Same playbook, different town
The details from Ashburton are so familiar they could be a template. A homeowner pays a $4,328 deposit for roofing work. Scaffolding goes up. Then nothing happens for weeks. At least five other people in the same town lost money to the same company, A&J Building & Renovations. A Tinwald couple were left at least $10,000 out of pocket after bathroom and laundry repairs were abandoned mid-job, forcing them to pay a new contractor while racking up laundromat bills. A scaffolding company and roofing supplier were also left holding invoices.
Director Aaron Jessett told RNZ he took “full responsibility” for money owed. The clients say they haven’t seen a cent. When one homeowner’s daughter went to police, she was told it was a civil matter. The Commerce Commission confirmed it had received a report but had not yet assessed it.
For anyone who followed the Enzed Construction saga, this reads like a carbon copy.
The pattern that never gets punished
In August 2025, RNZ documented six former clients who paid more than $60,000 to Enzed Construction director Hemi Arapeta Tiopira for work done badly or not at all. The playbook was identical: eagerness to quote, professionalism up front, a 50% deposit, initial activity, then requests for more money followed by escalating excuses. A Disputes Tribunal referee found Enzed breached the Consumer Guarantees Act and ordered $30,000 in repayment. The Commerce Commission declined to investigate.
By October 2025, police had opened an investigation after receiving supplementary information from a victim, and MBIE confirmed it was separately investigating allegations that Tiopira carried out restricted building work without a licence. On October 16 that year, Enzed Construction received a Notice of Intent to Remove from the Companies Register. Client Warren Fitzgerald said he had “almost zero confidence” he would see his money.
The worst variant involves builders who lose in court and then use bankruptcy to extinguish the debt entirely. One Auckland family won a District Court decision ordering regular payments on a $165,000 debt for an Orewa home build. The builder paid $3,950, declared bankruptcy, and moved a company into his wife’s name. The Official Assignee told the family there was nothing the law could do.
The numbers behind the normalised chaos
These cases are not outliers. Analysis cited by RNZ estimated the annual cost of defective building to the New Zealand economy at $2.5 billion, nearly 10% of the sector’s total value. The 2024 BRANZ New House Owners’ Satisfaction Survey found 84% of respondents reported post-construction defects, yet 72% still rated their builder as good or very good. The problem is so widespread it has been absorbed as normal.
Meanwhile, a 2022 MBIE survey found only 34% of builders were aware of the Building Act’s prescribed disclosure statement. Just 58% of minor renovations and 72% of major renovations had written contracts in place, despite contracts being mandatory for work over $30,000.
Reforms with a four-year escape hatch
In August 2025, Cabinet agreed to a significant package of Building Act reforms: mandatory home warranties for new residential builds and renovations over $100,000, professional indemnity insurance for designers and engineers, maximum LBP fines increased to $20,000, and licence suspensions extended to 24 months. Only 46% of new builds currently carry defects warranties, so the expansion matters.
But the package carries a significant caveat. Cabinet reserved the right to suspend mandatory warranty and insurance requirements for up to two years, extendable for another two, via Order in Council. That is not a theoretical risk. Builders warranty insurance in New Zealand is sold by just two providers backed by a single Lloyd’s of London syndicate, and Lloyd’s has exited this market before. If capacity dries up, the mandatory requirement becomes unenforceable and the suspension clause activates.
Honest builders are paying the reputational tax
This is not just a consumer protection story. It is a market structure problem. Every builder who takes a deposit and disappears makes it harder for the thousands of legitimate operators to win trust, command fair margins, and compete on quality rather than price. When police treat theft-by-another-name as a civil matter, when the Commerce Commission declines to investigate, and when bankruptcy law lets court judgments evaporate, the incentive structure rewards the worst actors.
The Building Amendment Bill is now before Parliament. Whether it delivers real protection depends on whether the warranty market holds together and whether enforcement agencies start treating repeat offenders as something more than a paperwork problem. The Ashburton homeowners staring at unfinished roofs already know the answer to that question.
Sources
- Homeowners want builder Aaron Jessett barred after losing thousands on unfinished jobs
- ‘It really ruined me’: Builder takes thousands of dollars, then vanishes (2025-08-26)
- Police investigate construction company director accused of taking thousands (2025-10-17)
- Bankruptcy law reform: Lobby group tells family their loss to builder is a textbook case why law should change
- NZ’s $2.5 billion shoddy building bill: how to fix the ‘build now, fix later’ culture
- New House Owners’ Satisfaction Survey 2024 (2024)
- Understanding the effectiveness of consumer protection measures in the building sector (2022-03)
- Contractors: Do your homework – Quick guide for building contractors and homeowners (2025-11)
- Home owners could be left exposed as Govt gives itself an out on requiring new-build warranties