VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
civil DIVISION
CIVIL CLAIMS LIST		VCAT REFERENCE NO. C7809/2021
CATCHWORDS	
Australian Consumer Law (Victoria), payment for service, whether service provided within a reasonable time or timely manner, misleading and deceptive conduct, claim for costs by a self-represented litigant misconceived – section 109 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) not engaged – Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403.	

APPLICANT	Victorian Auto Services Pty Ltd ACN:136 872 805 as trustee for Vas Family Trust	
RESPONDENT	Panamates Solutions Pty Ltd ACN:621 823 649 t/as Easymove Services	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne	
BEFORE	S Fry, Member	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	14 June 2023	
DATE OF ORDER	14 June 2023	
DATE OF REASONS	4 April 2024	
CITATION	Victorian Auto Services atf Vas Family Trust v Panamates Solutions Pty Ltd (Civil Claims) [2024] VCAT 307	

FINDINGS
A.	Proceedings C7809/2021 and C3590/2022 were heard and determined together.
B.	In proceeding C7809/2021, the Tribunal determined that Panamates Solutions Pty Ltd must pay Victorian Auto Services Pty Ltd the sum of $4,189.00.
C.	In proceeding C3590/2022 the Tribunal determined that Victorian Auto Services Pty Ltd must pay Panamates Solutions Pty Ltd the sum of $300.00.
D.	The Tribunal sets off the sum of $4,189.00 against the sum of $300.00.
E.	A separate Order is made today in proceeding C3590/2022, dismissing that proceeding.

Orders
1.	The principal registrar is directed to amend the register, so that the applicant’s name appears as Victorian Auto Services Pty Ltd ACN:136 872 805 as trustee for Vas Family Trust.
2.	Panamates Solutions Pty Ltd ACN:621 823 649 must pay Victorian Auto Services Pty Ltd ACN:136 872 805 the sum of $3,899.00.
3.	Under s115C of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) Panamates Solutions Pty Ltd ACN:621 823 649 must pay Victorian Auto Services Pty Ltd ACN:136 872 805 the application fee of $315.60.

S Fry
Member			

APPEARANCES:		
For Applicant	F Di Natale and R Di Natale	
For Respondent	J Barera and J Noguera	

Reasons
1	Panamates Solutions Pty Ltd (‘Panamates’) were selling their Mitsubishi Cantor truck (‘Truck’) and engaged Victorian Auto Services Pty Ltd ACN:136 872 805 as trustee for the Vas Family Trust (‘VFT’) to complete a roadworthy inspection (‘RWI’) for obtaining a roadworthy certificate (‘RWC’). VFT completed the requirements of the RWI, completed the majority of repairs and awaited approval to replace the heater core, to complete the RWC. Panamates without VFT’s knowledge or authority collected the Truck from a street parking area without paying.
2	Panamates submitted they did not receive the pink inspection report for the RWC; did not agree to any quotes and did not want to proceed with any repairs until they had a clear picture of the relevant costs (some quote items were listed as pending). Due to delays, lack of accountability and lack of reliable service they collected the Truck and took it to another workshop. 
3	As a consequence, Panamates counterclaim for failure to receive the pink inspection certificate (‘pink slip’), damage to the heater core, delays, loss of business, damage to reputation, multiple inconveniences, misleading and deceptive conduct and legal costs. They claim $7,400.00 in damages. VFT seeks payment of $4,189.00 for work completed.
4	The main issues that arise for determination in this application are:
(a)	Were the quotes accepted and an agreement reached between the parties?
(b)	Did VFT comply with their agreement? 
(c)	Were the services provided with due care, skill and within the timeline provided? If no timeline, were they performed within a reasonable time?
(d)	Should VFT be paid for its services? 
(e)	To what relief, if any, is Panamates entitled? 
5	For the following reasons I concluded that there was an agreement and VFT are entitled to be paid for the balance of its invoice less the cost of repairs to the mirror. Panamates counterclaim is dismissed.
Background 
6	On 6 October 2021, Panamates sought a RWI from VFT to ascertain a list of required repairs to their Truck which was being sold to one of their drivers. VFT advised they needed a few days to complete the inspection report. Panamates agreed.
7	On 8 October 2021, Panamates were informed that the RWI had been completed and VFT provided a verbal quote for repairs necessary for a RWC of around $5,000.00 with a more detailed quote to follow when quotes from suppliers had been received. 
8	VFT emailed an incomplete quote that evening as the Truck required heavy mechanical work. 
9	Businesses were coming out of the Covid pandemic (‘Covid’) and VFT, who are not truck specialists, had difficulties obtaining tradespeople. VFT depended on businesses that were not booked out to obtain their quotes and repairs. Some outsourced work, such as the windscreen replacement, could be done on site. This was also dependent on availability.
10	VFT contend that Panamates were informed of this at the time of inspection and negotiating RWC repairs. They say they also informed them that it could take between five to ten working days to complete, depending on parts and contractor availability.
11	The RWI was completed by 8 October 2021, VFT informed Panamates who then asked to collect the Truck, for weekend work, and return it by Monday 11 October 2021. VFT agreed provided they paid for the inspection as no repairs had commenced and no parts ordered. 
12	Panamates collected the Truck on 9 October 2021, paid for the inspection, did not ask for (nor did they receive) the RWI pink slip and Panamates returned the Truck on 11 October 2021. 
13	Panamates contend that VFT did not follow due process required by VicRoads by refusing to provide them with the pink slip after they paid for the inspection and insisted upon receiving the pink inspection report. A “pink slip” is a roadworthy inspection certificate: one component of the pack of documents which comprises – once completed – a RWC.
14	At the hearing, Panamates submitted that they felt the refusal to be provided the pink slip meant that they could not go to another workshop for the repairs and, although reluctantly agreeing to bring the Truck back on 11 October 2021, they contend that they made it clear, the repairs would not proceed without a clear understanding of the costs involved. They felt the pending items on the quote were too uncertain. 
15	In their Points of Defence Panamates contend they left the Truck having received an informal report on relevant repairs and provided time for VFT to get the pending quotes from the sub contractors. 
16	VFT stated VicRoads, during Covid, extended the compliance timeline to complete repairs, once photographic evidence and a roadworthy inspection were recorded, from 7 to 14 days. Failure to comply required another test and further payment.
17	VFT contend the pink slip was discussed with Panamates from commencement as everything was taking a lot longer due to Covid. VFT outlined what they understood a lot of workshops were doing, delaying the issue of the pink slip so parts could be sourced and vehicles could be repaired within VicRoads timelines. 
18	VFT contend they provided options:- either receive the formal pink slip and be charged a second inspection fee, as they couldn’t guarantee completion within VicRoads’ timelines or receive an inspection report. VFT contend Panamates accepted the second option, were happy with the quote, took the informal report of repairs and were prepared to go ahead with this process. Panamates had understood and agreed.
19	VFT contended they had informed Panamates that the Truck replacement parts needed to be completed at another workshop, because their workshop was not equipped for heavy duty mechanical work. 
20	On return of the Truck on 11 October 2021, VFT began ordering parts and arranged for work to commence with third parties from 12 October 2021 when National Windscreens attended to replace the windscreen. 
21	The repairs on the written quote capable of being completed at the workshop, including the windscreen replacement, were completed by 15 October 2021.
22	Parts delivered by Multispares were invoiced by 15 October 2021 and the Truck was driven to GM Truck Repairs for the suspension repairs. The Truck was with GM Truck Repairs until 26 October 2021.
23	VFT submitted they put pressure on GM Truck Repairs as they received multiple calls from Panamates questioning how long until the Truck would be ready. GM Truck Repairs’ response was that they were held up by Covid and to bear with them. VFT relayed this to Panamates and admitted it took longer than anticipated.
24	When driving the Truck back from GM Truck Repairs the Truck began to show signs of a water leak, which was traced to the heater core. This was reported to Panamates, and they were advised it needed to be repaired before a RWC could be issued.
25	VFT quoted for the heater core. Panamates, at the workshop, insisted they needed the Truck, and they would get back to them with a decision, to either pay for the cost of repairs and collect the Truck or authorise the repair of the heater core.
26	Panamates contend, over time, they had noticed the Truck was being left unattended and illegally parked in a limited time zone. They went to collect the Truck on 25 October 2021, but VFT informed them it was with a subcontractor and refused to disclose its location. This was denied by VFT.
27	On 28 October 2021, Panamates collected the Truck from a street carparking bay outside the workshop using a spare key. They did not inform VFT, nor did they make any payment towards the cost of repairs.
28	Panamates contend that by this time their trust in VFT had been undermined and they decided to pick up the Truck and take it to another workshop specialising in trucks.
29	VFT attempted to report the Truck as stolen but were unable to. It took until 1 November 2021 for VFT to contact Panamates and for Panamates to inform them that they had picked up the Truck.
Was there an agreement 
30	From the evidence submitted by the parties I was satisfied there was an agreement reached. Panamates understood the reason for delaying the RWI pink slip, and they understood and accepted the informal arrangement. Before taking the Truck for weekend use, Panamates had accepted VFT’s verbal quote and understood the total repairs would not exceed $5,000.00. They understood the costed written quote of 8 October 2021 and knew there was a sufficient gap from the verbal quote to cover the unquoted outsourced repairs.
31	On returning the Truck, Panamates were aware that parts were being ordered and bookings for third party work to commence, and the windscreen was being replaced the following day. They could have objected to this happening had there been a continuing disagreement about necessity of receiving the pink slip and no consensus between the parties. Panamates were fully aware that any delays would be due to outsourcing the Truck repair.
32	I am also satisfied that by the time Panamates collected the Truck VFT had complied with the agreement, completing most of the necessary repairs required for a roadworthy certificate except for the heater core. Their quote for the heater core was not accepted.
Was the service provided with due care and skill within the timeline provided or within a reasonable time?
33	I was not satisfied on the evidence submitted by Panamates that VFT had failed to provide their services with due care and skill.
34	Panamates eventual RWC, attested to this, having been completed by another repairer who repaired the heater core amongst other items, and did not find a significant fault in any of the work completed by or on behalf of VFT other than to say that the R/H king pin was too tight, requiring dismantling and refitting.  
35	The evidence clearly indicated the RWI was completed on 8 October 2021, VFT began sourcing the parts on Monday 11 October 2021 when the Truck was returned and outsourced work commenced on 12 October 2021 on site. 
36	VFT had completed the quoted repairs and replaced the windscreen within five days of the Truck being returned. Panamates were aware of these completed repairs and had knowledge of the remaining repairs in progress, by the time they sought to retrieve the Truck. 
37	The Truck was taken to GM Truck Repairs on or about 16 October 2021 to complete the heavy-duty work. The hold-up was GM Truck Repairs staffing issues due to Covid. The Truck was returned to VFT on 26 October 2021.
38	There was no timeline information provided on how long it would take to complete the repairs, not including the heater core. I was given different answers from VFT. One being “I think we needed about 12 days or something like that.”
39	There was no indication when, under the informal arrangement, the RWI would be signed off on.
40	As no date or time was provided to me, I am satisfied that the work commenced on 12 October 2021 and the Truck was returned to VFT on 26 October 2021. I consider 14 days to be a reasonable time for repairs to be completed.
41	As I am satisfied that VFT have completed the repairs and, in doing so, provided their services with due care and skill within a reasonable time and I am duly satisfied that Panamates must pay the balance outstanding of $4,189.00 for the work completed.
Panamates Counterclaim
42	In response to the claim by VFT, Panamates counterclaimed as follows:
Reimbursement of roadworthy Inspection	$   440.00	
Economic Loss (cancelled jobs)	$2,000.00	
Loss of Business reputation	$   500.00	
Replacement & Labour for Heater Core	$1,460.00	
Damages	$3,000.00	
Total	$7,400.00	
Reimbursement of roadworthy Inspection
43	Panamates claim that as they never received a roadworthy inspection certificate- the pink sheet, they are requesting a refund of this payment.
44	From the evidence before me Panamates were informed of a leak in the heater core which presented itself when returning to VFT from GM Truck Repairs. This necessitated further repair as the heater core was a RWC safety item. VFT quoted to repair the heater core, which was also an item for the RWI, requiring repair before signing off on the RWC. Panamates held back on their decision to accept the quote or take the Truck elsewhere, knowing they would not get a RWC.
45	Panamates failure to authorise repair prevented VFT from completing the RWI pink slip and providing the RWC. Panamates are not entitled to a refund, VFT were entitled to the payment received for the inspection completed.
Replacement & Labour for Heater Core
46	Panamates contends that because the heater core was damaged whilst the truck was in VFT’s possession, VFT are responsible and Panamates want compensation for its replacement.
47	Throughout the hearing both sides presented their position on the heater core. VFT were adamant that Panamates brought the Truck to them stating they had a water leak which they pressure tested for but were unable to trace. Panamates denies this. They submitted the leak presented on the weekend they collected the Truck to use for work purposes and they reported it when the Truck was returned.
48	I accepted the evidence of Panamates in regard to this issue. Had VFT been informed of the leak before the RWI they would have included it as a query in their informal report or at the very least concluding that they were unable to locate it.
49	Panamates were unable to establish that the damage to the heater core was caused by VFT. Their evidence indicates the heater core commenced leaking while they were using the Truck on the weekend they took the Truck back, not through any work that was completed by VFT during an RWI. There is no causal nexus between the heater core leak and VFT’s limited control.
Economic Loss
50	Panamates contend that the Truck was a vital source of income for their business. They could not just find another truck to hire, their Truck was a six-tonne truck, significantly bigger than a hire truck, with a huge hydraulic tailgate and fitted with GPS real time tracking technology, not readily available from hire companies.
51	They submitted that a large percentage of their work is booked a few months in advance. Panamates said during the time the Truck was booked in for repair they had a full agenda of activities to be completed. A couple of cancellations last minute were because they couldn’t move the goods.
52	They submitted that the extensive delay and lack of accountability shown by VFT caused them significant financial loss, having to cancel multiple jobs.
53	VFT submitted Panamates should have planned to replace the Truck during the RWI and RWC period, they were aware of it not being completed in a week, it was their poor business management.
54	In conjunction with this loss of business, Panamates claim that the loss of business has damaged their reputation and the loss of multiple jobs created unfavourable effects, their company being looked upon poorly, and would affect future jobs.
55	As I was satisfied that VFT have complied with their provision of service with due care and skill as well as within a reasonable time I was unable to conclude that there was a loss of reputation caused by VFT.
56	On the evidence before me I was satisfied that VFT did not cause extensive delays and importantly, the repairs were completed within a reasonable time. Panamates were given an opportunity to use the Truck over a weekend before the repairs commenced and were aware of an approximate timeline for the completion of repairs. Their evidence indicated most of the truck bookings were made months in advance. They had opportunities to mitigate their loss through rearranging their schedule for this Truck, including the hire of a suitable replacement vehicle prior to booking the RWI and RWC.
Damages
57	Panamates contend that the legal costs and amount of time required to address VFT’s delays and constant misstatements caused them multiple inconveniences. They contend that as a small business, time is their most valuable asset. Dealing with VFT’s application and the counterclaim consumed their valuable time, and they seek damages for their costs and their time.
58	Whilst Panamates also claimed an order for costs, it did not incur fees to legal practitioners, and the value of its own time in preparing for a case and representing itself is not “costs”. 
Misleading and deceptive conduct
59	Panamates, during the hearing outlined that VFT’s behaviour was dishonest, misleading and in breach of sections 18 and 21 of the Australian Consumer Law (Victoria) due to “multiple deceptive responses.”  They did not provide any additional information in support of this contention.
60	Accordingly, with insufficient evidence provided I was unable to conclude that VFT, through their behaviour, engaged in conduct that was misleading and deceptive or was likely to mislead or deceive under the Australian Consumer Law (Victoria). 
Mirror repairs
61	Panamates contend that one of their drivers fixed the mirror, they did not explain when this happened, whether it was during the weekend they used the vehicle or after they repossessed it, just that their driver repaired it. 
62	VFT did not deny that Panamates had repaired the mirror and I accept their contention. Panamates are entitled to have the amount of $300.00 deducted from VFT’s claim.
In conclusion
63	From the evidence before me I was satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that there was an agreement between the parties for VFT to delay the provision of the RWI pink slip and to complete the repairs for the RWC.
64	I am satisfied that VFT completed the repairs within a reasonable time whilst providing their service with due care and skill. VFT are entitled to be paid for the work they have completed on the Truck. 
65	Regarding the counterclaim, I am satisfied that one of Panamates drivers fixed the Truck mirror and Panamates is entitled to have the amount of $300.00 deducted from VFT’s claim. 
66	I am satisfied that as Panamates repossessed the Truck, taking it to another repairer for a new RWI and RWC they prevented VFT from completing the RWI pink slip and providing the RWC. They are not entitled to a refund. This claim is dismissed.
67	I am satisfied that VFT are not responsible for the damage to the heater core as Panamates failed to establish a causal nexus. This claim is dismissed. 
68	I am satisfied that there was no loss of reputation caused by VFT. This claim is dismissed.
69	I am satisfied that VFT did not cause any economic loss to Panamates. There were no extensive delays and importantly, the repairs were completed within a reasonable time. This claim is dismissed.
70	Panamates’ contention of misleading and deceptive conduct is unfounded. They did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. This claim is dismissed.
71	I am satisfied that Panamates are not entitled to damages for their time and their legal costs. This claim is dismissed.
72	As VFT are entitled to be paid for their services, less the repair of the mirror, I order that Panamates must pay VFT the sum of $3,889.00.
73	VFT having substantially proven their claim are entitled to reimbursement of their application fee under s115C of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic). I order that Panamates must pay VFT the sum of $315.60
74	As I have accounted for the $300 mirror repair, all other claims are dismissed. I will make a separate Order in proceeding C3590/2022, dismissing the proceeding.

S Fry
Member