,

More Uretek problems

The below email from Southern Response about a job on which it engaged Uretek to lift the house is illuminating as to the issues with Uretek.  Names and address removed.

 

Hi  [homeowner]

The drains were affected when Uretek returned to do some extra work that was thought necessary.

When they put their delivery unit into the ground at one point it penetrated the sewer line. When Uretek was injected at this one location it went into the sewer line.

After Uretek did the initial leveling the drains were checked and found to be ok.

After Uretek did the extra work the drains were not checked.

The drains were found to be blocked when the toilet would not flush. This was just prior to the date you were supposed to move back to the house, and was just prior to        and I meeting you on site.

Regards

[Southern Response]

 

/by
,

IPENZ & Discipline of David Harding

David Harding was a member of IPENZ when he was involved in the design and construction of the CTV building in 1986 which collapsed in the earthquake on 22 February 2011.  People lodged complaints with IPENZ about Mr Harding.  Mr Harding resigned from IPENZ on 25 June 2014 before the hearing of the complaints took place on 14 August 2014.  At the IPENZ hearing Mr Harding argued that because he was no longer a member of IPENZ he could not be subject to the disciplinary process.  IPENZ disagreed and continued with the process.  Mr Harding then asked the High Court to judicially review the IPENZ position.  By a judgment 17 September 2014  Harding v IPENZ [2014] NZHC 2251 the High Court (Mander J) dismissed Mr Harding’s application and essentially decided that a member could not avoid discipline for acts done when he/she was a member of IPENZ by resigning before the disciplinary process.

/by
, ,

Court of appeal on automatic reinstatement

In a decision released 10 September 2014 in QBE Insurance (International) Ltd v Wild South Holdings Ltd & anor [2014] NZCA 447  the Court of Appeal disposed of appeals in 3 separate proceedings each of which involved issues over the operation of an “automatic reinstatement” clause.  The Court decided that cover reinstates as soon as an event causing loss happened.  Under the insurance policy either party may by notice cancel reinstatement, but notice must be given prospectively.  The court held that the doctrine of merger did not apply.  The Court said that the application of the deductible clause should await evidence at trial as should whether a building was “destroyed” for the purposes of the Vero Insurance policy

/by
, ,

EQC, its expert Dick Beetham and the “copy and pasted”signature

In a current High Court proceeding the engineering expert engaged by EQC, Dick Beetham from GHD Ltd, produced and enabled the filing in court what he entitled as a “joint report” by the parties’ engineers.  In fact it was not the version of the report agreed to and signed by the homeowner’s engineer.  Instead Mr Beetham had copied/cut the engineer’s signature and applied it to a different document and then enabled the document to be filed in Court representing it to be the agreed “joint report”.  Below is an extract from a Court minute about Mr Beetham’s conduct.  The conduct is currently the subject of complaints to IPENZ and CPENG.

 

[1] A most unsatisfactory thing has occurred on this file. The defendants’ expert, Mr Beetham, has submitted what purports to be a joint report written in conjunction with his colleague Ms Webb and more importantly, the plaintiffs’ expert, Mr McGill. There are two problems with what Mr Beetham has done. First, he has incorporated what appears to be an earlier draft version of material the experts had agreed on, rather than the final actual agreed version. Secondly, he has cut and pasted Mr McGill’s signature electronically to that misconceived report.

/by
, ,

Increased floor levels under Proposed Christchurch District Plan

The Christchurch City Council has increased the required floor  levels from those in the current plan (Variation 48).  Here is a link to a property search function.  Input the address and it will give you information on what is required for the property.  As an example houses in Lower Styx Road, Brooklands that were required to be 11.8m above the datum are now required to be 12.3m above the datum.

/by