The incosideration and lack of understanding towards people who were victums of last years earthquake. People getting $5000 fines for not mowing lawns on properties which they aren't even allowed to live in, not only are they paying the mortgage on the house, they're also paying rent (in some cases) and now the council wants $5000? Also that people with uninhabitable homes are being told they must still pay insurance premiums� as the house is a liability. And I quote (roughly) "Someone could come and set the house alight, which might then spread to neighbouring houses, and there is a liability there".
They haven't been fined, they have been threatened with a fine if they don't get it to 100mm (Not unreasonably low) within a month. I completely agree that the way it was done was crazy, and they should have completely modified the standard letter to be much more sympathetic, however it really is a fire risk, and the property owners need to deal with it.
I don't understand the second part though. I don't see how (assuming the property is maintained to a reasonable standard so there is no negligence) a fire lit on the property by someone other than the owner that then spreads will see the owner liable. Surely the liability is on the fire lighter. I understand that the insurers will charge premiums if the owners want to maintain coverage, but the owners can just not pay and choose not to be insured.
The insures/EQC really need to get on with knocking these condemned properties down so the owners can move on.aitkenmike2011-02-04 11:45:00