Walls rot but builder shuts door
It’s too late for homeowners to lodge a warranty claim by the time problems emerge. Susan Edmunds reports.
An Auckland couple say they have been left facing a bill that could run to more than $100,000 because of poor workmanship on their house two decades ago.
Glenn and Tania Karam engaged Colenso Holdings, trading as GJ Gardner, to complete the house in Wattle Downs 19 years ago.
‘‘We were so concerned with the building process that we stopped half-way through,’’ Glenn Karam said.
‘‘We stopped them so we could have Prendos, a specialist building inspection company, carry out an inspection as we had concerns about what was going on. The subsequent report highlighted several things, of which there were a couple of serious items such as a porous concrete base which would allow moisture in and cause damage to the timber framing and no head flashings on the windows and doors.
‘‘This report was provided to GJ Gardner and we were informed the items had been fixed and not to worry.’’
But now that they have put the $1 million house on the market, a weathertight specialist has told them that many of those issues had caused the problems they were warned could happen.
Head flashings are insufficient and not installed well in places, there is porous concrete floor and block work, insufficient ground clearance and building paper is cut short in many areas.
Karam said it was likely that framing would have to be replaced in significant portions of the house. The entire bottom storey lounge walls need to be replaced. Exterior plaster may need to be removed around the house to a height of 1.5 metres.
‘‘Weather Tight Solutions has stated that although the ground clearance may have been in line with building code when it was built, there are areas around the house that do not meet current codes and that there are concerns the insufficient ground clearance can allow moisture to sit close enough that it can be drawn up, however they have also clearly pointed out that the poor concrete base floor and block work means the moisture has got in and damaged the timber framing.’’
The couple contacted the local branch of GJ Gardner but were told it had changed hands and Colenso Holdings was no longer in business. The 10-year warranty that the Karams had with the new build has long since expired.
They were originally told that fixing the problem would cost $65,000 but further investigations have revealed that the damage may be more significant than suspected and the cost could go up ‘‘considerably’’.
Glenn Karam said he had been warned it would be expensive and time-consuming to pursue a legal case for compensation and there was no guarantee they would win.
He said it was upsetting that they had chosen a GJ Gardner builder because of the brand name associated with it but it had provided no security.
Tania Karam said it seemed that the house had been rotting for 15 years.
Lawyer Adina Thorn said the 10-year limitation period that applied to claims for new builds would be a major problem for the Karams.
She said it was common to see situations such as this where the master franchise did not want to take responsibility for the actions of a previous franchisee.
‘‘Where is the franchisor in all this? It’s not acceptable.’’
Steve Bull, the former owner of Colenso, told Karam the issues seemed to relate to poor ground clearance and his records showed his company had not completed landscaping or hardscaping for the site and could not take responsibility for final ground clearances or levels.
Grant Porteous, managing director of the master franchisee for GJ Gardner Homes in New Zealand, said Karam had had a full response to the matters he and his lawyer raised and an independent report supported GJ Gardner’s position.
‘‘I’m sure you would agree that ultimately any issue of liability would involve first a claim being put forward – in this case a new claim or matters to support such – and liability assessed and there is a burden of proof on Karam as with any claim. Karam has not done so in regards this matter. Or is
Karam’s intention to try and pressure a different and unjust result in this situation and clearly only providing a part of a story?
‘‘If Karam or his lawyer wish to present further real facts then the merits of these need to be addressed between the relevant parties directly.’’
Karam rejected the suggestion the problems were due solely to ground clearance.
‘‘GJ Gardner did not do the landscaping so we accept that they can’t be held liable for the actual ground clearance concerns but for them to say the entire water damage to the property is solely due to the ground clearance and not to their building is incorrect. The ground clearance may have contributed to the damage but so too did the concrete floor, blockwork and building paper fit.’’
‘‘Where is the franchisor in all this? It’s not acceptable.’’ Lawyer Adina Thorn