Owners labelled as developers in claims

Andrew Nichols outside his house at 17A Sharon Rd, Browns Bay. Photo / Paul Estcourt

Large leaky-house claims are being brought against former homeowners who are being dubbed developers because they had new homes built.

John Gray, president of the Homeowners & Buyers Association, has noticed a big jump in the number of cases against sellers who were being held liable by either buyers or city councils. He described this latest development in the rotting homes scandal as most unfortunate because a far larger number of people were now being "victimised".

Two leaky-home claims now going through the system illustrate the trend.

A case brought by Richard and Hayley Tabram against Arran and Michelle Salter over 89 Pacific Parade in Army Bay was last week before the Weathertight Homes Tribunal.

The Tabrams bought a leaky house the Slaters had built and now want $384,134.30 after having it fixed by Jennian Homes. The Slaters are named as "property developers" by the Tabrams.

Another case against Andrew and Natalie Nichols over a house they had built at 17a Sharon Rd in Browns Bay is heading towards the High Court at Auckland, even though Andrew Nichols applied for it to go to the Weathertight Homes service.

Buyers John and Kathleen Girvan are taking the case against the Nichols', relatives who sold them the land and North Shore City Council. Like the Tabram v Slater case, the Girvan v Nichols case names the Nichols as "vendors/developers".

The Girvans' statement of claim to the High Court at Auckland shows they want $424,035.85 for leaks at the place which had the necessary paperwork.

Mr Nichols is concerned others are in his position. "There will be thousands of other people throughout the country who have undertaken to build their own home as we did, completely unaware that they are now unwittingly in the gun as property developers, despite all of the professionals used and meeting all of their obligations.

"It's very common for the average Kiwi to undertake to build their own home using tradespeople to comply with the building code. Our property was fully compliant and the purchasers undertook a full pre-purchase inspection, which revealed nothing. The plaintiffs have subsequently also made non-compliant modifications to the property," Mr Nichols said. "It now seems that we are developers and the only people targeted as the trades are apparently outside
the 10-year time bar," he said.

He complained about not getting access to a report on the house by consultants Prendos and that his inlaws were also being sued.

"The plaintiffs have opted to included my wife's parents in their claim. They are now in their late 60s and living directly across the road from the plaintiffs. Theirs were the names on the title prior to the site being subdivided and us purchasing it from them to build," he said.

The Girvans bought the house in 2002 but a year later a storm brought water in above windows in the downstairs bedroom, kitchen and playroom, their claim says.

Rotting timber was found after concerns about lack of drainage from the deck over the garage. A full inspection was carried out and the Girvans were advised they had "systemic leaks" at the property.

The Prendos' report showed significant defects and damage to the house. The claim says the house did not comply with the Building Act because it leaked.

The statement prepared by lawyers Corban Revell showed the house had many defects. Timber in some parts had moisture readings of up to 40 per cent. The house also had large numbers of recently active fungus, pockets of advanced rot, fungal growths, cracked plaster, major decay in some areas, building paper which had deteriorated, soft rot, corroded metal, heavily decayed timber in parts, wrongly installed flashings, Harditex cladding not installed according to technical information and inadequate flashings.

The claim then outlined the work needed to fix the house, which included removing exterior cladding and identifying decayed timber and replacing that with new treated timber. A cavity wall was also required to provide a drainage gap.

"The repair work required to ensure weathertightness and compliance with the Building Act and Building Code is currently estimated to cost $424,035.85," the claim said.