How you handle a complaint decides whether it stays a quiet fix or becomes a tribunal case and a one-star review. Most of it is process, not law — but the law (the ACL, and defamation) sets the edges. Here is the playbook.
The 5-stage process
- Acknowledge and listen (first 24 hours): stay calm and do not get defensive — defensiveness escalates. Let them talk, empathise without admitting fault ("I can see why you are frustrated — I want to make it right"), and commit to a timeframe ("I will inspect Thursday and call you Friday with a plan").
- Investigate: inspect on site, pull your records (contract, scope, sign-offs, photos, variations), talk to your subbies and suppliers, and check the facts before you promise anything.
- Offer an ACL-compliant remedy (below).
- Document everything: confirm in writing after every interaction, take before/during/after photos, get a sign-off once resolved, and keep a complaints register.
- Follow up: check in a week or two later, and use repeat complaints to fix your process.
What the ACL makes you do
Your services must be provided with due care and skill, fit for the purpose the customer told you, in a reasonable time. If they are not:
- Minor failure (a cracked tile, a fixable leak): you choose the remedy — usually a free repair within a reasonable time.
- Major failure (unsafe, substantially unfit, or so bad they would never have hired you): the customer chooses — refund, re-do, or keep it and be compensated — plus reasonably foreseeable consequential loss (water damage from a pipe you installed).
- The delay trap: drag a minor fix past a reasonable time and it becomes major — now they can demand a refund.
- Traps: "no refunds" clauses are void (you cannot contract out of consumer guarantees); "take it up with the manufacturer" does not fly if you supplied and installed it; and ignoring a stated purpose ("a deck to hold a hot tub") bites.
Responding to a bad review — without making it worse
- Truth is a defence — a genuinely held, truthful negative review generally is not defamation, and "poor service, would not recommend" is opinion. Defamation now also requires serious harm to reputation (Defamation Act 2005).
- The bigger risk is you — naming the customer, disclosing their address/job/details, or arguing publicly can be a privacy breach or defamation against you.
- Do: reply fast (24–48 hours), calm and professional; keep the public reply brief (3–5 sentences) and move the detail to a private channel ("I would like to sort this out — please call me"); acknowledge the issue without admitting fault ("sorry you felt…" beats "sorry we stuffed up"); update the reply once you have fixed it.
- Do not: name them or disclose details; argue or insult ("you are lying" can itself be defamatory); debate the detail publicly; threaten legal action publicly (if it is genuinely defamatory, see a lawyer and issue a Concerns Notice); or ignore a fair complaint.
A complaint answered well in public is proof to future customers that you stand behind your work.
Sort it before the tribunal
Early resolution is cheap — a $500 fix versus thousands defending an NCAT/VCAT claim — and most cases settle at conciliation. Run an internal process: acknowledge (day 1) → assess minor vs major → investigate (inspect, evidence, an expert if needed) → offer a remedy marked "Without Prejudice" so a settlement offer cannot later be used against you as an admission → document and close with a sign-off. If it escalates, it goes through your state regulator/conciliation, then the tribunal (see Building Dispute Tribunals).
Fix free, or stand firm?
- Fix free if: you objectively stuffed up; the fix costs less than the dispute; the customer is reasonable; or the reputation/relationship is worth it.
- Stand firm if: the customer is unreasonable or abusive; you have clear sign-off, scope compliance and no defect; the issue is outside your control (post-handover damage, a manufacturer defect); or it is a big insured claim worth defending.
Either way, documentation wins — no photos or records and a tribunal treats it as "did not happen", and the burden is often on you to prove you complied. Signed scope, a completion sign-off and waterproofing photos win disputes.
The red lines
- Threatening to sue ("drop it or I will sue") — escalates and invites counter-claims.
- Ghosting — they go to Fair Trading, post reviews, and tell their mates.
- "Cash to make it go away, delete the review" — tax-evasion risk, no record, still escalatable, looks dodgy.
- Admitting fault on the spot — it gets used against you; "let me investigate" is safer.
- Blaming the customer publicly — unprofessional, a defamation risk, and it costs you other customers.
Know someone who needs this?
Was this guide useful?
Didn't find what you were looking for?
Spotted something wrong or out of date? Email us at hello@kilnguides.co.uk.
In crisis? Lifeline 13 11 14 ·