Both council staff and a designer should have cross-checked the location of a house built in the wrong place that could see its owner sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars, an expert says.
Deepak Lal is facing a bill of up to $315,000 over the boundary mix-up. Photo: Stephen Forbes
C94 Development is taking legal action against Deepak Lal after his home was built on the boundary of its property in Papakura's Parahau Rd.
Under the resource consent for the site, his house should have been built one metre from the boundary. But the building consent plans from Hamilton company HQ Designs, approved by Auckland Council in September 2019, showed the house right on the boundary.
The company wanted him to move the house or pay $315,000 in damages.
A council spokeswoman confirmed it had been notified of Lal's case and was looking into the matter.
But it was not answering questions about its liability in the case, any errors in the approved plans, or its role in approving the building consent.
University of Auckland School of Architecture senior lecturer Bill McKay said Lal's case highlighted failures by both the designer and the council.
"All professionals have to show a reasonable duty of care and in this case the designer should have known what the resource consent permitted when they submitted the building consent," McKay said.
But council staff should have also picked up the error in the location of Lal's home when it was processing the application, he said.
"That's what any reasonable person would expect. Someone, somewhere should have picked it up."
HQ Designs architectural designer Nitin Kumar's note to the council to cross check the building consent drawings with the original resource consent was not good practice, McKay said.
He should have ensured the plans were correct before filing the application, he said.
Kumar previously admitted the location of the home was wrong, but said the council should have checked it. Kumar has been approached for further comment.
However, McKay said there were other factors which could have played a part in the mix-up.
Council resource consents were handled by planning staff under the Resource Management Act, while building consents were handled by another team in line with the Building Act, he said.
"That's a big problem and they should be more aligned. If you've got two processes happening under the same roof the left hand needs to know what the right hand is doing."
AUT professor of construction management John Tookey said Lal's experience was an unfortunate situation that happened far too often.
John Tookey. Photo: https://www.aut.ac.nz/
But for property owners like Lal, getting compensation was a hard road Tookey said.
"You can argue the toss and try and get your money back, but nobody accepts liability.
"It will take some good legal advice in this instance to sort it out. Property disputes like this are always notoriously difficult."
Lal said he was still hoping to hear from the council over the boundary mix-up.
"I don't have the money to buy the property. My lawyer said they can move the house, but that will cost me $150,000."
No-one is accepting liability, he said, and he just wanted someone to step up and take responsibility for the gaffe.
Local Democracy Reporting is a public interest news service supported by RNZ, the News Publishers' Association and NZ On Air.