Builder’s documents might hold clues to cost blow-out
A couple fighting the company that built their home say it’s refusing to hand over documents that would prove their claims they were misrepresented in how much it cost.
But the building firm says the couple have been given all the information requested.
Mark and Suzanne Chamberlain were back in court yesterday to thrash out a request for disclosure they claim LSK Builders Ltd, the company that operates the Nelson franchise of GJ Gardner Homes, is refusing to provide, despite an earlier court order.
The Chamberlains signed a fixedprice contract of $509,000 to build their Nelson home, which included provisional sum allowances of $116,610 for any work that could not be priced by the contractor when entering into the contract.
The Chamberlains say they’re in the dark over why they’ve been hit with large increases in provisional allowances, including almost $13,000 more in council fees and charges, $20,000 more for earthworks, a timber retaining wall, and the construction of a concrete floor.
The home’s timber foundations and sub-flooring were almost $16,000 more than estimated and engineering works were an additional $6000.
The total bill for the design-build home and hillside section now tops $1 million, including the cost of ongoing court action, in its fifth year.
The Chamberlains have paid the full amount on the fixed-price contract but on legal advice withheld a portion of the final bill, which is sitting in their lawyer’s trust account.
LSK lodged legal action against the Chamberlains in 2018, alleging they took possession of the home illegally after they were locked out on the moving-in day — because of the disputed bill — but forced their way in.
They then lodged a counter-claim around alleged faults they’ve estimated will cost close to $166,000 to fix, and issues with the contract.
The substantive matter is yet to be heard.
The Chamberlains allege the contract did not factor in challenges associated with the hillside site and that LSK omitted costs it knew would be required to complete the job to the specifications set out in the contract.
The Chamberlains’ lawyer, Luke Acland, gave the court an example of the lack of supporting information to explain why a quote for concrete work in July 2017 was $20,000 higher the next year.
“The second quote, for less work, was $20,000 more, with no supporting information as to why,” he said.
LSK director Graham Vercoe said under cross-examination the quote was done off the original plan but once the engineering assessment was done the information was handed to the concrete company to re-assess.
He said the concrete firm refused to say why the cost had risen, as it was “commercially sensitive” information.
When pushed, Vercoe said he would provide email correspondence about the quote if it wasn’t already in the bundles of documents provided.
He also said he “understood implicitly” his obligations around discovery, and denied he had resisted providing the evidence sought.
Vercoe said the Chamberlains were given what they had requested specifically, but perhaps not all that was on file.
LSK said experts commissioned to look at the estimates said they were within industry norms.
Mark Chamberlain said they were not given information on geotech issues with the site they learned had caused “issues with their build”, and asked if homes built by LSK nearby
had similar issues that led to delays and higher costs. Vercoe said delays with the property were caused by the couple, by the creation of the plans and by sub-contractors, though LSK had “tried its best to shake the tree”.
LSK also argued the documents were comprehensive but Mark Chamberlain “didn’t have the ability to understand them”.
The school teacher said he had some building industry knowledge, having spent a couple of years with a construction firm. He had now also spent five years reading complex information to understand the matters.
He was also challenged on whether he had sought expert advice on how to properly assess building cost estimates, to support his “serious allegation” they were somehow false.
Chamberlain said he had sought expert help to assess the alleged defects in the house, but essentially he was in court yesterday to request the information they had asked for, but hadn’t received.
Acland said it was important to move the process forward so the substantive claim could be heard.
“We either need the documents or a statement to say they don’t exist.”
LSK said the Chamberlains had not provided sufficient grounds for the provision of the documents because they hadn’t been specific enough about what they wanted.
Judge Kelly Kevin reserved his decision.
The second quote, for less work, was $20,000 more, with no supporting information as to why.
Luke Acland, couple’s lawyer