The case
A consumer engaged a waterproofing contractor to carry out membrane works on the roof of a property and paid the contractor a total of €1,470 in three separate payments.
A few months after the works had been completed, the consumer noticed that water had seeped through the roof. The consumer reported the problem to the contractor who subsequently sent a worker to inspect and fix the defect.
However, the worker failed to resolve the problem. Instead of carrying out proper remedial works, the worker merely sealed every opening he could find, including the roof’s drainage outlet.
The consumer became aware of the latter during a rainfall, when water started to accumulate around the skylight as a result of the blocked drain. Once the obstruction was removed, the pressure created by the accumulated water damaged a neighbour’s duct system.
The consumer again contacted the contractor asking for the substandard work be remedied, but the contractor failed to take any effective action. The consumer subsequently sent three formal legal letters and engaged an architect to assess the quality and compliance of the work carried out. Despite these efforts, the problems remained unresolved.
As the consumer was unable to resolve the dispute directly with the contractor, the consumer decided to file a formal complaint with the MCCAA’s Office for Consumer Affairs. However, the conciliation process also proved unsuccessful, and the consumer escalated the matter to the Consumer Claims Tribunal.
“The architect’s report recommended that the membrane be entirely removed and replaced”
The tribunal’s considerations
In the first instance, the tribunal noted that, although the contractor had been duly notified of both the consumer’s claim and the tribunal hearing, the contractor had neither submitted a written response nor attended the hearing to provide testimony. As a result, the tribunal had no alternative account of events other than that presented by the consumer.
After reviewing the evidence, the tribunal found the consumer’s claim to be credible, noting that it was well-supported by various documents, including receipts, correspondence, and the architect’s report.
The tribunal also noted that the consumer was claiming a total of €2,000. This sum included €1,470 paid to the waterproofing contractor for the membrane works and an additional €530 in damages incurred as a result of the substandard execution of the works, which caused further inconvenience and additional expenses.
In assessing the claim, the tribunal paid particular attention to the architect’s report submitted by the consumer. The report highlighted that the membrane installation had not been carried out in accordance with accepted industry standards and general construction practices. It further noted that the preparation of the membrane had been improperly executed, resulting in structural weaknesses and damages to several sections of the membrane. Based on these findings, the architect’s report recommended that the existing membrane be entirely removed and replaced to ensure proper waterproofing and prevent further damage.
The tribunal’s decision
In light of the above, and after hearing the consumer’s testimony and thoroughly reviewing all the documentation and evidence submitted, the tribunal concluded that the consumer’s claim had been successfully proven in accordance with the legal requirements. Accordingly, the tribunal determined that the consumer’s claim was valid and should be upheld.
When determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to the consumer, the tribunal examined the receipts and supporting documentation submitted. The documents included proof of the €1,470 paid to the contractor for the membrane works, €80 incurred for the repair of the neighbour’s duct, €177 for the architect’s professional report, and additional expenses related to the preparation and sending of formal legal letters to the contractor.
On the basis of this documentation, and considering the principle of restitution for the losses directly resulting from the substandard works, the tribunal calculated and determined the total amount of compensation to be awarded to the consumer at €1,877.
Finally, the tribunal ruled that all costs related to the proceedings before the tribunal are to be paid by the defendant company.
Readers can access the full details of decisions issued by the Consumer Claims Tribunal, including information on the parties involved, by visiting https://mccaa.org.mt/cct.
Odette Vella is director, Information, Education and Research Directorate, MCCAA.
