Death sentence for home Family's house now just a crumbling nightmare

South Canterbury

AFTER 18 years of paying a mortgage and insurance, a Timaru family have lost their home.

Because of rapidly deteriorating structural cracking, Joe and Lynette Marsters' Woodlands Road house has been declared unsafe by the Timaru District Council.

The couple are now forced to pay to stay in a motel while continuing to pay their home mortgage.

"We had four days to leave. We have lost everything really," Mr Marsters said.

He is a Vietnam veteran in his 60s. He has a military pension and because of service-related illness is on an invalid's benefit. Until recently Mrs Marsters was a process worker, but recent serious illness has stopped her working.

And the family has been hit with even more bad news - their insurer, IAG, has rejected a claim for compensation.

IAG said the cracks had appeared over time and there was no evidence the cause was sudden or accidental.

Events for which the couple were not covered included wear and tear, damage arising from subsidence and erosion, settling, warping or cracking caused by earth or other movements.

After being told by Mr Marsters the house was condemned, IAG stopped all cover from October 21.

Mr Marsters said that when they bought the 1930s house, which is on a slope, there were some small cracks. The couple felt this was normal for a house of that age. However, in recent years the cracks had become much worse.

The couple advised homeowners to read their insurance policies closely, or better still, get a lawyer to do so.

Mrs Marsters said many people did not understand everything in their insurance policy.

Mr Marsters believed insurance was to cover situations such as they now faced.

"I always worried if we had got enough cover. Then when you need it, there's nothing. I feel let down. A house is a bit like an heirloom you hope you can pass it on to your children."

Engineers' reports have been conducted for the couple, the insurers, Earthquake Commission and the council. All see the damage as major.

Engineers Tonkin and Taylor summarised a combination of ground settlement and movement, the heavy masonry walls, shallow perimeter footing and a brittle, unreinforced concrete foundation, basement walls and blockwork as all being factors in the problem.

The council's building and environmental services manager Dave Armstrong said it was unknown who built the property, but it was not a case of builder negligence.

At that time houses were often built on top of the ground and the concrete quality was poor, typically coarse material and no reinforcing steel.

The condition of the house was at a stage where it was a danger and could collapse at any time.

He felt sorry for the family, especially as Mr Marsters was well known for his contribution to the community, which included long service with Community Watch.

The Earthquake Commission said the gradual nature of the damage put it outside a claim to that organisation because the damage was not a natural disaster such as an earthquake or landslip.

In recent years the couple refinanced to carry out renovations.They have installed a logburner and renovated a bathroom with a new shower and toilet.

Mr Marsters said this was all part of the loss.

"See that carpet, I'm still paying for that."

With the accelerating damage he agreed it was not feasible to salvage the house.

"The builders have said it would be cheaper to knock it over and build a new one."

Mrs Marsters said not being able to get emergency Housing New Zealand accommodation for the couple with their two adult sons was another issue they dealt with. She didn't want her boys to move elsewhere.

The couple thanked the RSA welfare officer and mayor Janie Annear as both had been supportive and had helped them out in the short term.

Mr Marsters said if the section was sold the couple might have enough for a deposit for another house.

The couple said the PSIS as mortgage holders were supportive and didn't want them just to walk away.

Mr Marsters hoped that if all of the family contributed, a mortgage for a new home on the section was a possibility.

Mrs Marsters said the house had cost $60,000, the most they could afford. It wasn't a flash house, but it was the home they saw their children grow up in.

"This has been our home for nearly 19 years and now we have really got nothing," Mrs Marsters said.

Other homes may be at risk 

A NUMBER of Timaru's older, permanent-material homes face the risk of structural damage due to earth movement and settling, according to the district council's building and environmental services manager Dave Armstrong.

There were a number of these homes built on sloping or potentially troublesome locations.

Mr Armstrong said there was little cause for alarm. Problems, such as those faced by the Woodlands Road couple whose house has been condemned, were uncommon.

Building advisers had encountered few issues in recent years of cracking and structural damage in older homes.

Mr Armstrong said that in Timaru, large sections helped cope with run-off better. Unlike many centres, there had been relatively little infill subdivision on hillsides.

He said the less the natural shape of a hill was under-cut, the more stable it was.

However, the risk existed because in the past the building techniques and materials used were not as strong or effective as today.

Foundations were not always taken down to stable material, concrete was not as strong and it was often unreinforced.

"Typically they were built on top of the ground. We are talking 80 years ago. Research has shown that when you build on a hill, on top of the dirt, the ground moves."

He said that during maintenance, any cracks should be noted and looked at by a builder or engineer as soon as possible.

Garden paths and patios cracking, and doors and windows becoming hard to open and close, could be signs of movement in a permanent-material house. The homeowner ignored them at their peril.

Early detection and remedial action was the best and cheapest option.

Good sewerage and stormwater systems and the dispersal of water, rather than ponding, were key factors in maintaining stability of a house's structure, he said.

For people who suffered building failure, in most cases the council was not there as a last port of call in terms of liability.

Mr Armstrong compared home ownership to buying a car.

"Before we buy a car we take it for a test drive and go to the AA. We buy a house and glance at it and say it's got nice painted walls. It's about investigating what your purchase is going to be."

He said all of the rigours of the Building Act 2004 were to protect the homeowner and produce better buildings.

If there was trouble with work carried out under the new building regime then the council might be exposed to some liability.

"It is probably examples like this which are why the strict new building codes are in. If the actions of a council, such as excavating a road or track, affected the stability of a house there may be liability.

He said it was not the job of the council, with ratepayer funding, to act as a back-up insurance company.

At the end of the day the owner had to minimise the risk and for many of the older houses there were no records about their construction in the property file. Also information on land and property memorandums was unlikely to highlight any potential problems.