Lelei Ink owner Leah Tilini forced to compensate Pine Creek man Frances Berto over botched tattoo

A man said he was ‘100 per cent dissatisfied’ after a Darwin artist tattooed his nipple and made mistakes with the customer’s intended design.

Franky Berto's tattoo after being completed by another artist. Picture: Supplied

A Darwin tattoo artist has been forced to fork over thousands of dollars in refunds and compensation after botching a Pine Creek man’s ink job and refusing to fix it.

Franky Berto took Lelei Ink owner Leah Kathleen Tilini to the NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal last year after claiming she charged him $1600 for a tattoo he had designed himself.

“During my two-hour tattoo session the respondent was continuously interrupted by multiple phone calls and a child running into the studio,” he claimed.

“I had experienced significant pain during my tattoo and realised later the respondent tattooed my nipple.

“We specifically discussed before the session that the respondent would not tattoo my nipple as it is a highly sensitive area.

“During the healing period, I discovered significant errors compared to my original tattoo design.

“I did consent to the respondent to add her free hand design. I did not consent to the respondent changing 80 per cent of my original design. I am completely 100 per cent dissatisfied.”

Mr Berto claimed he repeatedly tried to reschedule to have Ms Tilini fix her mistakes before requesting a refund but was “deliberately ignored and left confused and frustrated”.

Franky Berto's tattoo as inked by Lelei Ink's Leah Tilini compared with his original design. Picture: Supplied

In ordering Ms Tilini to refund Mr Berto in full and pay another $1150 to have the tattoo fixed by another artist, NTCAT senior member Andrew Macrides said he had “no reason to doubt the veracity of the applicant’s submissions”.

“I find the applicant initially attempted to have the respondent rectify the defects to the tattoo but the respondent has failed to rectify the defects and has thus failed to rectify her breach of the consumer guarantees,” he said.

“When the applicant’s attempts to have the respondent fix the defects failed, the applicant decided to ask for a refund of the monies that he had paid to the supplier for the tattoo service.

“The applicant sent the respondent an email in which he stated that he required the respondent to reimburse him the amount he had paid for the poor tattoo service so that the applicant could have the issues he had with the tattoo rectified by another business.

“He has received no response to this request.”

Mr Macrides said the NTCAT hearing proceeded uncontested after Ms Tilini did not file a response or appear before the tribunal.

“In the absence of the respondent taking an active part in this proceeding I find such loss was foreseeable and the applicant is entitled to compensation being the damages provided for in (the legislation),” he said.