Phua sent the company a lawyer’s letter asking them to stop using his house renovation videos for marketing purposes.
A RENOVATION company has to pay an accountant RM15,000 for unfinished work on his home in the Johor capital.
Johor Baru Consumer Claims Tribunal president Lee Chee Thim ordered the respondent to pay Phua Wei Kian in two instalments – RM7,500 on March 30 and RM7,500 on April 30.
Phua said he was forced to fork out extra money to hire a new contractor to finish work at his new double-storey terrace house.
On May 28 last year, he signed an agreement with an interior design company- and-contractor to renovate his house in Taman Sutera Danga, Johor Baru.
“The quotation was RM105,000 and work was to be completed within one-and-a-half months,” said Phua when met outside the tribunal at Menara Ansar.
He paid RM5,000 on May 28 and RM31,750 on Aug 8, bringing the total sum to RM36,750.
Work on the property started on Aug 18 and Phua went to the site on Sept 1 but was dissatisfied with the workmanship.
“The roof was leaking, the walls were rough and the window frames were not aligned,” he said.
Phua, who works and lives in Singapore, said he could only inspect the work on weekends.
He forwarded videos and photos of the poor finishing to the company, and the person-in-charge promised to rectify the issues.
Phua visited the site again on Sept 16 and Oct 2 but still found defects.
The company promised to look into these matters but asked for more money, which Phua refused to pay.
He said he tried to speak with the owner of the company, who was based in Pasir Gudang, but the individual refused to meet him.
Phua appointed a lawyer on Oct 11 and sent a letter terminating the contract as well as requested the company to clear the debris from his house.
“In the letter, I also demanded that they delete videos of my house which had been uploaded to the company’s Facebook account for marketing purposes,” he said.
Phua lodged a police report on Oct 19 when the company refused to return his house keys.
He said his keys were finally returned after another letter was sent to the firm on Oct 21.
He also appointed a building inspector on Oct 24 to look at the defects on the property and produce a report so he could lodge a complaint with the tribunal.
Phua had claimed RM20,000 from the company for failing to finish the work and for the cost of the building inspection.
