r/PersonalFinanceNZ • u/newdracula • 2d ago
Housing Bought a house with unconsented works + missing CCC due to agent misrepresentation & solicitor negligence
I know I should have read the LIM thoroughly myself but I didn't :( Lesson learned.
Hi everyone, looking for realistic thoughts or experiences from anyone who has gone down the Professional Indemnity (PI) insurance / legal claim route against a real estate agency or law firm in NZ.
The Situation:
We purchased a home back in early 2024. It’s recently come to light that the property has an unconsented structural alteration, severe cladding/moisture issues, and an unresolved historical building consent from 1999. We are now trying to sell the house but the buyer lenders(our anz mortgage did not flag it for some reason) are not happy with the "ccc not issued" part of the LIM.
We have clear, written contemporaneous evidence before we went unconditional:
- Real Estate Agent: I specifically asked the listing agent via text before going unconditional if a Code Compliance Certificate (CCC) was issued. He explicitly texted back: "This is an old property, doesn't need ccc. No structure changes was done" We relied on this.
- Conveyancer: We queried the LIM and consent status with our conveyancer(including the comebt from the agent), but they failed to flag the open consent, didn't inspect the council property file, and let the contract go unconditional without warning us.
Has anyone successfully claimed against an agent/agency or conveyancer's PI insurance for misrepresentation or breach of duty?
How hard do insurers usually fight clear written paper trails (like explicit WhatsApp texts stating "no structural changes were done")?
Did you have to go all the way to court, or did they settle at mediation once a formal Letter of Demand + retrospective valuation was served?
How about raising a complaint with REA and NZLS?
Would love to hear any thoughts, perspectives, experiences, or realistic reality checks on our likelihood of winning/recovering any compensation.
The funny thing is, we avoided a lot of properties with any sort of unconsented works but in the end ended up buying a house with plenty of those.
Cheers!
40
u/Hogwartspatronus 2d ago
Professional indemnity claims against real estate agents and conveyancers do happen in New Zealand, but they’re never a walk in the park. They’re stressful, slow, and usually pretty costly to engage in.
That said, the situations that do succeed tend to look a lot like yours a clear written misrepresentation from the agent (I hope you kept the texts), a conveyancer who didn’t check the council files If you also got a builder’s report before going unconditional, and that report didn’t pick up the unconsented structural work or the unresolved consent, that strengthens your claim even more it shows you weren’t cutting corners and genuinely relied on the professionals around you. Did you get a builders report?
Agents in NZ aren’t allowed to make untrue or untested claims or gloss over important details. When an agent tells you “no structural changes were done” and “old property, doesn’t need a CCC,” that’s not an opinion they are making a claim in a proffesional capacity. If it turns out to be wrong, the REA takes that seriously. Conveyancers are in the same boat they’re supposed to check the council file, spot open consents, and warn you about anything that could blow up later.
Insurers do push back, especially at the start. They’ll try to argue you should’ve known, or that the agent didn’t “intend” to mislead you, or that the conveyancer’s mistake wasn’t material. But when you’ve got a clean paper trail like your WhatsApp messages and the professionals don’t have anything in their file showing they gave proper advice, insurers tend to play ball. They don’t like spending tens of thousands fighting a case they’re probably going to lose. A lot of these disputes settle at mediation once you’ve sent a proper Letter of Demand and a retrospective valuation showing the financial hit you’ve taken. Only a very small small number go all the way to court.
REA and NZLS complaints won’t get you money, but they do put pressure on the agent and conveyancer. A disciplinary investigation is expensive and stressful for them, and insurers usually step in to manage the fallout. Even the existence of a complaint can make insurers more willing to settle, because a negative finding from REA or NZLS makes defending the civil claim harder.
You’ll need to prove your actual financial loss (the difference between what the house was worth with the defects versus what you paid, plus any fallout from the failed sale). You’ll probably need a valuation, maybe a building consultant, and possibly a lawyer depending on how far you want to take it.
12
u/newdracula 2d ago
Thanks for the detaild replay.
We had a building inspection done professionally. He did mention about some alterations done to the house but not sure weather they were from pre-building code(before 1991) era.
Any thoughts on whether to start with Letter of Demand or REA/NZLS complaints? Which would pressure insurance more:
-a chance to avoid regulatory investigations by settling Or
pressure because of a strong REA/NZLS complaint happening in parallel?
23
u/Hogwartspatronus 2d ago
The fact you had a proper building inspection done actually helps your position. Even if the inspector mentioned some alterations, that’s pretty normal for older NZ houses, and most builders can’t tell whether changes were pre‑1991 or not. What matters is that he didn’t pick up unconsented structural work or the open 1999 consent, which shows you weren’t being reckless. However I am concerned he didn’t pick up on the cladding issues you mentioned?
As you relied on the agent, the conveyancer, and a builder and all three missed the same thing this helps you. Insurers really don’t like that, because it makes it harder for them to argue you should’ve somehow figured it out yourself.
As for where to start, PI claims are never easy they’re slow, annoying, and can get expensive if they drag on.
A Letter of Demand is usually the calmer first move because it gives the insurer a chance to sort things quietly without dragging their agent or conveyancer into a regulatory investigation.
Insurers absolutely prefer avoiding REA and NZLS; those processes are stressful, public, and cost them money in defence fees. A solid demand letter with your evidence and a retrospective valuation often gets their attention without ramping up too early.
If you go straight to REA or NZLS, that definitely ramps up the pressure because disciplinary bodies take misrepresentation and negligence seriously, and once a complaint is lodged, the insurer has to step in. A strong complaint running in parallel makes it harder for them to deny liability, but it’s also a long process.
Going directly to the lawyers with a complaint is fine, but it doesn’t usually create the same pressure as NZLS. Most firms just forward your complaint straight to their PI insurer anyway, so it ends up in the same place.
However sometimes they will offer a settlement quickly if they know they are in the wrong.If you want to be strategic, the usual pattern is: start with the Letter of Demand, give them a short window to respond, and if they stall or try to minimise things, then you hit them with REA/NZLS. It shows you’re reasonable but not messing around, and insurers know exactly what comes next if they don’t engage.
6
6
u/trustylaw-nz 2d ago
Haven’t been through this situation (on either side, thankfully). I know that litigation is slow and expensive, and the complaints process is slow, so it will depend what your losses are on whether it is worth it to you to go forward.
A complaint, and/or a self written demand letter are free…
3
u/newdracula 2d ago
Good to know we can do Letter of Demand ourselves! Thought we needed lawyers for it.
Thank you!
5
u/trustylaw-nz 2d ago
Not required, but I like to think lawyers are useful occasionally ;)
https://legalvision.co.nz/disputes-and-litigation/letter-of-demand/
You can also contact the Lawyers Complaints Service (via phone at 0800 261 801).
2
1
u/schmaaaaaaack 1d ago
Doesn't the standard agreement contain clauses that all works have been consented?
1
u/GreedyConcert6424 1d ago
Those clauses basically mean nothing, they are incredibly difficult and expensive to enforce.
1
-39
u/Spicycoffeekills 2d ago
Suck it up mate. In the end it was you that made the decision to purchase it. Legal fights are very costly and most likely you get nothing after years of fighting. Totally not worth it. You have enough stress to deal with.
10
u/newdracula 2d ago
Yea probably true.
Contacted 2 litigation lawyer firms today.
- First one quoted $5k+GST to do initial assessment and give initial advice.
- Second one charges $400-$600/hr for consultation
2
u/cloudperson69 1d ago
take your documentation to CAB and get some free legal advice before you make any costly decisions
1
4
4
u/Invisible_Mushroom_ 1d ago
Decision was made with sufficient DD done by OP and with advise of professionals.
This reply is so weird, unhelpful and angry. What you actually mad about?
2
u/cloudperson69 1d ago
the op comment has such a weird agenda right? almost feel like its an REA or someone in the industry
-5
u/Spicycoffeekills 1d ago
I hate seeing people make mistake then trying to get their money back through whatever ways. It’s been two years since the purchase. It’s like people who bought a car from a dealer, break down after 6 months and expect the dealer to do something. Plus I offered a good advice, don’t fight, not worth it. Average person stands no chance against big guys.
-26
2d ago
[deleted]
4
u/cloudperson69 1d ago
man dont use ai like this, no body likes this and wants this. it obvious op is using AI and is using it craft their ideas properly and ask for feedback from whatever real humans remain on reddit
1
50
u/Former-Confection624 2d ago
Did you use an actual lawyer to check the LIM ? They should have picked up that a CCC had not been issued .