Back to page

Legal expenses to fight council overreach

  • extension of give alittle

      21 March 2025

    we have now lodge and application for a determination from MBIE on the issue of a NTF for a change of Use allegation which is denied.

    Your on going support is appreciated and I will keep you informed.

    We have also made a cost claim against WDC for withdrawing the S227 court order application and are awaiting this decision.

    It is possible that we will fall short of required funds and need ongoing support for the determination but you will be informed of any developments.

    Thank you again for your continued support and you have made a difference even if the council has avoided court scrutiny to date.

      0 comments  |  Login to leave a comment

  • STOP PRESS "alternative Pathway"revealed by WDC

      19 February 2025

    Sorry but just when we thought this was over........

    Council promised alternative pathways which we mistakenly thought would mean commonsense and consideration and maybe even consultation with a proper application of the Building Act 2004.

    but no.......

    WDC gave up on getting a lawful inspection because they were afraid of losing (?) (and 'didnt want to waste rate payers money' (not a problem to date) and they had identified "alternative pathways" for Mr Kroupa).

    Their NTF suggests a inspection but there wasnt one. (or at least an lawful one that we know of)

    Instead they have issued a new NTF today! With no inspection and based on a property listing in 2022

    This is now alleging a change of use under s114 and 115.

    They have not applied the Change of Use regulations 2005 properly and previous determinations (such as 2019-005) that support our view that there is no change of use because the sites designation (and previous residential use) SH detached dwelling(s) use is unchanged.

    We may be heading back to MBIE for another determination and appreciate your continued support. It is disappointing that legal action is needed to get any consideration only for that to be nullified when there is litigation risk to council.

    please spread the word to others about this situation.

      0 comments  |  Login to leave a comment

  • SUCCESS!!

      17 February 2025

    Council have withdrawn the application and the court has agreed. We couldnt oppose this so it is something of a 'Claytons' victory?

    On the one hand the threat of a court order has been withdrawn but on the other by doing this council has avoided getting the legal argument settled. Their reasons were "avoidance of cost to ratepayers" and their identification of "other pathways" (yet to be presented to the owner and of which we remain suspicious of. (excuse the cynicism))

    As it is the legal arguments around s222 building act remain up in the air.

    We will keep you updated but it seems that your support has caused council to reconsider their position and for that we sincerely thank you. We are sure that without the support of our lawyer Will Jennings (Amberley) the council would not have taken us seriously and that was only possible as a result of your 'give a little' support.

    This has to be a victory for the little guy!

    Thank you all again and well done!

    Please dont hesitate to contact me if you want more information,

      0 comments  |  Login to leave a comment

  • change of title

      21 January 2025

    I have changed the title of this page to better reflect that this issue is more about council overreach abd exceeding their powers under the Building Act. S222 does give council a power of entry for good reasons but we do not see inspection of a building 20 years old as fitting in to the meaning of inspection in s222. Council treat their power as akin to a search warrant to look for past offences when in fact inspections are limited by the meaning of inspect in s222.

    https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0072/latest/DLM307867.html

      0 comments  |  Login to leave a comment

  • update to legal challenge to court order application.

      14 January 2025

    at the time of generating this page we were expecting an immediate court hearing. We have now been given a hearing date of the 25 February 2025 at Greymouth District Court, Due to unavailability of lawyer we have had to engage different legal counsel but the delay in hearing date has allowed this to happen. We have also reviewed the goal to reflect that the legal costs will only be sought for this challenge to the court order to inspect.

    There is a fundamental principle at stake here as to what power a council has to inspect buildings on a property. Council consider their power to be unfettered and unlimited.

    We do not believe that the wording in the building act supports this but as the matter is rarely challenged (and owner naively often agree to inspection without clarification). Council have assumed wide ranging powers that they actually do not have and more importantly the building act did not envision.

    The council need to be protected as much from themselves as at present they assume that because they have this power they are bound to exercise it (and do). We agree they have an important role in identifying dangerous and insanitary buildings (in the interests of public safety) and to monitor building work being undertaken but not to existing buildings where work has ceased.

    Please continue to support this appeal and spread the word as the overriding principles are in the public interest to uphold to stop bureaucratic interference in home owners private affairs.

      0 comments  |  Login to leave a comment