Go Back  British Expats > Living & Moving Abroad > New Zealand
Reload this Page >

Leaky Buildings $5-10 Billion cost to taxpayers from NZ Herald

Leaky Buildings $5-10 Billion cost to taxpayers from NZ Herald

Old Jan 22nd 2007, 8:23 pm
  #1  
Forum Regular
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 68
Dave in Auckland will become famous soon enough
Default Leaky Buildings $5-10 Billion cost to taxpayers from NZ Herald

{Quote removed. Please substitute with a link as quoting wholesale from media sources is against site rules}

Last edited by Buzzy--Bee; Jan 23rd 2007 at 8:25 pm.
Dave in Auckland is offline  
Old Jan 22nd 2007, 8:34 pm
  #2  
P2L
BE Forum Addict
 
P2L's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 3,366
P2L has a reputation beyond reputeP2L has a reputation beyond reputeP2L has a reputation beyond reputeP2L has a reputation beyond reputeP2L has a reputation beyond reputeP2L has a reputation beyond reputeP2L has a reputation beyond reputeP2L has a reputation beyond reputeP2L has a reputation beyond reputeP2L has a reputation beyond reputeP2L has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Leaky Buildings $5-10 Billion cost to taxpayers from NZ Herald

Do some of the homes affected not come with the equivilant of an NHBC certificate?

I agree that it's not entirely the fault of the council, but building control is in place to prevent such things happening & the inspectors had a duty of care to ensure they carried out their job properly.

As for the property companies/builders, I think their properties should be seized to compensate those affected, after all they were the ones that ultimately profited.
P2L is offline  
Old Jan 22nd 2007, 8:41 pm
  #3  
Forum Regular
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 68
Dave in Auckland will become famous soon enough
Default Re: Leaky Buildings $5-10 Billion cost to taxpayers from NZ Herald

Nope there's no such thing (generally) as a NHBC Certificate.

Most of the inspection services were taken away from councils and given to private companies, few of whom (a) are still in business or (b) have the wherewithal to meet any costs, and as they're limited companies they have limited liability - they'd go into voluntary liquidation to avoid paying anyway.

Good luck seizing the assets, again many of these development were built by companies that were solely set up to build one development, then closed down. Add to that the fact that most work is sub-contracted... and again, guess what? Those companies no longer exist either.

"The Waitakere council was to pay 20 per cent and builder Hobson Swan Construction and its director, Robert McDonald, were to cover the rest.

But the company is in liquidation, making the council liable for the full amount."


We have friends who bought one of these places 4 years ago for $275,000 and they've just been hit for a $150,000 repair bill.

Last edited by Dave in Auckland; Jan 22nd 2007 at 8:47 pm.
Dave in Auckland is offline  
Old Jan 22nd 2007, 8:52 pm
  #4  
Here in Dunedin
 
southerner's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2003
Location: Dunedin
Posts: 1,975
southerner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Leaky Buildings $5-10 Billion cost to taxpayers from NZ Herald

A lot of the shoddy building was done in the 80s and 90s, so it is very difficult to chase the original builders.

Would be interesting to see somebody prosecute the ex Directors of those building companies for wrongly winding up the company and distributing company assets when they knew, or ought to have known, that there were some massive contingent liabilities out there in the form of future claims. Might be very hard to prove though, especially as the liability has only just been established close to 15 years later.
southerner is offline  
Old Jan 22nd 2007, 8:58 pm
  #5  
Here in Dunedin
 
southerner's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2003
Location: Dunedin
Posts: 1,975
southerner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Leaky Buildings $5-10 Billion cost to taxpayers from NZ Herald

Originally Posted by Dave in Auckland View Post
We have friends who bought one of these places 4 years ago for $275,000 and they've just been hit for a $150,000 repair bill.

Its hard to believe that they were not aware of the risk when they purchased the property, it was well known from the lat 90s that there were problems and a building survey will have identified a house that was at risk.
southerner is offline  
Old Jan 22nd 2007, 8:59 pm
  #6  
Forum Regular
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 68
Dave in Auckland will become famous soon enough
Default Re: Leaky Buildings $5-10 Billion cost to taxpayers from NZ Herald

Exactly.

And in many cases the builders (not the developers) did very little wrong.
They were told that untreated timber was perfectly fine to use, after government lobbying by the developers and the timber industry who were trying to maximise profits and build as quickly and cheaply as possible. Ultimately the government bears a large share of the blame for giving the nod to sub-standard timber and construction practices.

I must say, I've lived in and visited many countries and have never ever seen houses made like this anywhere else. Timber frame, chicken wire and concrete sprayed over it - there's your exterior wall guv'nor.
Dave in Auckland is offline  
Old Jan 22nd 2007, 9:03 pm
  #7  
Forum Regular
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 68
Dave in Auckland will become famous soon enough
Default Re: Leaky Buildings $5-10 Billion cost to taxpayers from NZ Herald

Originally Posted by southerner View Post
Its hard to believe that they were not aware of the risk when they purchased the property, it was well known from the lat 90s that there were problems and a building survey will have identified a house that was at risk.

You may be right, however we came close to buying one, did all the right things, checked everything thoroughly, were assured that there were no problems by the vendor, the estate agent, the surveyors, the lawyers, the body corporate... didn't buy, and now 18 months later the entire development is covered in tarpaulins.
Dave in Auckland is offline  
Old Jan 22nd 2007, 9:13 pm
  #8  
P2L
BE Forum Addict
 
P2L's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 3,366
P2L has a reputation beyond reputeP2L has a reputation beyond reputeP2L has a reputation beyond reputeP2L has a reputation beyond reputeP2L has a reputation beyond reputeP2L has a reputation beyond reputeP2L has a reputation beyond reputeP2L has a reputation beyond reputeP2L has a reputation beyond reputeP2L has a reputation beyond reputeP2L has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Leaky Buildings $5-10 Billion cost to taxpayers from NZ Herald

Originally Posted by Dave in Auckland View Post
You may be right, however we came close to buying one, did all the right things, checked everything thoroughly, were assured that there were no problems by the vendor, the estate agent, the surveyors, the lawyers, the body corporate... didn't buy, and now 18 months later the entire development is covered in tarpaulins.

So how, after doing all that and still not realising, does anybody avoid buying a 'leaky roof property'?

If you were to purchase a property now, who could you hold accountable? After all you rely on the professionals to be able to safeguard us from these sorts of situations, that what we pay them for at least! What's the point in a survey
P2L is offline  
Old Jan 22nd 2007, 9:15 pm
  #9  
Account Closed
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,585
mazi is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: Leaky Buildings $5-10 Billion cost to taxpayers from NZ Herald

Originally Posted by Dave in Auckland View Post

I must say, I've lived in and visited many countries and have never ever seen houses made like this anywhere else. Timber frame, chicken wire and concrete sprayed over it - there's your exterior wall guv'nor.
mazi is offline  
Old Jan 22nd 2007, 9:15 pm
  #10  
Here in Dunedin
 
southerner's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2003
Location: Dunedin
Posts: 1,975
southerner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Leaky Buildings $5-10 Billion cost to taxpayers from NZ Herald

Reminds me - One of my pet hates is how building surveyors have so many exclusions in their standard reports, both in NZ and the UK. From a buyers point of view, when you are looking for an expert to give you a bit of coinfidence about the massive investment you are contemplating, it really does not inspire me at all.

One of our surveys said, "because we could not get access to the ceiling space, we have expressed no opinion about the roof and its supporrts, except for that determined from a visual inspection from the ground level" (my paraphrasing) Apparently the guy didn't bring a long enough ladder.

Trying to sue them for negligence would be a nightmare, you would have to look into their industry body's code of practice to see what the minimum standard of work should be.
southerner is offline  
Old Jan 22nd 2007, 9:18 pm
  #11  
Account Closed
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,585
mazi is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: Leaky Buildings $5-10 Billion cost to taxpayers from NZ Herald

Originally Posted by southerner View Post

Trying to sue them for negligence would be a nightmare, you would have to look into their industry body's code of practice to see what the minimum standard of work should be.
AAAAAArrrrrrgGGGGGhhhhhHHHHHHH

Terrible memory stirred.

Going bed now.
mazi is offline  
Old Jan 22nd 2007, 9:18 pm
  #12  
Forum Regular
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 68
Dave in Auckland will become famous soon enough
Default Re: Leaky Buildings $5-10 Billion cost to taxpayers from NZ Herald

Yup surveyors the world over

Almost as trustworthy as estate agents
Dave in Auckland is offline  
Old Jan 22nd 2007, 9:23 pm
  #13  
Forum Regular
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 68
Dave in Auckland will become famous soon enough
Default Re: Leaky Buildings $5-10 Billion cost to taxpayers from NZ Herald

Originally Posted by kev&sarah View Post
So how, after doing all that and still not realising, does anybody avoid buying a 'leaky roof property'?

If you were to purchase a property now, who could you hold accountable? After all you rely on the professionals to be able to safeguard us from these sorts of situations, that what we pay them for at least! What's the point in a survey
TBH, my view. I wouldn't buy any house built between 1990 and 2005, especially if they have that sprayed concrete finish, no eaves, no guttering and a floating balcony

http://www.consumerbuild.org.nz/publ...y-look-for.php

Last edited by Dave in Auckland; Jan 22nd 2007 at 9:26 pm.
Dave in Auckland is offline  
Old Jan 22nd 2007, 9:54 pm
  #14  
Here in Dunedin
 
southerner's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2003
Location: Dunedin
Posts: 1,975
southerner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond reputesoutherner has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Leaky Buildings $5-10 Billion cost to taxpayers from NZ Herald

And the risk seems to be higher the further north you are:

http://www.dbh.govt.nz/whrs17012007

For example, there has been a huge amount of building in the Queenstown Lakes and Central Otago districts in the southern South Island, and yet relatively few claims. Auckland and its satellite areas have a disproportionate number of claims.
southerner is offline  
Old Jan 23rd 2007, 1:39 am
  #15  
Melbourne Australia
 
thebears's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,169
thebears has a reputation beyond reputethebears has a reputation beyond reputethebears has a reputation beyond reputethebears has a reputation beyond reputethebears has a reputation beyond reputethebears has a reputation beyond reputethebears has a reputation beyond reputethebears has a reputation beyond reputethebears has a reputation beyond reputethebears has a reputation beyond reputethebears has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Leaky Buildings $5-10 Billion cost to taxpayers from NZ Herald

Originally Posted by southerner View Post
A lot of the shoddy building was done in the 80s and 90s, so it is very difficult to chase the original builders.

Would be interesting to see somebody prosecute the ex Directors of those building companies for wrongly winding up the company and distributing company assets when they knew, or ought to have known, that there were some massive contingent liabilities out there in the form of future claims. Might be very hard to prove though, especially as the liability has only just been established close to 15 years later.
Distribution to shareholders when knowing the company is trading insolvent is an offence under the companies act - penalties include both prison and large fines. Whether the company is liquidation or not I would pursue the directors under this act.

Also for them to know about massive contingent liabilities means they have submitted fraudulent accounts - therefore I would be interested in how the auditors have got away from this. Could be an interesting situation if property owners take them to task????
thebears is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.