A family ordered to pay $500,000 by a judge after the deceitful sale of a rotting Onehunga house say they didn’t disclose a pre-inspection report warning of moisture damage because it “wasn’t requested” by the buyer.
They have also blamed dampness problems on tenants failing to ventilate the property, and say messages about a dehumidifier extracting a litre of water in 24 hours were “taken out of context” due to “translation” errors converting a conversation from Chinese.
The plaintiff, Angelina Vanifatova, purchased the Selwyn St property in January 2021 after making “extensive inquiries” about the state of the house.
The Wang family vendors had signed a contract promising to provide “any information held relating to the property relevant to the due diligence investigation”.
The pre-inspection report was commissioned about June 2020 by another potential buyer, Dillon Sue, who pulled out after learning the property had “elevated moisture levels” and damage, with the report recommending further investigation.
A High Court decision by Justice Peter Andrew found the Wangs deliberately withheld the report from the purchaser, undertook “concealment works” to mask the damage, and misrepresented the state of the property to entice a sale.
However, the Wangs’ solicitor, Essence Law principal Ben Han, told the Herald his clients honestly believed the house was in good condition and had no reason to suspect it leaked.
The vendor’s daughter, Crystal, and son-in-law, Wilson, had now filed an appeal against the finding of deceit.
“I believe my clients, the defendants, honestly believed there was no issue with the property. I believe they are honestly telling the truth.
“They provide honest answers and I have no reason to doubt their honesty.”
Justice Andrew’s decision says a Bayley’s agent who originally marketed the home forwarded the Dillon Sue report to the Wangs’ solicitors before dropping the listing.
She was later replaced by Barfoot & Thompson Blockhouse Bay agent David Wang.
Han confirmed that he received the Dillon Sue report and that his clients had also been aware of it.
Asked why his clients did not disclose the report to the eventual buyer given their contractual obligations and the fact it raised questions about the property’s weathertightness, Han replied that Vanifatova hadn’t asked for a copy.
“It was not requested. My clients believe this was not specifically asked.”
In any event, the Wangs were advised by a friend that there was “nothing serious” in the report and its findings were normal for a building of that type, Han said.
“They were told it was common for a property of that age and build. It was nothing like the plaintiff has depicted to the judge.”
Barfoot’s David Wang was singled out by the judge as likely being aware of the property’s defects during the sale - a claim he denies.
The decision says David Wang inserted a clause into the purchase contract saying neither he nor the vendors “hold themselves out to have any expertise” about the property’s weathertightness.
He also decided not to include the line, “We are not aware of any weathertightness issue of [sic] the property” in an email to Vanifatova.
The judge ruled it was “highly likely that the defendants’ advisers were very alive” to the property’s moisture issues, adding that he made “no criticism of the role of the solicitors”.
The Herald asked Barfoot & Thompson whether the firm or its agents had been aware of the Dillon Sue report or on notice that the property leaked.
The company’s general counsel, Lisa Gerrard, said: “We were not a party to the proceedings. We are looking into matters and have no further comment.”
Dianne Burt was the Bayley’s agent who sent the Dillon Sue report to the Wangs’ solicitors before pulling out of the listing.
She told the Herald her firm always does “everything by the book”.
After receiving the report, Wilson Wang had a builder through the property who indicated what needed to be done in terms of remediation, Burt said.
“I’m not sure if they executed any of that advice but it was at that time that we left.”
Burt said she did not know if the Barfoot agents were aware of the Dillon Sue report, but the vendors definitely knew.
After seeing the home had been relisted by Barfoot, she considered contacting the new agents to inform them, but decided against it given her professional duties, and not wanting to interfere.
Burt said she had nothing to do with the subsequent marketing or sale of the property.
Han told the Herald the grounds for his clients’ appeal were alleged mistakes by the judge in fact and in law.
“Some of the findings contradict the evidence. We’re going to fully explore those options in the appeal.”
He said his clients honestly believed the property was weathertight, and claimed it had never leaked in the years they owned it apart from once during a bad 2019 storm.
While the decision found multiple tenants had complained about leaking, moisture and mould over several years, Han dismissed the complaints, saying there was no photographic evidence to support their claims.
He also blamed the tenants for any dampness, saying they were “not particularly good at looking after” or ventilating the property.
“Some people don’t open the windows at all.”
Justice Andrew’s decision highlighted a conversation about a dehumidifier.
Wilson sent a text message to David Wang ahead of a house viewing, asking him to help move a dehumidifier to the garage “to avoid any misunderstandings from the potential buyers”.
Wilson then texted: “I extracted for a whole day and night and only extracted 1 litre of water, the house is now relatively dry.”
However, Han said the conversation was taken “out of context” by the plaintiff’s lawyers. Wilson Wang had recently painted the house and was simply trying to extract fumes and help with ventilation.
Han claimed the misunderstanding was the result of a “translation” error when converting Wilson’s words from Chinese.
Han said there were “no obvious signs” of leaking with the property, and any remedial works done by his clients were routine maintenance, not “concealment works” as identified by the judge.
At one point during the interview, Han asked if the conversation was off the record. When the Herald said it wasn’t, he replied: “I’ve said enough.”
An unrelated Barfoot agent by the same name works at the Remuera office and had no involvement in this sale or subsequent court finding.
Lane Nichols is a senior journalist and Auckland desk editor for the New Zealand Herald with more than 20 years’ experience in the industry.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.