Neighbor's building infringement and Council negligence changed our family life.

$205 of $150,000 goal

Given by 7 generous donors in 3 years

Council forced us to take all the consequence of Council's neglect and neighbor's deceit. For all victims in nz, please help us & you!!!

Auckland

1. Neighbor provided erroneous information in his building consent application regarding the distance (between the existing building and the actual boundary) and heights of the existing building which the new extension is attached to. He got quote of topological survey but did not take survey instead he instructed the designer use my fence as the side boundary.

2. The Senior Planner in Council found the building infringement of height to boundary and requested resource consent on this extension building but this request of resource consent has been dismissed without any request for topographical survey on height and distance even under our request and warning.

3. Then building consent was granted by Council without getting the resource consent and survey on that height after we declined the consent from our neighbor. Because the plan makes our property lose the privacy and value.

4. We as the affected neighbors went to Council and emailed to Council several times requesting that Council checked the distance and height but our requests were neglected.

5. We handed over our written complaint of erroneous distance and height to the building compliance team of Auckland Council on 17/10/2014 when building work started. On the same day, pegs were set up and showed that the side boundary was not my fence.

6. The foundation was built at least 0.42M closer to our boundary which also contributes to height-to-boundary infringement. But the foundation inspector did not mention that the extension building was built 0.42M closer to our boundary than planned in building consent. The frame inspector did not identify that the height of the frame is over height limit. It is very simple hand measuring to find out that the landowner did not build as planned in building consent.

7. A registered surveyor hired by our neighbor gave Auckland Council a building certificate stating " new roof framing of the extension does not exceed the height in relation to boundary as per the approved construction drawings" but this is not true. This surveyor stated later that it was 22 cm over height to boundary limit plus 1.9M wide after Auckland Council confirmed the height to boundary infringement by hand measuring in Jan 2015.

8. On 16 Dec 2014, a Council staff member from the compliance team did not do hand measuring to confirm the infringement. But he told us that the distances are one meter longer than the planned figures. This is wrong. We requested his team leader to do hand measuring.

9. On 07 Jan 2015, the temporary team leader came on site and did hand measuring and immediately found the infringement of height to boundary but he did not stop their building work for Council's review and solution.

10. Council confirmed that the building infringement is 22cm over height limit plus 1.94 m width provided by that lying surveyor. But even under our written request, council would not stop their building work.

11. On 19/01/2015, even the landowner said that they have not had final building inspection in his email. The whole project was going on until at least April.

12. But Council staff did not enforce the neighbor to rectify the building infringement, instead they just asked the landowner to reapply for retrospective resource consent. We made complaints to General Manager, Councillors and COO of Auckland council but they said that the infringement is minor but they did not have any documents and criteria for their staff to assess which building infringement is minor or major. Auckland council also did not give me full information about this infringement when we meet Council's staff.

13. On 29 March 2015, our neighbor did another survey on this building infringement and the result is 0.43 M over limit plus 4M wide by another registered surveying company. But our neighbor was dishonest and use the previous wrong infringement size(22CM plus 1.9M) when he applied for the retrospective resource consent application on 22/09/2015.(Two registered surveying companies confirmed that the building infringement is 0.43M over height limit plus almost 4M width.)

14. Then without visiting our dining room and swimming pool, council granted the retrospective resource consent to 22cm Height to boundary infringement plus 1.9M without our consent as the affected neighbors. Also the Council did not have any document in terms of how to assess the building infringement as minor or major. Auckland Council did not carry out its legal obligation to make the building compliant, even when building work was still ongoing, prior to the final building inspection. When Council had the options to rectify the building infringement, Council chose to grant the retrospective resource consent by defining it as a minor infringement(Council did not have any criteria or documents for staff to assess building infringement as minor or major).

15. So we as the victims lose the day light and blue sky in our dining room and lose all privacy in swimming pool and garden. We have not been swimming in our pool for more than 3 years since they built their new building extension. The landowner can see my another side neighbor bedroom window through my garden. Kids have to turn on the lights to study on the dining table after school.

16. The registered property valuer confirmed that we lost certain amount of property value because of this building infringement.

Sometimes Council would not tell you the infringement of building. Even after you help Council confirm the infringement, Council covers the infringement by granting the retrospective resource consent in my case.

Use of funds

Funds will be used for legal action in high court. Because Council neglected my request of stopping building work and independent investigation. Because neighbor's dishonest and hide the actual size of building infringement. Only high court can remove Council's consent.

Latest update

Auckland Council and its lawyers denied owning the duty of care on the victims of the over height limit infringement 29 July 2021

Auckland Council and its lawyers denied that Council owns the duty of care on the victims of the over height limit building infringement. So Council covered the building infringement by granting the retrospective resource consent on the small size of the infringement which revictimized the victims of the building infringement. Council did not revoke the resource consent on the building infringement after they knew that they granted the resource consent on the wrong size of the infringement.

Dr Royden Somerville QC inspected the evidences and brought these matters onto high court for the hearing on 7th Nov 2021. But Council refused to mediate with us. We had the professional assessment and report from the third party to confirm that the size of the building infringement is more than 12meters width and about 3 meters over the height limit under Resource Management Act section 10(1). The professional assessment confirms “When viewed in its entirety, it is my opinion that the increase in non-compliance causes loss of daylight and building dominance on the Li property to an extent that is more than minor.” The professional valuation report confirms that we lost 160,000.00 dollars due to the infringement. And the infringement will cost us 80000 dollars to redevelop our land. We already spent 250000 dollars on this investigation. At the moment, Council granted the retrospective resource consent on the wrong size of the building infringement(2m width and 0.22m over height limit). So the resource consent did not cover all of the building infringement. The above all are not discretionary. We request Auckland Council as local authority to revoke the building consent and the resource consent and we request Auckland Council to pay the full cost of our investigation and the legal fee back to us.

1. The duty of care: We are ratepayers and we are the victims of the building infringement made by Auckland Council and neighbors. Our property is legally granted there. So Auckland Council owns the duty of care on us when we become the victims of this over height limit infringement. Height to Boundary limit is the primary regulation which takes care of the neighbors and environment. Once we go through High Court, our case can become the new case law no matter whether the High Court agrees or denies that Auckland Council owns the duty of care on the victims of the building infringement. This judgement from the High Court could lead Council behavior to either cover the infringement badly or administrate the plan, building consent and resource consent within law.

2. The over height limit infringement and the adverse effect are not discretionary (as the above explained).Due to Council’s failures and refusals, Council assessed and granted the resource consent on the wrong size of the building infringement(2 m width and 0.22 m over height limit). But the actual size of the building infringement is more than 12m width and about 3m over height limit. Auckland Council as local authority should carry out its obligation to correct its decisions by revoking the building consent and the resource consent.

3. There are the number of errors repeated when Council dealt with this building infringement both in the law area and in the operational area. After identifying the infringement initially, Council failed to complete the resource consent(s37) before granting the building consent. Council lifted s37 particularly after we refused to sign the building plan. Council failed to apply the section10(1) of Resource Management Act on the infringement before granting the building consent. Council failed to follow its processes to request the surveying on the infringement before granting the building consent. Council failed to follow its building inspection processes to identify the infringement. Council refused to stop the building work when Council confirmed this over height limit infringement. Council failed to apply the section10(1) of RM Act on the infringement size when we requested to stop the building work. Council failed to carry out the assessment report before concluding the adverse effect as less than minor. Council refused to do the independent investigation as requested from the victims and a councilor. Council failed to visit the victims’ site to assess the adverse effect before granting the retrospective resource consent. Council failed to apply the section 10(1) of RM Act when Council assessed and granted the retrospective resource consent. Council failed to identify the issues on building drawing when Council received the retrospective resource consent application from the neighbors. Council failed to notify this infringement case to thepublic.

4 Public interest The Public would like to know if Council owns the duty of care to the victims of the building infringement which was produced by Council and the developer. The Public are interested in Council’s position and attitude on how council follows the regulations and law rather than cover the building infringement and the developer, which revictimized the victims and family permanently. If the High Court denies the duty of care, Council will stand on the developers’ ground to cover the infringement in order to avoid the court case from the developers. Council’s discretionary power should not be applied on such more than minor infringement. Council abused discretionary power based on the erroneous conclusion and assessment on the wrong size of the building infringement which came from the failures and mistakes in law and in the processes. We urge Auckland Council to take its obligations to revoke the building consent and to revoke the resource consent. We urge Auckland Council to compensate our investigation cost and legal fee. We urge Auckland Council to do the mediation with the victims and make the fair settlement before going to the hearing in high court. Our home our castle. Help us walk out of this hell permanently. Please do not let our family bear the bad consequence from others' failures and mistakes.

Share this update

Read 1 more update