A Canning Vale roof repairer who repeatedly accepted deposits for work he failed to complete has been ordered to pay $16,128.30 in fines, compensation and costs following prosecution by the Department of Local Government, Industry Regulation and Safety’s Consumer Protection division.
- Tradie ordered to pay over $16,000 after failing to complete work on four homes
- Took deposits for roofing jobs but did little or none of the agreed work
- Ordered to repay consumers every dollar he took from them
A Canning Vale roof repairer who repeatedly accepted deposits for work he failed to complete has been ordered to pay $16,128.30 in fines, compensation and costs following prosecution by the Department of Local Government, Industry Regulation and Safety’s Consumer Protection division.
Joshua Benjamin Reardon, trading as Anytin Roofing, was sentenced in the Perth Magistrates Court on 5 June 2026 after pleading guilty to four charges under the Australian Consumer Law relating to accepting payment for services he did not supply. He was fined a total of $9,000, ordered to repay four consumers a total of $5,900 in compensation, and pay costs of $1,228.30.
Between January 2023 and August 2024, Mr Reardon accepted deposits from four consumers for roof repairs, insulation batts installation and guttering work, but either failed to complete the work or only did a small portion. He never provided refunds to the consumers.
The matters involved deposits of $2,800 for roof repairs where only minimal work was completed, $550 for insulation bats installation that never occurred, $2,000 for carport roofing work that was never started, and $550 for gutter replacement where no work was done and no refund provided. In most cases, the trader had not specified when the work would be carried out.
In sentencing, Magistrate Urquhart emphasised the need for general deterrence, noting that the penalty needed to send a clear message to others in the industry. The Magistrate also commented that the penalty would have been higher had a compensation order not been made.
Commissioner for Consumer Protection Tim Banfield said when consumers paid a deposit, they were placing their trust in that trader to do the right thing.
“In this case, that trust was completely misplaced. Taking people’s money, doing little or no work and then withholding the refunds they were entitled to is completely unacceptable, and consumers deserve far better treatment than that,” Mr Banfield said.
“It’s not easy for consumers to find the time or resources to chase a trader who stops responding, which is why this type of enforcement action is so important – it shows traders that they can’t just pocket the money and walk away.”
Mr Banfield said while most tradespeople did do the right thing, there were steps consumers could take to protect themselves in case something went wrong.
“Before hiring a tradie, take a moment to read reviews and check their track record. A quick online search might save you a lot of stress later,” the Commissioner said.
“Make sure you get a written quote that clearly sets out the scope of work and includes a timeframe for when the job will be done.
“Avoid paying large deposits upfront. A small deposit and progress payments tied to phases of the work completed give you much better protection if something goes wrong.”
Consumers experiencing issues with tradespeople are encouraged to lodge a complaint with Consumer Protection via the website
