15609
23/07/2014 Reprimand, Completion of BDAV course &
Costs $968.00
Berwick
Stoneman
Maurice
BD-M 1009
16/07/2014 Reprimand, Fine $2000.00 & Costs $1542.00 Ascot Vale, Essendon, and two
sites in Balwyn North.
Lam
Phat
BS-U 16991
11/07/2014 Reprimand, Fine $1000.00 & Costs $1542.00 Two sites in Wallan
Manninder Sekhon - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Berwick. The practitioner failed to carry out his
work in a competent manner and to a professional standard in that he prepared architectural drawings for the purpose of being part of a building permit application and
those drawings were deficient and lacking sufficient information for the purposes of obtaining a building permit as set out at Regulation 302 of the Building Regulations
2006.
Maurice Stoneman - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 8 allegations in relation to 4 sites. The practitioner failed to carry out his work in a
competent manner and to a professional standard in that he had commenced demolition works prior to the building permits being obtained despite communication
concerns with the relevant building surveyor and failing to notify the relevant building surveyor without delay after the completion of final mandatory stages of the works,
contrary to section 33(1) of the Building Act 1993.
Phat Lam - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 2 sites in Wallan. The findings included that he issued a building
permit in respect of building work without obtaining the report and consent of the relevant reporting authority under Part 4 of the Building Act 1993 in relation to
overlooking and solar access to north facing windows of an adjoining property and a 5 meter high wall with a setback of 1 meter. For the other site the practitioner had
failed to identify during mandatory inspections that the floor level had been constructed lower than level shown on the approved stamped plans.
Lenon
Rodney
DB-U 8643
24/06/2014 Reprimand, Fine $2000.00 & Costs $849.00
Wood
Philip
BS-U 1255
18/06/2014 Reprimand, Fine $6000.00 & 75% of Costs $1542.0 Mount Waverley
Vranjes
Duro
BS-U 20045
18/06/2014 Reprimand, Fine $3000.00 & Costs $1542.00 Craigieburn
Duro Vranjes - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Craigieburn. The practitioner failed to comply with
regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 following a complaint from an adjoining owner that the paling fence to the common boundary was retaining fill from
the site, the practitioner failed to take appropriate action and had only issued a verbal warning of his intention to commence enforcement action.
Rontogiannis
Peter
BS-U 20459
17/06/2014 Reprimand, Fine $14,436.00 (Max Amount) $ Various Sites
Costs $6792
Atkinson
Paul
DB-L 24864
12/06/2014 Reprimand, Fine $5000.00 & Costs $1133.00 Frankston South
Zivkovic
Robert
BS-U 15774
12/06/2014 Reprimand, Fine $6000.00 & Costs $1133 .00
Peter Rontogiannis - The Building Practititioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 18 allegations in relation to various sites. The findings included that he: Issued
Building Permits in circumstances where works were complete, where he should not have been satisfied that the relevant planning permit had been obtained and when
he could not have been satisfied that the building work would comply with the regulations (contravening s24(1)(a) Building Act 1993); failed to comply with regulation
1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he did not ensure relevant parties signed the protection notices or that they were served accordingly; failed to take
required action under Part 8 Building Act 1993; failed to adequately monitor progress of building works, ensure works were complete and that final inspections were
carried out; issued a number of Occupancy Permits for building works without seeing copies relevant Compliance Certificates; failed to respond to requests from the
Building Commission (at the time) to provide details of building permits issued in relation to various sites; failed to provide the Building Commission details of the
Certificates of Final Inspection and Occupancy Permits issued in relation to a number of sites; failed to pay into the Building Administration Fund building permit levies
for building permits issued within the relevant timeframe and he failed to provide the Building Commission/Victorian Building Authority with the required permit and levy
information within the relevant timeframe.
Paul Atkinson - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Frankston South. The practitioner had failed to
comply with section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993 (Act) in that he carried out building work without a building permit and was not not covered by the required insurance
whilst carrying out the works in accordance with s136(2) of the Building Act 1993.
Robert Zivkovic - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 6 allegations in relation to 1 site in Yarraville. The findings included that he: failed to
comply with section 24(1)(a) of the Building Act 1993 in that he issued a building permit when he could not have been satisfied that the building work would comply with
the Act and Building Regulations 2006 and he could not have been satisfied that the consent of the relevant Council had been obtained; failed to comply with section
108(2) Building Act 1993 in that he caused a Building Notice to be served that did not contain all the matters required; failed to take appropriate steps under Part 8 of
the Building Act 1993; delegated his function as the building surveyor without any statutory authority and that he was he facilitatated the protection work process used
as an attempt for the builder to gain access to the adjoining property to carry out building work.
Borrack
Matthew
DB-L 20943
Matern
Anthony
DB-U 16113
28/05/2014 Reprimand, Fine $1000 & Costs $1542
Goughs Bay
Stone
Andrew
BS-U 1025
28/05/2014 Reprimand
Various
John
Andrew
DB-U 10466
30/04/2014 Reprimand, Fine $14,436.00, Costs $4029 & Whittlesea
Complete course in Contracts &Legal
Obligations within 3 months of expiry of the 60
day appeal period
Keilor
Kialla and Congupna
Yarraville
4/06/2014 Reprimand, Fine $10,000.00, Costs $3558.00 Various
& Complete course in Contracts &Legal
Obligations Course (Full)
Jeffrey Uren- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 17 allegations in relation to various sites. The findings included that: he had breached
Regulation 321 of the Building Regulations 2006 by failing to pay into the Building Administration Fund building permit levies for building permits issued within the
appropriate timeframe; he failed to forward to the council building permit details for various sites within the timeframe as required by s30(1) of the Building Act and failed
Callum Board - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to a site at Leopold. The findings included that the practitioner,
as the director of the Company and the registered building practitioner responsible, failed to comply with section 16(1) Building Act 1993 in that he carried out building
work which was not in accordance with the relevant building permit relating to a retaining wall and a deepened edge beam in lieu of bored piers on the western edge of
the garage. Also prior to ceasing construction the company had failed to maintain the site in such a way as to protect the adjoining property from the adverse affect of
redirected surface water as a result of not attaching downpipes which caused water from the roof surface of the dwelling to flow onto the ground and onto the adjoining
property where it would pool.
Kenan Nouri - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 5 allegations in relation to various sites. The findings included that the practitioner failed
to carry out his work as a building practitioner in a competent manner and to a professional standard contrary to regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in
that he failed to complete the building work, namely the construction of five dwellings at five different locations.
Paul Cassar - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 4 allegations in relation to 1 site in Keilor. The findings included that the practitioner failed
to comply with section 24(1)(a) of the Building Act 1993 in that he issued a building permit in respect of the building work, namely the alteration and addition to an
existing dwelling in circumstances where he could not have been satisfied that the maximum height of the proposed garage wall did not exceed 3.6m as per Regulation
415(3) of the Building Regulations 2006 and that the minimum set back of the proposed garage wall would not contravene the requirements of Regulation 417(2); The
practitioner also failed to act in a competent manner and to a professional standard contravening Regulation 1502(a) of the Regulations by not bringing building works
into compliance via appropriate enforcement.
Richard Cleveland - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Waratah Bay. The findings included that the
practitioner failed to comply with section 24(1)(a) of the Building Act 1993 in that he issued a building permit in respect of the building work in circumstances where he
could not have been satisfied that the building work would comply with the Building Regulations1994 (the Regulations) in that the drawings approved by the practitioner
contained sufficient information for him to have determined a smoke detection and alarm system in accordance with Building Code of Australia (specification E2.2a
clause 4,6 & 7) as required at the time. He also failed to comply with Regulation 15.2 of the Regulations in that he issued an occupancy permit despite the certification
failing to identify compliance with the correct Australian Standards in relation to fire alarm systems as required on the building permit and the approved plans.
Rodney Lenon - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 6 allegations in relation to two sites. The findings included commencing the
construction of swimming pools prior to the issuing of the building permits in breach of section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993 (Act). The major domestic building
contracts failed to comply with section 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 and the practitioner failed to ensure that company was covered by the
required insurance pursuant to section 136(1) of the Act.
Philip Wood - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Mount Waverley. The practitioner had failed to comply
with section 24(1) (a) of the Building Act 1993, in that he issued a building permit in circumstances where he could not have been satisfied that the building work would
comply with the Building Regulations 2006 in that the plans did not provide the measurements required to satisfy compliance with Building Regulation 414. Also the
report and consent was not obtained from council for the works which did not comply with the building height provisions of the Building Regulations.
Matthew Borrack - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 11 allegations in relation to various sites.The findings included that: in relation to the
construction and installation of five swimmings pools, the practitioner failed to comply with s16(1) and s136(2) Building Act 1993 by not obtaining a building permits and
failing to obtain the required insurance and that he was guilty of unprofessional conduct for failing to pay oustanding penalties imposed by the Building Parctitioners
Board.
Anthony Matern - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to one site in Goughs Bay. The practitioner failed to comply
with regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that as the sole director of Matern Constructions Pty Ltd he engaged a Company to carry out building work
under a major domestic building contract that received payment in relation to the lock–up stage when lock-up stage had not commenced.
Andrew Stone - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to various sites. The findings included the practitioner failed to
comply with Regulation 321(b) of the Building Regulations 2006 by failing to pay into the Building Administration Fund within seven days after the end of each relevant
month, all amounts of levy received from building permits issued during that month.
Andrew John - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 9 allegations in relation to 1 site in Whittlesea. The findings included that the practitioner
failed to comply with sections 179(1)(a), 179(1)(b) and 179(1)(fc) in that he: entered into a major domestic building contract which did not comply with the Domestic
Building Contracts Act 1995; failed to comply with section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993 in that he carried out building work which was not in accordance with the
relevant building permit and failed to carry out building work in a competent manner and to a professional standard and therefore failed to comply with regulation
1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006.
Macleod
Donald
BS-U 1550
24/04/2014 Reprimand, Fine $1000 & Costs $1900
Deer Park
Flack
Geoffrey
DB-U 10121
23/04/2014 Reprimand, Fine $6000 & Costs $1542
Spring Gully
Degen
Bartholomew
CB-U 3533
23/04/2014 Reprimand, Fine $3000 & Costs $1542
Keysborough
Harrison
Marc
DB-U 17331
21/03/2014 Reprimand the practitioner, fine of $2000.00
and costs of $1542.00
East Melbourne
Quadara
John
DB-U 7404
5/03/2014 Reprimand, Costs $2844 & Complete the
Contracts & Legal Obligation Course within 6
months of the decision becoming Affective
(after 60 day appeal period)
Austin
John
BS-U 1166
3/03/2014 Reprimand, Fine $2,000, Undertaking to not Beech Forest, Drouin South
issue any further building permits from 1/6/14
& Costs $899
Eyers
Peter
BS-U 14435
18/02/2014 Reprimand, Fine $1000 & Costs $10,000
Sekic
Mark
DB-U 5367
CB-U 5733
18/12/2013 Suspension of Registrations CB-U 5733 & DB- Berwick, Glen Waverley
U 5367 for six (6) months & Costs of $1542
Gowans
Phillip
IN-U 1590
14/02/2014 Reprimand & Costs $3000
Nilma
Todaro
Salvatore
DB-U 9781
Altona
Marsicovetere
Robert
BS-U 1124
18/12/2013 Reprimand, Fine $4000, Costs $1542 &
Complete Contracts and Legal Obligation
course within 6 months of the decision
becoming effective
6/12/2013 Reprimand, Fine $3000 & Costs $22,089.41
Georgio
Emanuel
DB-U 12044
5/12/2013 Reprimand & Costs $421
Kensington
Cirej
Willam
DB-U 17592
5/12/2013 Undertaking, Specific Courses & Costs $842
Carnegie
Hall
Peter
DB-U 21238
4/12/2013 Fine $1000 & Costs $2500
Reservoir
Antonelli
Joseph
BS-U 1332
12/11/2013 Reprimand, Fine $6000 & Ordered to Pay
$4945 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Sunbury
Attwood, West Preston
Jankulovski
Peter
DB-U 9062
30/10/2013 Reprimand, Fine $5500 & Ordered to Pay
$7209 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Altona Meadows
Mazza
Mario
DB-U 6973
25/10/2013 Reprimand, Fine $5500 & Ordered to Pay
$1058 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Greenvale
Fasham
Trevor
DB-U 2762
Hunt
Robert
DB-L 23798
Butera
Joseph
DB-U 19215
9/10/2013 Reprimand, Fine $3000 & Ordered to Pay
Alphington
$8771 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
2/10/2013 Reprimand, Fine $4000, Ordered to Pay
Kew East
$5267 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry &
Practitioner to complete Contracts & Legal
Obligation Course within 4 months of the
expiration of the 60 day appeal period.
27/09/2013 Reprimand, Fine $6,000, Ordered to Pay
Broadmeadows
$1,058 for Costs Incidental to BPB Inquiry &
Ordered to Pay $3,840 for Costs Incidental to
Building Appeals Board appeal.
Heidelberg West
Bentleigh East, Murrumbeena
Doncaster, Windsor, Toorak
Donald Macleod - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Deer Park. The findings included that the
practitioner failed to carry out work in a competent manner and to a professional standard failing to comply with regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in
that as the relevant building surveyor for the construction of a verandah he issued a Certificate of Final Inspection in when he could not have been satisfied that the
building work complied with Regulation 414 and 420 of the Building Regulations 2006 for report and consent requirements for set backs and the National Construction
code requirements were not met with respect to fire separation. He also failed to take appropriate action to ensure that the building work complied with the building
permit, the Building Act 1993 and the Regulations.
Geoffrey Flack - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 4 allegations in relation to 1 site in Spring Gully. The findings included that the
practitioner: failed to comply with Section 16(1) Building Act 1993 in that he carried out the building work before a building permit was issued; he carried out building
work, which was not in accordance with building permit; he failed to comply with Section 136(1) of the Building Act 1993, in that he carried out building work when not
covered by the required insurance and he failed to carry out your work as a building practitioner in a competent manner and to a professional standard failing to comply
with regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006, in that he entered into a major domestic building contract which did not comply with the Domestic Building
Contracts Act 1995.
Bartholomew Degen - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Keysborough. The findings included that the
practitioner, as Director of the company, failed to comply with section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993 in that he carried out building work, namely, the demolition of an
existing factory building without a building permit.
Marc Harrison - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in East Melbourne. The findings included that the
practitioner failed comply with sections 179(1)(b) and 179(1)(fb) of the Building Act 1993 in that: he did not respond to the owner’s complaints about defective building
work in a timely and professional manner; he carried out defective building work; and failed to carry out the recommendations contained in the inspection report within
the time period specified in the report.
John Quadara - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 5 allegations in relation to 1 site in Heidelberg West. The findings included that he failed
to comply sections 179(a) and (b) of the Building Act 1993 in that he: obtained warranty insurance which he knew would assist the owner in obtaining finance when he
was not the builder for the work; provided the owner with a signed, written contract which he knew would assist the owner in obtaining finance when the contract did not
reflect the agreement between him and the owner; facilitated the owner acting as an owner-builder when a certificate of consent had not been issued; carried out
buiding work which was not in accordance with the buiding permit and allowed the owner to move into the unit when he knew it was incomplete and an occupancy
permit had not been issued.
John Austin - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 7 allegations in relation to 2 sites in Beech Forest and Drouin South. The findings
included that he failed to comply with sections 179(1)(b) of the Building Act 1993 and the Building Regulations 2006 in that as the relevant building surveyor he: issued
a building permit for domestic building work when he could not be satisfied that the work was to be carried out by a registered builder or covered by the required
insurance; approved stages of the building work that did not comply with the building permit; did not give the relevant Council a copy of any prescribed documents
realting to the application for an occupancy permit; issued an occupancy permit without the required compliance certificate and issued a building order for minor work to
the builder instead of the owners.
Peter Eyers - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 2 sites in Bentleight East and Murrumbeena. The findings
included that he failed to comply with section 179(1)(a), 179(1)(b) and 179(1)(e) of the Building Act 1993 in that as the relevant building surveyor he engaged in
unprofessional conduct by becoming aware that the building work was being carried out without a permit and failed to take appropriate action, he failed to notify the
relevant Council in writing of his appointment as the relevant building surveyor within 7 days of having been appointed and he engaged on his behalf an unregistered
person to do work of a kind that can only be done by a person registered.
Mark Sekic - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 8 allegations in relation to 3 sites in Berwick and Glen Waverley. Findings included: failing
to comply with s48 Domestic Building Contract Act 1995 inspection reports of February 2011, July 2012 and August 2012 in rectifying defective building work as the
sole director of Jademark Homes Pty Ltd and registered builder on the building permit; failing to comply with Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 by
requesting and demanding payment for the frame stage of the building work when the frame stage had not been approved and demanded the lock up stage progress
payment before it had been completed . Furthermore, in relation to a major domestic building contract the company was late in commencement work, completion work,
failed to issue written variations, failed to accept responsibility of defective work and failed to respond to the owner and failed to respond to a VCAT order.
Phillip Gowans- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Nilma. It was found that he failed to comply with
Regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he failed to inform the municipal building surveyor or responsible authority when he ought to have known
building work was being carried out without a building permit and that he attended the site to inspect the footings and frame when he ought to have known that a
building permit had not been issued.
Salvatore Todaro - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 4 allegations in relation to 1 site in Altona. These findings include that he: carried out
building work that was defective; caused damage while attempting to rectify the work; failed to carry out recommendations contained in an inspectors report and failed
to attend the site address on several occasions to rectify the defective building work at the owners request.
Robert Marsicovetere - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 12 allegations in relation to 3 sites at Doncaster, Windsor and Toorak. These
findings include that he: prepared the alternative solution reports for the above properties and failed to include adequate details, information and analysis such as
assessments and calculations along with supporting evidence to determine if the solution achieved a satisfactory level of fire safety; He also failed to identify
performance requirements applied to the alternative solution contrary to clauses A0.10 and A0.09 of the Building Code of Australia; and alternative solutions had been
Emanuel Georgio - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Kensington. These findings include that he: failed
to comply with section 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 by entering into a major domestic building contract which did not set out the full terms of the
agreement or otherwise comply with the requirements of section 31(1) and he failed to obtain the required insurance in relation to the domestic building work, failing to
comply with section 136(2) of the Building Act 1993.
William Cirej - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 4 allegations in relation to 1 site in Carnegie. These findings include that he: failed to
comply with section 11(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (DBCA) by demanding and receiving a despot of more than 5% of the contract price; failed to
comply with section 31(1)(d) of the DBCA by failing to include plans and specifications with enough information to obtain a building permit; failed to comply with section
38(5) DBCA by giving effect to variations requested by the owner which were not in the form of a signed request attached to a copy of a notice and failed to comply with
section 37(1) DBCA by giving effect to a variation without first obtaining signed consent attached to a copy of a notice.
Peter Hall - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Reservoir. The practitioner was found guilty of failing to
ensure building work carried out was not defective.
Joseph Antonelli- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 4 allegations in relation to 1 site in Greenvale. These findings include that he: issued a
building permit for the construction of a new dwelling when he was not or could not have been satisfied that the report of a reporting authority had been obtained as
required; failed to ensure that the building work, for which he issued a building permit, was carried out in accordance with the Act, the Regulations and the Building
Permit and further that, despite the building Permit lapsing on 25 December 2005 he took no further action or steps in relation to the matter until 4 November 2010;
approved amended drawings and issued a certificate of final inspection when the plans and the as constructed works did not comply with the Building Regulations
2006.
Peter Jankulovski- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 5 allegations in relation to 1 site in Greenvale. These findings include that: the
building work did not comply with the approved plans forming part of the building permit issued in respect of the building work; the building work did not comply with the
Building Regulations 2006; he carried out building work that was defective; he demanded and received payment of a deposit prior to having obtained builder's warranty
insurance in relation to the building work; he demanded frame stage payment, prior to frame stage having been approved by the relevant building surveyor, which was
contrary to the provisions of the contract.
Mario Mazza- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in Greenvale. These findings include that he: carried out
defective building work that was not in accordance with stamped and approved plans and failed to accept responsibility for the defective building work; carried out
building work without a building permit in respect of the work being in force under the Act; breached section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993 in that the [company]
reduced the height of the building, constructed different ceiling heights and failed to construct two interior steps at the entrance of the dwelling, which was not in
accordance with the stamped and approved plans.
Trevor Fasham- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Alphington. These findings include that he: carried
out excavation work in an unsafe and unworkmanlike manner; and failed to rectify the inadequate shoring in a timely manner.
Robert Hunt- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Kew East. These findings include that he carried out
defective building work.
Joseph Butera- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 4 allegations in relation to 1 site in Broadmeadows. These findings include that he: failed
to comply with section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993 in that building work encroach into the adjacent property when a building permit was not issued and in force for
that work; and failed to ensure that solar hot water heaters were installed at units 6, 13 and 14 of the site prior to occupation of those units, contrary to a condition of the
occupancy permit issued for those units.
Perna
Samuel
BS-U 1177
25/09/2013 Reprimand, Fine $4000 & Costs $2641
Kostadinoski
Zoran
DB-M 27226
23/09/2013 Reprimand, Fine $12,000 & Ordered to Pay
$899 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Fisher
Steven
DB-U 9727
Antonacci
Marco
CB-L 26508
Theodorou
Theo
BS-U 1100
19/09/2013 Suspension of Registration (DB-U 9727) for 4 Parkdale
months, Completion of the Contracts & Legal
Obligation Course, within a 6 month period &
Ordered to Pay $899 for Costs Incidental to
Inquiry
Doncaster
17/09/2013 Reprimand, Fine $7042 & Ordered to Pay
$1058 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Windsor, Toorak
11/09/2013 Reprimand, Fine $2000 & Ordered to Pay
$7333 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Lewis
Raymond
BS-U 13866
06/09/2013 Reprimand, Fine $2000 & Ordered to Pay
$899 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Scapetis
Lambes
DB-U 20435
28/08/2013 Fine $2000, Ordered to Pay $889 for Costs
Parkdale
Incidental to Inquiry & Complete Contracts &
Legal Obligation Course, within 6 months from
the expiration of the 60 day appeal period
Lavados
Rodrigo
BS-U 1567
21/08/2013 Reprimand, Fine $2000 & Ordered to Pay
$2320 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Ryan
Bernard
DB-U 2469
28/08/2013 Fine $1000 & Ordered to Pay $1039 for Costs Upwey
Incidental to Inquiry
Bernard Ryan- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in Upwey. These findings include that he: carried out
building work without first obtaining a building permit for that building work; carried out defective work and/or did not comply with accepted industry standards; and
carried out building work when he was not covered by the required insurance.
Borrack
Matthew
DB-L 20943
Matthew Borrack- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Vermont. These findings include that he: carried
out the construction and installation of a swimming pool without obtaining a building permit for that work; and carried out the construction and installation of a swimming
pool whilst not being covered by the required insurance.
Arnup
Christopher
DB-U 1102
CB-U 6845
14/08/2013 Reprimand, Fine $2000 & Completion of
Vermont
Contracts & Legal Obligation Course, within 4
months from the expiration of the 60 day
appeal period & Ordered to Pay $899 for
Costs Incidental to Inquiry
14/08/2013 Complete Contracts & Legal Obligation
Drouin South
Course, within 6 months from the expiration of
the 60 day appeal period & Ordered to Pay
$899 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Bettens
Peter
DB-L 31975
Hutchison
Scott
DB-U 17192
Edmonds
Brendan
DB-U 19685
Millson
Craig
DB-U 1349
Moore
Grant
Findlay
Doyle
Bayswater, Greensborough,
Ferntree Gully, Donvale,
Caulfield, Boronia, Bayswater
North, Wyndham Vale, Burwood,
Ringwood, Hoppers Crossing,
Greenvale
Tongala, Rochester
Creswick, Hampton Park,
Somerton
15/08/2013determination
on appeal
Samuel Perna- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 21 allegations in relation to 16 sites in Bayswater, Greensborough, Ferntree Gully,
Donvale, Caulfield, Boronia, Bayswater North, Wyndham Vale, Burwood, Ringwood, Hoppers Crossing and Lilydale. These findings include that he: failed to take
appropriate action to ensure that the frame complied with the Act, Building Regulations 2006 and the building permit; failed to identify that the frame did not comply with
the building permit; and issued building permits when he was not or ought not to have been satisfied that the work would be carried out by a builder registered under
Part 11 of the Act in the appropriate class of domestic builder and who was covered by the required insurance.
Zoran Kostadinoski- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in Greenvale. These findings include that he:
entered into a major domestic building contract in respect of the building work, which did not satisfy the requirement set out in sections 31(1)(k) of the Domestic
Building Contracts Act 1995; failed to obtain a signed request or signed consent to variations from the building owner before giving effect to the variations; and
demanded and received a deposit under the domestic building contract for the Building Work of more than 5% of the contract price before starting any work.
Steven Fisher- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Parkdale. These findings include that he: consented to
another practitioner, for the purposes of obtaining certificates of occupancy, to using his name and registration number to identify him as the builder responsible for the
construction of two dwellings constructed; and knowingly provided another practitioner with his registration number as a building practitioner and provided advice to him
to enable him to falsely obtain domestic builder’s warranty insurance for two dwellings he had constructed.
Marco Antonacci- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Doncaster. These findings include that he: carried
out building work when a building permit in respect of that work was required but had not been issued.
Theo Theodorou- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 10 allegations in relation to 2 sites in Windsor and Toorak. These findings include that
he: issued a Certificate of Compliance – Design in respect of an alternative solution for fire safety matters for the proposed building work when the alternative solution
failed to include adequate details and information; issued a Certificate of Compliance – Design in respect of an alternative solution for fire safety matters for the
proposed building work when the alternative solution failed to identify all performance requirements that applied to the alternative solution; issued a Certificate of
Compliance – Design in respect of an alternative solution for fire safety matters for the proposed building work when the alternative solution failed to adequately identify
the assessment method used to determine compliance; issued a Certificate of Compliance – Design in respect of an alternative solution for fire safety matters for the
proposed building work without adequately identifying the drawings and specifications relied on by him in issuing the certificate; and issued a Certificate of Compliance
– Design in respect of an alternative solution for fire safety matters for the proposed building work without having reviewed the drawings and specifications on which the
alternative solution was based.
Raymond Lewis- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 9 allegations in relation to 2 sites in Tongala and Rochester. These findings include
that he: failed to provide the relevant Council with a copy of the building permit and any plans and other documents lodged with the application for the permit within 7
days; issued a building permit in circumstances where he could not have been satisfied that the building work and the building permit would comply with the Building
Act 1993 (the Act) and Building Regulations 2006 (the regulations); issued an Occupancy Permit for the work and failed to submit a copy of documentation required by
Section 73 (1) Building Act 1993; and failed to prepare a document showing the basis for allowing less than full compliance as required under regulation 1011 of the
Building Regulations 2006.
Lambes Scapetis- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Parkdale. These findings include that he carried out
domestic building work with a value in excess of $12,000.00 when he knew or ought to have known that he did not have the required certificate of consent for that
work.
Rodrigo Lavados- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 24 allegations in relation to 3 sites in Creswick, Hampton Park and Somerton. These
findings include that he: issued a building permit when he could not have been satisfied that the Building Work would comply with the Building Act 1993 (Vic) (Building
Act) and the Building Regulations 2006 (Vic); issued a building permit when he could not have been satisfied that the report and consent of the Hepburn Shire Council
had been obtained for the building work; issued a building permit for the building work and failed to provide the Hepburn Shire Council with a copy of that building permit
and any plans and other relevant documents within 7 days of issuing that permit; failed to notify the Hepburn Shire Council within 7 days of his appointment as the
relevant building surveyor at the Site and the building work proposed to be carried out at the site; issued a building permit when that building work was not to be carried
out at that site; failed to give to the City of Casey Council a copy of the letter requesting consolidation of titles; issued the building permit when he had not received a
signed and completed Form 1 application for building permit from the applicant; issued a building permit containing an incorrect description of work; issued a building
permit containing an incorrect value of work; failed to provide the owner of the site with a copy of the approved building permit documentation; failed to, within 7 days of
issuing the certificate of final inspection, give to the relevant council a copy of the certificate of final inspection; issued a Certificate of Final Inspection which failed to
make reference to the Display of the Certificate of Final Inspection and the annual essential services report; failed to, within 7 days of having issued a certificate of final
inspection give to the relevant council the inspection approval dates for the building work; failed to comply with regulation 316(1) (b) (iv) of the Building (Interim)
Regulations 2005 in that he nominated two years for completion of the building work rather than three years; failed to lodge a copy of the occupancy permit at the
relevant council within 7 days; and failed to provide the inspection approval dates to the relevant Council.
Christopher Arnup- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 4 allegations in relation to 1 site in Drouin South. These findings included that he:
carried out building work that did not comply with building permit; made application on behalf of the building owners for the purpose of obtaining a building permit when
he was not authorised in writing by the owner to do so; demanded from the building owner an amount of money under the contract in excess of the contract price when
not authorised to do so by the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995; and failed to provide the owners, no later than 5 clear business days after entering into a
domestic building contract, a legible signed copy of the contract
Reprimand, Fine $8,333, Ordered to Pay
Linton
$817 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry & to
Complete a Contracts & Legal Obligation
Course at HIA or MBAV, complete the course
31/07/2013 Suspension of Registration for 3 months
Shepparton
Peter Bettens- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 5 allegations in relation to 1 site in Linton. These findings included that he: entered into a
major domestic building contract for the building work at the site which did not include the required matters set out in section 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts
Act 1995; demanded and received a deposit under a domestic building contract of more than 10% of the contract price; carried out building works or organised for the
carrying out of building work at the site prior to the issuing of a building permit; carried out work under a major domestic building contract when he was not covered by
Scott Hutchison- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Shepparton. These findings included that he: carried
out building work that did not comply with building permit number; and failed to comply with a stop work order.
31/07/2013 Fine $4000 & Ordered to Pay $7,191 for
Costs Incidental to Inquiry
31/07/2013 Fine $3000 & Ordered to Pay $11,258 of
Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Carrum
IN-U 1387
04/07/2013 Suspension of Registration (IN-U 1387) for 3
months
Richmond
Brendan Edmonds- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in Carrum. These findings included that he: failed to
display on the allotment in a conspicuous position accessible to the public the registration numbers and contact details of the builder and building surveyor and the
Craig Millson- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in Seaford. These findings included that he: failed to
ensure that the building work complied with section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993; failed to carry out recommendations contained in an inspector’s report under
section 48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995; and carried out the rectification work when a building permit had not been issued for the rectification work.
Grant Moore- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Richmond. These findings include that he: failed to take
appropriate action when he knew or ought to have known that building work had been carried out without a building permit to approve that work; and failed to identify
defects in the building work when carrying out the mandatory stage final inspection.
Malcolm
BS-L 33560
Ronald
DB-M 22704
04/07/2013 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $2434 for Costs Metung
Incidental to Inquiry
28/06/2013 Suspension of Registration (DB-M 22704) for Kew East, Thornbury
3 months & Ordered to Pay $1542 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
Seaford
Malcolm Findlay- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Metung. These findings include that he failed to
identify defective works and/or issues of significant non-compliance with the Building Act , the Regulations and the Building Code of Australia.
Ronald Doyle- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 6 allegations in relation to 2 sites in Kew East and Thornbury. These findings include that:
the building work he carried out was incomplete, did not comply with the accepted industry standards, and that he did not respond to correspondence from the
complainant regarding completion of the work; failed to carry out his work in a competent manner and to a professional standard pursuant to regulation 1502(a) of the
Building Regulations 2006; carried out building work that was not in accordance with the building permit; and the building work was incomplete and he failed to properly
manage, control and supervise the building work.
Butera
Joseph
DB-U 19215
28/06/2013 Reprimand & Fine $2000
Reservoir
Meade
David
DB-U 4978
28/06/2013 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $1058 for Costs Noorat
Incidental to Inquiry
David Meade- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 5 allegations in relation to 1 site in Noorat. These findings included that he: knowingly
provided misleading information to a person carrying out the function of the relevant building surveyor under the Building Act; acted on behalf of the owner for the
purpose of making an application for a building permit when not authorised in writing by the owner to do so; entered into a major domestic building contract that was not
in writing; carried out a variation to the plans, requested by the building owner, and did not give the owner a notice that states the cost of the variation and the effect it
will have on the contract price; and demanded an amount that was not directly related to the progress of the building work being carried out under the major domestic
building contract.
Lin
Xiao
DB-M 23831
28/06/2013 Cancel Registration (DB-M 23831), Fine
$7042 & Costs $1542
Burnside Heights
Brice
Jeffery
BD-L 1087
26/06/2013 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $409 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
Ormond
Xiao Lin - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 6 allegations in relation to 2 sites in Burnside Heights. These findings include that at relevant
times he was the director of Yahmoe Pty Ltd (Company) responsible for the Building Work and that the building work did not comply with the Building Permit contrary to
section 16(1) Building Act 1993 and did not comply with the Building Regulations 2006 in that the building work was defective.
Jeffery Brice- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Ormond. This finding included that he carried out building
work which did not comply with the building permit.
Davidge
Alan
CB-U 6049
26/06/2013 Reprimand, Fine $7042 & Ordered to Pay
$817 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Sunshine
Alan Davidge- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in Sunshine. These findings included that he: did not
comply with the building permit including the approved plans issued in respect of the building work, forming part of that permit; failed to notify the relevant building
surveyor without delay after the completion of a mandatory notification stage of that work; and failed to comply with regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006
in that he did not carry out the work in a proper and workmanlike manner.
Jones
Gregory
DP-AD 1505
26/06/2013 Reprimand, Fine $2000
Edithvale
Gregory Jones- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation 1 site in Edithvale. These findings included that he: inaccurately
depicted the ground level, the floor level, the wall height and the fence height on plans he prepared and submitted those plans for endorsement under a building permit;
and failed to submit to the relevant building surveyor amended plans within a reasonable time of being requested to do so.
Stokes
David
IN-U 1476
26/06/2013 Reprimand, Fine $2000 & $817
Heidelberg
David Stokes - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Heidelberg in that he had failed to comply with the
Building Regulations 2006 by approving the pre-slab inspection when the building work did not comply with approved plans forming part of the Building Permit.
Lika
Qani
DB-U 9178
Brooklyn, Altona North
Cipriani
Walter
DB-U 11641
Whitney
Brett
DB-L 23368
Qani Lika- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 2 sites in Brooklyn and
Altona North. These findings included that he failed to comply with recommendations contained in an inspectors report under section 48 of the Domestic Building
Contracts Act 1995.
Walter Cipriani- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 4 allegations in relation to 1 site in Glenroy. These allegations included that he: carried
out building work that was defective, incomplete and/or did not comply with industry standards; entered into a Major Domestic Building Contract which did not comply
with section 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995; failed to comply with regulation 1502 (a) of the Building Regulations 2006, in that pages 6-9 and pages
Brett Whitney- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 5 allegations in relation to 5 various sites. These findings included that he: failed to
ensure that the building work was carried out to a sufficient standard; and failed to ensure that the [company] responded in a timely and appropriate manner to a
complaint from the owner about defects in the building work.
Jongen
Andrew
DB-U 7386
25/06/2013 Cancellation of Registrations (DB-U 9178 &
CB-U 2184), Fine $4000 & Ordered to Pay
$1542 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
25/06/2013 Cancellation of Registration (DB-U 11641),
Disqualification of the practitioner from being
registered for 3 Years, Fine $4000 & Ordered
19/06/2013 Reprimand, Fine $4000, Ordered to Complete
a 'Contracts and Legal Obligations' Module, &
Ordered to Pay $1707 for Costs Incidental to
Inquiry
29/05/2013 Suspension of Registration (DB-U 7386) for
12 months, Fine $7402 & Ordered to Pay
$1542 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry.
Mackay
Jeffery
BS-U 1153
29/05/2013 Suspension of Registration (BS-U 1153) for
12 months, Reprimand, & Ordered to Pay
$1542 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Talbot, Dunolly, Natte Yallock,
Jeffery Mackay- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 4 allegations in relation to 11 sites in various suburbs. These findings included that he:
Maryborough, Wareek, Burnbank failed to provide the relevant Council with a copy of a building permit and any plans and other documents lodged with the application for the permit within 7 days of
issuing the building permit; failed to notify the relevant Council in writing of the appointment and the building work in respect of which he was appointed; issued a
building permit in circumstances where he could not have been satisfied that the building work and the building permit would comply with the Building Act 1993 and
Building Regulations 2006, and therefore he failed to comply with section 24(1) (a) of the Act; and failed to, within 7 days of issuing the building permit, give to the
relevant council a copy of the building permit and any plans and other documents lodged with the application for the permit.
Melchiori
Rudolph
BS-U 1067
28/06/2013determination
on appeal
Suspension of Registration (BS-U 1067) for 6 Reservoir, Rye, Dromana,
months, Fine $2500 & Ordered to Pay $3146 Brighton
for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Kulathayendran
Nada
DB-U 21027
Reprimand, Fine $2000 & Ordered to Pay
$1048 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Hawthorn East
Walker
Marie
BS-U 1068
Foxwell
Joseph
DB-U 20697
Suspension of Registration (BS-U 1068) for 6
months, Fine $3000 & Ordered to Pay
$14,832 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Reprimand & Fine $4000
Quarry Hill, Eaglehawk, Bendigo,
Carapooee, Strathdale, Golden
Square, California Gully, Epsom,
Hurstbridge
Sivic
Emin
BD-L 25798
Reprimand, Fine $1466 & Ordered to Pay
$809 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Abbottsford
Mamontov
Boris
DB-U 15053
05/06/2013determination
on appeal
03/06/2013determination
on appeal
3/06/2013determination
on appeal
31/05/2013determination
on appeal
29/05/2013determination
on appeal
Zivkovic
Robert
BS-U 15774
23/05/2013determination
on appeal
Reprimand, Fine $12,084 & Ordered to Pay
$817 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Vollebregt
Ronald
DB-L 22450
Glenroy
Rosebud West, Ringwood East,
Noble Park, Blackburn South,
Warrandyte
Hawthorn
Cancellation of Registration (DB-U 15053),
Doreen, Peninsula, Rosebud
Fine $2000 & Ordered to Pay $1527 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
23/05/2013 Reprimand, Ordered to pay $1542 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry, & to Undertake the 4
Core Units of Training
Balwyn, Werribee
Geelong
Joseph Butera- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Reservoir. The findings included that he: carried out
defective building work that did not comply with professional standards.
Andrew Jongen- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 7 allegations in relation to 1 site in Hawthorn. These findings included that he: carried
out building work when no building permit had been issued or was in force permitting the building work; carried out building work that did not comply with the approved
plans forming part of the building permit issued in respect of the building work; carried out defective building work; was responsible for the company giving effect to
variations to the major domestic building contract for the building work, and recovering money in respect of those variations, without having complied with the
requirements set out in section 37 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995; was responsible for the company demanding stage payments prior to completion of
those stages; was responsible for the company demanding final payment under a major domestic building contract for the building work when the building work was not
yet complete and an occupancy permit had not yet been issued; and was responsible for the company failing to supply invoices, receipts or other documents showing
the cost of prime cost items under a domestic building contact.
Rudolph Melchiori- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 8 allegations in relation to 4 sites in Reservoir, Rye, Dromana and Brighton. These
findings included that he: issued a building permit in circumstances where he could not be satisfied that the building work would comply with the Act and the Building
(Interim) Regulations 2005; issued a building permit that did not correctly set out the required information; failed to require an amended building permit in respect of
building work that did not comply with the approved plans forming part of the building permit; carried out and approved a foundation inspection in circumstances where
the building work had not been conducted in compliance with the approved engineering design; issued a building permit without first obtaining the consent and report of
the relevant council in relation to an area liable to flooding; and extended the period within which the building work was required to be completed after the lapse of the
building permit.
Nada Kulathayendran- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Hawthorn East. The findings included that he
had carried out defective building work and failed to carry out all recommendations in an inspector’s report.
Marie Walker- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in Richmond. The findings included that she: endorsed a
certificate of final inspection which included work that had not been inspected and which she knew, or ought to have known, had already been completed; failed
to identify defects when carrying out the mandatory stump hole inspection; and failed to make appropriate inquiries concerning the value of the additional costs
Joseph Foxwell- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Hurstbridge. These findings included that he: carried
out building work that was not in accordance with the approved building permit and approved plans; and carried out building work despite being aware of a
discrepancy.
Emin Sivic- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Abbottsford. These findings included that he: failed to
take all reasonable steps to ensure that the registration numbers and contact details of issue of the permit were displayed on the allotment prior to the commencement
of the building work for the duration of the building work; and submitted plans to the relevant building surveyor that were inaccurate and misleading to avoid protection
Boris Mamontov- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 3 sites in Doreen, Peninsula and Rosebud. These findings
included that he: failed to ensure that the company did not receive deposit monies under major domestic building contracts prior to a domestic building insurance policy
being issued in relation to those contracts, as envisaged by the Domestic Building Insurance Ministerial Order dated 23 May 2003; and was responsible for the
company holding out that it had domestic building insurance when it did not, contrary to section 137 of the Act.
Robert Zivkovic- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 6 allegations in relation to 2 sites in Balwyn and Werribee. These findings included that
he: issued building permits when he could not have been satisfied that the required report and consent of the relevant council had been obtained; and issued a building
permit that did not set out the correct mandatory notification stages for inspection.
Ronald Vollebregt- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Geelong. The findings included that he: carried out
building work when no building permit had been issued for that work; and himself, his workers and the occupants of the dwelling.
Connors
Travis
DB-U 1851
22/05/2013determination
on appeal
Cancellation of Registration (DB-U 1851) &
Ordered to Pay $4777 for Costs Incidental to
Inquiry
Weiler
Marek
DB-U 4569
Trunov
Grigoriy
DB-U 18517
CB-L 25086
Findlay
Alan
DB-U 3171
Caruana
Matthew
CB-L 29004
Iflyand
Leonid
DB-L 36429
4/04/2013 Reprimand, Fine $1500 & Ordered to Pay
$1058 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Challons
David
CB-L 19498
Condon
Stephen
DB-U 9150
4/04/2013 Reprimand, Fine $1000 & Ordered to Pay
$1058 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
28/03/2013 Suspension of Registration for 1 year, Fine
$1500 & Ordered to Pay $1542 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
Crespin
Kitchener
DB-M 30965
DB-L 30966
15/05/2013 Reprimand, Fine $2000 & Ordered to Pay
$1542 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
8/05/2013 Cancellation of Registrations (DB-U 18517 &
CB-L 25086), Fine $14,084, Disqualified From
Being Registered for a Period of 3 Years &
Ordered to Pay $3642 for Costs Incidental to
Inquiry
1/05/2013 Reprimand, Ordered to Pay $1645 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry & Complete a Contracts
and Legal Obligations Course Within 6
Months
10/04/2013 Reprimand, Fine $4000 & Ordered to Pay
$1542 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Windsor, Point Cook, Caulfield,
Tarneit
Travis Connors- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 21 allegations in relation to 4 sites in Windsor, Point Cook, Caulfield and Tarneit. These
findings include that he: lodged the application for home warranty insurance and misrepresented the insurer; knowingly provided false and/or or misleading information
to the relevant building surveyor; carried out of, domestic building work pursuant to a major domestic building contract when it was not covered by the required
insurance as his registration as a building practitioner under Part 11 of the Act was suspended by the Building Practitioners Board; obtained required insurance by
fraud or misrepresentation in that he arranged another registered building practitioner, to sign an application in his name for home warranty insurance in respect of the
building work; held yourself out as being covered by the required insurance when you were not covered by that insurance; purported to act on behalf of the owners for
the purpose of applying to the relevant building surveyor for a building permit, when he was not authorised in writing by the owners to do so; purported to act on behalf
of the owners for the purpose of applying to the relevant building surveyor for an amendment to Building Permit when he was not authorised in writing by the owners to
do so; entered into a cost plus contract with the owners when the contract was not of a prescribed class and it was not the case that it was not possible to calculate the
cost of a substantial part of the work without carrying out some domestic building work; sought and obtained payment by way of deposit money when the required
insurance had not been issued; carried out building work when a building permit had not been issued; did not take all reasonable steps to ensure that a copy of Building
Permit and one set of the approved plans and specifications relating to the Permit were available for inspection at the Site while the building work was in progress;
carried out and/or arranged the carrying out of building work that was defective and did not comply with the Building Code of Australia, as incorporated into the
Regulations; and created or arranged the creation of a falsified occupancy permit, and/ or that you forwarded or arranged for the forwarding of a falsified occupancy
permit to induce final payment for the works undertaken at the property.
Ferntree Gully
Marek Weiler- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Ferntree Gully. The findings included that he carried out
defective building work.
Grigoriy Trunov- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Moorabbin. The findings included that he: carried
out building work that was not in accordance with the Act, the Building Regulations 2006 and the building permit; and failed to carry out his work as a building
practitioner in a competent manner and to a professional standard and therefore failed to comply with regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006.
Moorabbin
Surrey Hills
Alan Findlay- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Surrey Hills. The finding include that he failed to comply
with section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993 (Act) in that he carried out building work that was not in accordance with the building permit.
St Albans
Matthew Caruana- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 2 site in St. Albans. The findings include that he: carried
out building work that did not comply with the approved plans forming part of the building permit issued in respect of the building work; and failed to notify the relevant
building surveyor without delay after the completion of a mandatory notification stage of that work.
Leonid Iflyand- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Caulfield North. The findings included that he:
received a deposit of more than 10 per cent of a contract price before starting any work under that contract and entered into a major domestic building contract which
was, in contravention of s11 and s 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 respectively.
Caulfield North
Footscray
Indigo Valley
26/03/2013 Immediate suspension of registration pending Glen Iris
Inquiry in the interests of the public pursuant
s178(3) Building Act. BAB Appeal has
affirmed decision of BPB to immediately
suspend pending Inquiry.
20/03/2013 Reprimand, Fine $6000, & Ordered to Pay
Doncaster East
$1058 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Houdalakis
Dimokretos
BS-U 1180
Lewis
Raymond
BS-U 13866
20/03/2013 Reprimand, Fine $10,000, & Ordered to Pay
$1344 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Linton, Echuca
Faraj
George
DB-U 11964
20/03/2013 Reprimand, Fine $6000 & Ordered to Pay
$1058 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
North Balwyn
Board
Callum
DB-U 24492
Foster
Tammy
DP-AD 32674
Sleigh
Neville
DB-U 13968
Shaw
Michael
BS-U 1165
DB-U 12810
Thomson
Ross
BS-U 1290
20/02/2013 Reprimand & Order to Pay $1118 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
Warragul
Cassar
Paul
BS-U 22903
Williams Landing
Pourre
Guy
DB-L 21797
20/02/2013 Reprimand, Fine $3000, & Ordered to Pay
$1118 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
13/02/2013 Reprimand
2/04/2013 Reprimand, Fine $12,000, Ordered to Pay
St Leonards
$1527 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry & to
undertake 3 course units: “Apply Legal
Requirements to Building Construction
Projects”; “Select and Prepare a Construction
Contract”; “Administer a Construction
Contract”, Within 6 Months of Decision
13/03/2013 Suspended Registration (DP-AD 32674) for 2 Blackburn North
years & Ordered to Pay $1542 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
6/03/2013 Fine $500 & Ordered to Pay $500 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
6/03/2013 Reprimand, Fine $12,000 & Ordered to Pay
$671 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Box Hill
Brighton, Carrum, Middle Park
Dandenong
David Challons- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Footscray. The findings include that he carried out
building work when no building permit had been issued for the building work at the time that the building work was carried out.
Stephen Condon- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in Indigo Valley. The findings include that he: entered
into a major domestic building contract that did not comply with the requirements of section 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995; carried out domestic
building work under a major domestic building contract without being covered by the required insurance; and carried out defective building work.
Pending Inquiry
Dimokretos Houdalakis- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Doncaster East. The findings included that
he: issued a building permit in respect of the building work in circumstances where he could not have been satisfied that the building work would comply with the
Building Regulations 2006 and the Building Code of Australia; failed to identify that the building work did not comply with the Regulations and / or the approved plans
and building specifications, forming part of the building permit, and he failed to identify that the building work contained a number of defects.
Raymond Lewis- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 8 allegations in relation to 2 sites in Linton and Echuca. The findings included that he:
issued a building permit when he could not have been satisfied that the work would comply with the Building Act 1993 (the Act) and Building Regulations 2006; issued
a building permit for work that had already been carried out; issued a certificate of compliance stating that he conducted a stump hole inspection when in fact he had
not; issued a permit for ‘restumping’ based on two documents that disclosed insufficient information; issued a building permit when the building work was to be carried
out by a builder who is registered under Part 11 in the appropriate class of domestic builder and was covered by the required insurance; accepted an appointment to
complete functions set out in section 76 of the Act, when another private building surveyor had already commenced to carry out functions set out in that section in
respect of that work; failed to issue any building order or notice when illegal building work was identified; and knowingly made a false or misleading statement to a
George Faraj- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 4 allegations in relation to 1 site in North Balwyn. The findings included that he: carried
out demolition work when no building permit had been issued for that building work; carried out building work that did not comply with the approved plans forming part
of the building permit issued in respect of the building work; carried out defective building work; and demanded and received an amount not directly related to the
progress of the building work being carried out.
Callum Board- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in St Leonards. The findings included that he: invoiced
the owner for the completed frame stage, as a result of his misrepresentation that the frame stage was complete, and was paid by the owner when he was not required
to be paid; and abandoned the site without completing the building work as per the contract.
Tammy Foster- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 5 allegations in relation to 1 site in Blackburn North. The findings included that she:
carried out building work when a building permit in respect of that work had not been issued; managed and arranged the carrying out of domestic building work under a
major domestic building contract when she was not covered by the required insurance; demanded and received a deposit under a domestic building contract of more
than 5% where the contract price was more than $20,000; failed to comply with section 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995; and failed to comply with
section 29(a) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995, in that she entered into a major domestic building contract when she was not registered as a builder under
the Building Act 1993.
Neville Sleigh- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Box Hill. The findings included that he: failed to comply
with the requirements set out in section 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
Michael Shaw- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 8 allegations in relation to 3 sites in Brighton, Carrum and Middle Park. The findings
included that he: issued a building permit for the works when he could not have been satisfied that a relevant planning permit for those works had been obtained; that
he issued a building permit when he was not satisfied that the planning permit had been obtained; failed to ensure that a dwelling had been demolished prior to signing
a certificate of final inspection for demolition; failed to require additional adequate plans of the proposed development to be submitted with the building permit
application; issued the building permit for building work which did not comply with the Regulations; issued the building permit for building work when the consent of a
reporting authority had not been obtained or deemed to have been obtained; issued the building permit, which was not consistent with the planning permit; and failed to
properly specify the grounds on which he issued a building notice.
Ross Thomson- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Warragul. The findings included that he: issued a
building permit when he was aware that the building work was already completed; and issued a building permit when he could not have been satisfied that the applicant
had been issued with a Certificate of Consent that was valid at the time of issuance of the building permit.
Paul Cassar- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in Williams Landing. The findings included that he:
allowed a variation to the building permit plans which was not consistent with the approved planning permit; failed to identify the as-built façade differed to that on the
Guy Pourre- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 4 allegations in relation to 1 site in Dandenong. The findings included that he: carried out
building work when a building permit was not issued and in force for that work; carried out domestic building work under a major domestic building contract without
being covered by the required insurance; carried out domestic building work under a major domestic building contract when he was not registered in the appropriate
category or class under Part 11 of the Building Act 1993; and entered into a major domestic building contract but failed to ensure that the contract set out in full all the
terms of the Contact as required by of section 31(1) of that Act.
Palma
Tony
DB-U 16691
13/02/2013 Reprimand, Fine $2500 & Ordered to Pay
$1542 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
6/02/2013 Reprimand, Fine $4000 & Ordered to Pay
$1717 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Essendon
Tony Palma- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 2 sites in Essendon and Niddrie. The findings included that he:
entered into major domestic building contracts which identified incorrect contract prices for the work undertaken.
Pascoe Vale
Ali Kahraman- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in Pascoe Vale. The findings include that he: failed to
adequately supervise the building work and ensure that the excavation did not extend beyond the boundaries of the site; failed to adequately supervise the building
work and ensure waterproofing as detailed in the working drawings provided by the architects was provided; and failed to ensure drainage was installed in accordance
with the building plans in relation to subsurface drainage.
Craigieburn, Attwood,
Shaun Nelson- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 17 allegations in relation to 5 sites in Craigieburn, Attwood, Broadmeadows and
Broadmeadows, Brunswick West Brunswick West. The findings included that he: issued building permits when he could not have been satisfied that the building works and the building permits complied
with the Building Regulations ; failed to respond to a letter from the MBS for the Hume City Council and, therefore, have failed to perform his work in a competent
manner and to a professional standard contrary to Regulation 1502 (a) of the Building Regulations 2006; issued a building permit without requiring adequate protection
work in relation to the adjoining properties; and issued a building permit when the protection work notice issued to the adjoining owner did not detail the nature or
duration of the work to be carried out, nor any information as to when the works would be commenced, as required by section 84 of the Building Act 1993 and
regulation 602(3) of the Regulations.
Kahraman
Ali
DB-M 22891
Nelson
Shaun
BS-U 23391
IN-U 1193
30/01/2013 Reprimand, Fine $4000 & Ordered to Pay
$4822 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Swan
Geoffrey
DB-U 1678
Twist
Mark
DB-L 31590
23/01/2013 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay
$1542 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
23/01/2012 Cancel Registration & Ordered to Pay
$1542 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Butt
Mohamed
DB-M 22021
24/12/2012 Suspend Registration for 3 months, Complete Craigieburn
relevant Contracts & Legal Obligation Course
(By 30th June 2014) & Ordered to Pay $1058
for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Ibrahim
Abdul
BD-L 25182
Fitzroy North
Carroll
Patrick
DB-U 9428
20/12/2012 Fine $2000 & Ordered to Pay
$4500 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
18/12/2012 Reprimand, Fine $8000 & Ordered to Pay
$817 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Lim
Hong
DB-U 12623
Glen Waverley
Solomou
Peter
DB-U 22673
12/12/2012 Reprimand, Fine $2000 & Ordered to Pay
$1542 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
06/12/2012 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay
$817 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Abdalla
Nassar
DB-U 4920
26/11/2012 Reprimand, Fine $1000, Ordered to Pay
$1048 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry &
Glen Iris
Nassar Abdalla- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Fawkner. The findings included that he: verbally
threatened one of the owners of the property whom he had entered into a major domestic building contract; did not record the full price of the building works in the
Campbell
Brian
DB-U 1042
22/11/2012 Reprimand, Fine $1500 & Ordered to Pay
$700 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Fawkner
Brian Campbell- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Fawkner. The findings included that he carried out
building work which did not comply with the Building Regulations 2006 and failed to ensure that the Contract set out in full all the terms of the Contact as required by of
section 31(1)(b) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
Butler
Geoffrey
BS-U 1107
14/11/2012 Reprimand, Fine $1000 & Ordered to Pay
$5302 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
South Morang, Christmas Hills
Saglam
Huseyin
DB-U 27228
14/11/2012 Reprimand, Fine $10,000 & Ordered to Pay
$944 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Lalor, Greenvale, Bulleen,
Reservoir
Bergin
Brian
BS-U 1476
Brunswick
Tran
Khoa
DB-M 27446
14/11/2012 Suspension of Registration (BS-U 1476) for
12 Months, Fine of $2500, Ordered to Pay
$1919 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry &
Ordered to Pay $3800 for Costs Incidental to
Appeal
8/11/2012 Cancel Registration (DB-M 27447), Fine $
12,214.00 & Costs $ 2756
Geoffrey Butler- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 8 allegations in relation to 2 sites in South Morang and Christmas Hills. The findings
included that he had prepared a performance assessment report that did not comply with the Building Code of Australia in that he failed to: follow the guidelines;
identify the assessment methods; identify the drawings and documents that formed the Alternative Solution, which was the subject of the performance assessment
report; and incorrectly applied the ‘expert judgment’ method.
Huseyin Saglam- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 8 allegations relating to 4 sites in Lalor, Greenvale, Bullen, and Reservoir. The findings
included that he failed to ensure that the company, of which he was the director: had systems in place to prevent it from demanding, recovering and/or retaining
premature progress payments in relation to stages of building work not yet completed; did not demand or receive a deposit in breach of section 11(1) (a) of the
Domestic Building Contracts Act 2006; carried out recommendations contained in an inspector’s report; and re-inspected the frame before continuing with the building
work.
Brian Bergin- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Brunswick. The findings included that he had failed: to
identify serious fire safety risks when carrying out a site inspection; and to take appropriate follow-up action to provide adequate fire safety features.
White
Scott
DB-U 9119
8/11/2012 Reprimand, Fine $2000 & Ordered to Pay
$1826 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Cullen
Patrick
BS-U 1264
Di Raco
Rocco
BS-U 14813
31/10/2012Reprimand, Fine $3000 & Ordered to Pay
determination
$2517 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
on appeal
31/10/2012 Reprimand, Fine $3000 & Ordered to Pay
$2902 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Lovett
George
DB-U 3856
25/10/2012 Reprimand, Cancellation of Registrations DB- Canterbury, Middle Park,
L 21635 & DB-U 3856 & Costs $3256
Camberwell
Toomey
Ritchie
DB-M 30982
25/10/2012 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $1756 for Costs Croydon North, Mt Evelyn,
Incidental to Inquiry
Chirnside Park, Blackburn,
Labertouche
Knezevic
Gojko
DB-U 4989
18/10/2012 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $1527 for Costs Berwick
Incidental to Inquiry
Humevale
Winchelsea
Croydon
Mount Waverley
Watsons Creek
Mornington
Narre Warren
Westmeadows
Geoffrey Swan- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Humevale. The findings included that he carried out
defective building work.
Mark Twist- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Winchelsea. The findings included that he: carried out
defective building work and failed to carry out all of the recommendations contained in an inspector's report under section 48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act
1995 in relation to defects.
Mohamed Butt- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 5 allegations in relation to 1 site in Craigieburn. The findings included that he:
demanded, recovered and retained from the building owner an amount of money under the contract in excess of the contract price when not authorised to do so by the
Domestic Building Contract Act ; failed to properly supervise, manage and control the building work; failed to ensure that the building work was carried out to a sufficient
standard; failed to ensure that the building work was carried out in accordance with the approved plans forming part of the building permit and the Building Regulations
2006; and verbally abused the building owner and behaved in an uncontrolled and intimidating manner.
Abdul Ibrahim- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Fitzroy North. The findings included that he: carried
out building work which did not comply with the building permit and failed to adequately supervise the building work at the site.
Patrick Carroll- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 6 allegations in relation to 1 site in Linton. The findings included that he: carried out
building work which was not in accordance with the building permit; carried out building work which was not in accordance with the Building Regulations 2006; failed to
ensure the ceiling insulation had been installed correctly; failed to provide the required compliance certificates to the owner of units 1, 2 and 3 at hand over as required;
failed to communicate with the owner of Unit 1 in relation to issues at the Site in a timely manner; failed to comply in a timely manner with a direction issued under
section 37 of the Building Act 1993; incorrectly informed the building inspector who had issued a direction under section 37 of the Building Act 1993 that the direction
had been complied with when he had not made adequate inquiries to ensure this was the case; and failed to comply with the agreed undertakings of a conciliation held
between the owner of Unit 1 and Consumer Affairs Victoria by the required date.
Hong Lim- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Glen Waverley. The findings included that he failed to
ensure that the new dwelling he constructing was set out in accordance with the plans approved as part of the building permit.
Peter Solomou- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Mount Waverley. The findings included that he
carried out defective building work and failed to carry out all of the recommendations contained in an inspector's report.
Khoa Tran- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in Watsons Creek. The findings included that he: carried out
defective building work; carried out building work not in accordance with the approved plans forming part of the building permit and/ or not in accordance with the
Building Regulations 2006; and failed to properly manage, supervise and control the building work.
Scott White- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 4 allegations in relation to 1 site in Mornington. The findings included that he had: carried
out defective building work; failed to carry out recommendations contained in an inspector’s report; and failed to comply with the requirements of the building contract
and the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995, in relation to variations and requests for extensions of time.
Patrick Cullen- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Narre Warren. The findings included that he: approved
a mandatory footing inspection when the building work did not comply with the approved plans; and approved a mandatory sub-floor framing inspection when the subfloor framing was defective.
Rocco Di Raco- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Westmeadows. The findings included that he had:
issued an amended building permit without requiring protection works; and issued an amended building permit in circumstances where he was not, or ought not to
have been satisfied that the building work would comply with the Building Act 1993 or Building Regulations 2006.
George Lovett- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 10 allegations in relation to Canterbury, Middle Park, and Camberwell. The findings
included that he: carried out demolition works prior to a building permit being issued; demanded and later received an amount of money in excess of the contract price
when it was not authorised to do so by the Act; failed to progress the building work in a timely manner; and failed to take sufficient care during building work; carried out
building work in close proximity to and/or on a boundary wall at the site,
causing damage to the adjoining property.
Ritchie Toomey- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 6 allegations in relation to 5 sites in Croydon North, Mt Evelyn, Chirnside Park,
Blackburn and Labertouche. The findings included that he: requested payment for the frame stage of building work, at these various sites, when the frame stage had
not yet been approved by the relevant building surveyor; and requested payment for the final stage of building work, at these various sites, when the final stage had not
yet been approved by the relevant building surveyor.
Gojko Knezevic- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Berwick. The findings included that he: had carried
out excavation work without a building permit; and failed to comply with the requirements of an emergency order in relation to the works being carried out.
De Jong
Johannes
BS-U 1321
16/10/2012 Cancellation of Registrations (BS-U 1321 &
IN-U 1273) & Ordered to Pay $84,000 for
Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Craigieburn, Carlton, Roxburgh
Park, Oak Park, Clifton Hill,
Broadmeadows, Canterbury,
Noble Park, Wallan, Springvale,
Dandenong North, Brunswick,
Kew
Merhi
Mohamed
DB-L 23906
Broadmeadows, Brunswick,
10/10/2012 Cancellation of Registration (DB-L 23096),
Fine $6107 & Ordered to Pay $1677 for Costs Northcote, Kew
Incidental to Inquiry
Cook
Bernard
DB-U 11401
3/10/2012 Cancellation of Registration (DB-U 11401) &
Ordered to Pay $1048 for Costs Incidental to
Inquiry
Walwa
Wedge
Nicholas
DB-U 11302
3/10/2012 Cancellation of Registration (DB-U 11302)
Clayton South
Edwards
Dale
DB-L 17876
26/09/2012 Reprimand, Fine $4500 & Ordered to Pay
$1048 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Burnside
Stojanovski
Alex
DB-U 11417
Preston
Fidler
Matthew
DB-L 27008
Pong
Tony
DB-U 20033
Mouropoulos
Peter
DB-U 7968
26/09/2012 Reprimand, Fine $2000 & Ordered to Pay
$1048 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
12/09/2012 Cancellation of Registration (DB-L 27008),
Fine $14,084 & Ordered to Pay $884 for
Costs Incidental to Inquiry
12/09/2012 Reprimand, Fine $1000 & Ordered to Pay
$442 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
5/09/2012 Reprimand, Fine $1500 & Ordered to Pay
$1294 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Vosti
John
IN-L 20111
4/09/2012 Reprimand, Fine $ 9720 & Ordered to Pay
$4580 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Caulfield
Rontogiannis
Peter
BS-U 20459
29/08/2012 Reprimand, Fine $7000 & Ordered to Pay
$1677 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Ermel
Andrew
IN-U 1489
24/08/2012 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $1295 for Costs Burnside Heights
Incidental to Inquiry
Lin
Xiao
DB-M 23831
24/08/2012 Reprimand, Fine $5000 & Ordered to Pay
$2777 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Burnside Heights
Xiao Lin- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 5 allegations in relation to 1 site in Burnside Heights. The findings included that as the sole
director of the company, and the registered building practitioner responsible for the building work, he failed to ensure: the building work complied with the building permit
issued in relation to that building work; that the building work complied with the Building Regulations 2006; and that the building work was not defective.
Smith
Patti
BS-U 1280
Glen Waverley
Stanbrook
Gregory
DB-U 8456
24/08/2012 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $763 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
20/08/2012 Reprimand, Fine $8000 & Ordered to Pay
$4133 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Patti Smith- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Glen Waverley. The finding included that she approved a
final inspection and issued an occupancy permit, when the building work did not comply with the building permit.
Gregory Stanbrook- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 12 allegations in relation to 1 site in Point Cook. The findings included that he: failed
to notify the building surveyor without delay of the completion of mandatory notification stages; carried out building work not in accordance with the building permit;
failed to respond adequately to a building direction, building notice, an email, and 3 separate building orders; carried out defective building work and failed to ensure
that the building work was not defective; failed to carry out recommendations contained in an inspector's report; and failed to ensure the company, of which he was the
director, did not request payments for mandatory building works, when the building works had not been approved by the relevant building surveyor.
Chant
Darren
DB-L 25485
Dorecki
Andrezej
DB-U 18680
8/08/2012 Reprimand, Fine $6107 & Ordered to Pay
$1048 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Frankston
Douglass
Geoffrey
DB-U 7477
8/08/2012 Reprimand, Fine $2000 & Ordered to Pay
$524 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Lilydale
Biesboer
Richard
DB-U 4514
1/08/2012 Reprimand, Fine $3000 & Ordered to Pay
$1048 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Tawonga South
O'Mahoney
Mark
DB-U 15367
Stephenson
Gavin
DB-U 17720
1/08/2012 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $1048 for Costs Echuca
Incidental to Inquiry
1/08/2012 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $1048 for Costs Clifton Hill
Incidental to Inquiry
Wendouree
Berwick
Oakleigh
Reservoir
Point Cook
21/09/2012 Cancellation of both Registrations (DB-U
Pascoe Vale
25485 & DB-L 10720), Fine $6107 & Ordered
to Pay $1048 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Johannes De Jong- The Building Practitioner Board found the practitioner guilty of 52 allegations relating to 13 sites. These finding include that he: failed to take any
action in relation to a building permit which was due to lapse; failed to take sufficient action in circumstances in which the relevant building permit had lapsed and the
final inspection of the building work had not yet been approved; failed to make a decision on an application for a building permit within the prescribed time; failed to take
appropriate action after having been notified that the building work did not comply with the building permit and was being separately occupied; issued a building permit
when the documents submitted and approved by him as part of the building permit was inconsistent; issued a building permit when the documents submitted and
approved by him as part of the building permit contained inadequate information regarding side levels; failed to detect the approved plans forming part of the building
permit did not reflect the true site conditions; failed to detect that the building work did not comply with the approved plans forming part of the building permit; failed to
take appropriate action after having identified that the building work did not comply with the approved plans form part of the town planning permit; he was aware, or
ought to have been aware, that illegal building work had been carried out at the site, and he failed to take appropriate action; issued a certificate of final inspection that
was inaccurate and/or incorrect; issued a certificate of compliance for building work when he had not yet been appointed as the relevant building surveyor; did not issue
a occupancy permit in the form of Form 6; failed to have sufficient personal involvement in relation to the performance of his functions as the relevant building surveyor;
issued a building permit without having obtained consent of the relevant Council; failed to estimate the costs of building work; issued a building permit for building work
without requiring that protection work be carried out in relation to the adjoining property; delegated his functions as the relevant building surveyor to his co-director
without any statutory authority to do so; failed to identify works that had been carried out without a building permit; failed within 7 days after issuing an occupancy permit
to give the relevant Council a copy of that permit; accepted an incomplete Form 1 application for a building permit; issued a building permit in circumstances where the
nominated registered building practitioner was not registered in the appropriate class; issued a building permit without ensuring that the required warranty insurance
was in place for the building work; failed to take action when he knew, or ought to have known, that a site was being occupied without an occupancy permit; and failed
to take the appropriate action after having received a letter from the owner raising concerns about the structural integrity of the site.
Mohamed Merhi- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 28 allegations in relation to 4 sites in Broadmeadows, Brunswick, Northcote and Kew.
The findings included that he: carried out the building work when no building permit had been issued or was in force permitting the building work; falsely represented
himself as a member of the Housing Industry Association, when he was not; failed to comply with the terms of the major domestic building contract; carried out
defective building work; failed to obtain a building permit when he made representation to the owner that he would; failed to comply with section 31(1) of the Domestic
Building Contracts Act 1995; presented to the building owner falsified documents purporting to be a building permit and a Certificate of Final Inspection; and failed to
comply with court orders, made in relation to his conduct as a registered building practitioner.
Bernard Cook- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 6 allegations in relation to 1 site in Walwa. The findings included that he had: carried out
building work without a permit issued or in forced under the Act; carried out defective stumping works; carried out building work that did not comply with performance
requirements of the Building Code of Australia Volume 2; demanded a deposit in excess of 10% of the contract price, of a domestic building contract, before starting
any work under the contract; and entered into a major domestic building contract that was not in writing.
Nicholas Wedge- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in Clayton South. The findings included that he had:
carried out defective building work; failed to carry out recommendations contained in an inspection report; and demanded, or received, an instalment that was not
directly related to the progress of building work carried out under the building contract, between him and the owners.
Dale Edwards- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in Burnside. The findings included that he had: entered
into a major domestic building contract, in respect to the installation of a swimming pool, for a contract price that did not satisfy the requirements set out in the
Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995; carried out building work that did not comply with the building permit issued; and failed to carry out recommendations in an
inspectors report.
Alex Stojanovski- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Preston. The findings included that he had
demolished two existing dwellings, when building permits, in respect of those building works, had not been issued.
Matthew Fidler- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Wendouree. The findings included that he had
demanded a deposit in excess of 10% of the contract price of a domestic building contract, before starting work under the contract.
Tony Pong- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Berwick. The findings included that he had carried out
defective building work.
Peter Mouropoulos- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 4 allegations in relation to 1 site in Oakleigh. The findings included that he: carried
out building work when a building permit had not been issued; did not stop building work when a building permit had not been issued; and entered into a major
domestic building contract for a contract price, which did not satisfy the requirements set out in section 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
John Vosti- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 4 allegations in relation to 1 site in Caulfield. The findings included that he: carried out
inspections outside of the conditions of his registration; approved a mandatory stage frame inspection when it ought not to have been approved, given the presence of
defects; incorrectly issued an inspection report approving the mandatory stage frame inspection, when he had not in fact approved the frame inspection; and failed to
either keep adequate records, or make adequate enquiries within records kept, regarding the date of his approval of the frame stage.
Peter Rontogiannis- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 7 allegations in relation to 1 site in Reservoir. The findings included that he had:
failed to comply with specifications in the building order in that he did not refer the matter to the Building Commission within 14 days after the final date; failed to identify
that the building work did not comply with 416(1) of the Regulations, and the approved plans forming part of the building permit for the building work; failed to provide a
copy of an occupancy permit issued by him to the relevant council within 7 days of issuing that permit; issued an occupancy permit when the dwelling was not suitable
for occupation; failed to ensure that the owner of the site carried out protection work on the site; and issued a building permit when he could not have been satisfied
that the building work would comply with the Building Regulations 2006.
Andrew Ermel- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Burnside Heights. The findings included that he
approved a final inspection of building work when the building work was defective.
Darren Chant- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in Pascoe Vale. The findings included that he: requested
or received a deposit in excess of 5% of the contract price under a domestic building contract; entered into a domestic building contract that did not include plans and
specifications that contained enough information to enable the obtaining of a building permit; and entered a major domestic building contract for building work, despite
his category of registration as a building practitioner being “Limited”, and did not return any part of the deposit paid under the building contract to the owner following the
cancellation of the building contract.
Andrezej Dorecki- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Frankston. The findings included that he: carried
out building work that did not comply with the approved plans forming part of the building permit issued in respect of the building work; and carried out building work that
did not comply with the Building Regulations 2006.
Geoffrey Douglass- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Lilydale. The findings included that he: carried out
building work when a building permit had not been issued; and issued a document which purported to be an occupancy permit for the building work.
Richard Biesboer- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in Tawonga South. The findings included that he:
carried out building works when no building permit in respect of the work had been issued or was in force under the Act; entered into a major domestic building contract
for the building work which did not comply with the requirements set out in section 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act ; and demanded, and received, a
deposit for building work, under a domestic building contract which was in excess.
Mark O'Mahoney- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 2 sites in Echuca. The findings included that he carried out
building works without a building permit.
Gavin Stephenson- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Clifton Hill. The finding included that he failed to
supervise adequately work carried out by a person engaged by him, and who was under his direction and control.
Crossman
Keith
DB-U 4828
DB-U 1277
26/07/2012 Reprimand, Fine $2000 & Ordered to Pay
$1933 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Mt Evelyn
George
Davin
DB-U 31428
26/07/2012 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $1084 for Costs Warragul
Incidental to Inquiry
Davin George- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 4 allegations in relation to 1 site in Warragul. The findings included that he: carried out
building work that was not in accordance with the approved plans forming part of the building permit; failed to ensure that the company, of which he was the director,
complied with the building contract; and gave effect to variations when he did not have a copy of the required notice signed by the building owner.
Ostojich
Alaric
DB-L 23899
Richmond
Alaric Ostojich- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 4 allegations in relation to 1 site in Richmond. The findings included that he carried out
re-stumping works that were found to be defective. These works were commenced without a building permit and the contract did not comply with section 21(1) of the
Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
Reardon
James
BS-U 17998
24/07/2012 Reprimand, Fine $12214, Require the
practitioner to complete Contract
Management Course & Order to Pay Costs
$9374 Incidental to Inquiry
11/07/2012 Reprimand, Fine $9000 & Ordered to Pay
$1677 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Strathmore, Attwood,
Templestowe
James Reardon- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 8 allegations in relation to 3 sites in Strathmore, Attwood, and Templestowe. The
findings included that he: issued a building permit in circumstances where he could not have been satisfied that a person had been issued with a certificate of consent
for the building work and that the building work would comply with the Act and the Regulations; failed to examine a proposal for protection work and determine the
appropriateness or otherwise of the work; failed to respond appropriately to excavation works being carried out at a site; failed to respond in a timely manner to a
request from the Building Commission that he provide written advice within 14 days in relation to the alleged breaches identified in a Commission's inspector report and
to assist the Commission in the assessment of a complaint by providing written advice and further documentation; failed to act in a timely manner upon notification of
non-compliant building work; and failed to act in a timely manner upon notification that works had been carried out without a building permit.
Dobie
William
DB-U 9821
4/07/2012 Reprimand, Fine $1000 & Ordered to Pay
$943 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Mornington
Arundel
Michael
DB-U 16565
Toorak
Arundel
Brian
DB-U 17687
CB-U 3185
4/07/2012 Reprimand, Fine $6107 & Ordered to Pay
$1631 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
4/07/2012 Reprimand, Fine $3000 & Ordered to Pay
$1631 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Lewis
Raymond
BS-U 13866
4/07/2012 Reprimand, Fine $1500 & Ordered to Pay
$3864 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry & to
Complete Relevant Fire Services Course
Kyabram
Skrepetis
Jamie
BS-U 18120
4/07/2012 Reprimand, Fine $6107 & Ordered to Pay
$6445 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Kensington, South Morang,
Attwood, Broadmeadows
Mazza
Mario
DB-U 6973
2/07/2012 Reprimand, Fine $1500 & Ordered to Pay
$1138 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Thornbury
William Dobie- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 5 allegations in relation to 1 site in Mornington. The findings included that he: carried out
building work that was not in accordance with the approved plans forming part of the building permit; carried out defective building work; failed to carry out
recommendations contained in two inspector's reports; demanded and recovered the frame stage progress payment and the lockup stage progress payment before
the frame stage had been approved by the relevant building surveyor; and entered into a major domestic building contract when the contract did not comply with the
requirements set out in section 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act.
Michael Arundel- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Toorak. The finding included that he carried out
building work without a permit issued or in forced under the Act.
Brian Arundel- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in Toorak. The findings included that he: carried out
building work without a building permit; entered into a major domestic building contract when the contents of which did not comply with the requirements of section
31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 ; and carried out, managed or arranged the carrying out of domestic building work, under a major domestic building
contract, when the work was not covered by the required insurance.
Raymond Lewis-The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 15 allegations in relation to 1 site. These findings include that he: issued a building
permit when he was not or could not have been satisfied that the building work would comply with the Act and the Building Regulations 2006; failed to give the relevant
council a copy of the permit and all plans and other documents lodged with the application for building permit within 7 days; issued a building permit when he was not or
could not have been satisfied that a report and consent under regulation 309 of the Building Regulations 2006 had been obtained; failed to submit the documentation
required by regulation 1013 of the Building Regulations 2006; issued a certificate of final inspection when he could not or ought not to have been satisfied that the
works were complete; failed to give the relevant council a copy of the document showing the less than full compliance as required under regulation 1011(2) of the
Regulations within 7 days of issuing the building permit; failed to give the relevant council of the documentation showing the analysis of the application in accordance
with the requirements of regulation and he failed to prepare documentation to show the analysis of the application in accordance with the requirements of regulation
608 of the Building Regulations 2006; issued a temporary occupancy permit wh4en he was not or could not have been satisfied that the building was suitable for
occupation; and failed to correctly classify the building type.
Jamie Skrepetis- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 12 allegations in relation to 4 sites in Kensington, South Morang, Attwood and
Broadmeadows. These findings include that he: issued a building permit in circumstances where he was nor or ought not to have been satisfied that the building work
would comply with the Act and the building regulations; failed to determine protection work that was required to be provided to the adjoining property which was
potentially at risk of significant damage; failed to identify and address non-compliant building work; failed to take sufficient action to ensure that the issue of overexcavation was properly resolved; failed to respond promptly and appropriately to email communications from the owner of the adjoining property; issued a building
permit which specified a completion date which was inconsistent with regulation 315(1)(b)(i) of the Regulations; failed to take any steps to seek to determine whether
the building work was completed within 6 months after it was commenced; issued a certificate of final inspection when the building work has not been completed;
issued a building permit when he ought to have been satisfied that the building permit application did not complete with section 201(4)(B); issued a building permit
without having the report and consent of the Council; and issued 26 defective building orders.
Mario Mazza- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Thornbury. The findings included that he: requested
payment for the final stage of building work when the final stage had not yet been approved by the relevant building surveyor; and proceed with variation work when the
he had not complied with the requirements of the building contract, and the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995, in relation to requests for variations.
O’Sullivan
Stephen
DB-U 2989
2/07/2012 Reprimand, Fine $2500 & Ordered to Pay
$2279 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Beaconsfield
Richardson
John
BS-U 1532
28/06/2012 Cancel Registrations (BS-U 1532 & IN-U
1556) & Ordered to Pay $16,461 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
Brooklyn, Melton, Melton South,
Taylors Hill, Truganina,
Lancefield, Riddells Creek,
Romsey, Cherokee, Kyneton,
Sunbury, Campbellfield,
Greenvale, Fitzroy North,
Richmond, North Carlton,
Somerton, Craigieburn,
Broadmeadows, Attwood,
Crossways, Travancore,
Benloch, Spotswood, Fairfield,
Bulla, Diamond Creek,
Osborne
Peter
DB-U 12043
26/06/2012 Reprimand, Fine $3000 & Ordered to Pay
$1690 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Ringwood East
Toorak
Keith Crossman- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Mount Evelyn. The findings included that he: carried
out building work that was not in accordance with the relevant building permit; and failed to properly supervise, manage and control the building work after agreeing to
be the responsible builder for that work.
Stephen O'Sullivan- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 4 allegations in relation to 1 site in Beaconsfield. The findings included that he:
failed to informed the owners of their obligations in relation to protection work including arranging insurance cover and making a survey of the adjoining property; failed
to ensure that the protection works notice was properly completed; was responsible for the damage caused when carrying out excavation work on the adjoining
boundary; and failed to ensure that the building inspection work direction was properly complied with.
John Richardson- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 49 allegations in relation to 27 sites. These findings include that he: issued a building
permit for the construction of 10 new warehouses when a planning permit had not been issued by the relevant municipal council and he could not have been satisfied
that the building permit would be consistent with the condition of the planning permit; failed to comply with regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that in
relation to 6 sites he failed to comply with section 30 and/ or 80 of the Building Act 1993; failed to notify the relevant council within 7 days of his appointment as the
relevant building surveyor in relation to residential building works; failed to provide the relevant council with a copy of that building permit and any plans and any other
relevant documents within 7 days of issuing that permit; failed to provide the relevant Council with a copy of that certificate of final inspection within 7 days of issuing
that certificate; failed to carry out his work as a building practitioner in a competent manner and to a professional standard, in that he failed to provide the relevant
council with documents prescribed by regulation 2.1 of 1994 Regulations; failed to comply with section 24(1)© of the Act in that he issued a building permit when he
could not have been stratified that the relevant planning permit for the building work had been obtained; issued a building permit when he could not have been stratified
that the building work and building work complied with the Act and the 1994 Regulations; issued an occupancy permit for building work when he had not seen a copy of
a compliance certificate required for plumbing work carried out in conjunction with the building work; failed to have regard to relevant guidelines issued by the Minister in
carrying out a function under the Act or the Building Regulations; issued a building permit when the architectural drawings called for thermal insulation which was
insufficient to meet the requirements of the Building Regulations 2006; acted inappropriately after receiving a Five Star Energy Rating Report in 2009; failed to take
appropriated enforcement action when he knew that a swimming pool was being constructed on the site without a building permit; issued an building permit for the
construction of a new building extension and alteration wherein the identity of the builder was incorrectly stated; issued a building permit when he was not or could not
have been satisfied that the building permit would be consistent with an agreement made pursuant to section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; failed to
take any action when he became aware that excavation was being carried out contrary to the approved plans under the building permit; committed numerous and
various breaches of the Act and the building regulations identified in the allegations; and displayed a pattern of conduct that shows that he is not a fit and proper person
to practise as a building practitioner.
Peter Osborne- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in Ringwood East. The findings included that he:
demanded and recovered from the building owner progress payments for mandatory building works before such works had been completed and approved; and failed
to install temporary fencing to secure the building site.
Dowell
Leonard
BS-U 1112
18/06/2012 Reprimand, Fine $4000 & Ordered to Pay
$809 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
18/06/2012 Cancellation of Registration (DB-U 24790) &
Ordered to Pay $809 for Costs Incidental to
Inquiry
18/06/2012 Reprimand, Fine $6107 & Ordered to Pay
$809 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
6/06/2012 Reprimand, Fine $10000 & Ordered to Pay
$2960 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
6/06/2012 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $4030 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
28/05/2012 Suspension of Registration (DP-AD 21888) for
2 years, Fine $6107 & Ordered to Pay $7319
for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Karamaloudis
Tony
DB-U 24790
Molinaro
Dino
BS-U 14142
Chatah
Foauzi
DB-U 29013
Radings
Rodney
DB-U 18467
Trajkovski
Robert
DP-AD 21888
Di Lallo
Raffaello
DP-AD 2421
16/05/2012 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $1048 for Costs Mulgrave
Incidental to Inquiry
Henderson
Stephen
DB-U 31127
Davis
Mark
DB-U 3018
Lock
Paul
DB-U 9409
17/05/2012 Suspension of Registration (DB-U 31127) for Mooroolbark
3 months (on top of existing suspension
period), Complete the Contracts & Legal
Obligations Course at HIA or MBAV (within
the 60 day appeal period of this decision) &
Ordered to Pay $1048 for Costs Incidental to
Inquiry
21/05/2012 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $762 for Costs Waterways
Incidental to Inquiry
16/05/2012 Fine $1500 & Ordered to Pay $1347 for Costs Mildura
Incidental to Inquiry
Trunov
Grigoriy
DB-U 18517
CB-l 25086
Lees
Robert
BS-L 33528
2/05/2012 Cancellation of Registrations (BS-L 33528 &
IN-U 1209) & Ordered to Pay $14,644 for
Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Winstone
Peter
DB-U 5374
1/05/2012 Suspension of Registration (DB-U 5374) for 2 Narre Warren
years
Prestney
Andrew
DB-U 8873
30/04/2012 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $1497 for Costs Box Hill
Incidental to Inquiry
Tolliday
Neville
DB-U 11200
Montagnese
Stefano
DB-U 7593
30/04/2012 Suspension of Registration (DB-U 11200) for
3 months, Fine $5000 & Ordered to Pay
$1048 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
24/04/2012 Reprimand, Fine $3000 & Ordered to Pay
$4567 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Kitteringham
William
DB-L 25970
Van Wersch
William
DB-U 13905
Distefano
Aldo
DB-U 27821
Goodman
John
DB-U 23211
4/04/2012 Fine $600 & Ordered to Pay $1018 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
Moutidis
Christopher
DB-M 30664
4/04/2012 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $1018 for Costs Footscray
Incidental to Inquiry
Lam
Richard
CB-L 33125
2/04/2012 Cancellation of all 3 Registrations (BD-L
28458, CB-L 33125 & DB-U 8429), Fine
$6107 & Ordered to Pay $3837 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
Bulleen, Kew
Murphy
David
BS-U 1093
7/05/2012 Reprimand & Fine $1500
Camberwell, Narre Warren
South, Moriac
15/05/2012
determination
on appeal
Reprimand, Fine $12,114.00 & Order to Pay
$86,945.50 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
N/A
Clayton South
N/A
Reservoir
Pakenham
Maribyrnong, St Albans,
Williamstown, Glenroy, Pascoe
Vale South, Camberwell
Leonard Dowell- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 7 allegations. The findings included that he failed to pay into the Building Administration
Fund the amounts he received, in respect of building permit levies for building permits, within 7 days after the end of that month.
Tony Karamaloudis- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Clayton South. The findings included he:
requested payment for the fixing stage of building works, when the fixing stage had not been reached; and advised the owner of the site, in an email, that the frame
stage inspection for the building works had been passed, when he knew, or ought to have known, that it had not been.
Dino Molinaro- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation. The finding included that he repeatedly failed to pay into the Building
Administration Fund the amounts in respect of building permit levies for building permits he issued within the required time.
Foauzi Chatah- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Reservoir. The finding included that he falsified a
building permit for the building work and presented it to a company.
Rodney Radings- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Pakenham. The findings included that he: carried
out building work that was defective and did not comply with the Regulations, contrary to section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993.
Robert Trajkovski- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 13 allegations in relation to 6 sites. These findings include that he: prepared falsely
endorsed plans for the building work and provided them to the owner of the site; endorsed plans for the building work that purported to have been endorsed by the
relevant Council in circumstances where the Council had not issued or endorsed those documents; received a letter that purported to be from Council that the plans for
the building work had been endorsed in circumstances where the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and Council had not made, endorsed or issued those
documents; constituted by a pattern of conduct or gross negligence or gross incompetence in a particular matter and which shows that he was not a fit and proper
person to practise as building practitioner; failed to ensure the drawings he prepared for the construction of a dwelling did not permit overlooking; prepared drawings
for the construction of a dwelling that proposed a front setback that did not comply with regulations 409 of the Regulations; failed to make adequate inquiries to
determine the existence of an easement across the south western corner of the site and its impact on the proposed development, prior to preparing plans which
formed part of the approved building permit documentation; and knowingly provided false or misleading information, being falsely endorsed town planning drawings
and a letter from the relevant council to a person carrying out the function of the relevant building surveyor under the Act.
Raffaello Di Lallo- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in Mulgrave. The findings included that he: carried out
building work without a building permit being issued in respect of that building work; and entered into a major domestic building contract to carry out renovation to a
dwelling when that contract did not satisfy all of the requirements set out in section 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contract Act .
Stephen Henderson- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 4 allegations in relation to 1 site in Mooroolbark. The findings included that he:
entered into a major domestic building contract which did not satisfy the requirements set out in section 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995; and failed
to complete building work in a timely manner.
Mark Davis- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Waterways. The findings included that he: failed to
ensure the building work complied with section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993; and failed to ensure that the building work was not defective.
Paul Lock- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Mildura. The findings included that he: carried out building
work that did not properly reflected in the building permit approved drawings, and did not firstly, notify the relevant building surveyor of the discrepancy, secondly, seek
a variation to the building permit, and thirdly, call for an inspection of the work; and carried out defective building work.
Caulfield North
Grigoriy Trunov- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 9 allegations in relation to 1 site in Caulfield North. The findings included that he:
carried out building work, which was not in accordance with the Act, the building regulations and the building permit; carried out defective building work; failed to rectify
those defects within a reasonable time or at all; failed to take and/or ensure the company undertook the necessary rectification work in a timely manner; knowingly or
recklessly made a false or misleading statement and/or provided false or misleading information to a person carrying out a function under the Building Act 1993; and
failed to notify the relevant building surveyor without delay after completion of mandatory building work and therefore taken to have failed to comply with section 33(1)
of the Act.
Quarry Hill, Eaglehawk, Bendigo, Robert Lees- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 36 allegations in relation to 9 sites. These findings include that he: failed to provide the
Carapooee, Strathdale, Golden
relevant council with a copy of the building permit and any plans and other documents lodged with the application for the permit within 7 days; issued a building permit
Square, California Gully, Epsom, when the report and consent of the relevant council required pursuant to section 29A of the Act had not been obtained as required; conducted a foundation inspection
of building work and approved it when he had not been provided with the relevant permit or the approved plans; provided false and misleading information to the
Junortoun,
relevant building surveyor in a document titled ‘certificate of compliance- inspection’; conducted a reinforcement inspection the building work and approved it when the
building work was not of a sufficient standard and was not in accordance with the Building Code of Australia; issued a building permit without a report and consent for
the front setback which was required under regulation 409 of the Building Regulations 2006; issued a building permit for the construction of a new dwelling which did
not properly describe the property on which the dwelling was to be constructed; issued a building permit for the replacement of retaining wall on the boundary of the
property without requiring protection work in relation to the adjoining property; issued a building permit which incorrectly stated the registration details of the building
practitioner to be engaged in the building work; claimed he could start building work when he could not have been satisfied that a building permit had been issued;
failed to inform either the applicant or the relevant building surveyor of the fact that building work was being carried out without a building permit; told the applicant that
the application was still going ahead and asked if the relevant building surveyor would still issue a building permit for the project, and he did not tell her that the building
work had already been carried out and completed; adopted a practice of forwarding notifications to the relevant council, together with the relevant building permits,
which practice resulted in several failures to comply with the requirements of section 80 of the Act; and constituted by a pattern of conduct or by gross negligence or
gross incompetence in a particular matter and which shows that he was not a fit and proper person to practise as a building practitioner.
Newtown
Toorak
17/04/2012 Reprimand, Fine $500 &Ordered to Pay $854 Hughesdale
for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
17/04/2012 Reprimand, Fine $3500 & Ordered to Pay
Benalla
$854 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
4/04/2012 Fine $1200 & Ordered to Pay $1018 for
Mooroolbark
Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Hurstbridge
Peter Winstone- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 5 allegations in relation to 1 site in Narre Warren. The findings included that he: carried
out building work which did not comply with the building permit issued for the building work; carried out defective building work; failed to undertake the rectification works
recommended in the Building Commission inspector's report; and failed to give the building owner a readily legible signed copy of the major domestic building contract
for the building work within 5 clear business days of having entered into that contract.
Andrew Prestney- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in Box Hill. The findings included that he: demanded
and received a deposit under a domestic building contract of more than 5% of the contract price; undertook electrical and plumbing works when he was not licensed to
carry out such works; and allowed the company, that he was the director of, to enter into a major domestic building contract, which did not comply with section 31(1) of
the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
Neville Tolliday- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Newtown. The findings included that he failed to
competently supervise and control the relevant work.
Stefano Montagnese- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 4 allegations in relation to 1 site in Toorak. The findings included that he: carried
out defective building work; did not comply with the requirements of section 31 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 in that, the major domestic building
contract was not in writing; and was not covered by the required insurance.
William Kitteringham- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Hughesdale. The findings included that he failed
to enter into a major domestic building contract once it became evident that the value of the building work was going to exceed $5000.00.
William Van Wersch- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 4 allegations in relation to 1 site in Benalla. The findings included that he: carried
out defective building work; and failed to rectify defects present in the works after having been notified of the presence of those defects.
Aldo Distefano- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Mooroolbark. The findings included that he: allowed
his name, and building practitioner registration details, to be used as the relevant registered building practitioner on the building permit, when he had no involvement in
the building work, and did not intend to carry out, manage or arrange the building work; and provided false information in an application for builder's warranty insurance.
John Goodman- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Hurstbridge. The findings included that he allowed the
company, of which he was the director, to enter into a major domestic building contract when the building contract did not comply with the requirements of section 31(1)
of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
Christopher Moutidis- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in Footscray. The findings included that he:
carried out building work without a building permit; failed to notify the relevant building surveyor without delay after completion of the mandatory notification stage; and
failed to comply with an emergency order.
Richard Lam- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 7 allegations in relation to 2 sites in Bulleen and Kew. The findings included that he: failed
to ensure the building work carried out by the company, of which he was the director, complied with the building permit & Regulations; carried out defective building
work; allowed the company, of which he was the director, to request payment for the lock up stage and the fixing stage of the building work when the lock up stage and
fixing stage had not yet been reached, contrary to section 40(3) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 and to the terms of the building contract; failed to carry
out the building work in a timely manner and in accordance with the building contract, which was subject to unreasonable delays; threatened the owner of the works
and failed to return the telephone calls of the complainant at all in a timely manner; and failed to comply with section 16(1) of the Act.
David Murphy- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 2 sites in Narre Warren South and Moriac. The findings
included that he: failed to take adequate steps to ensure that the building work complied with the Act and with the Regulations; and approved a mandatory stage of the
building work in circumstances where he could not have been satisfied that the frame had been constructed to an acceptable standard, and in compliance with the
requirements of the Building Code of Australia, as incorporated into the Building Regulations 2006.
Symons
Martin
DB-U 4461
21/03/2012 Fine $500 & Ordered to Pay $1220 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
Glen Iris, San Remo
Martin Symons- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 5 allegations in relation to 2 sites in Glen Iris and San Remo. The findings included that
he: failed to carry out recommendations contained in an inspector's report; and failed to comply with regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006.
El Safin
Hassan
DB-U 17254
Doncaster
Hassan El Safin- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 4 allegations in relation to 1 site in Doncaster. The findings included that he: carried out
building work not in accordance with the approved plans forming part of the building permit; carried out building work when a building permit in respect of that work had
not been issued; and requested payment for a variation after that work was carried out without the written consent of the owners.
Gowans
Phillip
IN-U 1590
15/03/2012 Reprimand, Fine $2500 & Ordered to Pay
$2157 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
(Practitioner to undertake Contracts & Legal
Obligations Course within 6 months of
decision taking affect)
14/03/2012 Reprimand, Fine $3000 & Ordered to Pay
$3507 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Labertouche
Rabbito
Ronald
DB-U 3307
14/03/2012 Reprimand, Fine $4000 & Ordered to Pay
$2407 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Prahran
Christian
Benjamin
DB-L 31075
1/03/2012 Reprimand, Fine $5000 & Ordered to Pay
$1048 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Phillip Gowans- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 6 allegations in relation to 1 site in Labertouche. The findings included that he:
conducted an inspection o when he knew, or ought to have known, that no building permit had been issued for the work; conducted an inspection without reference to
stamped approved plans; and conducted an inspection knowing that no building permit had been issued for that work and then failed to advise the relevant building
surveyor.
Ronald Rabbito- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Prahran. The findings included that he: carried out
building work which was not carried out in accordance with regulation 416 of the Building Regulation s 2006; and entered into a domestic building contract which
provided for the building owners to pay a deposit of 10% of the contract price which was more than the maximum allowed by section 11(1) of the Domestic Building
Contracts Act 1995 .
Benjamin Christian- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 16 allegations in relation to 4 sites in Willow Grove, Lang Lang, Labertouche, and
Stratford. The findings included that he: failed to comply with section 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995; demanded and received a deposit under a
domestic building contract for the building work, which was in excess of 5% of the contract price; provided false or misleading information to the relevant building
surveyor in an application for a building permit for the building work; carried out building work when the company, of which he was the director, was not covered by the
required insurance; demanded and received a deposit under a domestic building contract for the building work which was in excess of 10% of the contract price.
Mitsopoulos
Jim
BS-U 1126
DP-AD 261
1/03/2012 Reprimand, Fine $8000 & Ordered to Pay
$10,000 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Morrison
Kenneth
DB-U 6514
Passalick
Garry
DB-U 12347
Savva
Nasos
DB-U 13779
Huddart
Christopher
DP-AD 15619
Maslen
Brett
Miceli
Willow Grove, Lang Lang,
Labertouche, Stratford,
Newborough
Chirnside Park, Monbulk,
Montrose, Wandin North,
Healesville, Ringwood North,
Mooroolbark, Mt Evelyn,
Warranwood, Croydon North,
Yarra Glen, Croydon South,
Selville, Croydon
1/03/2012 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $2297 for Costs Labertouche
Incidental to Inquiry
1/03/2012 Cancellation of Registration (DB-U 12347) & Doncaster East, Keilor East,
Ordered to Pay $7669 for Costs Incidental to Sunshine, Wallan, Templestowe,
Inquiry
Box Hill, Sunshine North,
Gowanbrae, Reservoir, Kew,
Essendon
1/03/2012 Fine $500 & Ordered to Pay $1048 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
22/02/2012 Fine $1000 & Ordered to Pay $1524 for
Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Brighton
DB-U 21283
22/02/2012 Reprimand, Fine $6107 & Ordered to Pay
$7424 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Croydon
Patrick
DP-AD 21280
22/02/2012 Reprimand, Fine $3000 & Ordered to Pay
$1699 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Prahran
Ramaihi
Bassam
DB-M 24523
22/02/2012 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $872 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
Brunswick
Cartledge
Neal
BS-U 1350
Benalla
Chung
Michael
DB-U 2354
Deping
Jiang
DB-L 31793
1/02/2012 Reprimand, Fine $2500 & Ordered to Pay
$2652 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
1/02/2012 Reprimand, Fine $1500 &Ordered to Pay
$2267 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
30/01/2012 Reprimand, Fine $3000 & Ordered to Pay
$2322 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
O’Dea
Mark
DB-U 24530
30/01/2012
Sernio
Renato
DB-U 8595
30/01/2012
Swan
Matthew
DB-U 26285
30/01/2012
Vos
Robert
DB-U 9131
30/01/2012
Coco
Frank
BS-U 1082
25/01/2012
Milanovic
Anthony
DB-M 29974
25/01/2012
Hall
Peter
DB-U 21238
22/12/2011
Glen Iris
Jim Mitsopoulos- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 24 allegations in relation to 21 sites in Chirnside Park, Monbulk, Montrose, Wandin
North, Healesville, Ringwood North, Mooroolbark, Mt Evelyn, Warranwood, Croydon North, Croydon South, Yarra Glen, and Selville. The findings included that he:
issued 21 building permits when he could not have been satisfied that the building works would comply with the Act and Building Regulations 2006; failed to issue
building permits to the applicants for those building permits; and failed to take appropriate action when the building permits issued in relation to 5 of these 21 sites
lapsed.
Kenneth Morrison- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 2 sites in Labertouche and Mount Worth. The findings
included that he carried out building work, at two separate sites, when there was no building permit in place for those works.
Garry Passalick- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 57 allegation in relation to 11 sites in Doncaster East, Keilor East, Sunshine, Wallan,
Templestowe, Box Hill, Sunshine North, Gowanbrae, Reservoir, Kew, and Essendon. The findings included that he: requested payment for building work that had not
yet been approved by the relevant building surveyor; failed to properly manage, supervise and control the building work; carried out defective building work;
commenced building work prior to the issuing of the building permit; carried out building work which was not in accordance with the Act, the Building Regulations 2006
and the building permit; and constituted by a pattern of conduct and/or gross incompetence and shows that he is not a fit and proper person to practice as a building
practitioner.
Nasos Savva- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Brighton. The Practitioner’s guilty findings included that
he carried out defective building work.
Christopher Huddart- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in Glen Iris. The findings included that he: failed to
ensure that the building work shown on the plans complied with regulation 417 of the Regulations (solar access to existing north-facing windows); and failed to ensure
that the building work shown on the plans complied with regulation 418 and 419 of the Regulations (overshadowing).
Brett Maslen- The findings included that he: carried out defective building works; carried out building work which was not in accordance with the approved plans forming
part of the building permit; varied the building work from the approved plans and specifications without giving the owners the notices required; carried out building work
which was not in accordance with the Building Regulations 2006; failed to carry out recommendations contained in 3 inspector's reports; failed to take appropriate
action, to rectify defects in the frame and have the frame re-inspected and approved, after a mandatory inspection of the frame was not approved; demanded,
recovered and retained, under a major domestic building contract, mandatory building work progress payments, when these works had not been completed and
approved by a building surveyor; failed to install temporary fencing to secure the building site and to ensure that building debris was kept in confined areas, resulting in
threats to the health and safety of the owners, their pet and members of the public; failed to progress the building work in a timely manner; and failed to give the
building owner a copy of an invoice or receipt that showed the cost to him of a prime cost item in a domestic building contract as soon as practicable after receiving it or
at all.
Patrick Miceli- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 6 allegations in relation to 1 site in Prahran. The findings included that he: knowingly
provided false or misleading information to the relevant building surveyor with an application for a building permit; received a deposit under a domestic building contract
of more than 5% of the contract price before starting any work; demanded and received payment for the mandatory building works before such works were completed
and approved; and carried out building work that was not in accordance with regulation 416 of the Regulations.
Bassam Ramaihi- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Brunswick. The findings included that he carried out
defective building work.
Neal Cartledge- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Benalla. The Practitioner’s guilty findings included
that he failed to identify defects present in the building work when carrying out a mandatory inspection.
Kew
Michael Chung- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Kew. The Practitioner’s guilty findings included that he
carried out building work, namely the construction of a swimming pool, without a building permit having been issued.
Doncaster East
Jiang Deping- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in Doncaster East. The Practitioner’s guilty findings
included that he: failed to comply with section 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995; demanded and received a deposit under a domestic building contract
for the building work which was in excess of 5% of the contract price; and carried out building work when the company, of which he was the director, was not covered
by the required insurance.
Reprimand, Fine $1000 & Ordered to Pay
Edithvale
Mark O'Dea- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Edithvale. The findings included that he failed to perform
his work in a competent manner and to a professional standard as a result of signing the building permit application to SFC Consulting Building Surveyors in relation on
$2095 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
behalf of the land owner without the written authority of the land owner, in breach of sections 246 and 248(1) of the Building Act 1993.
Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $4223 for Costs Templestowe
Renato Serino- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in Templestowe. The Practitioner’s guilty findings
Incidental to Inquiry
included that he: failed to ensure the building work complied with the Regulations; failed to ensure the building work was not defective; and failed to comply with
regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations .
Cancellation of Registration (DB-U 26285),
Diamond Creek, Greensborough, Matthew Swan- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 26 allegations in relation to 5 sites in Diamond Creek, Greensborough, Doreen,
Fine $12214 & Ordered to Pay $3947 for
Doreen, Marysville, Mont Albert
Marysville, and Mont Albert. The findings included that he: carried out building work that was not in accordance with the stamped approved plans; carried out building
Costs Incidental to Inquiry
work that did not comply with the Building Code of Australia; carried out defective building work; failed to ensure that the building work progressed in a timely manner;
demanded and received payments for building works when the works had not been completed or approved; carried out building work without a building permit having
been issued; knowingly provided false or misleading information to the owner of the dwelling to induce the owner to pay the frame stage when he knew that the frame
stage had not been approved; failed to carry out the recommendations of the inspector under section 179(1)(fb) of the Act to rectify defects; took possession of a hot
Reprimand, Fine $1000 & Ordered to Pay
Black Rock
Robert Vos- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 4 allegations in relation to 1 site in Black Rock. The findings included that he: failed to
$2000 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
comply with the building permit by failing to obtain a final certificate before using the dwelling; failed to comply with a direction by the building surveyor to supply
amended plans following an inspection of the building work at the subject land; and carried out defective building work.
Reprimand, Fine $6107 & Ordered to Pay
Narre Warren, Brighton East,
Frank Coco- . The findings included that he: issued a building permit when the approved plans contained insufficient information to establish whether the building work
$16,671 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Greenvale, Mernda, Roxborough would comply with the Act and the Building Regulations 2006; failed to deal appropriately with the issue of protection works and with the issue of access to the adjoining
owners’ property for the purpose of carrying out building work; failed to have in place appropriate arrangements to respond to complaints or inquiries about building
Park, Craigieburn
Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $2637 for Costs Patterson Lakes
Anthony Milanovic- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 5 allegations in relation to 1 site in Patterson Lakes. The findings included that he:
Incidental to Inquiry
carried out building work when no building permit had been issued or was in force permitting the building work; obtained building insurance that did not cover the
building work carried out; failed to ensure that the company, of which he was the director, complied with sections 40(2) and 37(2) of the Domestic Building Contracts
Act 1995; and failed to comply with Ministerial Order No. S98 of 2003 in entering into an insurable domestic building contract.
Reprimand, Fine $1500 & Ordered to Pay
Reservoir
Peter Hall- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 5 allegations in relation to 1 site in Reservoir. The findings included that he: received deposit
$2070 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
monies before an insurance policy had been issued for the building work; demanded, received or retained a progress payment for the frame stage, when that stage of
the building work had not yet been completed; did not comply with the approved plans forming part of the building permit issued in respect of the building work; and
failed to call for inspections of mandatory inspection stages of building work.
Watson
Timothy
DB-U 25232
22/12/2011 Cancellation of Registration , Fine $12214 &
Ordered to Pay $3562 for Costs Incidental to
Inquiry
Box Hill North, Aspendale
Timothy Watson- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 16 allegations in relation to 2 sites in Box Hill North and Aspendale. The findings
included that he: physically assaulted and verbally abused one of the owners of the property; requested payment for mandatory stages of building works when the
stages had not yet been approved by the relevant building surveyor; carried out defective building work; forged a certificate of insurance and provided it to the owners
of the site and the relevant building surveyor appointed for those works; carried out building work when he was not covered by the required insurance; and swore at
and acted in a threatening and intimidating way towards one of the owners of the property with whom he had entered into a domestic building contract.
Spence
Garry
BS-U 1238
21/12/2011 Reprimand, Fine $1000 & Ordered to Pay
$2037 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Sunbury
Walker
Andrew
DB-U 7457
Bata
Mark
DB-U 15277
12/12/2011 Reprimand & Fine $500
North Carlton
Najeem
Hamid
DP-AD 106
12/12/2011 Reprimand, Fine $6100 & Ordered to Pay
$2157 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Doncaster
Lombardozzi
Peter
DP-AD 1314
8/12/2011 Reprimand, Fine $1000 & Ordered to Pay
$2652 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Camberwell
Garry Spence- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Sunbury. The findings included that he: issued a
building permit when he was not, or could not have been satisfied, that the consent of a reporting authority under regulation 610 of the Building (Interim) Regulations
2005 was obtained or deemed to have been obtained in accordance with Schedule 2; and failed to take appropriate action and/or any action to address that failure,
after having been notified in writing by the Hume City Council of his failure to obtain the report and consent of Council in relation to the point of discharge of storm water
for the site.
Andrew Walker- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 4 allegations in relation to 1 site in Easy Keilor. The findings included that he: carried
out domestic building work under a major domestic building contract without being covered by the required insurance; failed to ensure that the building contract
complied with the requirements of section 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995; carried out building work, when a building permit had not been issued for
that work; he carried out building work ,namely the construction of a carport, which was not in accordance with the Building Regulations 2006 (Regulations) and which
was defective.
Mark Bata- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in North Carlton. The findings included that he: carried out
building work that was not in accordance with the building permit; and carried out defective building work.
Hamid Najeem- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Doncaster. The findings included that he submitted
plans for an application for a building permit which were deficient in that they did not reflect the on site conditions, did not show contours, site or floor levels, the legal
point of discharge or the nearest intersecting street.
Peter Lombardozzi- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Camberwell. The findings included that he
submitted to the relevant building surveyor drawings which did not accurately depict the conditions of the site.
Berry
Robbie
DB-U 22458
1/12/2011 Reprimand, Fine $3000 & Ordered to Pay
$5164 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Moonee Ponds
Robbie Berry- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 9 allegations in relation to 1 site in Moonee Ponds. The findings included that he: carried
out defective building work; carried out building work that was not in a timely manner, and in accordance with the building contract but was subject to unreasonable
delays; requested payment for mandatory building stages before the work was completed and approved by the relevant building surveyor; left the building work
unlocked and unsecured; entered into a major domestic building contract to carry out renovations to a dwelling when that contract did not comply with the requirements
of section 31(1)(j) and (l) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995; carried out building work when he was not covered by the required insurance; and held himself
out as being covered by the required insurance for the works to be undertaken, when in fact he did not obtain the required insurance.
D’Ambra
Angelo
DB-U 5275
18/11/2011 Suspension of Registrations (DB-U 5275 &
CB-U 6501) for 2 years (the practitioner to
complete the Cert. IV in Building &
Construction prior to the expulsion of the
period of Suspension)
Rosanna, Reservoir, West
Preston, Eltham, Brunswick
Angelo D'Ambra- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 32 allegations in relation to 5 sites. These findings included that he: requested
payments for certain stages of work that had not yet been approved by the relevant building surveyor; carried out building work that did not comply with the
Regulations; carried out defective building work; failed to obtain the sufficient warranty insurance to fully cover the costs of the building work; carried out variation work
when he had not complied with the requirements of the building contract; didn’t carry out building work in a timely manner and in accordance with the building contact;
failed to ensure that the registration numbers and contact details of the company and the relevant building surveyor and the number of the relevant building permit and
the date of issue of the permit were displayed on the allotment of the building works; failed to carry out recommendations contained in an inspector’s report; failed to
take appropriate action after being notified of defects in the rectification work; and failed to ensure that mandatory inspections were carried out and approved before
continue on with subsequent stages of the building work. His conduct, namely failures in relation to 5 building sites to ensure his company carried out building work to a
sufficient standard and in accordance with the Building Act 1993, and which shows that he is not a fit and proper person to practise as a building practitioner.
Russo
Joseph
DB-U 16979
11/11/2011 Suspension of Registration (DB-U 19679) for
6 Months, Fine $6107 & Ordered to Pay
$3357 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Ivanhoe
Joseph Russo- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 11 allegations in relation to 1 site in Ivanhoe. The findings included that he: carried out
defective building work; carried out building work that was not in accordance with the building permit; and failed to carry out the recommendations contained in an
inspector's report within the meaning of section 48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
Matthews
Dale
BD-L 25062
16/11/2011 Reprimand, Fine $2000 & Ordered to Pay
$2157 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Werribee
Dale Matthews- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Werribee. The findings included that he carried out the
building work when a building permit had not been issued in relation to the building work.
Landsborough
Stephen
DB-U 21023
Hepburn Springs
Beach
Peter
DB-U 5643
9/11/2011 Cancel Registration (DB-U 21023), Fine
$6107 & Ordered to Pay $1497 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
2/11/2011 Reprimand, Fine $2000 & Ordered to Pay
$2301 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Canale
Ronald
DB-U 4786
2/11/2011 Reprimand, Fine $2000 & Ordered to Pay
$2081 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Jan Juc
Jacobs
Karen
CB-L 23528
2/11/2011 Reprimand, Fine $1000 & Ordered to Pay
$1531 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Flemington
Stephen Landsborough- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Hepburn Springs. The findings included that
he: received a deposit from the owners for building work but abandoned the building work and failed to provide any explanation to the owner for doing so; and held
himself out as being a licensed plumber when he was not licensed.
Peter Beach- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 8 allegations in relation to 2 sites in North Balwyn and Narre Warren North. The
Practitioner’s guilty findings included that he: requested payments for the frame stage when the frame stage had not yet been approved by the relevant building
surveyor; failed to comply with section 32(2) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995; proceeded to carry out variation work to the building work but failed to
comply with section 38(5) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995; failed to ensure that the company complied with section 40(2) of the Domestic Building
Contracts Act 1995; and carried out defective building work.
Ronald Canale- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in Jan Juc. The findings included that he: carried out
building work, without having obtained the required insurance; demanded, and received, a deposit greater than 5% of the contract price, pursuant to a major domestic
building contract; and did not comply with the Building Code of Australia.
Karen Jacobs- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 6 allegations in relation to 1 site in Flemington. The findings included that she: held
herself out as being qualified to practice as a building practitioner in the class of domestic builder when she was not so registered under Part 11 of the Act; carried out
domestic building work, under a major domestic building contract, when she was not registered under Part 11 of the Act in the appropriate class of domestic builder;
carried out work under a major domestic building contract when she was not covered by the required insurance; held herself out as being covered by the required
insurance when she was not so covered; demanded and received a deposit under a domestic building contract of more than 5% of the contract price; and failed to
provide the building owner with a readily legible signed copy of the major domestic building contract within 5 clear business days after entering into the major domestic
building contract.
Nader
Bassam
DB-U 16972
Caulfield
Rotenberg
Coby
DB-L 13988
3/11/2011 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $900 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
3/11/2011 Reprimand, Fine $2000 & Ordered to Pay
$5400 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Nigido
Michael
BS-U 25918
2/11/2011 Reprimand, Fine $2000 & Ordered to Pay
$10,000 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Altona Meadows
Cole-Sinclair
Daryl
BS-U 1354
18/10/2011 Reprimand & Fine $5226
Seaford, Mt Martha, Inverloch
Moon
David
DB-U 10616
26/10/2011 Reprimand, Fine $4500 & Ordered to Pay
$1514 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Yea
Sanderson
Gregory
DB-U 5929
26/10/2011 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $1514 for Costs Berwick
Incidental to Inquiry
3/06/2013 Suspension of Registration (DB-U 7457) for 1 East Keilor
year, Fine $6107 & Ordered to Pay $2038 for
Costs Incidental to Inquiry
North Balwyn, Narre Warren
North
Caulfield
Bassam Nader- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Caulfield. The findings included that he failed to
properly manage, supervise and control the building work.
Coby Rotenberg- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 6 allegations in relation to 1 site in Caulfield. The findings included that he: knowingly
provided misleading information to a person carrying out the function of relevant building surveyor under the Building Act ; carried out domestic building under a major
domestic building contract when he was not registered under Part 11 of the Building Act 1993 in the appropriate class of domestic builder contrary to section 176(2A)
of the Act; carried out building work when a building permit in respect of that work had not been issued; and commenced building work when he knew or should have
known that regulation 603(d) of the Regulations had not been complied with.
Michael Nigido- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in Altona Meadows. The findings included that he:
issued building permit when he could not have been satisfied that the building work would comply with the Act and the Building Regulations 2006; failed to identify that
that the building work was defective and did not comply with the relevant building permit; and failed to take appropriate action to require that the building work be made
to comply with the Building Permit, the Act and the Regulations.
Daryl Cole-Sinclair- The Building Practitioner was guilty of 7 allegations in relation to Seaford, Mount Martha and Inverloch. These findings include that he: issued a
building permit when he could not have been satisfied that the building work would comply with regulation 419(1) of the Building (Interim) Regulations 2005; failed to
take appropriate action upon being informed that the building work did not comply with regulation 419(1) of the Regulations; issued Building Permit in circumstances
David Moon- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 4 allegations in relation to 1 site in Yea. The findings included that he: entered into a major
domestic building contract which did not comply with the requirements of section 31 of that Act; knowingly provided false and misleading information in an application
for a building permit to relevant building surveyor; carried out defective building work; and failed to carry out the recommendations contained in an inspector's report
within the meaning of section 48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
Gregory Sanderson- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in Berwick. The findings included that he: failed to
ensure that the building work complied with section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993; knowingly provided misleading information to the relevant building surveyor, in a
Compliance Certificate issued pursuant to section 221ZH of the Act; requested a Compliance Certificate to be issued pursuant to section 221ZH of the Building Act
1993 for work that had not been carried out.
Zoanetti
Anthony
BS-U 1016
19/10/2011 Fine $500 & Ordered to Pay $2692 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
Corinella, Wimbledon heights,
Drouin, Inverloch
Anthony Zoanetti- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 7 allegations in relation to 4 sites in Corinella, Wimbledon Heights, Drouin, and
Inverloch. The findings included that he: allowed a building permit to be issued when the practitioner could not have been satisfied that the relevant planning approval
had been obtained; issued a building permit which did not contain details of the builder of the works; issued a building permit when he was not, or could not have been,
satisfied that the building permit would be consistent with the relevant planning permit; failed to notify the owner of the site of the requirement to comply with the
agreement made pursuant to section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and/or failed to advise the owner that he could seek to have the requirements of
the section 173 agreement amended prior to the issue of the building permit; was notified by the Building Commission by letter that building work for which the
practitioner was the relevant building surveyor was not in compliance with the building permit and the Building Regulations 2006, and was consequently unsafe; and
the practitioner failed in a timely manner to properly investigate the Commission's concerns or take any appropriate enforcement action under Part 8 of the Building Act
1993.
Pollak
Tibor
DB-U 10931
28/09/2011 Reprimand, Fine $3000 & Ordered to Pay
$1647 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Caulfield
Tibor Pollak- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Caulfield. The findings included that he entered into a
written contract which did not comply with the requirements of section 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 and issued documents on which his
registration status was not accurately described.
Kidd
Roger
BS-U 1235
21/09/2011 Fine $2000 & Ordered to Pay Costs $2102 for Traralgon
Incidental to Inquiry
Roger Kidd- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 6 allegations in relation to 1 site in Traralgon. The Practitioner’s guilty findings included that
he: issued a building permit for building work and stamped the accompanying plans as being in accordance with the Building Act 1993 and the Building Regulations
1994 when he could not be satisfied that the plans complied with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia; employed an unregistered building practitioner, to
act on his behalf, to inspect a dwelling for the purpose of a, sitting and footing inspection, a concrete reinforcement mesh inspection, and a final inspection; and issued
an occupancy permit when he could not have been satisfied that the building to which it applied was suitable for occupation.
Raptopoulos
Paul
BS-U 1101
21/09/2011 Reprimand, Fine $5972 & Ordered to Pay
$3477 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Moonee Ponds
Biviano
Philip
EC 1488
14/09/2011 Reprimand, Fine $4000 & Ordered to Pay
$2102 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Toorak
Paul Raptopoulos- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 7 allegations in relation to 1 site in Moonee Ponds. The findings included that he:
failed to take appropriate action to ensure that the Chief Fire Officer was made aware that the documents approved by him as forming part of the building permits
included an alternative solution relating to a fire performance requirement; issued building permit, which did not include the name, category and registration number of
the building practitioner to be engaged in the building work; failed to identify defective building work; issued an occupancy permit when the building was not suitable for
occupation; issued an occupancy permit, when building permit had not been complied with; and issued occupancy permit without having obtained the report and
consent of a the Chief Fire Officer.
Phillip Biviano- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Toorak. The findings included that he: conducted an
inspection and provided computations and a certificate of compliance for the building works, when the building works were non-compliant and defective; and failed to
make appropriate enquiries regarding the structural integrity of the walls which resulted in him failing to accurately identify the cause of the cracking and further he was
prepared to issue a compliance certificate prior to the construction of piers which he deemed as necessary in the circumstances.
Mackay
Jeffrey
BS-U 1153
7/09/2011 Reprimand, Fine $4000 & Ordered to Pay
$1497 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Lexton
Henderson
Stephen
DB-U 31127
5/09/2011 Suspend Registration (DB-U 31127) for 18
months & Ordered to Pay $6111 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
Bayswater, Heathmont,
Greensborough
Bakker
Daniel
DB-U 19444
31/08/2011 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $1678 for Costs Frankston South
Incidental to Inquiry
Maguire
Scott
DB-U 18843
31/08/2011 Reprimand, Fine $500 & Ordered to Pay
$1898 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Martino
Angelo
DB-U 8245
24/08/2011 Suspension of Registrations (DB-U8245 & CB- Moonee Ponds, Eaglemont
L 16834) for 3 years, Fine $5000 & Ordered to
Pay $386 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Peric
Ivan
DB-U 5877
24/08/2011 Reprimand , Fine $500 & Ordered to Pay
$386 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Boronia
Schembri
Carmel
DB-U 3339
24/08/2011 Reprimand, Fine $1000 & Ordered to Pay
$386 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Fitzroy
Walker
Marie
IN-U 1059
BS-U 1068
17/08/2011 Reprimand, Fine $10,000 & Ordered to Pay
$9952 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Narre Warren South, Alphington, Marie Walker: The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 7 allegations in relation to 4 sites. These findings include that she: failed to estimate the
McKinnon, Point Cook
cost of the building work in having regard to the information accompanying the application for building permit including the structural engineering plans and
computations; issued a building permit where the cost of the work was more than $12,000 but she was not or could not have been reasonably satisfied that one of the
circumstances in section 24A(3)(a)(b) or (C) applied; issued a building permit for the construction of additions and alterations to a detached dwelling when she was not
or could not have been satisfied that the building work and that the building permit would comply with regulation 417(2) of the Building Regulations 2006 in respect to
the set back of the southern boundary dwelling wall to the overall wall; failed to take sufficient action to ensure that an issue in relation to structural stability of the
existing structure as assessed using the Deemed to Satisfy Provisions of the Code was properly resolved; failed to ascertain whether the street fire hydrant was
capable of meeting the minimum flow and pressure requirements before determining that it was suitable to form part of the fire hydrant system for the building; allowed
an occupancy permit to be issued for the building work by an employee inspector when she had not decided the application for an occupancy permit herself as
required by section 43(1) of the Building Act 1993; and issued a building permit for the construction of a house when she was not and could not have been satisfied
that the consent of the relevant council had been obtained.
Aksoy
Ersin
DB-U 10109
Sydenham
Lewin
Peter
DB-U 10829
10/08/2011 Fine $1500 & Ordered to Pay $842 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
10/08/2011 Fine $2000 & Ordered to Pay $842 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
Zadunajsky
John
DB-U 5234
Pakenham
Pascoe Vale
3/08/2011 Cancellation of Registration (DB-U 5234) &
Maddingley, Brookfield,
Disqualification of registration for up to 3
Wyndham Vale, Deer Park
years, Fine $11945, & Ordered to Pay $1193
for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Jeffrey Mackay- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 4 allegations in relation to 1 site in Lexton. The findings included that he: issued an
occupancy permit when a certificate approving the use of a septic tank system had not been issued by Council; failed to give to the relevant council a copy of the
permit and any plans and other documents lodged with the application for the permit within 7 days after issuing a building permit; issued an occupancy permit for the
works which contained incorrect dates for the carrying out of the mandatory stage footings and frame inspections; and inspected and approved the footings stage of
the work when a building permit had not been not issued.
Stephen Henderson- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 11 allegations in relation to 3 sites in Bayswater, Heathmont, and Greensborough.
The findings included that he: failed to carry out recommendations contained in an inspector's report under section 48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995;
carried out building work that did not comply with the Building Act 1993 and the Building Regulations 2006; was not registered in the appropriate class of domestic
builder to complete the required building work; carried out defective building work; carried out building work when he was not covered by the required insurance;
demanded and/or received a deposit under a domestic building contract of more than 10 % of the contract price; failed to comply with section 31(1) of the Domestic
Building Contracts Act 1995; demanded from owners final payment prior to the issuing of a certificate of final inspection; and carried out building work that was not in
accordance with the approved plans forming part of the building permit.
Daniel Bakker- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 6 allegations in relation to 1 site in Frankston South. The findings included that he:
carried out building work, which did not comply with the Building Regulations 2006; carried out defective building work; carried out building work that was not covered
by the required insurance; did not comply with the requirements of section 31 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995; failed, within 5 clear business days after
entering into a major domestic building contract, to give the building owner a readily legible signed copy of the contract; and failed to arrange the rectification of the
defective work in a timely manner.
Scott Maguire- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in Pakenham. The findings included that he: carried out
building work when a building permit had not been issued for the work; and carried out commercial building work when he was registered as a commercial builder
under Part 11 of the Building Act 1993, and when he was not covered by the required insurance.
Angelo Martino- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 6 allegations in relation to 2 sites in Moonee Ponds and Eaglemont. The findings
included that he: carried out building work that did not comply with section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993; carried out defective work; informed the relevant building
surveyor in writing that all penetrations in fire walls and floors for fire services had been appropriately sealed against fire when this was not the case; and carried out
building work that did not comply with the approved plans forming part of the building permit issued for the building work.
Ivan Peric- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Boronia. The findings included that he: carried out building
work that was not in accordance with the building permit issued for the works at that site; and allowed the building to be occupied when an occupancy permit had not
been issued.
Carmel Schembri- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Fitzroy. The findings included that he: carried out
defective building work; and failed to ensure that rectification work in relation to the building work was carried out in a timely manner and to a satisfactory standard.
Ersin Aksoy- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Sydenham. The findings included that he failed to carry
out recommendations contained in an inspector’s report under section 48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
Peter Lewin- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Pascoe Vale. The Practitioner’s guilty findings included
that he: carried out building work when no valid building permit had been issued or was in force at the time that the building work was carried out; and failed to ensure
that a contract of insurance was in force against damage by proposed protection work to the adjoining property, before the said protection work was commenced in
respect of the adjoining property.
John Zadunajsky- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 14 allegations in relation to 5 sites in Maddingley, Brookfield, Wyndham Vale and
Deer Park. The findings included that he: failed to ensure that mandatory building works were approved before demanding and receiving payment for such works;
pressured the building owner to approve and pay the lock-up stage progress payment immediately in circumstances where this was inappropriate; failed to notify the
building owner that the company had ceased work or of the company's financial difficulties and instead he avoided attempts by the building owner to contact him;
demanded and received the frame stage and lock-up stage progress payments directly from the building owners' financier without providing invoices to the building
owners for their approval; carried out building work without a building permit being issued for the relevant works; demand and receive progress payments prematurely,
which shows that he is not a fit and proper person to practise as a building practitioner; and avoided contact with the building owners due to financial difficulties, which
shows that he is not a fit and proper person to practise as a building practitioner.
Madeira
Michael
BS-U 15132
20/07/2011 Reprimand, Fine $2000 & Ordered to Pay
$6125 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Williamstown, Aspendale
Gardens, Coburg
Michael Madeira- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 5 allegations in relation to 3 sites in Williamstown, Aspendale Gardens and Deer Park.
The findings included that he: failed to act appropriately upon being notified that part of the building work encroached a drainage easement owned by Melbourne Water;
issued a conditional certificate of final inspection in circumstances where the building works remained incomplete and did not comply with the Building Code of
Australia; failed to take appropriate action to ensure the outstanding works were completed; failed to ensure that the final inspection of the building work was carried out
competently; and failed to take appropriate action to require that the building work be rectified to comply with the relevant building permit and the Interim Regulations.
Mitchell
Glenn
Jolyon
Armstrong
John
DB-L 1091
Sikora
Samuel
DB-U 12481
Fasham
Trevor
DB-U 2762
13/07/2011 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $1914 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
22/06/2011 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $1580 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
15/06/2011 Reprimand, Fine $2000 & Ordered to Pay
$1485 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
15/06/2011 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $1935 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
14/06/2011 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $12767 for
Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Ocean Grove
Good
DB-U 3876
CB-U 3970
DB-U 9103
Norman
Glenn
DB-U 10067
Padoin
Adrian
DB-U 13035
Boyle
Mathew
DB-U 27321
Stocco
Carlo
BS-U 1132
11/05/2011 Fine $500 & Ordered to Pay $650 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
Holly
Mark
DP-AD 1289
27/04/2011 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $1485 for Costs Fitzroy
Incidental to Inquiry
Nous
Joseph
IN-L 26273
20/04/2011 Suspension of Registration for 1 year (IN-L
26273), Fine $5972 & Ordered to Pay $2695
for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Preston
Charisiou
Mario
DB-U 13030
14/04/2011 Cancellation of Registrations (DB-U 13030 &
CB-L 21112), Fine $5972 & Ordered to Pay
$535 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Apollo Bay
Glenn Mitchell- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Ocean Grove. The findings included that he carried out
building work which was not in accordance with the approved building permit documentations before seeking an amendment to the approved plans.
Jolyon Good- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Albert Park. The findings included that he carried out
building work without a building permit issued for those specific works.
John Armstrong- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in South Geelong. The findings included that he:
carried out defective building work; and failed to carry out the recommendations contained in the inspector's report.
Samuel Sikora- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Braybrook. The findings included that he failed to carry
out recommendations contained in an inspector's report under section 48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
Trevor Fasham- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in Rosebud. The findings included that he: carried out
building work that did not comply with the Regulations and/or was defective; did not comply with the plans approved as part of the building permit issued for the building
work; and failed to comply with section 37 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
Glenn Norman- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Kialla West. The findings included that he failed to
carry out recommendations contained in an inspector's report under section 48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
Adrian Padoin- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Clifton Springs. The findings included that he failed to
carry out recommendations contained in an inspector's report under section 48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
Mathew Boyle- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Woodend. The findings included that he: carried out
or arranged the carrying out of domestic building work at the site under a major domestic building contract when he was not covered by the required insurance; and
carried out or arranged the carrying out of building work at the site, when no building permit in respect of that work had been issued.
Carlo Stocco- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in South Morang. The findings included that he: issued
the building permit when he could not have been satisfied that the building work would comply with the Building Regulations 2006; and issued the building permit when
he had inadequate information to allow him to form a view as to whether protection works would be required.
Mark Holly- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Fitzroy. The findings included that the plans and
documentation prepared by him for the purposes of obtaining a building permit for the works were not of the requisite standard, as they did not contain sufficient and/or
accurate information.
Joseph Nous- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 1 site in Preston. The findings included that he: approved the
sub floor work when that work did not comply with the approved plans forming part of the building permit; approved the re-frame inspection when the work did not
comply with the approved plans forming part of the building permit; and approved the inspection when the works did not comply with the approved plans forming part of
the building permit.
Mario Charisiou- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 5 allegations in relation to 1 site in Apollo Bay. The findings included that he: was
responsible for the conduct of the company, of which he was the director, in engaging a builder to carry out building work on the site which he knew or should have
known was in contravention of the planning permit for the building work; attempted to seel 2 dwellings, constructed on the basis that each dwelling could be separated
for dual occupancy, when he knew, or ought to have known, that the use of the 2 dwellings as dual occupancy would contravene the relevant building permit, and the
occupancy permit; allowed the occupation of the building by other when an occupancy permit had not been issued for the building; failed to comply with the building
order; was responsible for the creation of false 'occupancy permits' when the relevant building work at the site had not been completed; and was responsible for the
submission of those documents to VSCL for the purpose of obtaining a drawdown of funds from VSCL by deception.
Compton
Stephen
DB-U 6701
Stephen Compton- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Yarraville. The findings included that he failed to
carry out recommendations contained in an inspector's report under section 48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
Dunne
Raymond
DB-U 14493
Fitzpatrick
David
DB-U 17401
13/04/2011 Suspension of Registrations (DB-U 6701 &
Yarraville
CB-U 5852) for 6 months & Ordered to Pay
$535 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
13/04/2011 Suspension of Registration (DB-U 14493) for Koriot
1 year, Fine $5972 & Ordered to Pay $535 for
Costs Incidental to Inquiry
13/04/2011 Cancellation of Registration (DB-U 17401) & Highton, Newton
Ordered to Pay $535 for Costs Incidental to
Inquiry
Moxham
Steven
DB-U 18561
Camberwell
Raunik
Aldo
DB-U 7118
Steven Moxham- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Camberwell. The findings included that he carried
out building work when no building permit had been issued or was in force under the Act.
Aldo Raunik- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Hillside. The findings included that he failed to carry out
recommendations contained in an inspector's report under section 48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
Danckert
Phillip
DB-U 11325
Mair
David
BS-U 1278
13/04/2011 Reprimand, Fine $1500 & Ordered to Pay
$535 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
13/04/2011 Suspension of Registration (DB-U 7718) for 6
Months, Fine $5972 & Ordered to Pay $535
for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
30/03/2011 Reprimand, Fine $1000 & Ordered to Pay
$1485 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
30/03/2011 Reprimand, Fine $500 & Ordered to Pay
$2477 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Ralston
Kenneth
IN-U 1394
30/03/2011 Reprimand, Fine $1000 & Ordered to Pay
$743 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Ringwood
Zagami
John
Brooks
Phillip
DB-U 3300
CB-U 5017
DB-L 27318
30/03/2011 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $2257 for Costs Bairnsdale
Incidental to Inquiry
24/03/2011 Reprimand, Fine $3500 & Ordered to Pay
Wedderburn, Kerang
$1724 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Burnside
Christian
DB-U 12780
24/03/2011 Reprimand, Fine $2000 & Ordered to Pay
$2475 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Rye
Olah
Djura
DB-U 1694
Beaconsfield
Palma
Tony
DB-U 16691
Gook
Ronald
DB-U 12507
Prowse
Anthony
DB-U 9796
23/03/2011 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $1174 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
23/03/2011 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $1174 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
17/03/2011 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $1200 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
19/03/2011 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $35,000 for
Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Hammond
Scott
DB-U 4086
Kukas
Mladen
DB-U 8790
Albert Park
South Geelong
Braybrook
Rosebud
8/06/2011 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $505 for Costs Kialla West
Incidental to Inquiry
8/06/2011 Fine $1500 & Ordered to Pay $1010 for Costs Clifton Springs
Incidental to Inquiry
11/05/2011 Reprimand, Fine $5972 & Ordered to Pay
Woodend
$1296 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
South Morang
Hillside
Sandy Point
Sandy Point
Niddrie
Swan Hill
Macleod
16/03/2011 Fine $1000 & Ordered to Pay $1010 for Costs Doreen
Incidental to Inquiry
16/03/2011 Cancellation of Registration (DB-U 8790 & CB- Mordialloc
U 5964) Ordered to Pay $1010 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
Raymond Dunne- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Koriot. The Practitioner’s guilty findings included that
he failed to carry out recommendations contained in an inspector's report under section 48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
David Fitzpatrick- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 8 allegations in relation to 2 sites in Highton and Newton. The findings included that
he: failed to complete the construction of the dwelling within 270 days as specified under the contract; varied the plans set out as part of a major domestic building
contract without providing notice to the building owner of said variation; carried out defective building work; invoiced the owner on at least 4 separate occasions for
progress payments related to the completion of the fixing stage of the building work, when the building work had not yet achieved fixing stage; padlocked and chained
the building site and failed to permit the building owner to have reasonable access to the building site and to view any part of the building works; failed to provide the
owner with written notices stating the cause and extent of delays beyond his direct control, or to otherwise account for the delay of nearly one year in completing the
building work; and failed to fulfil the agreed obligations set out in a signed deed of settlement, between the owner and himself.
Phillip Danckert- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Sandy Point. The Practitioner’s guilty findings
included that he carried out building work that was not in accordance with the building permit.
David Mair- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 4 allegations in relation to 1 site in Sandy Point. The findings included that he: failed to
properly investigate and respond to a written complaint made in relation to overlooking and overshadowing; and approved an amendment to an approved drawing,
forming part of the building permit, when he could not have been satisfied that the work proposed in the amended drawing would be consistent with the planning permit
that had been issued for the building work and that the work proposed in the amended drawing would comply with the regulation 419.
Kenneth Ralston- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Ringwood. The findings included that he failed to
identify that the constructed pool had not been built in accordance with the approved building permit documentation, when he conducted an inspection at the
mandatory notification stage.
John Zagami- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Bairnsdale. The findings included that he held himself
out as being registered under Part 11 of the Act and in the category of builder and class of commercial builder when he was not registered.
Phillip Brooks- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 8 allegations in relation to 2 sites in Wedderburn and Kerang. The Practitioner’s guilty
findings included that he: carried out building work when no building permit in respect of the work had been issued or was in force under the Act; entered into a major
domestic building contract for building work that did not comply section 31 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995; demanded and received instalments that were
not directly related to the progress of the building work being carried out; failed to comply with the Building Code of Australia 2008 and AS 1684.2; knowingly provided
false and misleading information in an application for a building permit for the re-stumping of a dwelling to the relevant building surveyor; and carried out building work
under a major domestic building contract when he was not registered under Part 11 of the Building Act 1993 in the appropriate class of domestic builder.
Christian Burnside- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 4 allegations in relation to 1 site in Rye. The findings included that he: demanded,
and received a payment that was not directly related to building work carried out under the building contract; failed to ensure that the relevant insurer was provided
accurate information in relation to the value of the proposed building work; and carried out building work that was not in accordance with the building permit issued in
relation to that building work or the Building (Interim) Regulations 2005 or the Building Regulations 2006.
Djura Olah- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Beaconsfield. The findings included that he failed to carry
out recommendations contained in an inspector's report under section 48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
Tony Palma- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Niddrie. The findings included that he failed to carry out
recommendations contained in an inspector's report under section 48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
Ronald Gook- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Swan Hill. The findings included that he failed to carry
out recommendations contained in an inspector's report under section 48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
Anthony Prowse- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Macleod. The findings included that he: carried out
defective building work; and failed to ensure that the company, of which he was the director, complied with section 19(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
Scott Hammond- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Doreen. The findings included that he failed to carry
out recommendations contained in an inspector's report under section 48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
Mladen Kukas- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Mordialloc. The Practitioner’s guilty findings included
that he failed to carry out recommendations contained in an inspector's report under section 48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
Milbourne
Scott
DB-U 8383
17/03/2011 Suspend Registration (DB-U 8383) for 1 year Croydon
& Ordered to Pay $1200 Costs Incidental to
Inquiry
17/03/2011 Reprimand, Fine $500 & Ordered to Pay
Highett
$1150 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
16/03/2011 Reprimand, Fine $2000 & Ordered to Pay
South Morang
$1010 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Sezenias
Alexandros
DB-U 20453
Zukowski
Peter
DB-L 16612
Kidd
Roger
BS-U 1235
2/03/2011 Reprimand, Fine $2000 & Ordered to Pay
$1485 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Knight
Wayne
DB-U 18664
3/03/2011 Reprimand, Fine $4500 & Ordered to Pay
$1908 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
McCormack
Patrick
BD-M 16356
Vettori
Ernst
DB-L 13761
2/03/2011 Reprimand, Fine $5000 & Ordered to Pay
$2403 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
3/03/2011 Reprimand, Fine $1500 & Ordered to Pay
$1743 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Weerakkody
Willington
BS-U 1138
Bruhn
Desmond
DB-U 1263
23/02/2011 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $1485 for Costs Geelong
Incidental to Inquiry
Desmond Bruhn- The Board found that, in relation to the construction of a new dwelling in Geelong, the practitioner had failed to comply with section 179(1)(fb) of the
Building Act in that he failed to carry out recommendations contained in an inspection report carried out under s48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act .
Clarke
Graeme
DB-M 1138
23/02/2011 Reprimand , Fine $1800 & Ordered to Pay
$1485 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Box Hill South
Butera
Joseph
DB-U 19215
16/02/2011 Reprimand, Fine $5972 & Ordered to Pay
$1728 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Alphington, Reservoir
Graeme Clarke- The practitioner was responsible for the construction of a conservatory at an existing house in Box Hill South. The Board found the practitioner guilty of
one count of failing to comply with section 16(1) of the Building Act in that works did not comply with the Building Regulations , parts of the building works were carried
t ith Buterat
it practitioner
d b ildi camek before the
i d
t int relation
i
d the construction
ith th
dd
i apartment
H
l Alphington.
f
d t h He was
b found
h d guilty
ti of179(1)(fb)
f th
Joseph
The
Board
to
of a residential
in
failing to comply
Drouin
1/03/2011 Cancellation of Registration (BS-U 1138) &
Ordered to Pay $6389 for Costs Incidental to
Inquiry
Scott Milbourne- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Croydon. The findings included that he failed to carry
out recommendations contained in an inspector's report under section 48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
Alexandros Sezenias- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Highett. The findings included that he failed to
carry out recommendations contained in an inspector's report under section 48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.
Peter Zukowski- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in South Morang. The findings included that he: carried
out building work which was not carried out in accordance with the approved plans forming part of the building permit; and failed to properly manage, supervise and
control the building work.
Sandy Point
Roger Kidd- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 5 allegations in relation to 1 site in Sandy Point. The findings included that he: prepared a
site plan that incorrectly represented the front setback of the dwelling on the adjoining allotment; signed and gave the relevant building surveyor a certificate of
compliance for a foundation inspection which stated that the work had been inspected by him, when in fact he had not inspected the work; employed and/or engaged
another practitioner to complete works that can only be done by a person registered under Part 11 of the Building Act 1993, which they were not; and failed to identify
that the dwelling had been incorrectly sited on the allotment; failed to identify that the building work was not in accordance with regulation 419 of the Building (Interim)
Regulations 2005.
Cranbourne, Pakenham
Wayne Knight- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 2 sites sin Cranbourne and Pakenham. The findings included
that he: failed to carry out recommendations contained in an inspector's report under section 48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995; failed to call for a reinspection of the frame stage of the work after an initial inspection of the frame stage was not approved; and demanded, recovered and retained payment in respect of
the frame stage of the building work when the frame had not been completed and approved by a building surveyor.
Geelong East, Geelong West,
Patrick McCormack- The Board found that, in relation to alterations carried out at a dwelling in Camberwell, the practitioner failed to comply with section 16(1) of the
Highton, Hamlyn Heights
Building Act in that he the practitioner was found guilty of allowing his registration number to be used by unregistered persons to make applications for building permits
Ringwood
Ernst Vettori- The practitioner was found guilty of three allegations regarding the construction of a swimming pool in Ringwood. He was found to have breached s16(1)
of the Building Act in that works were not in accordance with the building permit plans. He was also found guilty of entering into a major domestic building contract
which did not comply with s31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act , and of providing false and misleading information to the Municipal Building Surveyor when
applying for the permit, therefore breaching s246 Building Act .
Upwey, Berwick, Caulfield South, Willington Weerakkody- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 63 allegations in relation to 10 sites. These findings include that he: failed to,
North Balwyn, Rye, Beaumaris,
within 7 days of issuing the building permit, give to the relevant council a copy of the building permit and any plans and other documents lodged with the application for
Noble Park, Dandenong,
the permit; failed to notify the council within 7 days of being appointed and the building work of which he was appointed; failed to within 7 days of having issued a
Frankston, Bright
certificate of final inspection given to the relevant council the inspection approval dates for the building work; failed to identify that building work did not comply with the
Building Code of Australia; failed to identify the need for protection work in respect of an adjoining property and therefore failed to require that such protection work be
carried out; issued a building permit in respect to building work in circumstances he could not have been satisfied that the building work would comply with the Building
Regulations 1994; issued a building permit when he could not have been satisfied that the consent and report of the relevant building council had been obtained in
relation the to the building work; issued a building work when he could not have been satisfied that the building work would comply with the Building (interim)
Regulations 2005, as he failed to identify the site was in a bush fire prone zone as designated by Council; failed to identify defective building work and did not comply
with the approved plans forming part of the building permit issued by him for the building work; Issued a building permit for the building work which incorrectly
understated the cost of the building work, as a result of which underestimated the levy paid to the Building Administration Fund in respect of the building permit was
incorrect; Issued a building permit that imposed on the applicant a greater requirement than the requirements prescribed by the Act and the Building Regulations;
issued a building permit that he added a handwritten note to the plans requiring the total maximum building height to not exceed 9 meters unless approved by the
Council when the plans showed that the dwelling would have a maximum high exceeding 9 meters; issued a building permit which specified commencement and
completion dates for the building work which were inconsistent with the requirements for commencement and completion of the building work out in regulation 315 of
the Regulations; failed to respond to 2 letters from the adjoining owner; upon being notified by the municipal building surveyor of the relevant council that building work
carried out on site may be inconsistent with the approved plans forming part of the building permit, he failed to properly investigate, respond to the council and take
appropriate action in a timely manner; he issued a building permit which incorrectly stated the proposed building was class 1 a and that an occupancy permit was
required upon completion of the work; failed to include in the building permit details of a planning permit that had been issued in relation to the site; failed to identify that
the built construction did not comply with the approved plans forming part of the building permit; incorrectly classified the building to be constructed as a class 9b
building; failed to provide the relevant council either in a timely manner or at all a copy of the relevant building permit and any plans and other documents lodge with the
application for the permit; accepted an application for a building permit that did not comply with Form 1 of the Regulations ; issued a building permit that was incorrect,
deficient and did not contain all of the information required by, or otherwise comply with, Form 2 of the Regulations; issued an occupancy permit when he could not
have been satisfied that the building to which the permit applied was suitable for occupation; issued an occupancy permit that did not contain a condition listing all
essential safety measures pertaining to the building; failed to take adequate steps to ensure that the building work was completed by the date specified in the building
permits or alternatively that extensions of time for completion of the building work were obtained by the relevant building owners; failed to p[ay into the Building
Administration Fund within 7 days after the end of each month all amounts of levy received by him for building permits issued during that month; failed to provide to the
Building Commission the required building permit levy information within 7 days after the end of each month; and constituted by a pattern of conduct, namely his
repeated failure to carry out his work as building practitioner in a competent manner and to a professional standard in relation to inspections of building work as
described in the above allegations, and this conduct shows that he was not a fit and proper person to practice as a building practitioner.
with section 16(1) of the Building Act in that he carried out works not in accordance with the permit, and three counts of failing to comply with regulation 1502(a)
Building Regulations for carrying out defective works, failing to take adequate steps to rectify defects, and for failing to carry out recommendations contained in an
inspection report carried out under section 48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act .
Trevor Chugg- The Board found that, as the person responsible for preparing the drawings for the construction of a dwelling in Drouin, the practitioner failed to ensure
that the drawings provided for the dwelling to be constructed within the building envelope in compliance with an agreement issued pursuant to section 173 of the
Planning and Environment Act 1987.
Trevor Lucke- In respect of building works in Torquay, the Board found the practitioner had failed to comply with section 78(2) of the Building Act in that he appointed a
private building surveyor on behalf of his company to carry out the functions set out in section 76 of the Building Act when another private building surveyor had
already commenced to carry out those functions in respect of the building works.
Chugg
Trevor
DB-U 7038
16/02/2011 Reprimand, Fine $1500 & Ordered to Pay
$1680 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Lucke
Trevor
DB-U 28131
16/02/2011 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $1618 for Costs Torquay
Incidental to Inquiry
Stoyanovich
Luke
DB-U 17980
19/01/2011 Reprimand, Fine $5972 & Ordered to Pay
$2730 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Montrose, Narre Warren, Upwey
Luke Stoyanovich- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 8 allegations in relation to 3 sites in Montrose, Narre Warren and Upwey. The
Practitioner’s guilty findings included that he: gave effect to a variation when the building owner had not given him a signed consent to the variation which complied with
section 37(2) (a) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act ; carried out building work which was not in accordance with the building permit issued for that work; carried out
building work which was not in accordance with the building permit issued for that work; failed to carry out recommendations in an inspectors report under section 48 of
the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995, by the time required by the Inspection Report; and failed to rectify defective building work.
Mifsud
George
DB-U 19384
19/01/2011 Reprimand, Fine $2000 & Ordered to Pay
$1056 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Hoppers Crossing
George Mifsud- The Board found that, in relation to the construction of a new dwelling in Hoppers Crossing, the practitioner had failed to comply with section 179(1)(fb)
of the Building Act in that he failed to carry out recommendations contained in an inspection report carried out under s48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act .
Saeed
Izzat
DB-U 17457
Blair
Clive
DB-L 1601
19/01/2011 Fine $1500 & Ordered to Pay $1056 for Costs Roxburgh Park
Incidental to Inquiry
22/12/2010 Fine $250 & Ordered to Pay $842 for Costs
Surrey Hills
Incidental to Inquiry
Izzat Saeed- The Board found that, in relation to the construction of a new dwelling in Roxburgh Park, the practitioner had failed to comply with section 179(1)(fb) of the
BA in that he failed to carry out recommendations contained in an inspection report carried out under s48 of the DBCA.
Clive Blair- The Board found that, in relation to the construction of a new dwelling in Surrey Hills, the practitioner had failed to comply with section 179(1)(fb) of the
Building Act in that he failed to carry out recommendations contained in an inspection report carried out under s48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act .
James
Gavin
DB-U 9249
15/12/2010 Suspend Registration (DB-U 9249) for 1 year Northcote
& Ordered to Pay $2525 Costs Incidental to
Inquiry
Meilak
Enrico
DB-U 2562
10/06/2010 Reprimand, Fine $250 & Ordered to Pay $250 Taylors Hill
for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Gavin James- The practitioner came before the Board in relation to the construction of a new dwelling in Northcote. He was found guilty of five allegations, namely:
breaching regulation 1502(a) Building Regulations by failing to give written progress claims at the completion of each stage and again for failing to notify the owner of
delays experienced in carrying out the works, failing to display the prescribed permit information contrary to 317(2) Building Regulations , requesting payment for the
final stage of building work when the final inspection had not yet been approved, contrary to s42 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act , and failing to rectify defects as
recommended in an inspector's report in breach of s179(1)(fb) Building Act .
Enrico Meilak- The Board found that, in relation to the construction of a new dwelling in St Leonards, the practitioner had failed to comply with section 179(1)(fb) of the
Building Act in that he failed to carry out recommendations contained in an inspection report carried out under s48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act .
Palmer
Alan
DB-U 8488
19/05/2010 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $564 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
Mildura
Alan Palmer- In relation to domestic building works carried out in Mildura, the practitioner was found to have entered into a major domestic building contract which did
not comply with section 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act and further that he failed to comply with section 136(2) of the Building Act in that he carried out
works when not covered by the required insurance.
Ramaihi
Hassan
DB-U 23937
22/12/2010 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $1056 for Costs Pascoe Vale
Incidental to Inquiry
Hassan Ramaihi- The Board found that, in relation to the construction of a new dwelling in Pascoe Vale, the practitioner had failed to comply with section 179(1)(fb) of
the Building Act in that he failed to carry out recommendations contained in an inspection report carried out under s48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act .
Vollebregt
Darren
DB-L 22018
22/12/2010 Reprimand, Fine $ 1500 & Ordered to Pay
$1056 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Sandy
Allan
DB-U 8266
15/12/2010 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $3025 for Costs Metung
Incidental to Inquiry
Darren Vollebregt- The Board found that, in relation to the construction of a new dwelling in Manifold Heights, the practitioner had failed to comply with section
179(1)(fb) of the Building Act in that he failed to carry out recommendations contained in an inspection report carried out under s48 of the Domestic Building Contracts
Act .
Alan Sandy- The practitioner came before the Board in relation to the construction of an office and attached manager's flat in Metung. He was found to have breached
regulation 1502a Building Regulations in that he failed to ensure ambiguities were clarified so that the building permit document adequately reflected the works to be
undertaken and that he undertook commercial works when not registered in the appropriate category. He was found to have breached section 176(2A) of the Building
Act when he carried out domestic building work under a major domestic building contract when he was not registered under Part 11 of the Act as a domestic builder
during period of registration suspension for failure to renew. He was also found guilty of failing to comply with section 179(1)(fc) of the Building Act in that he entered
into a contract which did not clearly identify and distinguish the carrying out of, and payment for, the domestic and commercial aspects of the project.
Mavridis
Lazarus
BS-U 1588
McMahon
Timothy
BS-U 19422
24/11/2010 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $1296 for Costs Patterson Lakes
Incidental to Inquiry
Randall
Brendan
DP-AD 2
24/11/2010 Reprimand, Fine $1000 & Ordered to Pay
$1296 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Muller
Philippe
DB-U 22908
17/11/2010 Suspension of Registration for 2 years (DB-U Hopetoun Park
22908), Fine $5972 & Ordered to Pay $2305
for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Hogan
Gregory
DB-M 28784
9/11/2010 Cancellation of Registration (DB-M 28784)&
Ordered to Pay $1010 for Costs Incidental to
Inquiry
Hawthorn
Di Raco
Rocco
BS-U 14813
8/11/2010 Reprimand, Fine $5972 & Ordered to Pay
$45,840 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Westmeadows
Wearne
Michael
DB-U 5847
3/11/2010 Reprimand, Fine $3000 & Ordered to Pay
$781 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Narre Warren North
Woolsey
Michael
DB-U 5524
Cullen
Patrick
BS-U 1264
Rossi
John
DB-U 7961
27/10/2010 Reprimand, Fine $2000 & Ordered to Pay
$2305 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Carlton North
Leonard
Shane
BS-U 1076
26/10/2010 Reprimand, Fine $500 & Ordered to Pay
$6665 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Mornington
Barzen
Christopher
DB-U 10107
20/10/2010 Reprimand, Fine $1000 & Ordered to Pay
$1010 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Shepparton
Chung
Michael
DB-U 2354
20/10/2010 Reprimand, Fine $5972 & Ordered to Pay
$1010 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Kew
Mpota
Rashid
DB-U 21392
19/10/2010 Cancel Registration & Ordered to Pay $3059
for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Melton
Georgelos
Steven
DB-U 5221
7/10/2010 Reprimand, Fine $1250 & Ordered to Pay $
2800 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Brousalis
Michael
DB-U 7839
9/12/2010 Reprimand, Fine $4000 & Ordered to Pay
$17381 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Manifold Heights
Werribee, Essendon, Pascoe
Vale, Taylors Lakes
Seaford
3/11/2010 Suspension of Registration for 6 months, Fine Garfield, Pakenham
$2000, & Ordered to Pay $781 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
27/10/2010 Reprimand, Fine $500 & Ordered to Pay $800 Heathmont
for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
29/09/2010 Reprimand, Fine $3000 & Ordered to Pay
$3245 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Lazarus Mavridis- The allegations before the Board related to 5 sites being Werribee, Essendon, North Fitzroy, Pascoe Vale and Taylor's Lakes. The practitioner was
found guilty of 9 allegations including failing to comply with s24(1)(b) and s24(1)(a) of the Building Act in issuing a building permit in non complying day lighting to
habitable room windows as per Regulation 4.20 Building Regulations and also non complying overshadowing, wall heights and set backs, issuing occupancy permits
stating the incorrect name of the builder and the issuing of a certificate of final inspection when the final inspection had not been approved.
Timothy McMahon- The practitioner was the relevant building surveyor for the construction of a swimming pool & spa at a residence in Patterson Lakes. He was found
guilty of failing to comply with section 24(1)(b) of the Building Act in issuing a building permit when he could not have been sure the consent of a reporting authority had
been obtained as required by regulation 310 Building Regulations , namely, the consent of Melbourne Water to construct the pool fence within its three metre
easement. He was also found to have breached section 24(1)(c) of the Building Act in issuing the permit when he could not have been sure a planning permit had
been obtained.
Brendon Randall- The building practitioner prepared plans for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling in Seaford. He was found to have breached regulation
1502a Building Regulations in two instances; for mislabelling two balconies on the plans as 'landings', and as a consequence, submitting plans which did not
adequately address overlooking issues as required under regulation 419(1) Building Regulations .
Phillippe Muller- The practitioner came before the Board regarding the construction of a new dwelling in Hopetoun Park. He was found guilty of failing to comply with
s33(1) of the Building Act in that he failed to notify the relevant building surveyor after the completion of the frame stage. He was found to have breached regulation
1502a Building Regulations in three separate instances; for claiming premature stage payments on two occasions, and for carrying out works which were defective.
The Board also found he had breached s16(1) of the Building Act for carrying out works not in accordance with the permit, and s37(2) of the Domestic Building
Contracts Act when he gave effect to variations to the contract without signed consent to do so.
Gregory Hogan-The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 6 allegations in relation to 1 site in Hawthorn. The Practitioner’s guilty findings included
that he: did not comply with all of the requirements of section 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995; allowed the company, of which he was the director, to
enter into a cost plus contract for domestic building work when the contract did not contain a fair and reasonable estimate of the total amount of money it was likely to
receive under the contract; carried out building work when a building permit in respect of that work had not been issued; and carried out building work when he was not
covered by the required insurance.
Rocco Di Raco-The allegations before the Board related to eight different sites in Roxburgh Park (two sites), Point Cook, Newport, Fitzroy, North Carlton, Hoppers
Crossing and Moonee Ponds. The practitioner was found guilty of twenty-two allegations. He was found guilty of failing to comply with s30 of the Building Act in four
instances for failing to provide documentation to council within seven days of issuing a building permit. The remaining allegations included breaches of sections s125(1)
Building Act – not providing Building Notice to council within 7 days, Regulation 313(1) Building Regulations 2006 (BR) – details of relevant planning permit not
included with Building permit– Issuing occupancy permit prior to works reaching completion, 4.14 BR – Setback non compliance; 4.15 BR – Not obtaining Council
consent; and s188(7) Building Act – Issuing inconsistent staged permits.
Michael Wearne- The Board found that, in relation to the construction of a new dwelling in Narre Warren South, the practitioner had failed to comply with s179(1)(fb) of
the Building Act in that he failed to carry out recommendations contained in an inspection report carried out under s48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act.
Michael Woolsey- The Board found that, in relation to the construction of two new dwellings, in Garfield and Pakenham, the practitioner had failed to comply with
s179(1)(fb) of the Building Act in that he failed to carry out recommendations contained in inspection reports carried out under s48 Domestic Building Contracts Act .
Patrick Cullen- In relation to the construction of a deck to an existing dwelling in Heathmont, the Board found the practitioner had failed to comply with s24A of the
Building Act 1993 in that he issued a building permit for domestic building works when he could not have been satisfied that the building work was to be carried out by
a builder who was registered under Part 11 of the Act in the appropriate class of domestic builder.
John Rossi- An inquiry was held into the practitioner's conduct in relation to renovations carried out to a residential property in Carlton North. The Board found he had
breached regulation 1502a in three instances; constructing footings for a new wall which encroached on the neighbouring property, dropping and/or failing to prevent
his employees dropping debris and rubbish into the yard of the adjoining property, and carrying out work outside the working hours permitted by section 13 of the
Environment Local Law .
Shane Leonard- The Board found that, in relation to building work at a residential site in Mornington, the practitioner failed to comply with s248 of the Building Act 1993
in that he acted on behalf of an owner for the purpose of making an application to the Building Appeals Board when he was not authorised in writing by the owner to do
so. In doing this, he was also found to have breached regulation 1502(a) having signed the application which stated the person signing acts on behalf of the owner and
confirms the owner is aware of this' when he knew or ought to have known this was not the true position.
Christopher Barzen- The practitioner came before the Board in relation to extensions and renovations to a dwelling in Shepparton. He was found to have: carried out
works when a permit had not been issued; breached the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 in that the contract did not comply with the requirements of section
31(1); and gaven effect to a variation asked for by the owner without giving the building owner the notice required under section 38 of that Act.
Michael Chung- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 5 allegations in relation to 1 site in Kew. The Practitioner’s guilty findings included that
he: carried out building work for which no building permit had been issued under the Act; carried out building work that was not carried out in accordance with the
Building Regulations 2006; carried out inadequate building work; and failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the registration numbers and contact details of
the builder and building surveyor were displayed on the allotment in a conspicuous position accessible to the public.
Rashid Mpota- The practitioner was found guilty of 42 allegations. Numerous allegations reflected a breach of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995, including:
failure to provide a written copy of a contract to owners, several allegations of premature and/or excessive claims for stage payments in breach of section 24(2); having
contracts signed without providing a contract amount, then adding an amount at a later time which was higher than verbally agreed; and breaching S37(3) by
recovering payment in respect of a variation when he did not have the signed consent of the owners. Other allegations proven included that the practitioner had
breached s16(1) of the Building Act 1993 (the Act) for carrying out works prior to a permit being issued and for carrying out works which were not in accordance with
regulations; several breaches of regulation 1502a in that works did not comply with the Building Code of Australia or the with building permit, and that works were
defective; and, that he had failed to ensure that building work at the site was completed. The Board also found Mr Mpota guilty of breaching section 179(1)(d) of the
Act, in that he had displayed a pattern of conduct showing that he was not a fit and proper person to practice as a building practitioner.
Essendon
Steven Georgelos- The practitioner came before the Board on several allegations in relation to extensions made to a home in Essendon. He was found guilty of the
following: failing to ensure the company complied with s31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (DBC Act) in that two separate contracts were entered into
lacked the required information, including plans and insurance details; failing to comply with section 40(2) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act when his company
received more than 10% of the contract price prior to the completion of the base stage; failing to comply with s16(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act in that the
works did not comply with the building permit; carrying out defective works; failing to provided the owners with electrical or plumbing certificates; and failing to comply
with section 179(1)(fb) in that he failed to carry out recommendations carried out in an inspector's report carried out under s48 of the Act.
Eaglehawk, Reservoir
Michael Brousalis- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 3 allegations in relation to 2 sites in Eaglehawk and Reservoir. The Practitioner’s
guilty findings included that he: carried out building work which was defective and/or in contravention of the building permit and/or Building Regulations 2006; carried
out building work which was not in accordance with the approved building permit documentation; and failed to comply with regulation 1502(a) of the Building
Regulations 2006.
Ziolkowski
Stanley
DP-AD 2072
29/09/2010 Reprimand, Fine $1000 & Ordered to Pay
$1485 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Hesket
Stanley Ziolkowski- The Board found that the building practitioner had failed to comply with section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993 in that he failed to obtain a building
permit for works carried out in Hesket, which included turning a class 10a rural shed into a residential building and constructing a new two storey shed on the property.
Dimitrovici
Stefan
DB-U 23979
27/09/2010 Reprimand, Fine $1500 & Ordered to Pay
$1133 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Warrigal
Stefan Dimitrovici- The practitioner came before the Board in relation to building work at four separate residential sites, all of them in Warragul. For the first site, he was
found guilty of breaching s33(1) of the Building Act 1993 (the Act) for failing to notify the relevant building surveyor without delay after completion of the frame stage,
and of breaching s16(1) of the Act in that he carried out work not in accordance with the approved drawings. He was found guilty on two counts of breaching s16(1) of
the Act in that he carried out works before a permit was issued and then carried out works that were not in accordance with the approved plans. He was also found
guilty of failing to comply with regulation 1502(a) in two instances; for failing to comply with a written request from the relevant building surveyor to provide a structural
engineer's certificate of compliance, and for failing to comply to the surveyor's direction to undertake works on the framing.
Azzopardi
Ian
DB-U 21864
22/09/2010 Ordered to Pay $2885 for Costs Incidental to
Inquiry
Melton
Ian Azzopardi- An Inquiry was held regarding the construction of two new townhouses in Melton. For both units, the practitioner was found guilty of breaching regulation
15.2(a) of the Building Act 1993 (the Act) for failing to carry out recommendations from an inspection report carried out under section 48 of the Domestic Building
Contracts Act 1995. He was also found to have breached section 16(1) of the Act in that building work did not comply with the permit for both units.
Platt
Leanne
IN-U 16244
22/09/2010 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $2385 for Costs Traralgon
Incidental to Inquiry
Pfeiffer
Graham
DB-U 6087
15/09/2010 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $1485 for Costs Corryong
Incidental to Inquiry
Robertson
Noel
CB-U 4609
Wright
Craig
DB-L 13874
18/08/2010 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $5319 for Costs Sunbury
Incidental to Inquiry
Rek
Franjo
DB-U 2756
11/08/2010 Reprimand, Fine $3500 & Ordered to Pay
$794 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Frankston
Condon
Anthony
DB-U 23544
21/07/2010 Ordered to Pay $378 for Costs Incidental to
Inquiry
Sandringham
Kocamis
Muslum
DB-U 2821
21/07/2010 Fine $234
Essendon
Krongold
Wayne
DB-U 7663
Templestowe
Munafo
Vito
BS-U 20159
Valentic
Brett
DB-U 15852
Davis
Stephen
DB-U 11941
21/07/2010 Reprimand, Fine $3969 & Ordered to Pay
$19696 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
7/07/2010 Fine $2500 & Ordered to Pay $576 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
7/07/2010 Ordered to Pay $576 for Costs Incidental to
Inquiry & To Participate in the CPD
Programme (relating to contracts
administration and statutory compliance) for a
period of 3 years
2/07/2010 Suspension of Registration for 3 months (DBU 11941), Reprimand, & Ordered to Pay
$8972 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Seaford
Stephen Davis- The Board found the practitioner guilty carrying out building works without the building permit being issued contrary to s16(1) of the Building Act . The
Board found the practitioner guilty of unprofessional conduct for misstating the actual contract price and subsequently obtaining insurance using the misrepresented
amount contrary to s179(1)(f) of the Building Act . The Board further found the practitioner guilty of failing to comply with s11(1)(a) of the Domestic Building Contracts
Act for demanding/receiving a deposit greater than 5 per cent of the total contract price.
Koutsoumbos
Con
DB-U 7238
29/06/2010 Reprimand, Fine $2500 & Ordered to Pay
$8337 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Oakleigh South
Cassar
Paul
BS-U 22903
16/06/2010 Reprimand, Fine $250 & Ordered to Pay $567 Altona Meadows
for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Oliva
Ettore
DB-U 12172
Bundoora
Kearney
Andrew
DB-U 10388
16/06/2010 Fine $150 & Ordered to Pay $567 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
2/07/2010 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $567 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
Smith
Patti
BS-U 1280
26/05/2010 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $704 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
East Bayswater, Dandenong
North
Con Koutsoumbos- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 8 allegations in relation to 1 site in Oakleigh South. The Practitioner’s guilty findings
included that he: entered into a major domestic building contract which did not set out how many days had been allowed for inclement weather, weekends and
holidays; demanded and received a deposit of more than 5% of the contract price for a contract of more than $20,000; demanded and received a more than the
percentages listed in the Table in section 40(2) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 for the mandatory stages of the building work; and carried out building
work that was not in accordance with the Building Regulations 1994.
Paul Cassar- The practitioner was the relevant building inspector for extensions carried out on a dwelling in Altona Meadows. The Board found that when carrying out
an inspection the practitioner had failed to identify that the work was defective and that it did not comply with the relevant building permit, therefore breaching regulation
1502a.
Ettore Oliva- The practitioner came before the Board in relation to the construction of a new residential property in Bundoora. The practitioner was found guilty of
undertaking defective works in breach of regulation 1502a.
Andrew Kearney- The practitioner came before the Board in relation to domestic building works, namely the installation and replacement of joists, bearers and stumps
at a residence in Clifton Hill. He was found guilty of carrying out works when a permit had not been issued in breach of section 16(1) of the Building Act , and of entering
into a contract which did not comply with section 31(1) of Domestic Building Contracts Act .
Patti Smith- In relation to a site in East Bayswater, the Board found the practitioner had breached regulation 1502a in that she issued an occupancy permit containing
several conditions to be met, of which many were major safety issues. In relation to a second site in Dandenong North, the Board found the practitioner guilty of three
further allegations of breaching regulation 1502a, in that she failed to take appropriate action following her decision not to approve a final inspection; failed to take
appropriate action following the lapse of a building permit; and, of failing to carry out an inspection within a reasonable time after issuing a building order.
Godden
Brett
DB-U 8349
Rosebud
Carreras
John
DB-U 10887
19/05/2010 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $710 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
5/05/2010 Reprimand, Fine $1000 & Ordered to Pay
$424 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
McMahon
Mark
DB-U 21953
5/05/2010 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $424 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
Traralgon
Wood
Brett
DB-U 9681
28/04/2010 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $567 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
Wesburn
8/09/2010 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $2051 for Costs Elsternwick
Incidental to Inquiry
Wattle Glen
Wattle Glen
Clifton Hill
Moonee Ponds
Leanne Platt- The practitioner came before the Board in relation to renovations carried out to a house in Traralgon. She was found guilty of failing to comply with
section 37(4) of the Building Act 1993 in that, having carried out inspections of the building work, she gave oral directions to the builder but failed to give these
instructions in writing without delay. She was also found to have breached regulation 1502(a) for failing to identify defects, and 1502(b) for failing to disclose to the client
in writing of an actual or apparent conflict of interest in relation to a landlord / tenancy relationship between the builder and practitioner.
Graham Pfeiffer- The practitioner came before the Board in relation to the construction of a dwelling and garage. He was found guilty of three counts of breaching
regulation 15.2a for carrying out defective works and failing to carry out recommendations from an inspection report carried out under section 48 of the Domestic
Building Contracts Act 1995. He was also found to have breached the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 in requesting final stage payment before an occupancy
permit was issued and in failing to notify the building owner in writing of a variation for two separate instances in breach of s37 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act
1995.
Noel Robertson- The practitioner came before the Board in relation to alterations and additions to an existing shop in Elsternwick. He was found guilty of failing to
comply with section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993 in that work carried out under his supervision, being the construction of concrete stairs, was carried out without a
building permit. He was also found to have breached regulation 15.2a in that the roof plumbing, including the above ground storm water drainage, contravened the
Building Act and caused damage to the adjoining property.
Craig Wright- The Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation of entering into a contract for the construction of a swimming pool in Sunbury in breach of section
21(1)(b) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act in that the contract did not contain an amount, or estimate amount, for provisional sums relating to excavating and
formwork.
Franjo Rek- The practitioner came before the Board in relation to the construction of a new residential property in Frankston. He was found guilty of undertaking
defective works in breach of regulation 1502a, and of a subsequent failure to complete rectification works as recommended in an inspector's report carried out under
section 48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act .
Anthony Condon- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 2 allegations in relation to 1 site in Sandringham. The Practitioner’s guilty findings
included that he: carried out defective building work; and failed to carry out recommendations contained in an inspector’s report carried out under section 48 of the
Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 within the time frame suggested by the inspector or at all.
Muslum Kocamis- The Board found that, in relation to the construction or a dwelling and garage in Essendon, the practitioner failed to ensure the excavation was
conducted in a safe and workmanlike manner, in breach of building regulation 605. The practitioner was also found to have failed to comply with regulation 1502 in
failing to rectify the damage in a timely manner or at all to the landscape and boundary fence due to damage from the building works.
Wayne Krongold- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 1 allegation in relation to 1 site in Templestowe. The Practitioner’s guilty findings
included that he carried out defective building work.
Vito Munafo- In respect of an application for a building permit to complete extensions to a dwelling in Wattle Glen, the Board found the practitioner knowingly
understated the cost of the work, in breach of section 201(6)(c) of the Building Act .
Brett Valentic- The Board found the practitioner provided breached s246 of the Act when he knowingly provided false or misleading information to a person carrying out
functions under the Act, in that he provided a value for the works for extensions to a dwelling in Wattleglen, which he knew to be false. He was also found to have
breached section16(1) in that he carried out works not in accordance with the Building Permit. In consideration of penalty, the Board considered the prosecution of the
practitioner at the Magistrates' Court and also recommended the practitioner maintain Continued Professional Development over the next three years.
Brett Godden- In carrying out the erection of two shade sails and a deck at a dwelling in Rosebud, the practitioner was found guilty of: breaching Regulation 1502(a) of
the Building Regulations 2006 by assisting the owner and undertaking works when a building permit had not been issued.
John Carreras- An Inquiry was held regarding the practitioner's conduct in relation to two separate sites. In relation to the construction of a new dwelling at Moonee
Ponds, the practitioner was found guilty of: carrying out works that were not of a sufficient standard; over excavating the site; failed to progress works in a timely
manner; making premature claims for base and frame stage progress payments (2 allegations).In relation to the renovation and extension of a dwelling in St Kilda East,
the practitioner was found guilty of: failing to progress works in a timely manner and carrying out defective work; failing to advise the owners that variations would cause
works to be delayed; and making premature claims for base and frame stage payments.
Mark McMahon- The practitioner was found guilty of six allegations pertaining to renovations on a dwelling in Traralgon. The practitioner: failed to comply with regulation
1502(a) in that works carried out did not comply with the regulations and/or were defective; carried out works which did not comply with the permit; failed to
appropriately supervise two apprentices at the site; failed to give notice or advise the owners in writing of variations made by him; undertook contract variations without
the owners' written permission to do so; and failed to comply with s40(2) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act when requesting lock up stage payment prior to all
external doors and windows being fitted.
Brett Wood- The practitioner was found guilty of two allegations regarding the construction of a new dwelling at Wesburn: failing to comply with regulation 1502(a) in
that he allowed his company claim frame stage payments when the frame had not yet been approved; and failing to ensure compliance with the Domestic Building
Contracts Act in that variations were effected without the owners' written consent.
Taylor
Trevor
DB-U 20635
21/04/2010 Fine $500 & Ordered to Pay $704 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
Longwarry
Ho
Khanh
BS-U 18673
Damjanovic
Nebojsa
DB-U 6060
13/04/2010 Cancellation of Registration (BS-U 18673) &
Ordered to Pay $1933 for Costs Incidental to
Inquiry
1/04/2010 Reprimand, Fine $3500 & Ordered to Pay
$1504 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Hawthorn, Kew East, Lalor,
Keysborough, Meadow Heights,
Cowes, Caroline Springs, St
Attwood
Parker
Norman
DB-U 10948
31/03/2010 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $567 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
Rosebud
Zivkovic
Robert
BS-U 15774
31/03/2010 Reprimand, Fine $5500 & Ordered to Pay
$567 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Albion, Werribee, Williamstown,
Seddon
Haycox
John
BS-U 1320
30/03/2010 Cancellation of Registration (BS-U 1320) &
Ordered to Pay $1419 for Costs Incidental to
Inquiry
Ivanhoe, Werribee, Hawthorn,
North Fitzroy, Northcote, Clifton
Hill, Rye, Pascoe Vale, Sunbury,
Craigieburn
Mansutti
Maurice
DB-U 13584
CB-U 1266
17/03/2010 Reprimand, Fine $4000 & Ordered to Pay
$1133 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Ivanhoe
Barton
Christopher
DB-U 3102
10/03/2010 Fine $1500 & Ordered to Pay Costs $567 for
Incidental to Inquiry
Wodonga
Harrington
Andrew
DB-U 4817
24/02/2010 Reprimand, Fine $2000 & Ordered to Pay
$5924 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Horsham
Canny
Damian
DB-U 20097
CB-U 7010
17/02/2010 Reprimand, Fine $6000 & Ordered to Pay
$567 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Hawthorn
Caruana
David
DB-U 19354
15/02/2010 Reprimand, Fine $8000 & Ordered to
Pay$592 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Dandenong, Doreen, Melton
Basetti
Angelo
DB-U 10000
Newport
Beswick
Darren
DB-L 21240
11/02/2010 Fine $500 & Ordered to Pay $424 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
10/02/2010 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $567 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
Bordin
Leo
DB-U 19327
20/01/2010 Ordered to Pay $1212 for Costs Incidental to
Inquiry
Truganina
Cipriani
Walter
DB-U 11641
South Yarra
Liu
John
DB-U 6570
14/12/2009 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $464 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
14/12/2009 Reprimand, Fine $1500 & Ordered to Pay
$676 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Rodwell
Bruce
DB-U 8436
25/11/2009
Cartledge
Neal
BS-U 1350
19/11/2009
McLinden
Michael
BS-U 1122
6/11/2009
Steer
Simon
DB-U 7814
6/11/2009
Talevski
Robert
EC 16523
6/11/2009
Durmus
Reg
DB-L 28618
23/10/2009
Almenara
Michael
DB-U 5132
22/10/2009
Mornington, Baxter, Mt Martha,
Hastings
Trevor Taylor- In relation to the construction of a new dwelling in Longwarry, the practitioner was found guilty of the following: one allegation of undertaking drainage
works without a permit in breach of section 16(1) of the Building Act ; two allegations of breaching section 16(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act for claiming
payments in excess of the Contract price; one allegation of claiming frame stage payment prematurely, in breach of section 40(2) of the Domestic Building Contracts
Act ; and one allegation of unprofessional conduct as per section 179(1)(a) of the Building Act in that his company removed a water meter without permission from the
owners or the relevant water authority.
Khanh Ho: The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 25 allegations in relation to 11 sites. These findings include that he: practised as a building
surveyor when his registration as a building surveyor had been suspended; provided false or misleading information to a person or body carrying out any function
under the Building Act 1993, namely he placed the name and registration number of another building practitioner on permits and purportedly signed those permits on
Nebojsa Damjanovic- The practitioner came before the Board in relation the construction of a new residential property in Attwood. The practitioner was found guilty of:
undertaking defective works in breach of Regulation 1502(a), and a subsequent failure to complete rectification as recommended in an inspector's report carried out
Norman Parker- The Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation of: failing to comply with section 16(1) of the Building Act in that he carried out building work
on a dwelling in Rosebud when a building permit had been issued. In determining penalty, the Board considered the earlier finding in the Magistrate's Court prosecution
against the practitioner.
Robert Zivkovic- The practitioner came before the Board in relation to separate sites at Albion, Werribee, Williamstown and Seddon. He pleaded and was found guilty
of the following 10 allegations: failing to take appropriate action when advised by Council that illegal building work was taking place at one of the sites and that it was
being occupied without an occupancy permit; carrying inspections when he had not yet issued a building permit (3 separate allegations); issuing a building permit when
he knew or ought to have known construction had already commenced; failing to notify Council of his appointment under section 80 within the required timeframe;
failing to comply with section 245 in that he accepted a benefit for his services other than an appropriate payment as specified under the Domestic Building Contracts
Act ; failing to comply with section 24(1)(a) in that he issued a permit when he could not have been satisfied the work would comply with regulations and the planning
John Haycox- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty 52 allegations in relation to 10 sites. These findings include that he: failed to identify during
the final inspection that the building work did not comply with the Regulations; failed to take appropriate action to require that the building work be bought into the
compliance with the regulations; failed to give the relevant council within 7 days of issuing the building permit a copy of all plans and other documents lodged with the
application for the permit; failed to provide documentation requested by Council in relation to the building work; issued a building permit when we was not or could not
have been satisfied that the building work and the building permit would comply with the Building Act 1993 and the building regulations; failed to notify the relevant
Council of his appointment within 7 days of accepting the appointment; prepared an inadequate purported certification that the illegal building work complies with the
building regulations and the Building Code of Australia; failed to obtain the required consent from the relevant Council for building work; incorrectly classified the
building work in a building permit issued by him; issued 2 occupancy permits which incorrectly classified the building work; failed within 7 days of issuing a certificate of
final inspection to give to the relevant Council the inspection approval date for the frame stage of the building work; failed to make a maintenance determination when
carrying out building work; failed during his final inspection to identify discrepancies between the building work carried out and the approved plans; carried out a final
inspection and approved the building work when he was aware or should have been aware that the building work was contrary to the approved plans forming part of
the building permit; approved a building permit although he had not received the architectural plans; issued a building permit for different stages which was not in the
form of Form 2 to the regulations; issued a building permit for stage 1 and 2 which was defective; issued an occupancy permit for a dwelling that was defective; failed to
identify that building works weren’t in accordance with the approved plans; failed to determine mandatory notification stages for building works; issued a building permit
when he could not have been satisfied that each building practitioner to be engaged in the building work was registered; failed to ensure the building work was
completed within the time specified in the building permit and a final inspection carried out and following lapse of the building permit he failed to take the appropriate
action; issued a replacement building permit for the full scope of building work covered by the original building permit when he knew or should have known that all or
most of the building work had already been completed; and failed to comply with requests from the building owner to carry out the final inspection.
Maurice Mansutti- The practitioner was found guilty of seven separate allegations pertaining to the construction of two adjoining dwellings in Ivanhoe, namely:
breaching regulation 15.2(a) in that works were defective/not in accordance with the Regulations; failing to comply with section 16(1) in that works did not comply with
the approved plans; failing to give written notice of variations to the owners, in breach of section 37(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act ; effecting variations to the
contract without written permission from the owners, in breach of section 37(2) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act ; requesting premature stage payments in breach
of sections 40 & 42 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act (2 allegations); and failing to comply with regulation 1502 in that his company failed to progress works in a
timely manner.
Christopher Barton- The Board found the practitioner guilty of one allegation of failing to comply with regulation 15.2(a) in that he was responsible for defective building
works carried out during the construction of a new dwelling in Wodonga.
Andrew Harrington- In relation to renovations/additions to a residential dwelling in Horsham, the Board found the practitioner guilty of: carrying out works work not in
accordance with building permit; carrying out work when not covered by the required insurance in breach of section 136; entering into a major contract which did not
comply with section 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act ; agreeing to carry out variations to the building work and carrying out those variations contrary to the
requirements of section 38 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act ; demanding an amount of money under the contract in excess of the contract price without being
Damien Canny- The practitioner was found guilty of 1 allegation in that he allowed the company, of which he was the director, to carry out building work while in breach
of section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993.
David Caruana- The practitioner came before the Board in relation to sites in Dandenong, Doreen and Melton. For each of the three sites the practitioner was found
guilty of: undertaking defective works in breach of Regulation 1502(a); and a subsequent failure to complete rectification as recommended in an inspector's report
carried out under section 48 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act .
Angelo Basetti- The Board found the practitioner had failed to comply with section 39(1) of the Building Act in that he occupied a building in Newport for which no
occupancy permit had been issued, and where the building permit stated that an occupancy permit was required.
Darren Beswick- The practitioner was found guilty of six allegations of breaching section 16(1) of the Building Act in that he carried out swimming pool construction at
six different residences within the Mornington Peninsula Shire, prior to the building permit being issued, based on verbal approvals by the building surveying company,
which he no longer uses. The Board noted the proactive response by the practitioner in dealing with the issues upon being notified of them
Leo Bordin- In relation to the construction of attached double storey dwellings in Truganina, the Board found the practitioner had contravened section 136(2) of the
Building Act when the company under his control carried out works when not covered by the required insurance.
Walter Cipriani- The practitioner was found guilty of 1 allegation in that he carried out building work that was not in accordance with the building permit that was issued
and enforced under the act.
Caulfield North
John Liu- In relation to the construction of a dwelling in Caulfield North, the practitioner was found guilty of unprofessional conduct under s179a of the Act in relation to
the following: providing the keys to the dwelling to a third party without permission; making an application for amendment to a building permit which contained a false
declaration (2 allegations); and demanding and receiving amounts under the contract when not entitled to do so. The Board also found the practitioner guilty of: failure
Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $1613 for Costs Hawthorn
Bruce Rodwell-The practitioner came before the Board in relation to alterations and additions carried out at an existing dwelling in Hawthorn. He was found guilty of
Incidental to Inquiry
breaching section 16(1) of the Building Act in that portions of the building work were not in accordance with the building permit.
Fine $1500 & Ordered to Pay $950 for Costs Benalla
Neal Cartledge- The practitioner came before the Board in relation to several sites within the Benalla shire. He was found to have breached regulation 1502a in relation
Incidental to Inquiry
to the following: failure to stamp and endorse and otherwise keep adequate records of his approval of a site plan or his approval of computations or reports in relation
construction of a slab or footings (2 allegations); issued a building permit and approved, stamped and endorsed a set of plans for that permit which did not relate to the
Fine $1500 & Ordered to Pay $464 for Costs Wodonga
Michael McLinden- The practitioner, as the Relevant Building Surveyor in relation to the construction of a dwelling in Wodonga, was found guilty of: three allegations of
Incidental to Inquiry
failing to comply with regulation 15.2a in that he did not adequately inspect the work, failed to examine or approve the structural engineering designs or have them
examined or checked by an independent engineer and did not approve the structural engineering designs and drawings of the roof trusses or have them independently
Reprimand, Fine $500 & Ordered to Pay $464 Moriac, Caroline Springs,
Simon Steer- The practitioner was found guilty of one allegation of having carried out works at sites in Caroline Springs, Attwood, Melton South and Greensborough
for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Attwood, Greensborough, Melton when his registration had been suspended under Part 11 of the Building Act , in breach of sub-section 176(2A) of that Act. In relation to a site in Moriac, he was also
Reprimand, Fine $2000 & Ordered to Pay
Point Cook
Robert Talevski- The Board found, in regards to the construction of a house in Point Cook, the practitioner had been guilty of: three allegations of failing to comply with
$535 Costs Incidental to Inquiry
regulation 1502 in that he carried out a pre slab inspection, carried out a slab steel work inspection and carried out a frame inspection, when he know or ought to have
known, that no building permit had been issued in relation to that work; and two allegations of failing to comply with section 246 of the Building Act in that he provided
Cancellation of Registrations (CB-L 28620 & N/A
Reg Durmus- The Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations of breaching section 246 and two allegations in relation to section 179(1)(f) of the Building Act in
DB-L 28618), Fine $2500 & Ordered to Pay
that he knowingly provided false and misleading information in regards to previous criminal convictions when applying for registration as a building practitioner and
Fine $200 & Ordered to Pay $266 for Costs
Caroline Springs
Michael Almenara- The practitioner came before the Board in relation to the partial construction of eight new units in Caroline Springs. It was found that he failed to
Incidental to Inquiry
comply with section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993 in that he carried out building work not in accordance with the building permit or the regulations.
Knight
Wayne
DB-U 18664
4/11/2009 Fine $500 & Ordered to Pay $523 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
Pakenham
Wayne Knight- The practitioner came before the Board in relation to the construction of a new dwelling in Pakenham. It was found that he failed to comply with
regulation 15.2(a) in that he carried out defective works and also in that he failed to carry out recommendations contained in an inspector's report.
Gamble
William
EC 1210
9/10/2009 Fine $250 & Ordered to Pay $250 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
Lakes Entrance
Fox
Anthony
DP-AD 1091
24/09/2009 Reprimand, Fine $3000 & Ordered to Pay
$592 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Mildura
William Gamble- In relation to works at an existing dwelling in Lakes Entrance, the Board found the practitioner failed to comply with regulation 1502 of the Interim
Regulations in that he arranged for building work to be carried out when no building permit had been issued, that his company entered into a contract which did not
comply with section 31(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act , and that he also breached section 248(1) of the Building Act as his company acted on behalf of the
Anthony Fox- In relation to the preparation of plans for two new attached dwellings in Mildura, the Board found the practitioner failed to comply with regulation 15.2a in
that the plans did not accurately reflect the set back of the dwellings, which resulted in non-compliance of the building work and the Council Planning Scheme.
Hon
Andrew
BS-U 1218
24/09/2009 Reprimand, Fine $1000 & Ordered to Pay
$592 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Brighton East
Andrew Hon- The Board found the practitioner issued a building permit for residential works in Brighton East when he could not have been satisfied the work would
comply with the front, side and rear setback requirements of regulations 409(1) and 414(1) of the Building (Interim) Regulations 2005. He further failed to comply with
regulation 1502(a) in that the approved drawings for which the permit was issued contravened these setback regulations.
Hughes
Brett
DB-U 19789
26/08/2009 Ordered to Pay $732 for Costs Incidental to
Inquiry
Bundalong
Brett Hughes- The practitioner came before the Board in relation to the construction of a new dwelling in Bundalong. It was found that he failed to comply with
regulation 15.2(a) in that he carried out defective works as contained in an inspector's report.
Matotek
Bill
DB-U 15232
20/08/2009 Reprimand, Fine $3000 & Ordered to Pay
$519 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Black Rock
Bill Matotek- The practitioner came before the Board in relation to the construction of a new dwelling in Black Rock. The Board found he had not complied with
regulation 1502(a) in two instances in that he failed to carry out recommendations contained in an inspector's report and that he failed to carry out the rectification
works despite repeated promises to do so.
Sartori
Brian
DB-U 3193
19/08/2009 Reprimand, Fine $3000 & Ordered to Pay
$519 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Bonbeach
Brian Sartori- The Board found the practitioner guilty of two allegations of failing to comply with regulation 15.2(a) in that his company carried out defective works at a
site in Bonbeach. It was also found he carried out and claimed payment for variations without the requirements of the Domestic Building Contracts Act and/or the
requirements of clauses in the contract being met.
Buchan
Graeme
BS-U 1035
30/07/2009 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $444 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
Brighton
Graeme Buchan- In relation to one site in Brighton, the Board found the practitioner guilty of three allegations of failing to comply with section 24(1)(b) of the Building
Act 1993 relating to front and side set backs as per regulations 4.9 and 4.14 respectively, and overlooking requirements as per regulation 4.19.
Lopez
Rafael
BS-U 1539
30/07/2009 Reprimand & Ordered to Pay $444 for Costs
Incidental to Inquiry
Clifton Hill
Rafael Lopez- The Board found the practitioner failed to comply with regulation 1502(a) in that he failed to identify defects during final inspections for three new
townhouses in Clifton Hill and/or failed to ensure their rectification. He was also found to be in breach of section 44(a) of the Act in that he issued an occupancy permit
when he could not have been satisfied the townhouses were suitable for occupation.
Meaney
Ross
DP-AD 1603
30/07/2009 Reprimand, Fine $1000 & Ordered to Pay
$444 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Pascoe Vale South
Ross Meaney- The Board found the practitioner failed to comply with regulation 1502(a) in that plans drawn under his supervision for building work at a dwelling in
Pascoe Vale did not adequately reflect the site conditions, and with particular reference to the location of windows at the adjoining dwelling.
Skrepetis
Jamie
BS-U 18120
30/07/2009 Reprimand, Fine $2500 & Ordered to Pay
$444 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Pascoe Vale South
Jamie Skrepetis- In relation to building work to be carried out at a site in Pascoe Vale, the practitioner was found to be in breach of section 24(1) of the Building Act , in
that he issued a permit when he could not have been sure the work would comply with Part four of the Regulations . The practitioner was found guilty of four more
allegations of failing to comply with regulation 1502(a) in that he failed to identify that the approved plans did not accurately reflect the conditions on site, that the work
did not comply with Part 4 of the regulations, that he did not respond appropriately to a complaint made about overshadowing, and that he approved the final inspection
when the work did not comply with the building permit or regulation 419.
Trimble
Alistair
DB-L 1170
24/07/2009 Suspension of Registration for 3 months (DB- Frankston
L 1170), Fine $500, & Ordered to Pay $905
for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Alistair Trimble- The Board found that the practitioner, being named as the registered builder for a construction site in Frankston, failed to supervise the works
adequately or at all. The practitioner failed to comply with section 16(1) of the Building Act in that he failed to obtain a building permit for works which included a
structural alteration. The practitioner was also found to have breached regulation 1502(a) in two instances; for his company's failure to identify defects, and for failing to
complete works promptly.
Gurvich
David
DB-U 14744
20/07/2009 Reprimand, Fine $1500 & Ordered to Pay
$775 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Lilydale
David Gurvich- In relation to a site in Lilydale, the practitioner was found to be in breach of the Building Act under section 16(1) for commencing works without a permit,
and under section 33(1) for failing to notify the relevant building surveyor without delay after completion of the framework stage. It was further found the practitioner's
company failed to comply with regulation 1502 in allowing a tenant to occupy the building prior to an occupancy permit being issued.
Mitchell
Albert
BS-U 1512
Summerton, Taylors Lakes
Albert Mitchell- The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 9 allegations in relation to 2 sites. These findings include that he: constituted by a pattern
of conduct, namely a failure to manage and oversee both his administrative obligations and substantive functions as a building surveyor appointed under Part 6 of the
Act, which shows that he was not a fit and proper person to practise as a building practitioner; failed to notify the relevant council in writing of his appointment within 7
days after accepting an appointment under Part 6 of the Act in relation to building work; he failed, within 7 days after issuing a building permit under Part 3 of the Act for
building work to be carried out, give the relevant council a copy of that permit and any plans and other documents lodged with the application for the permit; employed
or engaged to do, on his behalf, work of a kind that can only be done by a person registered under Part 11 Building Act 1993 (Act) in the category or class of building
inspector or building surveyor, a person who is not so registered; issued the building permit for the owner to carry out the building work as an owner-builder when that
person did not have the Building Practitioners Board's consent to carry out the building work as an owner-builder; at no time did required, under regulation 602(1) of the
Regulations, protection work to be provided in respect of the laneway before or during the carrying out of the building work; and failed to take any action in respect of
the illegal retaining wall, at which time he issued a building notice under section 106 of the Building Act 1993 but failed to issue an order to stop the building work.
1/07/2009 Cancellation of Registration (BS-U 1512)