John Chaplin says the quandary is that 'unless the council knows about it, it can't issue a notice to fix'. Photo / Martin Hunter
John Chaplin says the quandary is that 'unless the council knows about it, it can't issue a notice to fix'. Photo / Martin Hunter
A Catch-22 stymies checking process for Christchurch rebuilds
There are fears that badly repaired earthquake-damaged homes could become Christchurch's version of the leaky homes fiasco.
Getting repairs and rebuilds under way has been slow going for many residents and even those who have had work done could face more problems.
Architect John Chaplin, whose own home needs repairs,said much of the work was done under schedule one of the Building Act, which made it exempt from the usual checks. "This is most often under the direction of the insurer and project management officer as it reduces costs and avoids the complication of consent documentation and a more robust inspection process."
Officially, all work had to comply with the Building Code but nobody was giving assurances or taking liability, he said. If work underway proved beyond the scope of what could be done without a consent, the normal process would be for the council to stop the work and require consents. But the council was not aware of the exempt projects so could not monitor them. "It's a Catch-22 because unless the council knows about it, it can't issue a notice to fix."
Problems would then arise when someone tried to sell a property.
Chaplin said it had hallmarks of the leaky building crisis, which left many homeowners facing huge bills. "I can't help but feel we are about to see a whole new generation make the same mistakes in Christchurch.
"Significant evidence is coming to light from contractors that they are often severely compromised by the repair budget, which soon into the repair they find inadequate or inappropriate."
Mother of two young children, Alex Blair, who was widowed two months before the first earthquake, said she was still waiting for building to start on her property. It needs $400,000 of repairs.
Insurers had told her that because her home was 100 years old it did not have to be repaired to current building standards - only to the standards that would have applied when it was built. "I'm in the building industry too, so I'm the wrong person to say that to. But they walk in saying it in a very convincing way. Eighty per cent of the population is not in a position to understand."
Some houses had been repaired with floors that were unlevel and without engineering input.
She said insurers and builders trying to save money now would cost future generations and "in 20 years' time there will be legal disputes and more problems".
Grant Florence, of the Certified Builders Association, said it was difficult to maintain quality standards with any large-scale project.
He knew of incidents where the standard was not what it should be. "How widespread that is, I don't know."
Insurance Council chief executive Tim Grafton had not heard about the concerns and said he would be worried if this were the case. Houses had to be built to specific guidelines and inspections were done to ensure that happened, he said.
