The Lloyds accepted a quote from a Wellington-based roofing firm, KT Longrun Roofing.<\/p>\n
Rob and Pam Lloyd say they’ve suffered ill health while trying to get their defective roof fixed.<\/p>\n
A quality assurance report by Roofbuddy\u2019s assessor highlighted problems with the finished job.<\/p>\n
After the roofer fixed the issues, it was re-checked by Roofbuddy\u2019s representative and signed off as meeting the building code. <\/p>\n
Roofbuddy\u2019s final report said it was \u201canother excellent installation\u201d by its recommended roofer. <\/p>\n
Not convinced, the Lloyds paid for their own independent assessment. <\/p>\n
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\u2019t sitting straight.<\/p>\n
New grey roofing iron was installed on top of brown roofing material. Photo \/ Tararua Roofing<\/p>\n
The report noted water couldn\u2019t 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. <\/p>\n
The Herald flew a drone over the couple\u2019s house, which showed other issues highlighted by the Tararua Roofing inspection, such as dents on ridgelines of the newly installed metal. <\/p>\n
Rob Lloyd said the situation was \u201ca debacle\u201d, and it felt like their \u201chouse has been ambushed\u201d. <\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s horrible what\u2019s happened to it. I\u2019m 86 and Pammy is 80. We shouldn\u2019t have to go through this. It should have been done right from the start,\u201d he said. <\/p>\n
Water pools on a flat section of the couple’s roof. Photo \/ Tararua Roofing<\/p>\n
The Lloyds blame the roofer, and Roofbuddy, for their predicament and efforts to engage with both parties to date hadn\u2019t resulted in their defective roof being fixed.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis has gone on for almost a year now. Rob has had a stroke. I\u2019ve got a heart problem. We can\u2019t go on like this,\u201d Pam Lloyd said. <\/p>\n
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\u2019re satisfied the job has been completed to an acceptable standard. <\/p>\n
Roofer takes dispute to arbitrator <\/p>\n
Gaps on newly installed flashings could lead to leaks according to the independent assessment report. Photo \/ Tararua Roofing<\/p>\n
KT Longrun Roofing owner, Kupa Te Whetu, got an arbitrator involved in an attempt to settle the dispute and extract final payment. <\/p>\n
He told the Herald he completed the job as scoped by Roofbuddy, it was signed off by Roofbuddy\u2019s expert in accordance with the specifications it provided him, and then final payment from the Lloyds was refused. <\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m aware that Rob and Pam are elderly and unwell. I don\u2019t 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,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
The arbitrator ruled in the Lloyds\u2019 favour stating that Te Whetu\u2019s claim for final payment was \u201cinvalid\u201d, and that five of the 11 defects noted in their assessment were legitimate issues. <\/p>\n
The arbitrator found some of the issues identified in the couple\u2019s assessment were not part of the quoted work, such as removing all old roofing material and rebuilding the flat part of the roof.<\/p>\n
However, he noted that issues like water pooling on the flat section of the roof \u2013 which was overlayed with new material \u2013 didn\u2019t appear to comply with the building code. <\/p>\n
\u201cThe contractor has a responsibility to ensure that the basic expectations of the building code are met,\u201d the arbitrator said.<\/p>\n
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<\/p>\n
The arbitrator said while the original quote did not specify the \u201cwholesale\u201d removal of underlying roofing material, it described the work being undertaken as a \u201cfull reroofing\u201d job.<\/p>\n
\u201cI 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,\u201d the arbitrator said. <\/p>\n
The Lloyds refused to pay for their half of the costs associated with the arbitrator\u2019s decision on principle because it found what they already knew \u2013 their roof was defective. <\/p>\n
Te Whetu paid the arbitrator\u2019s fees and told the Herald: \u201cI have never refused\u201d to fix the defects highlighted as relevant in the decision. <\/p>\n
\u201cI am willing to engage in attempts to resolve the remaining issues,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
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. <\/p>\n
Old roofing material can be seen beneath the newly installed product. Photo \/ Tararua Roofing<\/p>\n
To improve the roof\u2019s appearance, Te Whetu said he installed 125 specialised drains or \u201cbox gutters\u201d at his own cost.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe value of that additional work was approximately $6000 including GST,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
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. <\/p>\n
\u201cThat discussion was verbal and on-site. I accept I should have confirmed it in writing at the time,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Rob Lloyd told the Herald he queried what was happening at the time and was reassured by the roofer \u201cthis is the way we do it\u201d. <\/p>\n
He said there is \u201cno way\u201d he agreed to it.<\/p>\n
\u2018Home owners deserve clarity\u2019<\/p>\n
Gaps on newly installed flashings could lead to leaks according to the independent assessment report. Photo \/ Tararua Roofing<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Clisby, who is also the Roofing Association of New Zealand\u2019s (Ranz) technical director, then arranged an on-site meeting with the roofer where he pointed out \u201cseveral\u201d defects. <\/p>\n
\u201cThe most significant [defect] was that the new metal roof had been installed over the existing roofing material,\u201d he said. <\/p>\n
He said that created multiple risks including additional structural weight, compromised fixings and reduced ventilation.<\/p>\n
Te Whetu said installing the new roof on the old one was an \u201caccepted method\u201d where wooden beams are fixed into the existing structure and \u201cventilation is maintained\u201d. <\/p>\n
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 \u2013 laying material over already compromised substrate \u2013 should have never been offered because it wouldn\u2019t achieve a warranty. <\/p>\n
Te Whetu said structural work to the flat section of the roof, and the substrate under it, was outside the scope provided by Roofbuddy.<\/p>\n
Roofbuddy\u2019s specifications for that part of the roof say two new layers of bitumen would be applied to the existing membrane.<\/p>\n
An arbitrator said new work on the middle section of the couple’s roof would not comply with the building code.<\/p>\n
Pam Lloyd said the precise details of what was happening were not properly explained to them. <\/p>\n
\u201cIt was meant to be a new roof,\u201d she said. <\/p>\n
Clisby emphasised the importance of home owners receiving clarity on roofing jobs given most don\u2019t know what is suitable. <\/p>\n
\u201cThey [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,\u201d he said. <\/p>\n
Roofbuddy offers fix<\/p>\n
Roofbuddy CEO James Logan. Photo \/ Cameron Pitney<\/p>\n
After the Herald sent questions to Roofbuddy, chief executive James Logan wrote to the Lloyds offering a resolution. <\/p>\n
He proposed Roofbuddy take over the job by nominating a roofer to fix all 11 defects identified in the Lloyds\u2019 assessment report. <\/p>\n
\u201cRoofbuddy will have the whole [defect] list remedied within the existing installation, which goes beyond what the adjudicator required,\u201d he told the Herald. <\/p>\n
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\u2019t part of the original quote. <\/p>\n
He said work would include fixing flashings, sealing joins, correcting the ridge, fixing the eaves and tidying up surface damage.<\/p>\n
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. <\/p>\n
The Herald asked Logan why he\u2019d made the offer now given the Lloyds had been locked in dispute with an unfinished, defective roof for many months. <\/p>\n
He said the contract is between the roofer and the customer, and that negotiations between them were \u201clive\u201d. However, \u201cin the past fortnight\u201d it became apparent that both parties had \u201creached the end of the road\u201d and so Roofbuddy stepped in, he said. <\/p>\n
Asked why Roofbuddy\u2019s assessment signed off the roof as compliant, when another assessment and the adjudicator said it wasn\u2019t, Logan said his company\u2019s assessment was done against the contract, and the Lloyds\u2019 assessment was compiled \u201cagainst a different standard\u201d.<\/p>\n
He said his company\u2019s assessment did not miss issues and noted that Roofbuddy is the only operator that offers quality assurance reports on all its completed roofing jobs. <\/p>\n
When the Herald told the Lloyds of Roofbuddy\u2019s offer, they were cautiously optimistic but remained upset at the way the ordeal had played out. <\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s been a nightmare. We\u2019ve been so stressed. We never expected it to be like this,\u201d Pam Lloyd said. <\/p>\n
The fight for a resolution <\/p>\n
Pam and Rob Lloyd paid for their own assessment of roofing work at their home which found multiple defects. Photo \/ Billy Paine.<\/p>\n
During the Lloyds\u2019 quest for accountability over their reroofing job, they sought help from the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB), and Ranz. <\/p>\n
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. <\/p>\n
Neither the roofer, nor Roofbuddy, are Ranz members so Boustridge had \u201cno disciplinary authority\u201d to act. <\/p>\n
Despite this, he said he\u2019d been helping the Lloyds and giving them advice for \u201cseveral months\u201d. <\/p>\n
He said Ranz contacted Te Whetu and suggested another independent inspection of the job \u2013 a proposal Boustridge said the roofer rejected.<\/p>\n
Te Whetu told the Herald his hesitation with another assessment wasn\u2019t because he was unwilling to engage with Ranz \u2013 he wanted to follow what the adjudicator had already determined. <\/p>\n
\u201cMy concern is simply what a further assessment is intended to establish when these reports have already been considered through the adjudication process,\u201d he said. <\/p>\n
Customers report Roofbuddy concerns to the Commerce Commission<\/p>\n
The Commerce Commission (CC) told the Herald it\u2019s received 10 reports of concern in the past two years about Roofbuddy, but has not taken any steps to investigate further. <\/p>\n
\u201cThe concerns reported to the commission allege contractual issues, poor quality of service, refunds, non-delivery, faults and lessening of competition,\u201d competition and fair trading general manager Rebecca McAtamney said. <\/p>\n
She said while the concerns raised didn\u2019t result in investigations, she encouraged others experiencing issues to contact the agency. <\/p>\n
\u201cWe would welcome any additional details or concerns about Roofbuddy, and would consider any new information in line with our investigation guidelines.\u201d<\/p>\n
Logan has previously told the Herald he\u2019s had no communication with the CC and if he did receive correspondence from the regulator, he\u2019d \u201crespond immediately\u201d. <\/p>\n
Boustridge said \u201ca number\u201d of complaints Ranz received have involved roofers engaged through the Roofbuddy platform, and it raised such concerns directly with Roofbuddy. <\/p>\n
\u201cTo date, that engagement has not produced a change for any of those customers,\u201d he said. <\/p>\n
He said the response Ranz generally received after raising matters with Roofbuddy was that it doesn\u2019t have the ability to require those on its platform to act. <\/p>\n
Roofbuddy vs Ranz <\/p>\n
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. <\/p>\n
He also claimed that Ranz had raised four issues with dissatisfied customers in the past year, and \u201cwe acted on all four\u201d. <\/p>\n
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. <\/p>\n
Boustridge said it was important any home owner clearly understood a roofer\u2019s reputation, including the length of time they\u2019d been trading, before engaging with them. <\/p>\n
He didn\u2019t think that was always clear when dealing with Roofbuddy, as its platform undertook internal vetting on behalf of the customer. <\/p>\n
Roofbuddy scopes a customer\u2019s job, specifies what\u2019s required, and then sends details of jobs to its network of roofers who submit quotes in a bidding process to win the work.<\/p>\n
Boustridge believed such a system was problematic. <\/p>\n
\u201cComparison lists push selection towards price, when installation quality is what determines whether a roof lasts,\u201d he said. <\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
When a roofer secures a customer through Roofbuddy\u2019s platform, Roofbuddy charges the roofer a fee. <\/p>\n
It\u2019s not known how much Roofbuddy received for the work carried out to date at the Lloyd\u2019s Wellington home, with Logan previously telling the Herald such arrangements are confidential.<\/p>\n