By Mary Argue of RNZ

Home owners are sounding the alarm about a construction company which they say took tens of thousands of dollars before its director disappeared.

RNZ has spoken to six of Enzed Construction’s former clients who said they were cutting their losses after paying money upfront for work that was done poorly, or not at all.

Documents shared with RNZ show payments to Enzed Construction and its director Hemi Arapeta Tiopira – known as James – exceed $60,000.

Dealings with the company earlier this year – in Wellington, Lower Hutt and Waipukurau – had led to police reports, Dispute Tribunal claims, and several complaints to an online tradie platform used by Enzed Construction to source work.

Tiopira has not responded to RNZ’s multiple requests for comment.

Those who spoke to RNZ after contracting Enzed Construction to repile their homes had similar stories, laying out Tiopira’s eagerness to quote the job, professionalism, and the initial flurry of activity after the deposit – about 50% – was paid.

They said a request for more money upfront followed, but then after a series of delays and excuses – including Tiopira claiming he had been in car crashes, his mum was sick, he’d had a diabetes diagnosis – they were offered a refund that never materialised.

Tiopira has since gone to ground.

Before doing so, he told some clients that he had to close the company.

‘It really ruined me’

It had been almost three months, but Warren Fitzgerald said he was only just clawing his way back to normality after buying a house in Wellington, based on Enzed Construction’s quote to repile it.

He said in hindsight, the company’s competitive $33,000 price should have been a red flag – but having done some building, thought it could be done for that price.

He also knew to be flexible, because construction did not always go to plan.

“That’s where the embarrassment sits, just eating up the story and giving people the benefit of the doubt. Which sounds terrible as well, because I don’t ever want to not give that [people the benefit of the doubt].”

Fitzgerald paid a 60% deposit, and said Tiopira and his crew started work almost immediately post-settlement on April 7.

Within days, Fitzgerald said he was asked to pay the remaining balance to help Tiopira with end of financial year invoices. He paid it, with the promise that it would also cover additional materials and work.

But the initial flurry of activity did not last long, and the excuses for why the builders were not on site started coming in.

Fitzgerald was told there had been an accident on-site that required hospital treatment, then a first aid course.

“I wasn’t expecting them there every day and I wasn’t there to micro-manage them, but I was starting to worry about the timeline, which they said was going to be three weeks.”

But by three weeks, he said the work – which was substandard – was nowhere near finished and “from there it went downhill very quickly”.

“Effectively, they stopped coming to site, and I was trying to text them for weeks and call them, and no answer.”

On May 7, Fitzgerald told Tiopira he would be filing a claim with the Disputes Tribunal.

He said Tiopira finally responded, claiming his ute had been ploughed into in Johnsonville and he could no longer do the work. He offered a full refund.

In an order issued on July 4, Disputes Tribunal referee C Bridgeman found Enzed Construction had breached the Consumer Guarantees Act and ordered the company to repay Fitzgerald the maximum amount claimable – $30,000 by July 31.

Bridgeman found the work that was done was substandard and that Enzed’s failures were “substantial” – including not getting council consent and an engineer’s report.

In a separate order, on August 12, Bridgeman found Tiopira had abandoned a second contract for insulation work and ordered he refund Fitzgerald $5600.

The orders show Tiopira did not appear for either hearing.

A screenshot of CCTV footage of Enzed Construction's director, James Tiopira.

To date, Fitzgerald said he had received nothing and the work still needed to be done, which meant the family would be figuring out “how to make ends meet for quite some time”.

The process of navigating a new lease on the family’s rental, plus juggling several contractors lined up in preparation for the house move, had also taken its toll, he said.

“It really ruined me a bit actually – for a quite a few weeks to be honest. I’ve got two young children, so we were looking down the barrel of being homeless.

“I kinda just shut down for quite a while, while I figured out what was going on.”

Worked sourced through tradie platform

Waipukurau home owner Valerie Huxley gets upset talking about Enzed Construction – who she says took her money, left a mess under her house, and then disappeared.

“My husband passed away at the same time, so that was quite hard. He had to go into hospital while they were there. It’s all become quite stressful really.”

She said the company responded to her request for a repile quote on Builderscrack – a tradie platform that connects verified contractors with people wanting work.

Huxley said she paid a deposit, although does not want to disclose how much, and work soon began in the first weekend of April.

“They went under the house [and] there were all sorts of noises going on – banging and crashing – cement bags and all sorts of stuff happening. So, I assumed everything they were doing was kosher.”

But after a couple of days, “they disappeared”, she said. “James never answered his phone ... but there was about 40 texts to-ing and fro-ing in the space of about a month.”

She said he promised to return on May 24, but never showed. Her husband died in ICU the day before.

“No money, no response, nothing at all.”

Huxley said she later learned that the work that was done was substandard and she would need to start again.

“It’s not just the money, it’s being taken advantage of in a stressful time. I’m usually more aware but I had too much going on, I suppose.

“Other people have lost more money than me so, I feel for them even more.”

By the end of May, two home owners in Lower Hutt, who had also contracted Enzed Construction through Builderscrack, said the wheels had fallen off, and to date, they had not received the refunds that were promised.

One resident in Wainuiomata, who RNZ agreed not to name, said when Tiopira turned up to quote the job on April 30 he seemed like “a really friendly young fella”.

He said he handed over more than $10,000 before Tiopira stopped turning up.

On May 25, Tiopira apologised for the communication: “I’ve been really crook, diagnosed last week with type 2 diabetes ... please forgive me, health has been number one issue the past week, sadly your job will be the last job for me.”

The man responded with sympathy – he was happy to wait – but on June 6, Tiopira asked for his bank account to refund the money, “I’m crook as and gonna have to close the company, my eye site is deteriorating fast [sic]”.

Patrice Lobb borrowed money from her mother to pay for building work that was never done. Photo / RNZ, Samuel Rillstone

Lower Hutt resident Patrice Lobb said Tiopira gave her a similar reason for not being able to finish the repiling work on her house.

By that time, she had paid $11,000 – a deposit and then more money upfront for a “snapped bearer”.

“I borrowed the money off my mum to do this, which makes it even worse.”

On May 26, she said the lack of progress since the work started on the 14th meant the “alarm bells went off” and she confronted Tiopira about it, who offered her a refund.

‘I’ve made abit of a mess but will get it all sorted im just abit sick’ [sic], he wrote on May 28, followed by a message about crashing his car in Melling.

“He said he’d been unwell and had diabetes and was in an induced coma. So I felt sorry for him and gave him a little bit more time.”

On June 29, Lobb sent a final message, “James, where is my money???????”, but got no response.

“Emotionally it was really awful - $11,000 is $11,000. You have to work to save that money ... I have to pay it back to my mum and I have to start again.

“You feel violated and then there’s nowhere to go, there’s no one to help.”

Waipukurau home owner Valerie Huxley says a vanished builder left her in distress. Photo / RNZ, Samuel Rillstone

Builderscrack responds

Lobb believed Enzed Construction had negative reviews before she contracted them, but that they were not visible on Builderscrack.

She said the platform needed to take some responsibility.

In response to questions from RNZ, Builderscrack said Enzed Construction went through the normal verification process, which required tradespeople to submit their New Zealand business number, identification and proof of address upon signing up.

Additional checks were also run through the Insolvency Register and New Zealand Companies Register, and included checks for anything online.

It said Enzed Construction uploaded proof of insurance, but did not provide any proof of accreditation, such as being a Licensed Building Practitioner.

“For the home owners in this case, the Enzed Construction account had established a relatively good reputation before they connected, so anyone in their position could have assumed they were trustworthy.”

It said the platform regularly canvassed performance reviews and any negative reviews of Enzed Construction had not triggered a threshold for action.

Builderscrack said it received its first report about Enzed Construction on May 27, and nine days later – after carrying out due diligence – it banned the company and its director for breaching its code of conduct.

The company said the platform “kept in regular contact with the home owners to guide them through their options and encourage recourse under the Consumer Guarantees Act and escalation to the Dispute Tribunal”.

“The decision to ban Enzed Construction Limited was made after seeing no evidence that the business was taking adequate action to resolve things, despite giving initial assurances.”

It said measures were in place to detect any attempts from “the same person” to create a new account.

What’s the deal with Enzed Construction?

Despite multiple attempts, neither Enzed Construction nor James Tiopira responded to RNZ’s repeated requests for comment.

On the New Zealand Companies Register, Enzed Construction is classified as a landscaping company that had three shareholders when it incorporated in July 2022.

Later that year, in October, Hemi Arapeta Tiopira became the sole director and shareholder, registered to a Gisborne address.

Although Enzed Construction’s website no longer existed, the internet archive “WayBack Machine” showed in January of this year, the company marketed itself as a “reliable partner in construction excellence” with 20 years’ experience.

Enzed Construction's website captured by the internet archive in January this year. Photo / WayBack Machine

No action taken

Warren Fitzgerald said despite the Disputes Tribunal finding in his favour, he had “almost zero confidence” he would ever see the money.

He said the biggest surprise was that no authority seemed willing to take action.

“How do you stop this guy? Trying to stop him doing it seems almost impossible.”

The Commerce Commission declined Fitzgerald’s request to investigate Enzed Construction, telling RNZ the case was more appropriate for the Building Disputes Tribunal and that it could not provide an “individual disputes resolution type service”.

Meanwhile, Fitzgerald’s bank told him that because he had authorised the transfer of funds it was not considered fraud, and advised him to contact the police.

Two of Enzed Construction’s clients told RNZ they had filed police reports, but that no further action was being taken.

The resident in Wainuiomata did not expect to recoup the thousands he paid.

“The police pushed it off as being a civil matter. These people are hurting other people out there. It’s an ongoing issue and if nobody stops him ... other people are going to get hurt.”

The police said multiple reports about the same issue did not necessarily trigger a criminal investigation.

“In order for a matter to become a criminal one/in order for police to consider a prosecution, an incident must meet the ingredients of the Solicitor General’s prosecution guidelines, and meet the ‘public interest’ test.”

Those who spoke to RNZ said the experience had left its mark.

Fitzgerald said he was now sceptical about everyone.

“As soon as someone wants a deposit, I’m like, ‘How do we know you’re going to do what you’re going to do?’.

“The trust is lower than I would’ve hoped for everyone I interact with.”

How can you protect yourself?

Consumer NZ's Sahar Lone.

Consumer NZ’s Sahar Lone said there were a number of protections under the Consumer Guarantees Act, Contract and Commercial Law Act, the Building Act and potentially under contract law.

However, property and construction lawyer Prue Miller said it was best to do due diligence upfront, which did not require a lawyer, to avoid fishhooks down the line.

She said deposits were common and not unreasonable where a tradesperson had subcontractors, “but, you need to look at what that deposit is for”.

But adjudicator and director of the Building Disputes Tribunal John Green was adamant: never pay a deposit up front, maintaining most contractors “worth their salt” would be able to purchase what was needed on credit.

Accepting that there was a risk on both sides, he said in some cases it was best for the money to be held in escrow, or by a third party, and recommended paying money upfront for legal advice to avoid more money down the line “when everything’s turned to custard”.

He stressed the need for home owners to do their due diligence before hiring a contractor.

“Know who they’re dealing with. Ask to speak to their last three customers, not any three, but the last three and ring them and find out how they got on.

“Look at the Companies Register, look at how long they have been in business.”

Green said where disputes arose that could not be mediated, home owners had rights under the Building Act and Construction Contracts Act.

“It’s a very powerful piece of legislation. If a party decides to exercise its rights to refer a dispute to adjudication, there’s nothing the other party can do to stop, delay, or prevent it. And they’ll be bound by the outcome.”

Where there was an outcome that needed to be enforced, the only option was to seek an order through the District Court, Green said.

Both processes required more money, he said, and people needed to weigh that up – with the likelihood of recovering costs.

“Many [companies] just vanish off the face of the earth ... and of course the cost of recovering those monies is disproportionately high, so in many cases people will – and need to – just walk away.”

Ultimately, Green advised people to be a bit sceptical.

“It’s a bit of that Kiwi, ‘She’ll be right, mate’ mentality, but there’s two things wrong with that – she won’t be right, they’re not your mate.”

– RNZ