Inspectors miss dodgy houses, says watchdog

House inspection firms which looked over a "dog" of a home in Auckland missed defects that could potentially have cost a new owner thousands of dollars, says Consumer magazine.

In its third survey of private building inspection companies, the Consumers' Institute said there had been no improvement in the standard of home inspections despite the multimillion-dollar leaky homes problem.

The institute hired six firms to inspect the Auckland home and four to look at one in Wellington.

"Far from providing peace of mind, the reports we received were so inconsistent we wondered if the firms visited the same house," the magazine said.

On the 1989 plaster-clad Auckland home, a prime candidate for leaks, two firms failed to take moisture readings and the four that did failed to explain their findings.

The cost of inspections varied widely. The most expensive was Joyce Group in Wellington, which charged $678.72 but failed to mention rot in a window.

Independent Property Consultants Home Inspections charged the least, $270, but was one of two firms that did not do a moisture reading on the Auckland house.

Institute chief executive David Russell called the work "shabby".

The Auckland house was a "dog", he said. It had already been resurfaced once but had cracks in the plaster cladding and no flashings on doors and windows.

One firm, Able Inspections, suggested the place be entirely reclad but another, House Appraisals, said the exterior cladding was in "tidy condition".

Inspect First provided the only detailed analysis of the cladding problems, while Futuresafe said installation of the plaster system was well carried out.

The Home Check Company said cracks in the cladding around windows needed to be sealed and maintained and there was a "significant area of water ingress".

Futuresafe said that "all windows provide adequate protection from moisture ingress".

Mr Russell said: "It's absolutely disappointing, particularly given the trouble with leaky buildings.

"Given we have done two surveys before, in 1997 and 2001, there has been no improvement."

He said the Department of Building and Housing was considering licensing or regulating private inspection firms but that was contradicted yesterday.

"The Department of Building and Housing is not considering licensing or regulating building inspection firms," said Weathertight Homes Resolution Service national manager Nigel Bickle.

Futuresafe owner Mark Russell said the Consumer report was "completely negative".

"It's not balanced at all. They are a negative organisation," he said.

"We identified so many defects with the house it wasn't funny."

He thought licensing building inspection firms was a "fantastic idea" but his company was already licensed "as far as licensing can go".

House Appraisals owner Owen Cooper said the draft report sent to him was "not correct".

He said the home's cladding was done before new regulations came in, so it did not have to meet the Building Code, though two other firms' reports mentioned the cladding was "not installed in accordance with Building Code regulations".

"The actual cladding, there was nothing wrong with it but there were trees growing all over it which doesn't do it any good at all," he said.

The 1967 Wellington weatherboard home was given a tick by inspectors Joyce Group for "settlement" - all houses settle on to piles over time - with "no problems expected", but its report said "doors and windows jamming because of settlement".

Only one firm, ABS Contractors, spotted a minor roof leak.