A former homeowner has been found liable by the Disputes Tribunal for the cost of repairs to drainage based on an inaccurate statement he made when selling the property three years ago. Photo / 123rf
A former homeowner has been found liable by the Disputes Tribunal for the cost of repairs to drainage based on an inaccurate statement he made when selling the property three years ago. Photo / 123rf
Three years after moving into a house, a woman went into her rarely used garage to find water had seeped in and damaged items she had stored there.
The water was trickling from incorrect drainage which wasn’t properly flagged before she bought the house.
Now, the Disputes Tribunal has ordered the seller to pay the woman nearly $29,000 for the costs she incurred to repair the drainage. Its decision was based on the vendor making an inaccurate statement when selling the property, and defective work by a builder during renovations 10 years earlier.
However, the tribunal accepted the seller was not aware of the extent of the defects in the drainage, which were underground and only discovered later.
The sale went through on June 11, 2021, after pre-purchase inspections, including one with the real estate agent who said they did not have a key to the garage, so the woman could not inspect it.
On a subsequent visit, the woman was able to get into the garage and noticed water.
She was told by the seller it appeared to be from a block in the strip drain at the front of the garage which had been cleared and that it had “never flooded previously”.
It was later found to be caused by incorrect drainage, which cost the woman $11,235 in plumbing and $16,722 in building works to fix.
The woman also claimed two insurance excesses of $400 each for the loss of the books worth $916.
The seller had commissioned a builder’s report on the property, and a copy was given to the woman.
The report noted a strip drain at the front of the garage and rear of the garage path area had been poured up against the dwelling, about 400mm higher than the garage floor level.
Renovations on the house had been completed by the seller about 10 years before and the drain had been installed to deal with water problems, but he had no reason to suspect the work was defective in any way, he told the tribunal.
The builder’s report noted there was nothing visible that gave rise to any concerns and because the house was remounted about 10 years earlier it was assumed the appropriate waterproofing was in place.
The woman then raised through her lawyer several queries about building consents and sought confirmation about matters raised in the builder’s report.
She was told no new drains were put in but existing plumbing had been updated, that the back wall was waterproofed and that no building consents were required.
The woman bought the house and moved in.
After the water was discovered in December 2022, a drainlayer found faults in the sub-soil drain by the garage that prevented it from functioning as it should.
He noted the drain had not been installed deep enough and most of it sat above the level of the garage floor; the pipe was solid, and not perforated as it should have been, and therefore could not collect surrounding water.
Neither was it connected to the outlet that discharged into the public (stormwater) system nor pass through a sump, which it should have done.
The licensed builder who did the earlier renovation told the tribunal it was possible he had installed the wrong kind of pipe but that he would not have left it unconnected to the main system.
The woman provided a letter to the tribunal from the relevant council, which pointed out the work carried out would have “most likely required a building consent”.
A building inspector says it's wise for prospective buyers to get their own building report as a back up to one provided by a vendor. Photo / 123rf
The tribunal said there was no proof the seller failed to obtain the required consents or comply with them, but rather, the council’s response was “vague”.
The tribunal said, based on the evidence, the seller “inaccurately stated” there was no leaking in the garage and the work done by the builder was defective.
“I consider that his statement that leaking was caused by a blocked strip drain in front of the garage and that no other leaking had occurred during his occupation of the property was incorrect,” tribunal referee Cynthia Hawes said.
She said the woman looking to buy the house was influenced by that statement and induced to enter the contract, which was sufficient to establish liability on the seller’s part.
The case has highlighted why prospective home buyers are advised to get their own building report, rather than relying solely on one provided by a vendor.
Canterbury property inspector Richard Cournane, who prepared reports for buyers and sellers, told NZME that building reports, like anything, were subject to human error or weather conditions on the day, but he “definitely recommended” anyone buying a house get their own report to cross-reference with the vendor’s report.
“It then gives two points of reference to help ensure there are no hidden surprises.”
Cournane said anyone who had concerns about drainage when looking to buy a property should get a separate drainage inspection from a certified drainlayer.
Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.
