No announcement yet.

Public pays for court clash over flats


  • Public pays for court clash over flats

    Two public organisations are using public money to sue each other in a case which could cost taxpayers and ratepayers millions of dollars. The case has been described as "destroying the savings and affecting the mental health" of a group of people whose retirement plans have been ruined.
    They have been caught between Housing NZ and Auckland Council after the failure of the $8 million Pepperwood Mews apartment complex they funded. The scheme was an early public-private partnership using private money to underwrite a public project.

    Those investors are suing Housing NZ, which helped plan, build and later manage the complex. They are also suing the council because building consents were approved by building inspectors. The development was declared structurally unsound five years after it was built. Housing NZ immediately moved its tenants, leaving the owners with a ruined building, a big rates bill and no rental income. It has since spent $290,000 of public money on lawyers and experts defending itself.Statements of claim filed with the High Court at Auckland show the council has filed a counter-claim against Housing NZ.

    The council claimed Housing NZ "breached its duty of care" to 31 investors who funded the project. The council is also suing the original builders, plasterers and project manager.Housing NZ, which has denied the claims against it, would not be drawn on the case, which is likely to be heard next year.

    A spokesman said: "Housing NZ is confident of defeating the plaintiffs' claim and expects to recover a substantial portion of its external costs from them in due course."The spokesman added it was up to property owners to do their own checks before buying. "While we sympathise with the owners and their plight, it's unreasonable to suggest that Housing NZ is liable for the quality of a complex we didn't build and don't own, and never have."

    Documents filed at the court claim Housing NZ knew of the building's poor quality before it was finished.
    Lawyers for the owners quoted Housing NZ documents which said: "Corporation staff felt that construction ... was undertaken at below best practice and the corporation considered not accepting the units ..."
    The Housing NZ document went on to say the units were accepted because the council had issued a Code of Compliance and it was under pressure to provide more state accommodation in the area.

    "Problems became apparent during the construction phase and subsequent reports confirm the construction quality was very poor," the document said.The owners' lawyers have told the court Housing NZ has not produced all the documents.
    Lawyers David Bigio and Paul O'Neil told the court Housing NZ had blamed "IT failures" for losing important paperwork, including board minutes.

    They quoted an affidavit from Housing NZ's lawyer Christopher Guy saying he had found fewer emails in the archives than expected. Mr Guy said an upgrade to Housing NZ's email archive in 2010 had caused errors in the database.
    Auckland Council has not revealed its legal bills, which are paid under an outsourced agreement with an external insurance company.

    Investors seeking relief from rates burden
    Judy Anderson feels let down. The 62-year-old is one of 31 owners of Pepperwood Mews units. She has been agitating on behalf of small investors in a Housing NZ scheme gone wrong.Mrs Anderson was raised in a state house, worked from age 15 and "worked like a dog" to buy her first home in her 20s.Later in life, living in Auckland's eastern suburbs, Mrs Anderson and her husband of 20 years found themselves mortgage-free and contemplating retirement.
    "I rang Housing New Zealand to ask if it had any lease properties," she said.

    She was passed to NZ Invest Property Holdings, the company hired to market the Pepperwood Mews.
    But a few years later, in 2009, Housing NZ moved its tenants out of the complex it had helped design, and the Auckland Council, successor to the local body which had approved the building, declared it unsafe.
    The building is now derelict. Thieves have stolen the carpets, wiring, ranchsliders, balcony safety railings and the 32 kitchen sinks.

    The owners' faith in the institutions they previously trusted is gone.Mrs Anderson went to an Auckland Council committee on Thursday to ask for rates relief.The owners spent $300,000 before he legal case started. Although they now have litigation funding, the cost is crippling. Some have sold their houses, others have had to return to work.
    "It is now a concrete bunker of a building," she told councillors. "It is a travesty of a building."

    Mrs Anderson said the owners were billed about $40,000 a year in rates yet received no services.
    There is no one to use the water or collect rubbish."This small section of land delivers to the council a disproportionately large amount of cash."Please review our rates, she asked. The lawsuit will not be heard until next year.
    "We thought this would be over two years ago."
      Posting comments is disabled.

    Latest Articles


      by admin

      In a land where victims with legal claims must pay the defendants' anticipated legal costs into court before a judge will allow their claim to be heard, it makes sense such victims not be allowed to congregate, discover they have similar experiences at the hands of the powerful partisans of the Crown and - God forbid - find a lawyer who will screw them out of their well earned poverty.

      This story begins with the life nurturing bankers and the threat to New Zealand's rule...
      09-07-2013, 11:44 AM
    • Pensioner evicted over rates protest
      by admin
      A Levin pensioner who has been staging a one-man rent revolt has been evicted from his flat by police. Sam Probert had been barricading himself inside his flat for the past month to protest a $15 rent increase on his council-owned pensioner flat, which he has refused to pay since last September. It took four police officers to carry him from his flat, although he had planned a more dramatic exit. "I thought I did but I had no kick and scream left in me. I'm worn out, but that's what this co...
      28-06-2013, 10:04 PM
    • Claim on deposit shocks couple
      by admin
      A Wellington couple are infuriated and shocked the second receiver of the failed kitchen supplier Kitchen House is looking to claim customer deposits worth $177,876 for the former owners of the firm. Andy Morse and partner Rowan White paid a 20 per cent deposit on a $13,000 kitchen in October 2011 to the Kitchen House as part of renovation project on their Brooklyn home. However, the six-store chain, run by CGKH Ltd, collapsed not long after and was placed in receivership. The s...
      05-02-2013, 06:53 AM
    • Relieved Blue Chip investors 'don't trust anyone'
      by admin
      "We don't trust anyone any more". As they toasted each other at avoiding bankruptcy after a landmark Supreme Court decision, elderly victims of the failed Blue Chip property scheme last night agreed they had learned the harshest lesson of their lives. For others the advice - and the court ruling in their favour - has come too late: they have lost their homes, their health and, in some cases, their marriages. More than a dozen Waikato Blue Chip investors are thought to be in...
      10-08-2012, 12:41 PM
    • Forum on insurance for the elderly
      by admin
      Hundreds of elderly Christchurch residents have vented their anger at major insurance companies , saying they were too old to keep "boxing with shadows". The 300-strong crowd at the eastern suburbs older generation's forum last Frdiay went head to head with senior managers from IAG, Lumley, AA Insurance, Vero and Southern Response and the chief executive of the Insurance Council. The elderly spoke of their frustrations with insurance companies, including listening to "daft music" while o...
      07-08-2012, 06:29 PM
    • Crown lawyers rack up 4000 hours on Dotcom case
      by admin
      New Zealand taxpayers have paid the equivalent of two lawyers' full-time salaries for work on America's bid to extradite Kim Dotcom, according to official figures. The Crown Law Office has now spent 12 months working on the case since the United States first asked for assistance in July last year. In that time, according to figures released under the Official Information Act, its lawyers have spent 4041 hours - 101 weeks - working on the case. Dotcom...
      03-08-2012, 10:47 AM