Newlywed couple Matt Toole and Victoria London signed a contract in June 2019 for $510,000 and were told they could move in by July. Their sale was cancelled in December.

First-time buyers who had their contracts cancelled up to a year after handing over deposits to developers in Tawa, say Kiwis need more protection against "sunset clawback" in New Zealand.

Bailey Ross was heartbroken when her May 2019 sale was cancelled under a sunset clause last month, and the new build she'd bought in Tawa LLP's development was relisted for $90,000 more. Since telling her story on Stuff, others have shared similar experiences.

SUPPLIED Bailey Ross was heartbroken when her May 2019 sale was cancelled under a sunset clause in January, and the new build she'd bought was relisted for $90,000 more.

Newlywed couple Matt Toole and Victoria London signed a contract in June 2019 for $510,000 and were told they could move in by July. The couple were so overjoyed, they packed up their things and sold off furniture ready for a new start. But then came the delays.

"Our flat was completely finished, that was the heartbreaking thing," said Victoria. "But the real estate agent said we can't move you in until we move everyone else in. So we waited. Then they said they hoped to move us in for Christmas."

READ MORE:

* First time buyer's contract cancelled within weeks of move in date

* Buyers should know their rights when buying a house

* No future for bust Matrix Homes prefab company, owed $6.5m

* Proposed Special Housing Areas in Tawa met with calls for affordability

In December, instead of getting the keys to their new home, the sale was cancelled. "The developer told our lawyer they couldn't get titles and asked for an account number to return the deposit." said Victoria.

Tawa LLP partners Joseph Hannah and Sean Murrie were both shareholders in Matrix Homes, the liquidated development company that sold the unfinished houses to Tawa LLP.

Hannah admitted the development had been "beset with problems" and sympathised with the disappointed buyers, but said "at the end of the day, it's a business transaction".

SUPPLIED "My obligation is to honour the contracts we make and to build good places, and these are good places," said Tawa LLP development partner Joseph Hannah.

Like Ross, Toole and London had a September 2019 sunset clause in their agreement that gave both parties the opportunity to get out of the contract if the build was not completed by a certain date.

The couple said the emotional investment mattered as much to them as the financial one. The stress has been particularly hard on Toole, who recently had a kidney transplant. "As a Kiwi, I felt ashamed that we couldn't buy our own house," he said.

"It really messed with our wellbeing," said American-born London. "We lived in a rental with our stuff boxed up for five months, in limbo."

SUPPLIED The modern properties, with new facilities, appliances and car park ticked all the boxes for the buyers.

The couple are among a number of disappointed buyers who would like to see stricter rules around sunset clauses in New Zealand.

In the Australian state of Victoria, developers need a buyer's consent to tear up a contract of sale under the sunset clause. The law was changed in May 2019 to stop developers intentionally delaying developments, voiding contracts, and reselling at a higher price.

"What do we have to do to start a conversation here about it here?" said London. "We don't want anyone else falling victim to this."

Stu Connolly, another buyer whose contract with Tawa LLP has been cancelled under the sunset clause, agreed: "I think it goes without saying that there needs to be tighter controls on the use of that clause from the developer's end."

The 48-year-old divorcee bought a house in the Tawa development for $555K in September 2019, with a January 31 sunset date. He was also told he might be able to move in in December, before being hit by delays.

When his sale was cancelled earlier this month, he said the real estate agent told him they would consider a higher offer of $605,000.

"I was willing to wait," he said. "But I entered into a contract in good faith and all I wanted was to get the house I bought in the first place, for the price that I bought it."

Hannah said 15 of the development's 22 homes had now been sold and he hoped the development would be complete by the end of April, with titles given in May.

He would not say how many contracts Tawa LLP had cancelled, or whether more would be, only that several cancellations had been made "on both sides".

"We're not social housing providers," he said. "My obligation is to honour the contracts we make and to build good places, and these are good places."

Without raising the unit prices, Hannah said the whole scheme would have gone into liquidation because "costs went through the proverbial roof". He also said the company "won't make any profit out of it".

"We're not trying to catch people out with the sunset [clause]. Each one that's been put into every contract has been put in with good intent that it should be achievable."

SUPPLIED Joseph Hannah said 15 of the development's 22 homes had been sold and he hoped the development would be complete by the end of April.

Ross, London and Toole, and Connolly said their lawyers requested explanations from Tawa LLP after cancellation, but didn't receive any.

"If the sunset clause is invoked for a development of that size, they should at least have to arrange a meeting with the affected parties to explain the practical reason (not the lawful reason) for cancellation," said Connolly. "We need more transparency."

Rohan Havelock, a litigation lawyer and senior law lecturer at University of Auckland, said vendors aren't obliged to give buyers a reason for cancelling under a sunset clause but "if a purchaser decided to challenge the purported cancellation, in practice the vendor would need to".

"This is because of the part of the clause which says 'the vendor must do all things reasonably necessary to enable the conditions… to be fulfilled by the due date'," he said. "If the vendor maintained in legal proceedings that its financial situation forced it to cancel, it would need to substantiate that."