Close but no cigar for house movers

An Auckland couple who own a section at Cooper's Beach accidentally acquired a house recently, after it was delivered to the wrong address. And it clearly didn't want to move.

Amanda and Andrew Wisniewski were perplexed when the mystery house appeared on their section in Seascape Lane, and last week, after seven weeks of trying in vain to dislodge it, they were just as bemused when the removal firm returned without warning to shift it across the road to where it should have gone in the first place.

The North Shore couple bought the section 10 years ago with the intention of eventually adding a bach, but the first they knew of having acquired one was when the local who they employ to mow the grass mentioned it. Mrs Wisniewski rang a neighbour, who confirmed there was indeed a house on their section.

"Our first reaction was shock. How on Earth could this happen? Then we were bemused, and then a little bit annoyed," she said.

After some inquiries around the neighbourhood Mrs Wisniewski discovered that the weatherboard cottage was supposed to have been placed on 14A Seascape, but had somehow been delivered to #10, where it was signed off by the Far North District Council's building department despite the fact that the consents applied to 14A.

When the error was pointed out the council ordered the owner and removal firm to shift the house and reinstate #10 to its original condition by November 29. When that deadline came and went they were given a new one of December 20.

O'Neill's Building Removals owner Jeremy O'Neill, of Whangarei, said he put his hand up for a certain amount of the blame. However, council staff had checked the house and boundary pegs when the house was on-site and let him pour the concrete for the piles.

Mr O'Neill said the council should have picked up the error and issued a stop work notice at that stage. He was planning to invoice the council for costs incurred after the building was signed off.

As to how the house ended up on the wrong section, he said he had matched up the location with the plans, which were "a bit vague," adding that the client should have been there to point out exactly where she wanted the house to go.

He said last week that he would remove the house, but could not say when because work was "a bit beserk" before Christmas, although as it transpired it was being moved as he was speaking.

The council, apparently wary of legal action, wasn't saying much, a spokesman simply confirming that it was aware of the issue and was investigating. Full details would be disclosed in due course.

Meanwhile Mrs Wisniewski was surprised to hear that the house was on the move again on Friday, but was only partially mollified.

"That's great, but we want the section back to how it was before," she said. As well as damage to the section, a young pohutukawa had been cut down. And she hoped she and her husband would not become the meat in the sandwich between the council and the removal firm.