Muddy waters: Onehunga man says council contractors used his tap without permission

An Auckland man came home to find council contractors using his water. Photo / 123RF

An Onehunga resident who came home to find Auckland Council-contracted workers using his water without permission says not enough is being done to make the situation right.

Shraneel Chandra said he arrived at his Hull Place home in July with his wife and baby to find a hose snaking from one of his garden taps to the alleyway next door.

He then discovered workers from Choose the Right Contractors had been using the water to jet-blast a council footpath they had just laid, he said.

Chandra said he immediately confronted them before laying a complaint with council.

But soon-after, CTR's owner, Roger Hasiata, visited Chandra to apologise and beg him to withdraw his complaint, he said.

Chandra agreed and, in return, Hasiata signed a contract promising to paint Chandra's house and fence for free.

Later - when Chandra believed Hasiata was dragging his feet and didn't intend to honour the contract - he re-lodged his complaint with Auckland Council.

Hasiata denied misleading Chandra. While accepting his workers were initially in the wrong, he said he then tried his best to do the right thing for Chandra and his company's reputation.

But Chandra wants the council to take responsibility for its contractor's actions and to honour the agreement to paint his house.

However, Auckland Council said the deal should never had been made because it was "utterly unacceptable" for a contractor to attempt to subvert a complaint.

"We have a robust official complaint process and do not condone any attempts to circumvent that," council community facilities general manager Rod Sheridan said.

He said he was following up through AIM Services, which holds the parent contract for the footpath work, to "understand what happened here".

Hasiata said he originally visited Chandra to apologise and at first offered to pay his water bill for a year.

But Chandra wanted more and asked for his house to be painted, he said.

Hasiata said he knew this could cost as much as $40,000 to repaint the house but was desperate to keep his council contracts.

Auckland Council reliably paid its contractors, whereas other companies sometimes did not pay CTR for the company's work such as when a major construction company collapsed, Hasiata said.

But Hasiata said he only signed the contract on the understanding Chandra wouldn't complain to council.

Chandra, on the other hand, said he felt manipulated into withdrawing his council complaint because Hasiata made him feel guilty.

It later also became clear Hasiata wasn't committed to honouring the contract, Chandra claimed, something Hasiata denied.

Chandra has now hired a lawyer, who he said had advised him ultimately Auckland Council was responsible for CTR's actions because the company was its contractor.

However, he said the cost of going to court was too expensive and appealed to the council to honour the contract to paint his fence and house.

Auckland Council said it was willing to compensate Chandra for one month's water and repair any damage caused by the footpath's construction, but would not pay to paint his house.

"We have also made attempts to meet with Mr Chandra in person ... however, to-date this offer has not been accepted," Sheridan said.