A homeowner has successfully proved that a road being built nearby caused more than $20,000 worth of damage to his house. Photo / 123RF
A homeowner has successfully proved that a road being built nearby caused more than $20,000 worth of damage to his house. Photo / 123RF
A homeowner has successfully proved that works associated with building a school next door caused more than $20,000 worth of damage to his house.
The homeowner said cracks in the home's concrete floors were caused by heavy machinery rolling past when a new road was built for the school. He said it was once bad enough to knock a clock off the wall.
He and his insurer claimed $22,245 from the construction firm, of which $550 was the insurance excess with the balance of $21,695 claimed by the insurer.
The Disputes Tribunal, which suppressed all names and the location where this happened, has now ordered the construction firm to pay $13,350 to the insurer, to help cover the cost of fixing damage it found was caused when the road was built.
The decision of August 9 last year has just been publicly released.
In early 2018, work started on building the school on an adjacent block of land to that of the homeowner, on the other side of a lane.
Construction included earthworks and drainage using heavy machinery.
A few months later work began on building the street, for which an excavator was used to break up the concrete on an existing driveway which was then removed by truck.
Layers of crushed rock used for paving were then added, with each layer rolled before more layers of base went down and then the asphalt seal.
The consultant hired by a construction firm to check damage to a home near where it was building a road, said the cracking predated the roadworks. Photo / 123RF
It was after the project started, but before the work with the vibrating roller began that the homeowner and a neighbour told the construction firm they could feel vibrations at their properties.
The homeowner who with his insurer laid the complaint said cracks started to appear in his concrete floor and patio in early 2019, which he reckoned were caused by the vibrating roller going past as the road was being built.
The construction firm hired a consultant to check, who said that the cracking predated the roadworks. Neither did the consultant think the roller used was large enough to cause damage to the house.
The tribunal said in its decision that the construction firm had a duty of care not to damage neighbouring properties when building the roadway, including damage caused by excessive vibration.
Open Justice explored whether rules existed to help protect the public from the effects of construction vibration. It found that while there was currently no New Zealand standard, a resource consent was needed for activity that generated noise and vibration, if required by a local authority's district plan.
An expert in vibration assessment told Open Justice that there'd been a corresponding increase in the need for monitoring.
"Since vibration monitoring has become more often required in the consents process, there has indeed been an increase in use of vibration monitoring in New Zealand," director of Southern Geophysical Mike Finnemore said.
The tribunal said in its decision there was no dispute that the homeowner's floor was cracked. The issues were whether the damage was caused in whole or in part when the road was built.
After extensive evidence and reports submitted by each side, including the results of the inspection of the home and a disputed timeline of events, the tribunal said the construction firm had not been able to provide any persuasive evidence that the homeowner made a complaint about damage before the roadworks started, as was suggested.
Weighing up everything, the tribunal considered that the damage to the internal floor of the house most likely occurred when the new road was built.
When considering if wholly or in part, the tribunal had to assess if the roller caused vibrations at the house.
The homeowner provided video of candles vibrating to show how the shaking worsened when the roller passed his home. At one stage he claimed it was so bad that a clock fell off a wall.
A visiting friend once described the vibrations as being similar to an earthquake, and when the insurance company visited, the loss adjuster's observations led to the claim being accepted.
The roller was run during a site meeting, at which it was agreed there were no vibrations, although there was dispute over why that might have been.
As to whether the vibrations caused the damage, the tribunal said there was conflicting expert evidence from each side, but the referee was satisfied by the evidence presented that the roller's vibrations were the primary cause of the damage. Therefore, any award should be for more than half the cost claimed.
Because it was up to the applicant to prove quantum, and where there was a shortage of evidence, any calculation had to give the respondent the benefit of any uncertainty.
The construction firm's contribution to the damage was assessed at 60 per cent and was therefore ordered to contribute $13,350 towards the cost of repairs.
