The Stonewood Homes Dunedin franchisee says he has accepted aspects of the original build were unacceptable and has made repairs, including replacing the entire brick exterior of the home.
Rachel and Nadine Dickson are now calling for franchisee Graeme Sneddon to pay costs for their rental, storage and legal expenses, and are refusing to move into the home until their demands for more repairs are met.
The Dicksons signed a building agreement with Stonewood Homes in April 2013 for a home at Highland Park, Mosgiel.
The pair planned to live in the home and retire there after nursing both parents, then selling the family home after their deaths.
Rachel Dickson said they were supposed to take possession of the home in January last year, but the house had only just received its code of compliance.
Issues included the use of chipped bricks, poor pointing work and bricks that were poorly placed, she said.
An independent report the Dicksons organised said while the brickwork was within acceptable tolerances, ''the aesthetic quality of the brick veneer falls short''.
''Reasonable expectations in terms of workmanship'' had not been met, it said.
A report on the roof said while it was ''generally installed to an acceptable standard'', there were gaps at the low end of the spouting, the profile of the roof sheet was visible, and there were problems with the fascia.
Miss Dickson said, in a statement put together with lawyers Van Aart Sycamore, the biggest problem was the time taken to complete the home.
''One of the most frustrating parts of the process has been getting Stonewood Homes to complete remediation works.
''These works have often only been agreed to after we have engaged a professional in the industry to write a report, at our own cost, advising why the works need to be completed.
''This has taken up a lot of our time, and been expensive.
''We feel completely frustrated and let down by this entire process.
''What started as a positive and exciting time in our lives has slowly turned into a nightmare.''
Lawyer's response
When contacted, Mr Sneddon referred the issue to his lawyer, Grant Dowland.
Mr Dowland said the roof and the brickwork were done by subcontractors, though ''that's no excuse, because Graeme's responsible for them''.
Mr Sneddon did not blame anyone else for the situation, he said.
''They shouldn't have used chipped bricks, obviously.''
There had also been an issue with interior painting, which ''was not great - there was quite a bit of fixing up to be done''.
On issues with the roof, Mr Sneddon had suggested a solution, but did not hear back from the Dicksons. In the end, he took the roof off and fixed the problems.
The Dicksons have complained they had asked for a representative from Flanders Marlow, a company they hired to write reports on the work, to be on site when that was done.
Mr Dowland said his client was ''a bit anti'', as he was being asked to pay for Flanders Marlow to be there for a job with an outcome ''that was going to be obvious once the work was finished''.
Mr Dowland said to a point, the Dickson's criticisms had been fair, and upheld.
''Should it have been done better originally? I'd have to say yes, and there's been an acceptance of that: Graeme has said `Let's get it redone'.''
But he said the sisters had become ''entrenched'' in their position, and were wanting perfection.
On the costs being called for by the Dicksons, he said Mr Sneddon was open to paying for the Flanders Marlow reports.
''But now we're getting claims for rent, storage, legal costs, and I can't see we're going to negotiate that to a settlement, because of the way things have gone.''
The Dicksons had hired a Queen's Counsel at one point, which was an expensive option.
They had a ''defects list'' for aspects they felt needed to be fixed, but Mr Dowland said that included things such as landscaping, which was not part of the build.
Mr Dowland said the dispute meant the build had taken more time than expected, but some of that was because the Dicksons had taken time to get back with what they wanted.
The Dicksons had taken six weeks to decide on the new bricks they wanted.
Mr Dowland expected the matter to go to adjudication.
Customer disagrees
Rachel Dickson said she did not accept the roof was fixed, after checking the work with her representative last week, and disagreed she had taken time to get back to the builder on the bricks.
She said while Mr Sneddon was now accepting the brick and roof work had to be fixed, she had to ''fight'' to get that done.
She agreed with the plan to go to adjudication.
'Isolated situation'
Stonewood Homes NZ chief executive Warwick Isaacs said the issue was ''an isolated situation with a particular set of circumstances and challenges''.
''We are sorry the customer feels they haven't received the level of service they expected, but the company and the franchisee remain committed to doing everything that is fair and reasonable to get the customer into their house.''
Mr Sneddon had worked hard to address concerns, ''despite facing significant obstacles''.
''We have listened to all the customers' concerns and gone to great lengths to resolve any concerns.
''We are more than happy to again talk or meet with the customers if this will help them work through any matters and get them resolved.''
