EQC’s $60 foundation fix
A Christchurch homeowner is fighting an Earthquake Commission (EQC) assessment suggesting it would cost only $60 to fix his rental property’s quakedamaged foundation.
Rory White’s TC2 home, which had a rubble foundation, was assessed as having foundation cracking by EQC in 2012.
The commission gave him a scope of work that did not include any costing for him to organise the work, as White had opted out of the repair programme.
White then provided EQC with a quote from a builder to do the repair based on the scope, but EQC told him the amount quoted was ‘‘too much’’.
White organised his own quantity surveyor (QS), who recommended a sectional replacement of the foundation at a cost of $19,000.
EQC then asked White to come back on site to do a further assessment, but White wanted to first discuss the strategy based on his QS report and photos to avoid imposing another EQC visit on his tenants.
White said EQC stopped responding to his emails until The Press made inquiries this week.
He had to make an Official Information Act (OIA) request to see the detail of EQC’s scope of work, including the costing.
The OIA documents revealed EQC’s loss adjustors had determined the repairs could be done for $60 plus GST, with no allowance for geo-technical investigations.
White had a structural engineering firm check the foundation more recently and said they indicated the house could need a full foundation replacement.
‘‘The willingness of EQC to direct a builder to spend $60 on a foundation that likely needs replacing to meet building code serves as a clear example of EQC processes,’’ he said.
‘‘Ever since [2012], I’ve been in limbo trying to convince EQC of what’s required to fix my house, with EQC not budging from their repair strategy.
‘‘Only $60 to do any kind of foundation repair, even a small one, is hard to comprehend.’’
EQC head of Canterbury customer and claims Michael Price said the scope of works showed ‘‘minimal discernible earthquake damage with the foundations’’.
EQC requested subsequent site visits to investigate White’s concerns, ‘‘but the customer has not allowed EQC on site’’, Price said.
White said that was a misunderstanding.
He was reluctant to disrupt his tenants and wanted to discuss the repair strategy first.
‘‘I think they’ve taken that the wrong way.’’
Price said a staff member contacted White this week after he asked to discuss the foundation repair strategy with an estimator.
EQC required him to produce a report from a qualified builder to take the matter further.
If the report supported White’s claims, EQC would then meet on site with the builder to assess the report.
If the assessment verified the report and found EQC had missed any damage, EQC would update and re-cost the scope of works, Price said.