[ad_1]
A case to decide whether the Christchurch City Council should pay for a resident’s chlorine-corroded hot water cylinder could spark a spate of lawsuits if successful.
Michael Neilson, who failed a hot water cylinder in August 2020, will have his case in Dispute Court on Monday.
His plumber said the failure was caused by chlorine pitting, while his insurer said it was clear the damage was a direct result of the council’s “negligence.”
Neilson is the second person to take advice to court for a hot water cylinder failure. The first was last year and the court ruled in favor of the council. The council spent $ 14,000 on outside legal advice for that case.
READ MORE:
* Homeowner takes legal action against city hall over smashed hot water cylinder
* Possibly 12,000 Christchurch homeowners have hot water cylinder failure
* No help for homeowners dealing with chlorine-related repair bills
* Report on hot water cylinders will not be peer reviewed
“I’m pretty sure, 110 percent sure, my case is stronger than theirs, I’m going to go in … take the bull by the horns and seek victory,” he said.
Despite requests from Things, both the court and the council have refused to publish the full decision of the first case.
STACY SQUIRES / Stuff
Christchurch homeowner Michael Neilson is the second person to bring Christchurch City Council to Dispute Court for a hot water cylinder failure.
The council added chlorine to the water supply in 2018 while upgrading wells in the wake of 2016 Havelock North contamination that left 5,000 people sick.
His argument against liability is that he had to chlorinate the water for safety and there were no alternatives. The council has previously refused to compensate the owners.
Most of the cylinder failures were first reported in mid-2018. A report at the time by a professor at the University of Canterbury determined that chlorine was responsible for the failures.
The council has accepted that chlorine was one of multiple factors that caused the corrosion that led to the failures.
Plumbers said in June that they were still replacing corroded hot water cylinders.
‘If they pay for one person, they have to do it for others’
Len McKenzie, 74, said the council’s refusal to pay any part of his cylinder replacement cost was “quite rude.”
SUPPLIED
Liz Harris suffered the corrosion of about 25 hot water cylinders due to chlorine in the Christchurch water supply.
Its cylinder was manufactured in December 2013 and failed in June. His plumber attributed it to chlorine.
McKenzie, who receives the pension, said a replacement cylinder costs $ 2,700. “Small amounts are not that bad, but when you get hit with something like that, you have to find extra money.”
He said he would consider his own case in court if Neilson was successful.
Property manager Liz Harris has had 41 cylinder failures at her various properties since chlorination and has considered her own case against the council.
Harris said a ruling in favor of Neilson could set a precedent. “If they pay for one person, they have to pay for others,” he said.
Good Girls’ director of property management, Pru Morrall, who has lost nearly 100 cylinders at client properties since chlorination, said she would consider her own case as well.
‘Necessary and reasonable’
The head of the tripod council, Helen Beaumont, said there were no other timely and cost-effective alternatives to chlorine and that it was “necessary and reasonable” given the threat to people’s health.
The court process is different from court and complainants cannot be represented by an attorney.
Rob Ashton, a lawyer who has prepared opinions and presentations for the court in the past, said he “very much doubted” that people knew its scope and limits.
It did not set a legal precedent, he said, but news of a particular result could cause “more people [to] realize that they can make that kind of claim. “
Christchurch Central MP Duncan Webb has criticized the council’s refusal to pay homeowners.
In March 2019, he put his concerns in writing to then-board executive director Karleen Edwards.
Webb said the water supply was not adequate for its purpose and that city contractors did not take an adequate level of care in determining the amount of chlorine to introduce.
“I think there is a strong argument that they are legally responsible for providing water that is not fit for purpose, but even if it is not, you should be at the forefront of this,” he said. Things.
Webb said a “reasonable and fair” idea would be to pay an allowance or rate discount to people whose cylinders have likely failed due to chlorine.
