Search

found 519 results

Images for government response; more images...

Audio, Radio New Zealand

A Christchurch couple locked in an ongoing legal battle with state-owned quake insurer Southern Response says it is sobering for a Court of Appeal decision to go their way, one decade on from the harrowing earthquakes. An earlier High Court decision found Southern Response guilty of misleading and deceptive behaviour when it short-changed Karl and Alison Dodds tens of thousands of dollars after their quake damaged house was written off. The Dodds say they were tricked into accepting a lower offer from Southern Response only to later discover the insurer had kept secret from them a second higher estimate to rebuild their damaged house, a so-called second secret detailed repair and rebuild analysis (DRA). The High Court ordered Southern Response to pay the Dodds almost $180,000 in damages, plus costs. But the government appealed the decision, saying it needed clarity, because of the thousands of similar cases it could be liable for. The Court of Appeal reduced the damages Southern Response has to pay $10,656.44 due to an earlier error in calculations. The Minister responsible Grant Robertson has declined to be interviewed. Southern Response also declined to be interviewed. Neither have ruled out appealing the decision in the Supreme Court.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

A poster created by Empowered Christchurch to advertise their submission to the CERA Draft Transition Recovery Plan on social media.The poster reads, "Submission. CERA Draft Transition Recovery Plan. After nearly five years of 'Emergency Response' where sustainability has been sacrificed in the interests of speed, we can assume that this phase is now behind us. We see no reason why this period should be extended until April 2016. Lessons must be learned from the past. It is time to move into the 'Restoration Phase'. Once seismic and building standards are corrected, and risks are notified, mapped and accepted, sustainability will be ensures. We need a city that is driven by the people that live in it, and enabled by a bureaucracy that accepts and mitigates risks, rather than transferring them to the most vulnerable residents. We support option 3+."