The Goodman-Jones' home overlooking Lyttleton Harbour. Photo/ Supplied
The Goodman-Jones' home overlooking Lyttleton Harbour. Photo/ Supplied
A couple who claimed their builder put the cladding on their new home incorrectly and overcharged them for the cost of the build has tried to sue the man for more than $450,000.
But a recent court decision ruling against the homeowners has brought their six-year court battle to end - and now they will likely have to pay the builder’s legal bills.
Construction industry veterans Phillippa and Gareth Goodman-Jones hired a builder to construct a home for them from the ground-up on a section overlooking Lyttleton Harbour.
However, the relationship soured after they disputed the invoices, the time it was taking to build the house and ultimately the quality of the job before terminating the contract.
They then took the builder, Christchurch man David Hughey, to court along with the building supplier PlaceMakers which built the frames in their factory which were used on the site.
Hughey then bought the Christchurch District Council in as a third defendant because it had passed inspections for the house on three occasions.
The crux of their claim was that PlaceMakers had built the frames to the wrong measurements and that Hughey had subsequently affixed the cladding to these incorrectly specced frames, meaning they were not weathertight and did not meet the code.
But after the matter was heard in Christchurch High Court, Justice Gerald Nation released his decision last week, ruling the couple effectively project-managed the build and had given PlaceMakers the measurements.
The judge found the house was watertight, it did in fact meet the building code and the council would be able to issue a code of compliance.
However, nearly six years after the court case began the house doesn’t have code of compliance and according to three independent valuers cited in the judgement it’s worth nearly $500,000 less because of it.
Both the Goodman-Jones’ and Hughey declined to comment for this article.
The contract
The couple obtained consent to build their home in March 2014 and signed a contract with Hughey to build it two months later.
While there was some dispute over who was managing the build, Phillippa has been a quantity surveyor for more than 30 years and is the former national president of the New Zealand Institute of Quantity Surveyors, and Gareth worked for a company that sold the western red cedar vertical cladding that was used on the house.
The Goodman-Jones’ became responsible for engaging contractors, acquiring timber, joinery and windows and arranging for them to be delivered.
Despite the Goodman-Jones’ being responsible for ordering the materials, Phillippa sent Hughey an email in October 2015 stating she was extremely stressed at the time the build was taking and what it was costing.
The fitting of the western red cedar vertical weatherboards was the subject of a six-year long court battle. Photo / Supplied
Both she and her husband were “bitterly disappointed with progress on the house in the last week” and accused Hughey of “seriously letting the side down,” she said in the email.
There was also a dispute over the number of hours Hughey was working and the amount he was invoicing the couple for his and his four employees’ labour.
After further dispute, four months later, the couple said they no longer had faith in Hughey to complete the contract. He told the Goodman-Jones’ that he no longer wanted to continue with it anyway.
There was only one small area of cladding left to be installed when the contract was terminated on June 10, 2016.
Following the termination, the house was finished but the Goodman-Jones’ launched legal proceedings against Hughey, claiming the cladding had been put on wrong and needed to be removed and replaced at a cost of $465,427.
The couple also claimed the building business failed to complete the work required of them within a reasonable time and that they were overcharged. A refund of $162,043 was initially claimed by the Goodman-Jones’ but that was abandoned during the proceedings.
Dwangs
The vertical weatherboard cladding needed to be fixed to framework which the couple ordered from PlaceMakers. The consented plans required the dwangs, a horizontal bracing piece used between wall studs in the frame, to be spaced at 400mm from centre to centre.
However, the framework supplied by PlaceMakers generally had the dwangs spaced at 480mm centres with a few spaced at nearly 500mm.
The couple claimed Hughey was negligent in installing the weatherboards because he did so at the 480mm spacing, not the 400mm spacing as they said they expected.
Hughey conceded there were some isolated areas where nails had been missed or there was minor damage to the cedar but that isolated boards could be replaced rather than having to do the entire house.
The Goodman-Jones' claimed all the cladding needed o be removed and replaced at a cost of $450,000. Photo/ Supplied
According to the Goodman-Jones’, much of the cladding was installed without a 2mm allowance for the wood to expand.
This meant that boards had abutted against each other and caused damage through cupping of the boards and lifting of the laps at the edges, which increases the potential for moisture to get in
Ruling
Justice Nation said he could not see the need for replacing the entire cladding when isolated boards could instead be fixed and the couple shouldn’t have an issue getting code compliance from the council regardless of where the dwangs were spaced.
NZME understands the home has not yet been granted a code of compliance.
“The Timspec cedar cladding, with as-built dwang spacings generally at 480 mm centres, does comply with the Building Code and the Timspec manual specifications,” Justice Nation said.
“There is no reason to suspect there will be a failure of the cladding system or weather-tightness issues that could affect the value of the home.
“The evidence does not suggest there has been any deterioration for which Hughey Builders is liable.”
Gareth Goodman-Jones has worked for a company that sells the Timspec cedar weatherboards. Photo / Supplied
Hughey did admit some failings in the construction of the house such as missing straps on a balustrade which he absorbed the $40,000 cost for another builder to fix.
There were also nails that had missed the dwangs in some locations and where the flashing hadn’t been nailed-off.
Justice Nation was satisfied there had not been any deterioration in the cladding since it was installed and that the couple had not proven the cladding was fixed with expansion gaps of less than 2mm, allegedly causing cupping of the boards.
“Hughey Builders were not in breach of their contract or negligent in their workmanship in ways that reasonably require the removal of all existing cladding and the rigid air barrier board, alteration to external wall framework, and recladding,” he said.
He also cleared PlaceMakers of any wrongdoing in that they had built the frames to the Goodman-Jones’ consented specifications.
Justice Nation is yet to make a ruling as to costs but indicated in his ruling that Hughey and PlaceMakers would be entitled to costs - meaning the Goodman-Jones’ would have to pay a portion of their legal fees.
