A house relocated from Auckland to Bay of Plenty intended as a Katikati family’s dream home was in the end written off and demolished with the High Court ordering repayment of $94,900 relocation costs.
Gavin Stott and Megan Savageau were living in a garage and sleepout on their rural Katikati property when in 2019 they signed up to buy a one hundred year old Auckland bungalow for relocation from Remuera in Auckland. At a price of $158,000, Hamilton-based Uplifting Homes Ltd agreed to truck the building south and establish it on permanent piles complying with local council building requirements.
There were complications. The bungalow as sold was in fact a second storey structure on top of a first floor masonry building. When severed, the ‘floor’ of the bungalow amounted to the ceiling of the original first floor. The building was cut in two for transportation. At Katikati, local council required extra strengthening to comply with the high-wind zone requirements for local builds.
The High Court was told the house sat on temporary piles for nearly nine months before located on to new foundations. The house suffered water damage. Delays were caused in part by covid-19 pandemic lockdowns. The Stott family expressed concerns about quality of workmanship by Uplifting’s contractors reinstating the building on its new piles. Negotiations hardened. The Stotts refused to pay the balance of the contract price.
Eventually, Mr Stott and Ms Savageau decided to leave Katikati, shifting to Nelson. Their Katikati property sold for $1.25 million with the relocated house demolished as a condition of the sale. They cancelled their contract with Uplifting Homes, suing for $800,000 claimed as ‘wasted expenditure.’ Justice Jagose said some of this claim was unrealistic; claiming for costs of a finished fitout which were not part of the relocation contract. But Uplifiting Homes was liable for breaches of both the Building Act and the Consumer Guarantees Act, he ruled. The relocation and reinstatement was not carried out in a competent manner, in compliance with the building consent or within a reasonable time. Damages of $94,900 were assessed as fifty per cent of the contract price plus costs of preparing the Katikati site for connection of services. A claim for costs of demolition was dismissed.
Stott v. Uplifting Homes Ltd – High Court (19.06.23)
23.094