Roofbuddy saga: Elderly Wellington couple battling ill-health in dispute over defective roofing work

The Lloyds accepted a quote from a Wellington-based roofing firm, KT Longrun Roofing.

Rob and Pam Lloyd say they’ve suffered ill health while trying to get their defective roof fixed.

A quality assurance report by Roofbuddy’s assessor highlighted problems with the finished job.

After the roofer fixed the issues, it was re-checked by Roofbuddy’s representative and signed off as meeting the building code.

Roofbuddy’s final report said it was “another excellent installation” by its recommended roofer.

Not convinced, the Lloyds paid for their own independent assessment.

That assessment, completed in June this year by Tararua Roofing, claimed there were 11 defects with the job, including that new roofing iron was put on top of the old material, which meant the newly installed product wasn’t sitting straight.

New grey roofing iron was installed on top of brown roofing material. Photo / Tararua Roofing

The report noted water couldn’t drain on a flat section of the roof because drainage outlets were sitting too high, and that gaps on the flashings could lead to water ingress.

The Herald flew a drone over the couple’s house, which showed other issues highlighted by the Tararua Roofing inspection, such as dents on ridgelines of the newly installed metal.

Rob Lloyd said the situation was “a debacle”, and it felt like their “house has been ambushed”.

“It’s horrible what’s happened to it. I’m 86 and Pammy is 80. We shouldn’t have to go through this. It should have been done right from the start,” he said.

Water pools on a flat section of the couple’s roof. Photo / Tararua Roofing

The Lloyds blame the roofer, and Roofbuddy, for their predicament and efforts to engage with both parties to date hadn’t resulted in their defective roof being fixed.

“This has gone on for almost a year now. Rob has had a stroke. I’ve got a heart problem. We can’t go on like this,” Pam Lloyd said.

The Lloyds have paid most of the $47,214 bill for the new roof but have refused to pay the final $18,885 to the roofer until they’re satisfied the job has been completed to an acceptable standard.

Roofer takes dispute to arbitrator

Gaps on newly installed flashings could lead to leaks according to the independent assessment report. Photo / Tararua Roofing

KT Longrun Roofing owner, Kupa Te Whetu, got an arbitrator involved in an attempt to settle the dispute and extract final payment.

He told the Herald he completed the job as scoped by Roofbuddy, it was signed off by Roofbuddy’s expert in accordance with the specifications it provided him, and then final payment from the Lloyds was refused.

“I’m aware that Rob and Pam are elderly and unwell. I don’t want to add to their stress. I have acted in good faith throughout and responded to every email, call and message in the hope of resolving this fairly,” he said.

The arbitrator ruled in the Lloyds’ favour stating that Te Whetu’s claim for final payment was “invalid”, and that five of the 11 defects noted in their assessment were legitimate issues.

The arbitrator found some of the issues identified in the couple’s assessment were not part of the quoted work, such as removing all old roofing material and rebuilding the flat part of the roof.

However, he noted that issues like water pooling on the flat section of the roof – which was overlayed with new material – didn’t appear to comply with the building code.

“The contractor has a responsibility to ensure that the basic expectations of the building code are met,” the arbitrator said.

A drain on a flat section of the couple’s roof is above the rubber membrane, which has caused water to pool. Photo / Tararua Roofing

The arbitrator said while the original quote did not specify the “wholesale” removal of underlying roofing material, it described the work being undertaken as a “full reroofing” job.

“I regard this terminology as being indicative of a far more comprehensive scope than the relatively light touch described elsewhere in the quote. It is possible that this ambiguity was the origin of misaligned expectations between the parties,” the arbitrator said.

The Lloyds refused to pay for their half of the costs associated with the arbitrator’s decision on principle because it found what they already knew – their roof was defective.

Te Whetu paid the arbitrator’s fees and told the Herald: “I have never refused” to fix the defects highlighted as relevant in the decision.

“I am willing to engage in attempts to resolve the remaining issues,” he said.

He said during the installation it became obvious that because the existing spouting was low, some of the old shingle roofing could be seen beneath the new product his team installed.

Old roofing material can be seen beneath the newly installed product. Photo / Tararua Roofing

To improve the roof’s appearance, Te Whetu said he installed 125 specialised drains or “box gutters” at his own cost.

“The value of that additional work was approximately $6000 including GST,” he said.

He also claimed Rob Lloyd agreed verbally to put the new roof on top of the old one as removing all the old material would cost an additional $15,000.

“That discussion was verbal and on-site. I accept I should have confirmed it in writing at the time,” he said.

Rob Lloyd told the Herald he queried what was happening at the time and was reassured by the roofer “this is the way we do it”.

He said there is “no way” he agreed to it.

‘Home owners deserve clarity’

Gaps on newly installed flashings could lead to leaks according to the independent assessment report. Photo / Tararua Roofing

Another roofer, Ben Clisby from Protech Roofing in Levin, told the Herald he received a call from Lloyds and offered to review their assessment report and assist them free of charge.

Clisby, who is also the Roofing Association of New Zealand’s (Ranz) technical director, then arranged an on-site meeting with the roofer where he pointed out “several” defects.

“The most significant [defect] was that the new metal roof had been installed over the existing roofing material,” he said.

He said that created multiple risks including additional structural weight, compromised fixings and reduced ventilation.

Te Whetu said installing the new roof on the old one was an “accepted method” where wooden beams are fixed into the existing structure and “ventilation is maintained”.

Clisby said the other major defect was the membrane in the flat part on the roof in the middle of the house where water was pooling. He said the suggested fix – laying material over already compromised substrate – should have never been offered because it wouldn’t achieve a warranty.

Te Whetu said structural work to the flat section of the roof, and the substrate under it, was outside the scope provided by Roofbuddy.

Roofbuddy’s specifications for that part of the roof say two new layers of bitumen would be applied to the existing membrane.

An arbitrator said new work on the middle section of the couple’s roof would not comply with the building code.

Pam Lloyd said the precise details of what was happening were not properly explained to them.

“It was meant to be a new roof,” she said.

Clisby emphasised the importance of home owners receiving clarity on roofing jobs given most don’t know what is suitable.

“They [home owners] rely on roofing professionals for correct advice and a compliant installation. If compliance cannot be achieved, an alternative solution must be clearly explained, properly documented and supported with the right technical justification,” he said.

Roofbuddy offers fix

Roofbuddy CEO James Logan. Photo / Cameron Pitney

After the Herald sent questions to Roofbuddy, chief executive James Logan wrote to the Lloyds offering a resolution.

He proposed Roofbuddy take over the job by nominating a roofer to fix all 11 defects identified in the Lloyds’ assessment report.

“Roofbuddy will have the whole [defect] list remedied within the existing installation, which goes beyond what the adjudicator required,” he told the Herald.

When the Herald sought clarity on his offer, Logan said it would not include removing old roofing material or rebuilding the flat section of the roof where water was pooling, given that wasn’t part of the original quote.

He said work would include fixing flashings, sealing joins, correcting the ridge, fixing the eaves and tidying up surface damage.

Logan said his proposal, sent to the Lloyds in the form of a deed, meant the couple would pay the final invoice on completion of the job, and any extra costs would be met by Roofbuddy.

The Herald asked Logan why he’d made the offer now given the Lloyds had been locked in dispute with an unfinished, defective roof for many months.

He said the contract is between the roofer and the customer, and that negotiations between them were “live”. However, “in the past fortnight” it became apparent that both parties had “reached the end of the road” and so Roofbuddy stepped in, he said.

Asked why Roofbuddy’s assessment signed off the roof as compliant, when another assessment and the adjudicator said it wasn’t, Logan said his company’s assessment was done against the contract, and the Lloyds’ assessment was compiled “against a different standard”.

He said his company’s assessment did not miss issues and noted that Roofbuddy is the only operator that offers quality assurance reports on all its completed roofing jobs.

When the Herald told the Lloyds of Roofbuddy’s offer, they were cautiously optimistic but remained upset at the way the ordeal had played out.

“It’s been a nightmare. We’ve been so stressed. We never expected it to be like this,” Pam Lloyd said.

The fight for a resolution

Pam and Rob Lloyd paid for their own assessment of roofing work at their home which found multiple defects. Photo / Billy Paine.

During the Lloyds’ quest for accountability over their reroofing job, they sought help from the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB), and Ranz.

Ranz chief executive Luke Boustridge said his organisation was limited in being able to resolve matters between roofers and customers unless the roofer was a member of Ranz in which case it can settle disputes through its own resolution processes.

Neither the roofer, nor Roofbuddy, are Ranz members so Boustridge had “no disciplinary authority” to act.

Despite this, he said he’d been helping the Lloyds and giving them advice for “several months”.

He said Ranz contacted Te Whetu and suggested another independent inspection of the job – a proposal Boustridge said the roofer rejected.

Te Whetu told the Herald his hesitation with another assessment wasn’t because he was unwilling to engage with Ranz – he wanted to follow what the adjudicator had already determined.

“My concern is simply what a further assessment is intended to establish when these reports have already been considered through the adjudication process,” he said.

Customers report Roofbuddy concerns to the Commerce Commission

The Commerce Commission (CC) told the Herald it’s received 10 reports of concern in the past two years about Roofbuddy, but has not taken any steps to investigate further.

“The concerns reported to the commission allege contractual issues, poor quality of service, refunds, non-delivery, faults and lessening of competition,” competition and fair trading general manager Rebecca McAtamney said.

She said while the concerns raised didn’t result in investigations, she encouraged others experiencing issues to contact the agency.

“We would welcome any additional details or concerns about Roofbuddy, and would consider any new information in line with our investigation guidelines.”

Logan has previously told the Herald he’s had no communication with the CC and if he did receive correspondence from the regulator, he’d “respond immediately”.

Boustridge said “a number” of complaints Ranz received have involved roofers engaged through the Roofbuddy platform, and it raised such concerns directly with Roofbuddy.

“To date, that engagement has not produced a change for any of those customers,” he said.

He said the response Ranz generally received after raising matters with Roofbuddy was that it doesn’t have the ability to require those on its platform to act.

Roofbuddy vs Ranz

In response to comments from Ranz, Logan believed the organisation was critical because of its links to NZ Steel, which competes with his steel business, Guardian Steel.

He also claimed that Ranz had raised four issues with dissatisfied customers in the past year, and “we acted on all four”.

Roofbuddy has previously provided the Herald with information about 38 cases where it offered refunds, or finished work at its cost, when roofers it recommended failed to complete work, botched a job, or never turned up.

Boustridge said it was important any home owner clearly understood a roofer’s reputation, including the length of time they’d been trading, before engaging with them.

He didn’t think that was always clear when dealing with Roofbuddy, as its platform undertook internal vetting on behalf of the customer.

Roofbuddy scopes a customer’s job, specifies what’s required, and then sends details of jobs to its network of roofers who submit quotes in a bidding process to win the work.

Boustridge believed such a system was problematic.

“Comparison lists push selection towards price, when installation quality is what determines whether a roof lasts,” he said.

Logan said customers can review previous customer ratings of roofers before confirming a quote, and its purchasing guide encourages additional checks and advises against making a decision on price alone.

When a roofer secures a customer through Roofbuddy’s platform, Roofbuddy charges the roofer a fee.

It’s not known how much Roofbuddy received for the work carried out to date at the Lloyd’s Wellington home, with Logan previously telling the Herald such arrangements are confidential.

Michael Morrah is a senior investigative reporter/team leader at the Herald. He won the best coverage of a major news event at the 2024 Voyager NZ Media Awards and has twice been named reporter of the year. He has been a broadcast journalist for 20 years and joined the Herald’s video team in July 2024.