Source: Radio New Zealand
An unidentified Northland couple noticed cracks and movement around their home near Whangārei in 2018. Calvin Samuel
A Northland couple denied Earthquake Commission (EQC) cover for their landslip-damaged home finally got a payout after bringing in their own expert three years later.
Even so, they came close to losing out entirely when engineers hired by EQC, now called the Natural Hazards Commission, backed its original call that it was not landslide damage.
But those engineers had not visited the site and after being told to do a visit by the commission changed their decison.
A newly released ruling from the Chartered Professional Engineers Council unpacked what went on and the lessons for engineers and home owners.
It was not a trival matter, said the ruling – the situation “had the potential to create an outcome in which insured homeowners were deprived of their entitlement to damage repair”.
“The respondent ought to have either undertaken a site visit or ensured that the report was caveated, identifying its limitations on that basis.”
It took three years for the home owners to reverse EQC’s original decision, and get some cover.
Their expert, Whangārei geotechnical engineer David Buxton, spent another couple of years over his official complaint against the engineer who oversaw the report that backed EQC’s original decision.
Whangārei geotechnical engineer David Buxton Supplied
“Imagine your house is badly damaged and EQC says it is not landslide damage without the engineer coming to look at it,” he told RNZ. The stakes were too high to not be more careful, he said.
The complaint has now been finally dismissed for a second time on the grounds the engineer had retired, the industry could learn from the case and “the alleged misconduct is insufficiently grave to warrant further investigation”.
‘Widespread cracking of gib’
Home owners have cover for the first $300,000 of landslide damage from the commission.
In Northland, the unidentified couple noticed cracks and movement around their home near Whangārei in 2018.
They lodged a claim a year later but EQC knocked it back within a week, saying it was not damage from natural hazards.
Initially they accepted this, and got some drainage work done.
But more damage occurred, and in 2022 Buxton visited and concluded it was landslide damage.
EQC reopened the case, and its own senior assessment specialist took photos and records of the damage.
“Main part of house is causing widespread cracking of gib and ceiling from centre of house to the east end of house,” the specialist recorded.
“Driveway has pulled away from the curb … outside decking is buckling up.
“Ongoing slippage will require extensive home site land stabilization [sic] and extensive repairs/replacement of pilings.”
EQC called in private consultant engineers WSP; it had two or three firms at the time it relied on to do a lot of assessments.
At WSP, an unnamed senior engineer took charge. He handled all “specialist service requests” from EQC at the time, and in the Northland case, reviewed the work of a more junior geotechnical engineer.
He was sent the specialist’s photos.
However, while his workplan allowed for a site visit, no visit was made, the November ruling said.
In June 2022, he signed off on a two-and-a-half-page draft report that rejected landslide as the cause.
“The homeowners were living in a stressful situation,” the ruling noted and “had been presented a report that could have greatly undermined their confidence in the engineering profession”.
A spokesperson for WSP told RNZ it acknowledged the ruling, that it regularly reviewed its technical and quality assurance practices, and had further strengthened its processes since this period.
“The complaint regarding the engineer involved was dismissed, and there has been no finding of professional misconduct by WSP or its staff,” it said in a statement on Monday.
“The case does, however, underline the importance of robust assessment processes where natural hazard damage is complex or disputed.”
The Natural Hazards Commission, formerly EQC, on Monday defended its processes as robust and fair, while providing for accurate and fast decisions on claims.
“If the evidence clearly suggests a landslide, an onsite assessment would generally be required,” it said.
“However, in this case the cause of the land damage was not initially clear, including whether it resulted from a sudden landslide event, which may be covered under the EQC Act, or from a slow moving land movement, which is not covered.”
A landslide in Northland last month. Supplied
‘The damage to the property is landslip damage’
The Chartered Professional Engineers Council’s ruling in November said it appeared the supervising engineer was of the opinion that long-term subsidence exacerbated by a high groundwater table was to blame.
“There is evidence to suggest that this was not a sound conclusion to have been reached, or at least reached unequivocally, given the documentation available,” it said.
Buxton challenged the engineer’s draft report immediately in mid-2022.
“They can decline all insurance cover. So that means this is when they should be the most careful to take a look at it,” he told RNZ this week.
EQC told WSP to do a further report.
“EQC instructed WSP to undertake a site visit,” the ruling issued in November 2025 said.
The new report issued in September 2022 was 10 pages long, had additional sections on property damage following the site visit and did not get the geology of the site wrong as the June 2022 report had.
It also reversed the finding: “Concludes that the damage to the property is landslip damage as defined by the EQC Act.”
What the home owners had contended back in 2019 had been upheld, and the site visit was key.
A comparison of the June and September 2022 reports “is demonstrative of the difference that undertaking a site visit made to both the quality of the assessment and the conclusion reached”, the ruling said.
‘Careful and competent manner’
But Buxton was not finished.
He had “concerns about the flaws in the WSP June 2022 report. In particular, the use of the term ‘subsidence’ and failure to undertake a site visit”, the ruling said.
“Visiting a site provides an understanding that is not readily possible from written reports and photos,” Buxton told adjudicators.
He laid an official complaint in 2023 with Engineeering New Zealand (ENZ), questioning what went on and the reasons for it and seeking to confirm the supervision at WSP was adequate.
ENZ’s investigating committee dismissed his complaint, saying the case was about a “difference of engineering opinion”, among other reasons. It resisted Buxton bringing up technical evidence.
The committee chair considered the WSP overseeing engineer “acted in a careful and competent manner; and that he carried out the work required” and EQC accepted his report.
Buxton appealed that dismissal to the Chartered Professional Engineers Council.
Its ruling in November 2025 said, “The appeal panel is not in the position of determining whether the opinion formed and the report content was the standard expected but considers there is sufficient substance to the allegation it fell short through either negligence or incompetence.”
However, it was far from conclusive.
“Stepping back, the Appeal Panel sees this as a matter in which an otherwise experienced CPEng [chartered professional engineer] appears to not have adequately supervised and reviewed another engineer’s work,” said the ruling.
“There is evidence to suggest that his actions or inactions were below the standard expected and, without intervention of EQC and the appellant, [Buxton] could potentially have had significant consequences for the homeowner.
“However, there also appears to be the possibility of explanations being available that mean his conduct would not be seen as conduct worthy of sanction.”
‘Fair, accurate natural hazard assessments’
WSP’s spokesperson told RNZ the firm was “committed to high professional standards and fair, accurate natural hazard assessments”.
“Since the period relevant to this case, internal guidance and peer review have been further strengthened to support assessments that are appropriate to the circumstances and agreed scope of work, and to ensure professional judgement is clearly documented.
“Site visits are an important assessment tool, but whether they are required depends on the specific circumstances of each claim, the information available, and the scope agreed with the client. There is no single approach that applies in every situation, and professional judgement is used to determine the most appropriate methodology.”
The Natural Hazards Commission’s (NHC) chief recovery officer Kate Tod said in the Northland case, it had no privacy waiver so she could not speak in detail, but that the initial decision in 2019 rejecting the claim was based on the information provided at the time.
“When the homeowner provided new information, we sent a qualified engineer onsite to carry out an assessment,” she said in a statement.
All claims were assessed with “significant input” from experts either based on information from home owners, or “if it was complex” the agency might send an engineer onsite.
Asked if it had looked back at any other assessments following this case, Tod said the NHC had a “comprehensive claims quality assurance programme that monitors and reviews technical assessment quality”.
“Based on this, we have not identified wider issues in past assessments,” she said.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand