Company accused of duping customers out of thousands goes into administration

A Melbourne awning company accused of duping customers out of tens of thousands of dollars has gone into voluntary administration, sparking fears among its clients they might never get repaid.

Shade Solutions Australia said it had gone into administration last month. On Monday, creditors gathered for their first meeting to consider the creation of a committee to oversee the insolvency process.

The Shade Solutions ‘Mobile Showroom’ vehicle. Credit:Paul Jeffers

The company and its owner, Andrew Valk, are accused of keeping tens of thousands of dollars worth of deposits from clients for awning, roof and blind installations that were never carried out.

In some cases, according to clients and former employees, Valk threatened customers with defamation lawsuits after they vented their frustrations online when work they had paid for was not completed. Valk has filed at least two defamation suits against customers in the County Court of Victoria.

Andrew Valk runs Shade Solutions Australia.

However, one of the cases could be shortlived after lawyers representing Valk told the court they hadn’t been paid their fees or received instructions for a period of time, and flagged the possibility of ceasing to act on his behalf.

Last month, The Age reported the concerns of a dozen customers and former employees, who said Valk’s pattern of behaviour was to take the deposits and stall the process by failing to answer calls and emails, and then ignore requests for refunds.

Since then, another 15 customers have come forward with similar claims. Some date back to 2013, when Valk operated Deck Me, a since-deregistered outdoor decking business.

Company records indicate Valk has registered 15 different companies under his name since 1996, including Deck Me, AJV Outdoor Installations, Pine Group Services, CCA Timbers, and Australian Pine Direct. Four of his businesses are registered under variations of the Shade Solutions Australia name.

Gerard Brody, the chief executive of the Consumer Action Law Centre, a Melbourne-based consumer advocacy centre providing legal and financial counselling to disadvantaged people, said it wasn’t uncommon for customers to leave a liquidation process empty-handed.

“Whether you get money out of the administration will depend on a lot of unknown factors like how much money is owed by the business to other creditors,” he said. “We commonly see people only getting cents on the dollar.”

Most customers spoken to by The Age believed they might never get refunded and pinned their hopes on an investigation into the company by the regulator, Consumer Affairs Victoria.

However, Brody said limits on the regulatory powers of the agency could prove a barrier to prosecuting Valk through the civil court.

The regulator does not have the power to seek a civil penalty for businesses failing to provide a refund under consumer guarantee laws.

It can seek penalties against a company for wrongfully seeking payment but to win a civil case, it would need to show that a business did not intend to supply the goods, which is difficult to prove.

Brody said: “It can make the claim that there was some sort of misrepresentation in relation to refund rights if that was the case, but at the moment, by just simply not complying with the consumer guarantee provisions, the regulator can’t take action.”

Consumer Action Law Centre chief executive Gerard Brody.Credit:Fairfax Media

The Consumer Action Law Centre is pushing for the legislation to be amended to include a civil avenue to pursue refund-related breaches and wants regulators to be required to publicly list the number of complaints lodged against a company.

Melbourne lawyer Vanessa Santalucia said she was flabbergasted at the lack of action from authorities, which left disgruntled customers with no other option but to pursue the matter through the courts at their own expense with no guarantee of being refunded.

Santalucia, who is among the customers claiming to have been duped by Valk, said she got her $6500 deposit back only after taking the matter to the Supreme Court and filing an application to wind down the company.

Her legal background meant she could do most of the work herself, but she said most affected customers lacked the knowledge or financial means to do so.

“I think if I didn’t have the financial capability behind me, as well as the legal nuance, there’s just no way I would have gotten a result,” Santalucia said.

“If I was to have engaged an external lawyer … it would have probably cost me nearly $100,000. I got my money back plus my costs, so I got off OK, but I’m still traumatised by it.”

Consumer Affairs Victoria declined to answer questions from The Age, saying the matter remained an active investigation. Valk was contacted for comment.

The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.

Most Viewed in National

From our partners

Source: Read Full Article