Dave in Auckland

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

P2L

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.

Dave in Auckland

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.

southerner

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

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.

Dave in Auckland

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

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.

P2L

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

mazi

southerner

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.

mazi

AAAAAArrrrrrgGGGGGhhhhhHHHHHHH

Terrible memory stirred.

Going bed now.

Dave in Auckland

Yup surveyors the world over

Almost as trustworthy as estate agents

Dave in Auckland

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

southerner

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.

thebears

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????