My strata complex recently replaced all garage doors. They’re double doors. When the supplier was installing the doors, they dropped one causing extensive damage. They installed the door in its damaged state. The company said they would repair the door however the Owners Corporation are insisting on a new door because that’s what was ordered and paid for - brand new doors. The door is structurally unsound, and the company insists it can be repaired. Our view is we ordered and paid for new doors and posts and that’s what we expect. Since the installers who work for the company damaged the door by dropping it our view is it should never have been installed and the minimum, we want to accept is a replacement door - what are our rights under Consumer Law?
Welcome @Bella to the Community.
According to the ACL you are entitled to a remedy from the suppliers and their agents the installers. Since the doors are new, they should look and behave as new.
How that happens is up to the supplier. If they think a repair will fix the issue, then that is up to them. It is their choice under warranty.
But you have a right to be very very picky, and any dent, scratch, malfunction after the repair is done, and you can accept it, or reject it. Which may entail plan B, a replacement if the supplier cannot after all, repair to as-new condition.
Welcome to the Community @Bella
Note that responses to your query are personal opinions, usually educated, but not to be taken as legal advice.
Your rights under the circumstances hinge on whether it is a major or minor fault with the door as well as whether the service of installation was performed satisfactory. Dropping and damaging the door suggests the service was not delivered in an acceptable manner. As for the damage to the door it is neigh impossible to offer an educated opinion from a claim/statement based solely on internet text.
As you state the problem is caused by the installers dropping it, like yourselves I would not be happy with a repair, but. In Victoria your state consumer affairs agency for further advice is
As an owners corporation (strata) ‘you’ as a customer might technically be a business and depending on size are probably small enough to be a ‘consumer’ but theoretically could be outside the scope of consumer law. That differentiation and a contact phone and forms are provided on the following site to get further advice as a small business.
The crux of the matter is
Therein lies the issue. Getting an expert third party to assess the door with a written report would be helpful. Since it apparently can be repaired regardless of how the damage occurred, if the company claims they can repair it to as-new with a full warranty on the repair as well as the door you might need to take them to VCAT - assuming the doors are not so special their value exceeds VCAT limits when a formal law suit would be required.
Thanks Gregr.
Unfortunately, due to previous experience with suppliers the Owners have become very wary of “repairs” and we have a list of suppliers that we refuse to do business with due to them not honouring Warranties and doing shoddy repairs.
The Door Company has offered to repair the door under warranty, but the damage is substantial. The frame is bent and buckled where impacted by the fall and they installed the door without screwing in some of the damaged parts because it’s too damaged to fit the screws! This is why we want a replacement and not repairs. We also have to manage the Lot Owner’s expectations in that he sees everyone else’s garage door as being perfect and his is a repair job. Even though it’s ‘common property’ and he doesn’t technically own the door, dealing with people’s feelings is exhausting.
Thanks PhilT
We’re in NSW and are considered a small lot under Strata jurisdiction here as we’re under 100 Lots. we’re a small complex of 23 Lots and all owner occupied except for one rental and the tenant has lived here for 16 years so a long-term tenant.
We were told by the Managing Agent that a final inspection would be carried out on the last day of installation - that didn’t happen.
There are a few more problems with other doors but they’re not structural. Most are cosmetic since the installers spray painted the bolts on the posts and used a different shade paint. The company said they would clean the posts and paint again where necessary. We’ve accepted that outcome since whilst it was a shoddy paint job, it’s a minor problem and easily corrected. The one door problem we’re not happy with is the one that’s structurally damaged and as I said, caused by the door being dropped by the installer. I don’t think we’re being unreasonable as we see the botched painting as being minor and have agreed to the Company cleaning the posts and painting again. What we don’t want to accept is a door that’s structurally unsound.
Thanks for the clarification.
https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/about-fair-trading
https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/buying-products-and-services/guarantees,-contracts-and-warranties
With your clarity of the players that is another aspect whereby the lot holder(s) affected have to deal with the manager who seems to have distanced itself from accepting an owner problem as ‘a problem’ to minimise their own angst? The manager ‘owns’ the problem and resolution.
Once again you probably need a 3rd party report to establish that, and as law goes whether than might be the case after a repair, or if it can be established it is the case once the repair is completed.
Your list of problems with the supplier suggest consumers would be best served to avoid them but while there is a conflict in play it may be wise to avoid naming them, yet. My impression is the manager is your ‘problem’, not the supplier, in pushing for an acceptable resolution because the manager (rep for the body corporate) is the customer with the contractual relationship.
It appears from what you are saying, parts of the door are severely damaged. These should be able to be replaced as part of a repair.
Garage doors come in a number of individual components/parts. These parts can be replaced when damaged or worn out.
A comparison would he a car. Say on delivery of a new car, the car’s bumper and front panels were damaged because something was dropped on the car. A dealership can easily replace the damaged components to make the car good again. The new warranty associated with the vehicle is not impacted even though the panels have been replaced. I have used the new far example, as I am aware that dealerships do repair cars damaged through transport and handling and then are sold as new. A buyer of a new far might be unaware it has been repaired.
Like your own situation, while it has left a sour taste in your mouth, accidental damage can occur. The company should be able to repair the door in question to make new again. The repair may be through repairing or replacing individual components such the the door is in the same condition as if it hadn’t been damaged.
I would accept the repair being offered. If the repair was unsatisfactory, such as not all damaged parts were made good again, this would be the time to take it further.
An interesting analogy. With your car as ordered out the back while the pre-delivery inspection is undertaken, and after one has signed the paperwork etc the dealers staff damage the divers door by reversing it into a column with the door ajar. Aside from a new door is there any other damage?
I wonder how many of us would accept a replacement of the door as adequate? Is there any further difficult to assess underlying damage to the structure or corrosion protection adjoining? Finding a pillar rusting out from the inside 10 years later, how easy might one find making a claim on the manufacturer? Or in reality the dealership as it is not something the manufacturer might want to own.
I can see the same scenario play out with the garage door. Without seeing the evidence and construction of the door (something only a recognised expert could offer reliable advice on) - who knows. If the installer has been arranged by the supplier of the door both will want to minimise the expense of remedy.
On the other hand, if the door is repairable one remedy open to the supplier and installer is to supply a complete new door panel assembly in the same condition as delivered for the other doors installed. Assuming the door on site is repairable taking it back, repairing it at the supplier and offering it as a factory second would offset most of the cost and keep goodwill. As is done with white goods.
I’m left wondering about the company providing the strata management as to their competence. My experience with Strata Managers (Body Corporate services in Qld) is they have substantial influence over suppliers, and a vested interest in ensuring successful outcomes for their customer - the Owners.
Hence worthwhile going to the “horses head” who will pay the bill. Noting the Owners strata committee may also need to authorise the completion payment - depending?
The analogy being at a product can be made new again, with part replacement. Doing a dodgy car door repair isn’t the same analogy.
Damage can occur at any point after manufacture until the customer takes possession. In most cases a customer won’t know it has occurred. It is only that in this case, the customer witnessed the damage.
If the garage door had been damaged at the retailers end, say damaged while storing in a warehouse, it could have been repaired/parts replaced prior to delivery to the customer. The door could have had exactly the same damage repaired to make it good again, and the customer would be none the wiser.
When buying product it isn’t a requirement to deliver goods unaltered from that which it left the factory production line. The requirement is to deliver a new product. A new product can be one which has had components replaced or made up of components from a range of different suppliers (such as in a PV system or when building a house). If a or some parts are damaged, a reasonable person would not expect the whole system/house to be removed so that a component/part be replaced to meet an expectation of being ‘new’.
Damage is also like a product fault. When there is a fault which is minor and can be easily repaired, a consumer shouldn’t have an expectation that a product should be replaced with a new one. If the garage door had a minor manufacturer fault immediately on installation, a consumer can’t ask for the whole of the door be removed and be replaced with a new one. As the information provided seems to indicate that the garage door in question can be easily repaired, it is possibly won’t be a major fault under the Australian Consumer Law. Irrespective of this, the door until it is fully installed and the installation agreement/contract is fulfilled, it still under the control of the installer/contractor. The door becomes under the possession of the garage owner when the door installation contract is completed. This will occur when the door is ultimately repaired and restored to new condition, and in working order.
There are also guesses about that the damage really is and what rectifications are proposed. It might be a simple part replacement and the door was installed to confirm what parts need replacement. This is why…
I also wouldn’t be accepting possession of the garage door, including making final payment if it is outstanding, until the damaged door is made good.
No suggestion the door repair was dodgy.
The suggestion is there can be unknowns that may not be readily apparent apparent/evident, especially to the consumer/customer whether damage to a new car or garage door.
Neither of us know first hand the exact details or circumstances other than that the door was dropped and damaged by the supplier/installer. Neither of know what is intended as a repair or how this relates to the damage.
Should the Strata Committee or Manager accept the suppliers remedy? Both have an obligation to ensure that the outcome is equal for every owner. If the owner of the relevant lot is not satisfied they can also raise their objection directly and subsequently through the legislated procedure (tribunal or other) in their state or territory. A situation most Strata’s would prefer to avoid.
Obtaining the formal advice on the condition of the door from an independent qualified expert (not associated with the supplier/installer) and their assessment (at a cost) is always an option. It’s ultimately a decision for the Strata Committee members to decide how they should proceed. This may include formally directing the Manager on what the committee decide, assuming the manager requires direction.
It seems unlikely with varying suggestions for @Bella there is little more that we might add at this point in time.
That sounds fair. It is difficult to reject the option of a repair up front.
Clearly though if the repair actually involves a repair (rather than the removal of a damaged part and replacement with a new part) then the result has to be safe i.e. providing the same strength and robustness as a new undamaged door.
Having been on the other side of something like this (yeah, don’t ask 
), it can be very difficult to repair a bent metal member on a garage door.
However none of us has seen an actual photo in order to get more of an idea of the nature of the door (single panel, multi-panel, roll) and the nature of the damage.
Although
And
The panelled door itself is the major component of the installed product. Perhaps the damage is only minor and to a single portion? Extensive suggests more than that. Hence my reluctance to suggest a repair by replacing only a portion is the only suitable remedy.
There are at least 4 parties to consider. The property/lot owner, the Strata Committee, the appointed Strata Manager, and the Supplier (who may or may not be the installer making five).
The Committee and Manager have responsibilities to the Strata and the owner of the lot. They need to be able to demonstrate that their resolution is fair and reasonable for the Strata and the lot owner. Without an independent expert assessment to rely on - can anyone at arms length say whether in accordance with the ACL which remedy is appropriate.
If it was my unit in the Strata I know what I would be asking for, and I would also have the benefit first hand of inspection the damage for guidance.
Well regardless if it were me … I would be getting extensive photos of what it looks like now … so that they can then be compared with the state after repair / part replacement, which would inform future action if any.
Hi All, thanks for your input and advice. We do have extensive photos of the damage and as has been pointed out, under Australian Consumer Law the supplier must provide a remedy and checking the ACL website it says the remedy can be a repair, replacement or refund. Since we haven’t paid for this door, a refund is out of the picture. It’s the door frame that has the extensive damage and because the door was installed with the frame buckled and bent, and screws missing, the door posts and trim have subsequently suffered damage because the door is out of alignment.
Thanks for the input and recommendations.
