An unregistered builder demanded excessive deposits from customers and, in some cases, did not undertake the work, the Launceston Magistrates Court heard.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Anthony Michael Murfet, 62, of Bellingham, pleaded guilty to numerous charges under the Residential Building Act and the Occupation Licensing Act.
They comprised seven counts of obligation to hold a contractor's licence, four counts of entering into a contract without required contents, four counts of holding himself out as a building services provider when that was not the case, and three counts of demanding a deposit of more than 10 per cent [of total contract] and a count of carrying on a business as a contractor without a contractor's licence.
READ MORE: Homeless pitch tent in Princes Square
Crown prosecutor Gabrielle Keid said Murfet committed the offences in Longford, Lebrina, Ulverstone, Riverside, Newnham, Hillcrest, Queenstown and Weymouth in 2020 and 2021.
"The defendant did not hold this [building contractor] or any other licence," she said.
Some of the offences occurred as court proceedings were underway for a prior offence of operating without a licence from 2015. He was refused a licence by the regulator in June 2017.
In 2020 Murfet was fined $10,085 by a Launceston magistrate for similar offences.
"The proceedings in March 2020 failed to act as a specific deterrent," Ms Keid said.
Defence counsel Mark Doyle said the builder of 38 years of experience was a man of a different time.
"He had skills of a practical nature but not the skills of an administrative nature," he said.
Mr Doyle said there had been a monumental shift in the industry regulation, which was outside Murfet's skill set.
Ms Keid said that in Queenstown, Murfet demanded a deposit of $13,000 on a $33,500 roof repair, but no work commenced.
For a Riverside job, he demanded a deposit of $15,000 for a $25,000 bathroom renovation, and in Newnham, work was not commenced on an $18,400 contract.
Ms Keid that in several cases, the contract did not detail the completion date or warranty.
In some cases, customers regarded the work as shoddy.
Ms Keid said that four homeowners were seeking compensation totalling $75,956.
"Each paid sums to the defendant in cases where there was either no work done, work was not completed, or others had to be engaged to complete the work," she said.
Mr Doyle disputed several of the crown facts saying that all work was performed.
He said that in any cases where there were defects, such as a leaking bathroom, the work was remedied, or the homeowner compensated to enable an alternative builder to be engaged.
"We accept that he did not have the relevant licences," he said.
Mr Doyle said Murfet disputed the requests for compensation.
He said he had suffered a financial penalty of $70,000 because of bespoke materials that were not used.
He said Murfet suffered significant abuse on social media and a graffiti attack on his house after the charges became public.
He said Murfet's financial circumstances were extremely limited, although he owned a dwelling worth up to $330,000.
Magistrate Ken Stanton asked Ms Keid to clarify any disagreement between the prosecution and defence about Murfet's financial position.
He asked for further detail on allegations of defective work, denied by Mr Doyle, which would be relevant to the sentence.
Mr Stanton adjourned the case for sentence on August 9.
Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content:
- Bookmark www.examiner.com.au
- Make sure you are signed up for our breaking and regular headlines newsletters
- Follow us on Twitter: @examineronline
- Follow us on Instagram: @examineronline
- Follow us on Google News: The Examiner