South Auckland boundary blunder: Homeowner not to blame, expert says

Papakura homeowner Deepak Lal says no one is taking responsibility for the boundary blunder which could cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars to rectify.

By Stephen Forbes, Local Democracy Reporter

Auckland Council staff and a designer should have cross-checked the location of a house built in the wrong place that could result in its owner being sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars, an expert says.

C94 Development is taking legal action against Deepak Lal after his home was built on the boundary of its property in Papakura, South Auckland.

Under the resource consent for the site, his house should have been built one metre from the boundary. But the building consent plans from Hamilton company HQ Designs, approved by Auckland Council in September 2019, show the Parahau Rd house right on the boundary.

The company wants him to move the house, or pay $315,000 in damages.

A council spokeswoman confirmed it had been notified of Lal's case and was looking into the matter.

But it is not answering questions about its liability in the case, any errors in the approved plans, or its role in approving the building consent.

University of Auckland School of Architecture senior lecturer Bill McKay said Lal's case highlighted failures by the designer and the council.

"All professionals have to show a reasonable duty of care and in this case the designer should have known what the resource consent permitted when they submitted the building consent."

But he said council staff should have also picked up the error in the location of Lal's home when it was processing the application.

AUT professor of construction management John Tookey says property disputes like Deepak Lal's are difficult to settle and, unfortunately, far more common than people realise.

"That's what any reasonable person would expect. Someone, somewhere should have picked it up."

He said HQ Designs architectural designer Nitin Kumar's note to the council to cross check the building consent drawings with the original resource consent wasn't good practice.

He should have ensured the plans were correct before filing the application, he said.

Kumar previously admitted the location of the home was wrong, but said the council should have checked it. Kumar has been approached for further comment.

However, McKay said there were other factors which could have played a part in the mix-up.

Council resource consents are handled by planning staff under the Resource Management Act, while building consents are handled by another team in line with the Building Act, he said.

"That's a big problem and they should be more aligned. If you've got two processes happening under the same roof, the left hand needs to know what the right hand is doing."

'Nobody accepts liability'

AUT professor of construction management John Tookey said Lal's experience was an unfortunate situation that happened far too often.

But he said for property owners like Lal, getting compensation was a hard road.

"You can argue the toss and try and get your money back, but nobody accepts liability," he said.

"It will take some good legal advice in this instance to sort it out. Property disputes like this are always notoriously difficult."

Lal is still hoping to hear from the council over the boundary mix-up.

"I don't have the money to buy the property. My lawyer said they can move the house, but that will cost me $150,000."

No one was accepting liability, he said, and he just wanted someone to step up and take responsibility for the gaffe.