Wednesday, February 5th, 2014

The Mirror Advertisement

5895704AA- Savanna 5-2-14

Tuesday, December 17th, 2013

The Landing is the new name given to what was formerly known as Building 31…

Queenstown’s next retail centre has now been named “The Landing”.

The Landing_Logo_FINAL jpeg


The Landing Perspective_4.2.14 cropped


Monday, March 4th, 2013

Leaky Home Family Win $180,000 in Damages

A Wellington family who bought a leaky home after a building inspector told them it was weathertight have won $180,000 in damages

Win for Wellington leaky home owners Sharon Hepburn with daughter Caitlin Hepburn, 3, outside their rebuilt home which was originally leaky.

A Wellington family who bought a leaky home after a building inspector told them it was weathertight have won $180,000 in damages. – Mike and Sharon Hepburn said their lives had been wrecked since they bought a house in Khandallah with Sharon’s sister, Tracey MacKinnon, for $653,000 in 2007.

Before buying the house they paid $280 for a “quick check” from building inspector Trevor Cunningham, who told them it was sound. It was later found to be leaky and required more than $300,000 of repairs, prompting them to sue Mr Cunningham.

In a judgment from the High Court last month, Justice Williams said Mr Cunningham had failed to properly inform the Hepburns about the inherent risks of the property.  The judge said Mr Cunningham’s report was misleading and he had failed to assess the building competently.  The faults would have been obvious to an “experienced and competent pre-purchase inspector undertaking a basic visual pre-purchase inspection of the building”, Justice Williams said.  He ordered Mr Cunningham to pay $180,000, or 50 per cent of the total cost of repairs. He ruled the Hepburns were liable for half the cost as they did not do all the work Mr Cunningham suggested after his inspection.  Mr Cunningham now faces losing his own family home to pay the damages. He said he accepted the decision of the court but felt it was unfair.  He was hired to do an inspection of the house before the Hepburns bought it in 2007.  His report gave Mr Hepburn the impression, Justice Williams said, that the building was basically in good condition and needed only minor work, such as recoating the exterior cladding.  But the house had several design flaws which the Hepburns now knew to be leak risk factors, such as external cladding, a deck, multiple storeys and a complicated roof structure, Mr Hepburn said. “The reality was he just didn’t see [the problems],” he said.  “He didn’t point out any of the risks, the sort of things we relied on a building inspector to point out to us.”

While they were living in the house, the Hepburns had no idea it was leaky. “We had no internal signs of leaks . . . the house was rotting from within.”  When they put it back on the market in 2010, a potential buyer had an inspection done by another company.  That inspection found significant weathertightness problems with the exterior cladding, garage door, deck and window joinery.  The prospective buyers pulled out and the Hepburns had to pick up the repair bill of $346,000.  The house needed complete recladding, extensive joinery and framing replacement.  “We were living in one room for six months,” Mrs Hepburn said. “The four of us, with two children . . . they rebuilt the house around us.”  Mr Hepburn said the couple felt they had been lucky we are not the only ones.  “So many people are worse off than us, sitting in leaky homes and can’t afford to fix them.”  Mr Cunningham said: “I feel as though my report was lacking and I’m at fault for that.  “I was depending on the fact [Mr Hepburn] would get a specialist to tell him more about the things that needed to be done.”


The Savanna Group is pleased to announce that its subsidiary Savanna Technical has been awarded a major consulting contract to investigate a 16 Unit apartment complex in Wellington for weathertightness deficiencies.  Originally constructed around10 years ago the complex is clad in a combination of profiled metal, plywood, and EIFS (plastered polystyrene sheet).  The investigation is part way through and has already established that there is extensive rot in the structural framing which will require substantial rebuilding of the complex.  Of particular interest is that visual observation of the cladding revealed no discernible defects however a number of weathertight deficiencies were identified.  The findings in this particular investigation highlight the importance of using suitably qualified and insured consultants to advise on the weathertightness of buildings.


Savanna Technical has been instructed by a major Insurance Company to assist with respect to two major leaky building claims.  In these particular instances the insured parties have been named as defendants and Savanna Technical has been engaged to determine the role that the defendants played in the failure and the insured parties extent of liability that may be faced by the insured parties.  Both claims are before the Weathertight Homes Tribunal.

Thursday, November 29th, 2012


What is an earthquake prone building? An “Earthquake-Prone Building” is a structure that is less than one-third of the current New Building Standard (NBS) for earthquake strength design. The Building and Housing Department of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment is currently reviewing practice and policy around earthquake prone buildings. Being “earthquake-prone” doesn’t necessarily mean that your building should not be occupied – but it does mean that you should get a professional engineering assessment as soon as possible, and work out a plan to fix the problems over a reasonable time period.

 Another incentive are assurances being sought from landlords by tenants about the seismic design status of their buildings. Landlords cannot afford to procrastinate and must act decisively to verify the true nature and condition of their buildings with respect to seismic resistance capability in order to secure lease renewals thus retaining value and future revenue.

 Three steps for concerned owners:

1.     Prioritise building assessment

  • you will need to engage professional engineering advice earlier if the building is used frequently by large numbers of people and is a higher-risk type (e.g. unreinforced masonry).

2.      Find out everything you need to know to assess risk

         Get professional engineering advice on:

  • the structural strength of the building – identify any features, critical structural weaknesses or defects that may be risky
  • any strengthening work already done
  • possible short-term actions that may decrease risk
  • other longer-term strengthening measures, consistent with council policy and your circumstances and plans.

3.      Decide what action to take

  • choose the option that provides the best “fix,” is practical and cost effective, meets council needs, and provides least disruption to tenants, users, neighbours and the community
  • talk to your tenants about how best to do any strengthening work needed, within a reasonable timeframe
  • in some cases, it may be necessary to close parts or all of the building pending repair.

The situation in the greater Christchurch area is different. Over the next three years the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) will be asking owners of commercial and multiunit residential buildings in the greater Christchurch area, to have a detailed engineering evaluation (DEE) prepared for their buildings. Building owners will be required to provide a copy of the DEE to CERA. Savanna predicts this will become an increasingly more expensive process as the structural engineering consultants available to assess and provide the DEE’s will be in short supply.

 This is not a time for procrastination, be decisive and act early