The Original Kiwi Rating Site Now with 104,691 ratings online

The NZ House Inspection Company / Home inspection services

Is The NZ House Inspection Company your business?
  • 5%
    "Their report has ended up costing us hundreds of thousands due to missed diagnosis. A quick google of NZHIC and Gary Korneef will tell you everything you need to know. Need I say more. The reports are not worth the paper they are written on. The company was renamed to try and salvage their tattered reputation. Wish I had known this before engaging their services."
    Rating by: Andy  |  Rating posted: 17th Oct, 2017  |  Contact: Kellie Korneef  |  Job date: Oct, 2017
    Communication: 0%  |  Quality: 0%  |  Reliability: 10%  |  Value: 10%
    Andy17th Oct, 2017More details…
  • 0%
    "I will never be duped by this man again. He is useless and has cost us thousands of dollars in building work due to the fact that he has not got a clue what he is doing and is only useful to vendor . Even the lawyer I contacted knows of his reputation. Now liquidated and no longer trading under this company name but please be wary of using him"
    Rating by: andi   |  Rating posted: 6th Dec, 2016  |  Contact: Barry Marsh  |  Job date: Jul, 2015
    Communication: 0%  |  Quality: 0%  |  Reliability: 0%  |  Value: 0%
    andi 6th Dec, 2016More details…
  • 100%
    "Thanks for the great service and report. We found the report easy to read and great to be able to discuss anything we needed with Chris on a number of calls sometime after the inspection.
    We are very happy with the service and the ongoing support provided and have recommended The NZ House Inspection Company to all our friends.
    Rating by: Grant  |  Rating posted: 7th Dec, 2015  |  Contact: Chris  |  Job date: May, 2015
    Communication: 100%  |  Quality: 100%  |  Reliability: 100%  |  Value: 100%
    Grant7th Dec, 2015More details…
  • 3%
    "Avoid at all costs. The report had no detail whatsoever and was rejected by our bank for being not up to standard. Utter waste of money. Have viewed reports from other Building Inspection companies and they have DOUBLE the amount of info compared to NZHIC's report. Would also not disclose whether the inspector was covered by Professional Indemnity Insurance. Avoid."
    Kellie responded:
    "I been informed by this clients bank that our report was in fact accepted and had all the information that they required. Our report is written in layman’s terms to ensure that all of our clients, informed or not, understand the statements made by our inspector. Unfortunately from time to time this is a part of our industry due to people having no real understanding on what it takes to provide an informative pre purchase house inspection report, with that said I have tried and will continue to try and rectify this situation. We stand by the inspectors work, we oversee all of the reports written before they go to our clients and we believe this report gave the client and the bank all the information they needed before purchasing their house."
    Rating by: Unhappy  |  Rating posted: 6th Dec, 2015  |  Contact: Kellie Koorneef  |  Job date: Dec, 2015
    Communication: 0%  |  Quality: 0%  |  Reliability: 10%  |  Value: 0%
    Unhappy6th Dec, 2015More details, one reply…
  • 0%
    "please. please. please never use this co or gary koorneef .. incompetent in the extreme..."
    Rating by: malcolm  |  Rating posted: 10th Mar, 2015  |  Contact: gary koorneef  |  Job date: Mar, 2015
    Communication: 0%  |  Quality: 0%  |  Reliability: 0%  |  Value: 0%
    malcolm10th Mar, 2015More details…
  • 30%
    "Really disappointed with this company, they did not inspect under the floor but on their report they claimed they had - it has cost me thousands because of their errors! They then promised me a refund for their work and decided after this that they wouldn't!! disappointing Rod Burrows..."
    Rating by: philippa  |  Rating posted: 25th Mar, 2014  |  Contact: philippa  |  Job date: Jan, 2014
    Communication: 70%  |  Quality: 0%  |  Reliability: 50%  |  Value: 0%
    philippa25th Mar, 2014More details…
  • 28%
    "Brian did not identify the property's cladding as WEATHERSIDE - a well known failed product from the 80s. After purchasing the property based on the NZ Housing Inspection Company's positive report, I was told by a friend about the cladding. Upon research myself I discovered this cladding was very easy to identify and was extremely frustrated I had paid money for a report that had led to a very expensive mistake. Not impressed!!"
    Rating by: Nathan  |  Rating posted: 1st Sep, 2013  |  Contact: Brian  |  Job date: Mar, 2008
    Communication: 50%  |  Quality: 10%  |  Reliability: 30%  |  Value: 20%
    Nathan1st Sep, 2013More details…
  • 100%
    "We received a fantastic report. Well detailed. It alerted us to problems with the house we were looking to buy that we otherwise would not have know about. Highly recommend Peter and his team to anyone. Would definately use them again. "
    Rating by: Jen  |  Rating posted: 8th Sep, 2012  |  Contact: Peter Jiang  |  Job date: Sep, 2012
    Communication: 100%  |  Quality: 100%  |  Reliability: 100%  |  Value: 100%
    Jen8th Sep, 2012More details…
  • 80%
    "Peter was slightly more difficult to communicate with as English appears to be his second language but he still provided a detailed report pinpointing areas of the house which needed fixing up or further inspection. The price for this job is generally good and the report was delivered in the time they specified. Quite a reliable service."
    Rating by: David  |  Rating posted: 4th Sep, 2012  |  Contact: Peter Jiang  |  Job date: Aug, 2012
    Communication: 70%  |  Quality: 90%  |  Reliability: 80%  |  Value: 80%
    David4th Sep, 2012More details…
  • 98%
    "I found Chris to be very qualified and easy to talk with about the issues he found. He helped me purchase the property with a clear understanding of what i needed to do for maintenance.
    What I liked most is that all the other companies i rang were all builders doing inspections when they were available. The NZ House Inspection Company ONLY does inspections so i felt happy that they were not trying to make work out of the inspection as i have been told by friends.
    I will definately recommend The NZ House Inspection Company to my friends.

    Rating by: Pete  |  Rating posted: 3rd Sep, 2012  |  Contact: Chris  |  Job date: Jul, 2012
    Communication: 100%  |  Quality: 100%  |  Reliability: 100%  |  Value: 90%
    Pete3rd Sep, 2012More details…
  • 20%
    "DO NOT RECOMMEND. Report contained things that were wrong and information that Barry did not inspect himself (instead the vendor provided Barry with the info). Followed up when we moved in. Barry returned my call, abused me over the phone at work and blamed his incorrect report on his reporting tools (he chose the wrong option). Emailed and left messages for Gary who promised to follow up...never did...until my partner spoke to him. We got a refund months later but fixing the things the report stated the house had cost significantly more to fix."
    Rating by: Anon  |  Rating posted: 18th Feb, 2012  |  Contact: Barry Marsh  |  Job date: Jan, 2007
    Communication: 0%  |  Quality: 0%  |  Reliability: 80%  |  Value: 0%
    Anon18th Feb, 2012More details…
  • 20%
    "I would definitely NOT use this company again. Brian\'s inspection was incompetent and he missed some major issues.
    His inspection stated the roof was in average condition and would only need some minor sanding and a repaint. We moved into a house with a couple of serious roof leaks which have cost us $5000 to repair.
    He didn\'t notice that the house had no electrical earth!
    He also failed to notice obvious evidence of internal flooding in a downstairs area which is partially below ground. Again, we have repairs to carry out which will cost us thousands.

    When we raised these issues with Gary Koorneef, the company director he paid lip service to our concerns and denied any liability. Aviod NZHIC at all costs!!!
    Rating by: Peter  |  Rating posted: 6th Jun, 2011  |  Contact: Brian Marsh  |  Job date: Sep, 2010
    Communication: 10%  |  Quality: 0%  |  Reliability: 70%  |  Value: 0%
    Peter6th Jun, 2011More details…
  • 0%
    "I do NOT recommend this company as I do not believe that they are impartial. The inspector conducted the inspection with the estate agent but without us despite our instructions and therefore I have no faith that the report was not biased rendering it a complete waste of money. The report itself was very cursory. An independant builder inspected the hosue the following week and identified major faults not mentioned in the NZHIC report which would have amounted to tens of thousands to correct. Payment was demanded prior to the release of the report contrary to the terms noted on the company website that states that payment is requested on delivery of the report. This still has not been updated at time of writing (4 months later)"
    Rating by: Virginia Thomas  |  Rating posted: 9th Feb, 2011  |  Contact: Gary  |  Job date: Oct, 2010
    Communication: 0%  |  Quality: 0%  |  Reliability: 0%  |  Value: 0%
    Virginia Thomas9th Feb, 2011More details…
  • 33%
    "The report was very poor (felt very computer generated) and full of disclaimers meaning that there is unlikely to be any accountability for any of the comments anyway. The report focussed on the visible bits that someone like myself with no experience can spot, rather than focussing issues related to leaky homes, moisture, ventilation and structure, that are crucial for such a large purchase. I definitely WOULD NOT recommend them."
    Rating by: Patricia  |  Rating posted: 6th Nov, 2009  |  Contact: Keith Milne  |  Job date: Apr, 2009
    Communication: 40%  |  Quality: 10%  |  Reliability: 70%  |  Value: 10%
    Patricia6th Nov, 2009More details…
  • 60%
    "Quick turn around, but achieved with a tick box approach. Barry noticed some things that were flagged for further investigation, but when I talked this through with him he seemed relaxed about whether this was warranted. Some months later I find I have a home with sub-standard cladding that needs repair/replacement costing far in excess of Barry's estimate and leaking windows. Also Barry didn't know the cladding contains asbestos despite knowing the age of it - something a competent builder or inspector should know."
    Rating by: Mark  |  Rating posted: 16th Mar, 2009  |  Contact: Barry  |  Job date: Mar, 2008
    Communication: 70%  |  Quality: 20%  |  Reliability: 100%  |  Value: 50%
    Mark16th Mar, 2009More details…
  • 65%
    "Had a prepurchase inspection conducted as we were moving between cities. The report was a standard tick and flick with very little detail eg "exterior claddings: various, generally good". Cost $395. No major faults were identified so we proceeded with the purchase, however the report didn't identify: major gas leak (gas excluded from the inspection in small print), the illegal and dangerous swimming pool fence (not even mentioned), and that the lower storey was clad in Weatherside, a failed product of the 1980's (not identified in report either). We have had to replace the pool fence, all gas appliances, and now reclad! We would have definitely negotiated the price or pulled out of the sale if we had known about the pool fencing (we had a preschooler) and the recladding. When the Weatherside was pointed out to the Company, they denied any knowledge about vertical Weatherside, and said it was therefore not their problem. These people are NOT RECOMMENDED."
    Rating by: Alice  |  Rating posted: 30th Jul, 2008  |  Contact: Brian Marsh  |  Job date: Jul, 2006
    Communication: 100%  |  Quality: 30%  |  Reliability: 100%  |  Value: 30%
    Alice30th Jul, 2008More details…
  • 13%
    "They were prompt and I received a report within 1/2 a day. Not pointing out any big problems we went unconditional. However, the report ommitted MAJOR problem with the house. Report states over head power supply - 'generally good' when it is actually only 2 metres from deck. This is not compliant with minimum heights (2.7 metres), also two cracked windows were not noted on report. I wonder what else they missed....I would rather they were slower, did the job properly as they were paid to do.....definately NOT recommended."
    Rating by: Paul   |  Rating posted: 19th Jun, 2008  |  Contact: Brian Marsh  |  Job date: May, 2008
    Communication: 0%  |  Quality: 0%  |  Reliability: 50%  |  Value: 0%
    Paul 19th Jun, 2008More details…
  • 88%
    "Reasonably satisfied with Brian's inspection of our new home. The report cost $445, and is 32 pages long (of which 6 pages are fluff). It's very much a long check list of items, with just simple comments against most of them, such as 'generally good'. There was 1 paragraph of commentary in the summary, otherwise everything was described in 1 to 8 words for each checklist item.
    We found the photographs Brian included in the report useful, particularly the ones where he added a few comments of what it was he was illustrating with the photo.

    Afterwards we noted that Brian missed the steam shower in the master bathroom (probably because it's not a standard checklist item). His inspection of the exterior of the roof was done from a ladder - I would have thought you would need to actually get on the roof to fully check for issues.

    However these were all fairly minor issues, and we appreciated that Brian was available at short notice. Overall we were satisfied.
    Rating by: Mike  |  Rating posted: 29th May, 2008  |  Contact: Brian Marsh  |  Job date: May, 2008
    Communication: 100%  |  Quality: 80%  |  Reliability: 100%  |  Value: 70%
    Mike29th May, 2008More details…
  • 95%
    "Good to deal with, prompt and knowledgeable. Report was detailed but looked automated to some extent with some comments truncated. Minor point though, everything else to satisfaction. I'd use them again."
    Rating by: Craig  |  Rating posted: 24th Apr, 2008  |  Contact: Ian Runciman  |  Job date: Apr, 2008
    Communication: 100%  |  Quality: 90%  |  Reliability: 100%  |  Value: 90%
    Craig24th Apr, 2008More details…
  • 23%
    "This was a 'tick the box' report and did not alert me to the danger of a potentially very 'Leaky Home'. I did not buy the property, in spite of the report. and I'm glad."
    Rating by: Peter  |  Rating posted: 30th May, 2007  |  Contact: [email protected]  |  Job date: Apr, 2007
    Communication: 40%  |  Quality: 20%  |  Reliability: 20%  |  Value: 10%
    Peter30th May, 2007More details…
  • 81%
    "There were a couple of items missed by the inspector, can't remember offhand what they were after all this time but one of the items was something quite obvious that I was surprised at the time had been missed."
    Rating by: Niki  |  Rating posted: 11th Feb, 2007  |  Contact: Barry Marsh  |  Job date: Mar, 2006
    Communication: 100%  |  Quality: 50%  |  Reliability: 100%  |  Value: 75%
    Niki11th Feb, 2007More details…
  • 88%
    "Very quick to send out the report. Less than 24 hours. Cost for a standard inspection was $450 icl GST. Building inspector qualifications were however given in the report as "several years building experiance". Report was brief. But seemed to cover everything"
    Rating by: Susie  |  Rating posted: 15th Nov, 2006  |  Contact: Yuri Volynkin  |  Job date: Nov, 2006
    Communication: 75%  |  Quality: 75%  |  Reliability: 100%  |  Value: 100%
    Susie15th Nov, 2006More details…

Unauthenticated ratings (1)

  • 10%
    "the inspector - gary korneeff took 25 minutes to inspect the house.
    As a consequence the report was flawed and many area's such as insulation, water tightness, cielings and plumbing were missed.
    It has cost me thousands to put the things right and the New Zealand Home Inspection company dont give a damm.
    I would not use them if I had known that the director has been in liquidation many time and found guildy of tax fraud for $250,000. That is why he is on probation.
    Rating by: Peter  |  Rating posted: 6th Apr, 2010  |  Contact: Gary Koornneeff  |  Job date: Aug, 2009
    Communication: 10%  |  Quality: 0%  |  Reliability: 30%  |  Value: 0%
    This rating has not been authenticated so it doesn't count towards the overall rating
    Peter, 6th Apr, 2010More details…

Full name of the contact person undertaking the work on behalf of this business

An email will be sent to this address to authenticate your feedback. If you don't get the email, please check your spam folder. This email address will NOT be published on, provided to this business or made available to third parties

Please confirm your email

Write about your experience. The more information and details you give, the more credible to other users your rating will be. Be as descriptive as possible - there's no limit

You can only leave a rating if you have engaged this business to work for you.

Check this box if you wish to receive occasional news and prize emails from