20.06.2023 Views

Selwyn_Times: June 21, 2023

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>Selwyn</strong> <strong>Times</strong> Wednesday <strong>June</strong> <strong>21</strong> <strong>2023</strong><br />

4<br />

NEWS<br />

Latest Canterbury news at starnews.co.nz<br />

Dodgy builder may have left mark<br />

• By Jeremy Wilkinson<br />

A BUILDER who swapped out<br />

consented roofing material for a<br />

Chinese product to save money<br />

was caught out when the paint<br />

began to deteriorate several<br />

years later.<br />

It is unclear how many homes<br />

may have been built in <strong>Selwyn</strong><br />

with the unconsented product.<br />

But evidence submitted to the<br />

Building Practitioners Board<br />

suggests it could be up to 60.<br />

The board found<br />

Christchurch-based builder<br />

Scott Lilly guilty of negligence<br />

and fined him $3000 after a<br />

complaint was made by the<br />

district council.<br />

The recently released decision<br />

said Lilly substituted consented<br />

roofing material on a new<br />

house he was building with<br />

the product he imported from<br />

China, which was left over after<br />

building a shed on another<br />

property.<br />

There was no evidence the<br />

Chinese product met New Zealand’s<br />

building code standards.<br />

The district council issued<br />

a code of compliance for the<br />

house without knowing the<br />

MetalCraft product had been<br />

substituted with material from<br />

the Zibo Wangshun Building<br />

Materials Company. The house<br />

was then sold. The purchaser<br />

SOURCE: The Zibo Wangshun Building Materials Company was founded in China in 2006.<br />

PHOTO: ZBWANGSHUN.EN<br />

noticed deterioration in the roof<br />

paint and made a complaint<br />

about it, which led to a closer inspection<br />

by the district council<br />

into the actual roofing product<br />

that was used.<br />

Lilly didn’t respond to<br />

requests for comment. But when<br />

the district council initially<br />

confronted him about the<br />

issue, he claimed a roofer had<br />

both supplied and installed the<br />

product and all the roof needed<br />

was a repaint.<br />

He later admitted his<br />

company had supplied the<br />

product but claimed it met the<br />

New Zealand’s building code<br />

requirements. He provided<br />

correspondence which<br />

he claimed supported the<br />

Waimakariri District Council<br />

had assessed the product and<br />

said it was up to scratch. He also<br />

builds houses in that district.<br />

However, the board said the<br />

evidence Lilly supplied didn’t<br />

support his claim and it appeared<br />

the roofing iron’s thickness<br />

hadn’t been tested – meaning<br />

it didn’t meet the code.<br />

“Looking at the Zibo<br />

Wangshun product, it is not<br />

CodeMarked and there was no<br />

evidence that an appraisal had<br />

been carried out and<br />

accepted by the Building<br />

Consent Agency at the time it<br />

was used,” the board said in its<br />

decision.<br />

“It should also be noted that<br />

the burden of proving that a<br />

product meets building code<br />

requirements sits with the person<br />

who seeks to use it. As such,<br />

there was no basis on which the<br />

Zibo Wangshun product could<br />

be considered a comparable<br />

product.”<br />

The board said the<br />

correspondence Lilly provided<br />

was “at best an overstatement”<br />

and he appeared to have<br />

deliberately circumvented the<br />

building consent process.<br />

“The decision to substitute the<br />

roofing product was calculated<br />

and, on the face of it, appears to<br />

have been done to save money,”<br />

the board said.<br />

“The respondent’s failure was<br />

not inadvertence or carelessness.<br />

The conduct was deliberate, and<br />

it reached the threshold for the<br />

board to impose a disciplinary<br />

sanction.”<br />

The board went on to say<br />

Lilly’s attitude towards the<br />

consenting process was “reckless<br />

and dangerous” and went<br />

beyond negligence, putting the<br />

purpose of the Building Act at<br />

risk.<br />

“The respondent initially<br />

denied that he had supplied the<br />

roofing product. His approach<br />

to the matter was to deal with<br />

it as a commercial dispute,” the<br />

board said.<br />

“He focused on Consumer<br />

Guarantees Act rights and<br />

remedies and submitted that a<br />

repaint would suffice.<br />

“The respondent does not<br />

appear to have appreciated the<br />

impact of his conduct on those<br />

that have purchased the homes.”<br />

It was the second time Lilly<br />

has been before the board.<br />

He was found guilty in 2015<br />

of similarly violating the<br />

consenting process and fined<br />

$2000.<br />

Over 10 Years in <strong>Selwyn</strong><br />

Ruby Jones<br />

Kieran Heenan<br />

Anita Molloy-Roberts<br />

W: www.meareswilliams.co.nz<br />

T: (03) 374 2547<br />

E: rec@meareswilliams.co.nz<br />

PROSTATE CANCER<br />

SUPPORT GROUP<br />

A support group is operating in <strong>Selwyn</strong> for<br />

men and their families who are living with a<br />

diagnosis and treatment for Prostate Cancer.<br />

Coordinators Chris & dianne Ward<br />

Phone: 027 437 1254<br />

email: selwyn@prostate.org.nz<br />

Meeting<br />

WedneSdAy<br />

28 JUne<br />

7.30PM<br />

Lincoln event Centre,<br />

Meijer drive, Lincoln<br />

“diet and nutrition”<br />

- All welcome<br />

LINCOLN OFFICE<br />

43 Gerald Street, Lincoln<br />

Offices also located at:<br />

80A Rolleston Drive, Rolleston<br />

225 Papanui Road, Christchurch<br />

For more information call 0800 477 678<br />

Organised by the Prostate Cancer Foundation of New Zealand<br />

www.prostate.org.nz

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!