Auckland Council Compliance Officer gets it in one (a.k.a “The Story of the 40 Sleepouts”).

Great quote from an Auckland Council Compliance Officer this morning, who has now been advised of this situation:

“Those in the (building) business have a particular responsibility to acquaint themselves with the various rules governing building and it is unfortunate that there are still some cowboys out there with a gung-ho approach to their work”.

I am now left wondering as to whether Grant King owns a 10 galleon hat.

Grant King recently disclosed to me that he has built around 40 Sleepouts, many in West Auckland “all without building permits”. I guess he’ll be getting a call from the Auckland Council then – of course, this begs the question – what is going to happen when 40 or so former clients of NZ Sleepouts wake this morning to discover that the building they paid Grant King & NZ Sleepouts to build – is actually illegal, and will most likely need to come down?

Maybe they would like to give Grant King a call – those contact details again? Mr Grant King, of 46 K Garfield Rd, Helensville (Mobile #: 022 018 9290). Factory site is located at 103B Mill Rd, Helensville.

5 thoughts on “Auckland Council Compliance Officer gets it in one (a.k.a “The Story of the 40 Sleepouts”).

  1. Gavin

    I thought it was the owner of the property who was responsible for getting the building permit?
    However I do agree that the builder should not go ahead unless he sees the building permit

    Reply
  2. Steve Taylor Post author

    Hi Gavin, Thanks for your feedback. The key issue here is that the Contract to build was induced by the Builder, Grant King, who told me that I did not need a permit to build the Sleepout. If Grant King had simply been honest, and had a working knowledge of the Building Act & Code, he would have known that a permit was needed. It was and is the Builders responsibility to know his territory, and to not mislead or induce a client into a Contract. At the time of the agreement, i was flat -ack looking after my Dad after his heart attack, running my own business, and completing papers for a Masters Degree – I hired someone who I thought was an expert in his field to advise me of whether the Sleepout for Dad was a viable option, and I specifically asked Grant King as to whether we would need a permit to build – his reply was no, we didn’t, so on that advice I gave the go-ahead for the build. Not only was he either a/ lying or b/ professionally negligent, but he then took an additional $3500 on top of the $20,000 I had already given him, and used that $3500 to build another clients Sleepout (his landlord, David Swale, of Swale Earthmovers, who NZ Sleepouts rent factory space from). What is particularly intereresting about this last point is that Grant King confimed in writing to me that he contracturally could not and would not build any other Sleepouts (and he specifically names David Swale as another client) until my one had been built. There are so many ways that I can make a legal claim on the actions of Grant King & NZ Sleepouts (and Swale Earthmovers, as profit share partners to NZ Sleepouts, and the nominated sellers account for NZ Sleepouts on Trade Me, affirming ther nature of a partnership) that I have just about lost count.

    Reply
    1. Gavin

      Hi Steve
      Good luck with the claim – don’t get mad get even.
      Are you by any chance the Steve (Mo) Taylor in London during the 90’s?

      Reply
  3. Steve Taylor Post author

    Hi Gavin, This is what I have him on (so far):

    Tort of Negligence.

    · Breach of Duty of Care.

    · Personal Liability for Claim of Damages.

    · Breach of Contract.

    · Breach of the Fair Trading Act 1986.

    · Breach of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993.

    · Court-imposed Injunction.

    · Consequential Loss.

    · Right to repair.

    · Misrepresentation.

    · Deposit Refund due to Breach of Contract.

    · Court-imposed Caveat over other buildings and assets owned by NZ Sleepouts, Swale Earthmovers, and / or Grant King.

    · Contract Frustration.

    · Breach of Implied Statutory Warranties under the Building Act.

    · Breach of Implied Statutory Warranties under the Building Code.

    · Breach of Implied Statutory Warranties under the Resource Management Act.

    My Lawyer is going to have the proverbial “field day” with this case.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *