When prosecution counsel Richard Marchant asked what Sedgwick had found, he told the court there were issues with weatherboards and "erratic" nail patterns, sometimes involving inappropriate nails.
Weatherboards from the homes inspected by Sedgwick were found to exceed the standard moisture levels allowed for under the New Zealand Building Code.
"Ideally it should be 15 to 17 per cent. Across the board, it ranged from 10 to 25 per cent. You start to ask questions around the 17 per cent mark, if 30 per cent is saturation mark then 25 per cent is quite high.
"There were obvious areas of concern with regards to weatherboards."
The court also heard there had been nail holes in the weatherboards that had not been filled straight away, potentially leading to "high" moisture content.
Sedgwick said there was also surface cracking on the weatherboards from moisture "trying to escape".
The court heard the weatherboards had been primed with Metal X 100 per cent undercoat, which Sedgwick said was not recommended under Claymark's instructions and installation manual.
Judge Paul Mabey asked Sedgwick if Metal X 100 per cent was in any way a substitute for primer to which Sedgwick replied, "No, I wouldn't recommend it, no".
Under cross-examination, Cancian's defence counsel Bill Nabney put to Sedgwick that just because Claymark did not recommend a certain primer, it did not necessarily mean it did not do the job of a primer.
"You said earlier that it couldn't be used as a primer. Are you now saying you don't know?
The reality is this can be used as a primer if you used two coats."
Sedgwick said he could not say and would need to look at it. He later said the product would not meet Claymark requirements for a primer.
Following Sedgwick's evidence, builders told the court of how they had been approached by Cancian during the fallout of Bella Vista.
Builders and labourers Chris Tkaczyk, Andrew Mackean, and Sean Wells received Facebook messages from Cancian in October last year asking them to make a statement absolving him of responsibility by saying fellow builder Lee Corner was the LBP (licensed building practitioner) - supervisor in charge.
When Marchant asked what his understanding of the message was, Tkaczyk said: "That he was trying to put Lee in the firing line."
The court heard the message from Cancian read: "Council are trying to say that I supervised the building … Could I get a statement from you to say Lee was the supervisor on Lakes Boulevardhomes?"
McKean said: "A lot of us got the same message. It was all about the same time.
"I read it and thought, I didn't agree with it. I didn't reply, didn't agree with it."
The court heard Mckean was owed $19,850 in wages, which he still has not seen.
All three men said they did not reply and understood Cancian to be the LBP of the site, not Corner.
The trial restarted yesterday after it was put on hold in March due to Covid-19.
The trial continues.
