Wilna and Paul White: leaky home victims to survivors

In an exclusive interview with North Shore Community Radio, leaky home owner Wilma White explained the battle over their Whangaparaoa home that nearly ruined them and what others might learn from the debacle.

“It seems so very wrong that a High Court appeal is the only recourse available. Any family that has been through a leaky home saga has been through more stress and horror than a family deserves to go through. And then to have to find further finance to go through to an appeal – which is not a fast process - is a lot to ask,” she said.

“Government can’t keep passing the buck”

She strongly suggests that home owners who are suffering must stand their ground.

She also suggests the Government could act with a general pool of money to get the problem fixed for thousands of others, which could speed up the process enormously and save thousands in associated costs.

On 25 Jan 2002 Wilma White and her husband Paul moved into their new home in New Zealand, having just arrived from England to settle in New Zealand.

Within a month their dream became a nightmare - water was pouring down the walls inside – with Mrs White’s elderly mother staying at the time.

Eight long years later following mediation, attempts to settle with the previous owners, several attempts to settle with Rodney District Council (which were ignored) and an unsatisfactory Weathertight Homes Tribunal hearing – finally in November – a decision was made by Justice Peter Woodhouse in the Auckland High Court in their favour.

The High Court was critical of conclusions by tribunal adjudicator Kevin Kilgour, saying he “reached conclusions of fact which were not reasonably open to him” with regard to the Whites’ responsibility to mitigate the damage caused to their home in their eight-year fight to get compensation.

Justice Woodhouse doubled the $173,801 awarded to the Whites by the Watertight Homes Tribunal to $346,002.68.

Represented from 2007 by lawyers Grimshaw and Co, the Whites were able to appeal the decision by the Tribunal.

“The decision by the Tribunal adjudicator was totally unsatisfactory. There were a huge number of errors made by the adjudicator and although he said that our case was strong and we were entitled to compensation, he slashed the compensation in half because we hadn’t actually done any work on the house to remedy the errors earlier,” she said.

“That seemed so wrong in law to us that we decided to go ahead and appeal. In the end the judgment that came down from Judge Woodhouse has proved that we were right in law.”

Mrs White also points out the difficulty with the price of fixing homes while litigation continues. To bring homes up to standard now, requires much more stringent building standards than under previous regimes.

She said that after all this – there may still well be a ‘black hole’ of looming costs behind the walls when final remedial work is begun on their home.

For home owners facing the prospect of adjudication or trial - Mrs White suggests attempting mediation, but if that fails, to go ahead to adjudication with the Tribunal. If that is unsatisfactory go ahead with an appeal. The groundwork for the case would have been completed so the process forward from that point is much clearer.

Mistakes in law can only be corrected by the appeal court and it really is your only recourse at present, she said.

Mrs White believes younger first home buyers or pensioners are left with a very difficult situation in order to finance further building or litigation.

Without a costly report on required remedial work, home owners will be uncertain what repair costs are required. They will go to mediation ‘blind’ - not really knowing whether a payout will cover repair costs and there is no recourse for that either, she said.

“If you suspect you have a leaky home the clock is ticking already. Get your case into Weathertightness immediately because of the ten year limitation period. If you have the funds to repair the house, keep a careful bill of costs. Then prepare for mediation and possibly adjudication. In our case we would not have got anywhere without the help of our lawyers.”

In addition Mrs White pointed out the huge health costs to families. Depression or asthma and indeterminate health costs to New Zealand in the future.