"Highlighting the inadequacies of the way in which the earthquakes of 2010-2012 were handled by the insurance industry! "

They can’t say they weren’t warned….


On the 21 June 2013 six concerned residents (all of whom you will be familiar with) and myself went to a meeting with a number of government agencies (MBIE, CERA and the Christchurch City Council). We asked for response to some 33 questions to which we received a typically bureaucratic response.

Why were we there? We were concerned! We were concerned that the majority of homes with under-cap repairs were not being assessed by professionals – not by geotechnical engineers, structural engineers, nor surveyors. The implications of this fact was obvious to us all. We were concerned that the only kind of damage being considered was visible damage. We were concerned that there was little in the way of assessment of land settlement being done, little in the way of structural assessment and even less in the way of land or ground damage assessment. Nor was there any consideration being given to the increased flood-risk in large parts of the City. We were concerned that the true extent of the damage was not being fairly considered. It was a tense exchange.

We expressed these anxieties at that meeting about the level of consumer protection for homeowners affected by shoddy earthquake repairs. In fact, that was our main focus. We discussed the EQC/Fletcher EQR ‘home repair programme’ at that time. It needs to be remembered that this was two years ago. It was obvious to us then, that there were going to be major problems.  In the end, I decided to personally withdraw from these encounters as it was clear to me that no matter what evidence was provided there was not going to be a shift in position by the bureaucracy which was supposed to be looking after the well-being of the citizens of Christchurch. They would probably do it all again. At that meeting we talked about the accountability of the Project Management Offices and their contractors undertaking the repair work along with the local and central government agencies responsible for administering legislation or working with the building and construction or insurance sectors during the rebuild.  We also raised our concerns about the consumer protections which we saw being downplayed at that time, with particular emphasis on building consenting requirements. We specifically expressed our concerns that the exempting work from the Building Act’s building consenting requirements lowers the standards set out in the Building Act. We were told during the meeting that while such legislative reforms (and process documents) do seek to streamline regulatory processes and reduce the compliance burden for some lower-risk building work, they are not about cutting corners, avoiding liability, or eroding consumer protection”. They affirmed that these changes were merely a pragmatic way of exempting low-risk building work.

Common examples cited were:

  • The installation of thermal insulation in external wall framing cavities(with some limitations)
  • Repair and replacement of a number of timber foundation piles
  • Re-levelling ‘jacking and packing’ of part of a house’s foundation
  • Replacing a section of damaged ring foundation
  • Repairing minor cracks in concrete foundations
  • Demolishing a damaged building (with some limitations)

We were told that MBIE was conscious of working with the PMOs (including Fletcher EQR) to train their project managers, engineers and builders in the application of their technical guidance for earthquake repairs, exempting building work and other Building Act and Building Code requirements. At this meeting MBIE confirmed that these proposals did not seek to erode any existing consumer protection and that existing implied warranties for contracts for building work on residential units remained.

On the 13 August 2013 after the meeting and in response to our letter to MBIE, we received a response from Malcolm McMillan (Earthquake Recovery Operations Manager) in which he stated clearly that the Ministry did not feel that there was anything in the MBIE Guidelines that breached the Fair Trading Act or the Consumer Guarantees Act because the Ministry’s guidance information is not mandatory and cannot override the law. If the Ministry’s guidance contains recommended technical building solutions (eg. The types of foundations that should be used in certain situations) then any such design solutions have been designed and reviewed by technical experts according to the current state of knowledge and building science. In many cases, they will have also received international peer review. This however does not make such guidance compulsory to use.

They forgot to mention though, the law of contract and what about the tort of negligence?

We were told that the technical guidance was developed to speed up design work and provide consenting authorities (and homeowners) with greater surety that the design solutions are based on best practise knowledge available at the time. In short, it can help avoid having to reinvent the same design solutions over and over. In saying this such solutions are not a universal solution in every case. The unique circumstances of each building project and other factors need to be considered.”

i.e. a smorgasbord of solutions. It was clear we were in for major problems!

Given that the MBIE Guidelines were used almost exclusively by Fletcher and others to ‘effect’ repairs (although they were not mandatory to use them) and now that we have wholesale failure of these repairs around the City it would appear that the luminaries in Government and MBIE got it mightily wrong!  They couldn’t have really gone to all that trouble just to save the Government some money, could they? It smacks of political interference and cost saving.

Now that Earthquake Minister Gerry Brownlee has decreed what the ‘truth’ shall be, we can be certain that it is all the fault of the builders involved. Of course it was not just Fletcher – the private sector insurers’ Preferred Contractors (Hawkins, Arrow, Maxim, Mainzeal etc.) also used the Guidelines extensively and you are wondering why there is a rush to cash settle everybody now? Quick, sign this full and final settlement, we have a private jet to catch.

The consumer protection warranties in section 379 of the Building Act 2004 apply to all residential building work, regardless of whether it requires a building consent or not. At the meeting we were told that the type of building work that had been exempted should be lower-risk and any geotechnical investigation to assess the state of the land upon which someone is proposing to build was a separate issue. If however, the repair is lower-risk, and has an appropriate degree of oversight and management, and meets an exemption requirement then it may not need a building consent, as is the case with much of Fletcher’s EQR’s house repairs.”

So the problem is clearly one of oversight and management and in fact the actual choice of the method used to ‘effect’ repairs. It’s not really hard to see where the liability lies, is it? There is no way that EQC and the insurers’ Preferred Contractors and the insurers themselves can escape full liability for the travesty which is occurring in the City. No one said they had to use this stuff.

Building Act Amendment 2013 (No 4) provides consumer protection provisions that make it clear that the main contractor is liable to the homeowner for any defective building work (including any work done by a subcontractor).

The MBIE report on page 14 states that 3 of the 101 properties surveyed (that’s 3%) had structural repairs that have been documented by the PMO but that the work had not been carried out. Extrapolate that over thousands of repairs – it equates to a significant number.

This is absolutely not a time to cash settle!

Of course we are going to find out more about all these issues including ‘who did what’ and ‘who is going to be accountable’ and ‘what is the remedy’. As this torrid story unravels, perhaps unsurprisingly, information will come to light to show that the guilty parties are not from  abroad or from the  Emerald Isle but most likely ‘honest’ citizens of Godszone.

Anyone for a representative (class) action? More about that next time.

~Future Proofing for a sustainable, participatory, democratic society.

Author: Sarah-Alice Miles

Love to write, create and watch the clouds move across the sky - these days in the Netherlands. 'Art allows us to find ourselves and lose ourselves at the same time'.

11 thoughts on “They can’t say they weren’t warned….

  1. Hi Sarah,

    I stumbled across this article in the Press today, as I frequently like to check on developments post earthquake Christchurch, since both my son and I lost our home at 523 New Brighton Rd, New Brighton, having been red -zoned victims. My story is somewhat different to your account of the treatment unjustly and criminally handed out to yourself and hundreds of other Christchurch earthquake victims, for we accepted the Govt and Insurance offers ( Tower Ins.) to buy us out, which we were happy enough to agree to and accept after all the stress and uncertainty prevailing at the time – we accepted the offers in May 2012, left the city for the North Island and now reside in Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt.

    It was interesting and encouraging to encounter someone describing her battle with big govt and bureaucracy at its worst had established her own blog site for that express purpose, and was prepared to raise her head up amidst the deafening silence to challenge and lend voice against all the corruption being inflicted on so many. As St. Catherine of Sienna said: “We’ve had enough of exhortations to be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten because of silence.”

    You have truly had the wisdom and courage to do just that.

    Last year, as we marked the 4th Anniversary of the Sept 4, 2010, 7.1 Mag Earthquake which started and marked the whole Christchurch disaster off, having been in Stokes Valley a little over 2 years, and having had time to do some research, I decided, somewhat reluctantly at first, to do a special blog to mark the event, as I felt the information I had uncovered needed to be discussed and not simply swept under the rug and ignored.

    My story tells it from a slightly different angle and also from one who was there for the many thousands of aftershocks, or perhaps it wouldn’t be inaccurate to simply call many what they really were – ‘earthquakes. It is in part a pictorial portrayal of both the 4th September 2010 and the 22 February 2011 from one man’s perspective,

    I am a sort of ‘one-man’ operation and spread my blog on a one-to-one basis, that is, whenever I meet people in for example the Supermarket (Lower Hutt) or a passer-byer I happen to greet, and I will inevitably raise the subject of the Christchurch earthquakes, and people in Wellington are generally interested in meeting someone from that region who has had first hand experience – it is a chance to inform, educate and open up a few eyes as to what is going on in the world around us. Since I now live in a region which fluoridates its citizens drinking water, I take the opportunity to educate them on that subject as well…. the education process never stops, it seems!

    My blog on the 4th Anniversary of the 4th September, 2010…can be found at …;postID=5267695149201341241;onPublishedMenu=posts;onClosedMenu=posts;postNum=19;src=postname

    I am more than happy to post a blog account of your battle on behalf of the embattled and defiant Christchurch earthquake defrauded victims if you so wish.



  2. WECAN also sent these concerns in individual itemised format to the council last year (2014) as ‘formal notifications’. The Council, and Government Authorities certainly cannot deny knowing of these deficits in their policies and proceedures. It has also been pointed out to them that such inadequecies have resulted in victims exaserbated suffering, and abuse of our human rights.


    • Hello Sarah,my name Jo and I’ve been trying to sort out my mother’s major proplem’s with IAG, Golden Homes,and the council.I have a very corrupt story to tell on all three party’s and I’m thinking the Midia need’s to no what has been done to my mother who was in a very serious car accident and now suffers from memory lost and has totally been taken advantage of.I have seen three lawyers and it’s going to cost us to much money to fight though the court’s.Im needing some advise I’m totally overwelmed and in the mean time my mother’s house is being built with a HAZARD on her lim because IAG and Golden Homes tricked my mother into signing something she had no understanding about.Are there any Lawyers out there that will help fight for these poor people that are being abused by these company’s that would consider doing it on a pro Bono?.We are thinking about taking this to 7 Sharp.Could you give me some advise it would be so appreciated.Jo


  3. Hi Sarah When I follow your “Read More” links in your emails, this is what I get:

    Cheers JT

    Sent from my iPhone



  4. The evidence is well and truly out there. Adrian gave a presentation to the powers that be well over a year ago and it’s all documented. They can’t say they didn’t know. so many different people at different times have informed them of their failure to meet their obligations!! That’s why a Royal Commission of Inquiry needs to happen!!!! They chose to ignore it and that is negligent and criminal on my opinion!!!!


Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s