MBIE took levels on the floors of newly built house slabs around New Zealand. The largest height difference was 22mm, the smallest 11mm. The average was 16mm in height.
MBIE then ‘set’ the magical figure at 50mm. Over 3 times greater than the average of 16mm.
Thousands of homes and properties have sunk throughout Christchurch. Any settlement in flood-plains, and even outside of flood-plains can be critical. Each site needed a site specific accurate determination of land settlement.
EQC used LiDAR with accuracy around +/-250mm (500mm variation) to determine settlement down to 100mm in height.
Getting a more accurate answer from less accurate data. That is Data manipulation.
The thousands of properties that have sunk, and that are more vulnerable to flooding, now have lost no market value. Apparently.
EQC is about to issue their ‘formula’ for ILV (Increased Liquefaction Vulnerability).
No doubt it will be more data manipulation.
Arbitrary thresholds are just that: arbitrary. What is not arbitrary is land and building settlement. In many cases, it can be determined quite accurately.
Many of the IFV (Increased Flooding Vulnerability) settlements are pure fiction. They are not based on actuality.
Conveniently for EQC, the only way for the home-owner to challange it is to spend thousands on experts, when EQC had the liberty of using manipulated and erroneous data (LiDAR) that was clearly not fit for purpose, but a cheap method to avoid proper assessment. The cost prohibits most if not all home-owners to challenge EQC.
EQC also told the High Court that the LiDAR was “all that was presently available.” This was incorrect, and misleading to the High Court. LiDAR was NOT all that was presently available. Christchurch has been well surveyed over the years by Surveyors, Council’s and others, with much of this information available.
The ‘400 Engineers’ who EQC used to assess the land damage. Were they Engineers? What were their qualifications? Did the High Court know that these ‘Engineers’ may not have been the ‘engineers’ they were thinking they were. That they may have had absolutely no Engineering qualification, but, were, for the day, called ‘Engineers’.
It seems that the Declaratory Judgment was based on incorrect information supplied to the High Court.
Unfortunately, no-one is listening.
The EQC isnurance cover that was sold, seems to be more like a sieve, than an umbrella.