Verified Company
Google Review – MateX Demolition
We engaged MateX Demolition for demolition works at our property. While some aspects of the work were completed satisfactorily, our overall experience was significantly affected by disputes over pricing, additional charges, contaminated-material disposal, completion of the works and subsequent communication.
Before the relevant contaminated-material removal, our understanding from a verbal discussion was that the rate was $238 per tonne. MateX subsequently disputed this understanding and charged $275 per tonne.
One of our main concerns relates to the first contaminated-material load, recorded at the disposal facility as 20.94 tonnes. We do not dispute the weighbridge record itself. Our concern is whether the entire 20.94 tonnes originated from our property. Based on our onsite observations, contemporaneous photos/video and initial discussion with Matex, we questioned the quantity. There was also a substantial unexplained period between the truck leaving our property and the recorded disposal/weighing.
We repeatedly requested available GPS, driver, transport or waste-tracking records to reconcile the truck’s movements and substantiate the provenance of the full load. These records were not provided. Approximately 10 tonnes of this load remains disputed.
We also requested additional excavation and removal work. We do not dispute requesting this work. However, no separate price, hourly rates, minimum booking period or estimated additional cost was disclosed or agreed before the work was undertaken. MateX subsequently charged an additional $1,551 including GST for excavator, truck and asbestos labour. Our written agreement required additional charges or variations to be agreed in writing beforehand. Our understanding was also that the agreed per-tonne removal/disposal rate covered the resources reasonably required for that service.
During the works, we also raised concerns after observing clean soil being mixed with material being treated as asbestos-contaminated material. The practice stopped after we raised it, but our questions regarding the composition of the material charged as contaminated waste were not satisfactorily resolved.
There were also completion issues. Further attendance was required after the expected completion, and our pre-arranged soil testing had to be postponed by approximately two weeks, delaying the next stage of our project.
Importantly, we accepted and paid other additional charges during the project in an effort to cooperate and avoid delays. Our concern is therefore not about refusing reasonable additional costs, but about specific charges and quantities that we believe were not adequately agreed, explained or substantiated.
We repeatedly attempted to resolve these matters directly and requested supporting information. MateX ultimately advised that it considered the matter “concluded”. We also found some communications regarding asbestos/compliance risks and potential consequences unnecessarily pressuring.
Based on our experience, I would strongly recommend that customers ensure all rates, variations, minimum charges and additional work are clearly priced and agreed in writing before work proceeds, and retain appropriate transport and disposal records where waste is charged by weight.
