A Nelson couple seeking redress for a leaky bathroom in their new home have taken their fight to the disputes tribunal.
Paul and Faye Gurr built their new home on Nelson's Port Hills five years ago. They say they’ve been let down by the consents process after faulty workmanship. Photo: RNZ / Tracy Neal
Paul and Faye Gurr told RNZ News in September that the building consent process was not worth the paper it was written on, after neither the tiler nor the city council stepped up to help when the problem was discovered.
They contracted a home-build firm to construct the house on Nelson's Port Hills five years ago, but hired their own tiler. The city council's building inspectors carried out regular scheduled inspections and eventually issued a certificate of compliance.
The Gurrs recently discovered their tiled shower leaked so badly that water had filtered through the grout to the cubicle's foundations. A repair job of up to $10,000 looked likely.
Attempts to contact the tiler were futile so the Gurrs sought the opinion of another tiler who explained there was water getting underneath the shower.
Their insurance company would only cover general wear and tear.
Mr Gurr said the council had signed off the job. But, after a meeting with the council's building inspection team, he learned that - despite the $11,000 the couple had paid in building consent fees, which included about $2000 for inspections and sign-off - the failure remained their problem.
Nelson City Council building manager Martin Brown said earlier it was not always possible for building inspectors to see work as it happened.
Faye Gurr says the faulty shower in her home looks likely to cost about $10,000 to fix. Photo: RNZ / Tracy Neal
The shower had a waterproofing system applied by a licensed applicator, and a code of compliance certificate was issued on the basis that the consenting authority was "satisfied on reasonable grounds" the work had been completed to code.
Master Builders Association chief executive David Kelly said a certificate of compliance was not a guarantee for building work. He added that while tradespeople who carried out faulty work should be the first to be held responsible, councils were not immune to legal action in such matters.
The tiler who did the job claims to have done it properly, Mr Gurr said. He and the council were respondents at an initial hearing that has just been held. A decision has been deferred to a second hearing next month, after the adjudicator sought more information.
The council said it was unable to comment at this stage, as the matter was before the tribunal.
