Leaky Homes
Again I recall how Helen Clark proclaimed that there was nothing of substance to the issue, and attacked the NZ Herald for “banging on” about it.
This non-issue is now estimated to cost $11 billion to fix.
The Government has proposed that efforts shift from the tribunal that assigns blame, to just fixing the problem:
Cabinet will consider in the New Year the previously announced proposal where homeowners who drop legal action would agree to shoulder about 64 per cent of the cost of repairs and councils 26 per cent.
The Government would chip in 10 per cent. It would also guarantee loans to ensure owners had access to funds with lower interest rates for those on small incomes and the option of paying off through their estate for older people.
At present the Government has no liability – it all rests with developers and local Councils, and as many developers have used shelf companies, the Councils are often the only ones left to pay up. So I would have thought 26% from Councils was better than 100%!
But Wellington Mayor Kerry Prendergast today said the Government was not shouldering enough of the burden.
“The Government of the time changed the legislation that allowed different practices… that allowed the use of untreated timber,” she said on Radio New Zealand.
“They argue they don’t have a legal liability, they certainly have a moral and ethical liability. We are talking about upwards of 90,000 New Zealanders living in homes that leak, we’re talking about not just the psychological problem with that, but of course significant respiratory problems.”
Ms Prendergast said councils would be willing to re-engage – she proposed councils and government contributed 25 per cent each.
I’m not wild about taxpayers having to fork out $1 billion, let alone $3 billion – especially when debt is massively increasing and defecits are likely for the next seven years.
Not that wild about paying through rates either, but as least local Councils are somewhat more solvent than the central Government.
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:22 am
Just heard a good comment re: leaky homes on RadioLive.
What the govt should do is provide free legal representation to allow affectees to take developers builders architects etc to court.
Why not? Williamson is merely proposing to underwrite bank loans. That’s crap. Hold those responsible to account.
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:28 am
So where is your great commercial fair (National) environment now DPF?
I don’t think the govt not got money works for me david.
I have a mate who’s flats just got a deal done at the last moment after 2yrs of hell.
The WCC and other company’s incl Hardy’s etc ducked and dived and it was only because they had done the paperwork so well that the offenders signed an agreement at the last minute before court.
They played hardball finances with little people who haven’t got much and especially WCC.
So Kerri can whistle as far as I am concerned.
It would be nice if central govt reimbursed legal and experts fees that were paid out previously as well as current cases.
At least it would mean this parliament is taking responsibility for parliaments actions!
Personally I think the MP’s who changed the law should pay out of their super and airfares!
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:34 am
Personally I think that people who spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on houses should have done more homework. It hardly takes a rocket scientist to realise that no eaves, internal gutters and thin concrete plaster on walls in an earthquake prone country are a potential problem. I have no sympathy and object to my money being taken to pay out people who didn’t do their homework like I did before buying a house.
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:34 am
There is a real issue too about the damage done by the deregulating of the Building Industry during the 80′s and 90′s. Its the kind of thing that should never have fallen under free market policies in retrospect, but at the time seemed completely logical.
To be fair to Helen Clark, she did resile from her comments about the Leaky Homes problem, which when it was first raised did have a conspiracy theory look about it. The government taking some responsibility for all this, while making sure building standards regulation means it can never happen again, is the right thing to do, despite the cost.
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:38 am
I wonder how much of the $11b ends up in the pockets of developers who are responsible for the problem?
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:38 am
Brian Smaller: exactly my thoughts.
IMHO, You should always treat a house purchase as something that could potentially lose you a hundred thousand dollars.
Do your homework.
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:42 am
Agree with Brian. The government should get the hell out of this and stop spending my money on people who didnt take care of theirs.
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:42 am
God I love you people, don’t you think people did as they could.
But when WCC and others are passing the buildings you can’t expect people to question that based on changed building regulations from parliament?
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:43 am
That would be a dream come true for the lawyers and could easily cost more than $11 billion.
Peter Cresswell has written some good (but rather turgid) posts on leaky homes:
http://pc.blogspot.com/2009/11/leaky-homes-part-1-myth-of-deregulated.html
http://pc.blogspot.com/2009/11/leaky-homes-part-2-whats-going-on.html
.. I had better go now. Redbaiter will be along soon due to the mention of Peter Cresswell.
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:56 am
Absolutely. E.g. people buying a spec house probably never even saw the place being built. They have to use and trust the system. Try building something which the building inspectors don’t like – no chance.
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:57 am
Thanks for that Malcolm
So who knew, and when? Did James Hardie? Did the government’s so-called Building Research Association? What did they know, and when?
And how come it’s builders and designers who are getting the blame for all this, and builders, designers, rate-payers, tax-payers and home-owners who have to pick up the tab?
I think we should be told, don’t you?
So how do we make sure this “perfect Storm” doesn’t happen again?
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:58 am
MikeNZ – I don’t care what the council authorised as OK. What about common sense? I still shouldn;t have to pay for other people’s mistakes. Hardly a piece of timber in any house I have ever owned has been treated – they are all too old – and I have not had any leaky homes.
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Interesting links Malcolm.
One thing puzzles me. The estimated cost to fix the problem is 11b. Creswell says there are 7,571 problem properties registered. That is 1.4m per property on average. Either I or that doesn’t add up.
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Yeah I don’t know where that figure comes from. If I had to guess I’d say they’re factoring in an element of ‘un-reported’ claims and also lumping in a hefty amount for inspections, reports, lawyer’s fees etc etc.
This is quite a complex issue. Lots of things going on. Untreated timber, new building styles, changing regulations, new building materials etc.
Anytime you have a change, it’s easy for gaps to appear and for everyone to assume that someone else is taking care of it.
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Reid: providing money to sue the developers is not a great idea. Partly because it’s just a bonus for all the lawyers. Also because most builders and developers have conveniently gone into receivership so there’s no money there. Councils can still be sued and end up paying the whole lot, hence their concerns. But – not everyone can sue the Councils as Councils did not certify all leaky homes. The 90′s national govt allowed private companies to certify some and those companies are now all in liquidation and cannot be sued.
Brian et al: we did do our homework – had building report, asked all the right questions, were lied to and still got stung. Others purchased off the plans before the problem was known about. Easy to say people were stupid in hindsight, but it was not that simple at the time.
DPF: you’re wrong about the 10% and 26% contributions. What the government spun as 10% was actually just a series of process improvements that may cost around 10% of the total bill. It wouldn’t actually go to owners. The Councils probably would be happy with 26% but they are currently paying 100% (of court awarded amounts – not 100% of the repair cost) as all other parties are bankrupt. Therefore there is no incentive on homeowners not to sue the Council as if they do sue the council they’ll get 100% (minus legal costs and some other things) whereas if they took the deal they’d get 26%. Depends on how high the legal costs may be, but most owners will not take the deal and will sue.
The one workable proposal would be subsidised/low-interest loans to owners so they can get their houses fixed and then sell them to pay back the loans. Letting the houses rot just causes social problems due to bankruptcies and deterioration in the housing stock (pushing up the price of other homes as there is less competition). Looks like the government will do something here, but whether they will do enough is open to question.
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Sorry Brian
I can’t accept that.
You maybe a “kiwi man” who can turn his hand to anything as some of my friends are but the avrage joe trusts the govt, council inspectors, registered builders and big companies when it comes to houses.
I’m not talkiing about investments and developers but the ordinary man/woman.
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:07 pm
True, except you’re a ‘shareholder’ in one of the entities at fault – i.e. your council.
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:08 pm
DPF
many offenders just liquidated their companies so they had minimal liability.
Hardies have fought tooth and nail to make sure they don’t get into court.
sadly it is at the health of, little people.
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:14 pm
“They [government] argue they don’t have a legal liability, they certainly have a moral and ethical liability. We are talking about upwards of 90,000 New Zealanders living in homes that leak, we’re talking about not just the psychological problem with that, but of course significant respiratory problems.”
Boy there’s a whopper non sequitur from Kerry.
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:16 pm
A couple of thoughts.
1.
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Ooops
1. Those who set themselves up as the arbiters and protectors of standards and quality (and charge considerable fees for the privilege) should be held accountable for that which they have certified. We are not talking pin mney here for the Council fees to build the average residence.
2. I have had some correspondence with Williamson over the fact that all the repair costs, and the lawyers bills and another lot of Council Consent Fees etc etc are subject to GST and that the goverment stands to collect this out of the reinstatement along with taxes on Company (builders, suppliers, banks, lawyers, etc etc) profits and taxes on the wages of the hammer hands, truck drivers, concrete pourers etc. The least Government could do would be to exempt all approved repair costs from GST. The response from the Minister’s advisers is that I would be spending the money anyway so I would be paying GST anyway.
What bollocks – At age 62 I would not otherwise be borrowing to fix my house and would have had some savings that were not going to be spent.
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:39 pm
A national fail. This is far more than just builders, developers and councils.
The Govt. under Smith set this up by removing the need to use treated timber. (yep another Greenie inititive.)
Williamson was like Clark in denial until he actually had to face the facts. Even now he and his lousy advisors deny the Govt.’s culpability and can do so because Clark and co with National help liquidated the BIA.
DPF; if you really want to do everyone a favour hop on a plane and spend some time talking to Bob Clarkson. He will eduacte you and give you the solution. The same as he gave to National prior to the election and has attempted to give to Williamson who frankly is just too arrogant and self interested to take on board. Witness his attempt to throw his toys out of the cot when faced with non national mayors who were interested in ensuring that the interests of others were considered.
Worse Williamson and Banks are now the two protagonists.
Someone may like to explain to us all just how those two will do anything but look afetr the intersts of the National Party and the Councils.
There is simply no one involved that is looking after the interests of many thousands of Kiwi’s caught in a problem that was not of their making.
This issue will become big enough to cause grief to National at the next election if they don’t find a much better solution than fronting up with 10% only to relieve the house owner of 12.5% in GST. In other words make a profit from the misery of the house owner.
Thats a rort, but I guess we come to expect that from these guys.
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Kiwirights:
“There is a real issue too about the damage done by the deregulating of the Building Industry during the 80’s and 90’s. It’s the kind of thing that should never have fallen under free market policies in retrospect, but at the time seemed completely logical.”
What utter nonsense. None of the problems relate to do-it-yourself builds. All of the problems relate to buildings done by architects, master builders and new approved building systems. What de-regulation.
In fact, if we went away from a rules based regulatory approach to a more personal liability approach then buyers would be more cautious about assuming that a Tuscan villa look-alike looks good enough to purchase.
The root of Council liability is some negligence by a Council officer. Why shouldn’t Councils be liable for the negligence of their officers? Why should there be a taxpayer magic fairy. Especially taxpayer fairies who live in TLAs that either didn’t have in-fill or didn’t incentivise it.
The other important consideration is that Council’s encouraged in-fill housing and more intense development. They changed their district plans to incentivise it. As a result they got more rate revenue and will continue to do so. At the time they also got big development levies and reserve contributions and fees for consents.
Life for the Council (like life generally) is not all upside. It’s all very well to go on about the size of the liability but that should be compared to the total value or worth of these TLA’s post infill development. If one doubles the number of residential dwellings over a relatively short period of time, it stands to reason that some of these new buildings will be duds. Usually the number of duds constructed is spread over a longer period of time so there isn’t the concentrated liability problem. But if one brings about rapid intensification increased liability for dud builds in a much shorter timeframe will be a consquence.
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Malcolm – your quote http://pc.blogspot.com/2009/11/leaky-homes-part-1-myth-of-deregulated.html
Not PC is correct the likes of James Hardie should be in the gun far more than they are now.
Unfortunately some of the other opinions expressed in that link are dubious. The problems are clearly tied to new (inadequate) cladding systems first admitted by the 1991 Building Act. To say they are not does not wash with me, every single one of the buildings I have investigated and written Engineer’s reports on have all been clad in these systems which (rightly) were not allowed under the pre-1991 building codes. I don’t understand why Not PC keeps calling this a “myth”.
A house is already in BIG trouble if it is getting wet enough that timber treatment (or lack thereof) becomes an issue. The purpose of the cladding is to keep everything else out of the weather.
And appeals to the immortal wisdom of Ayn Rand will excite people like Redbaiter, but are otherwise meaningless except to highlight the author’s own political zealotry.
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Now that other possible avenues, like say the people that built them and profited from their construction, have largely evaporated the current owners of these properties feel it is up to every-other taxpayer in New Zealand to bail them out of their predicament.
I do feel sorry for them but this was not a natural disaster – it was man made one and I prefer my taxes going to health and education first.
Clearly there were more sound houses built in this period of deregulation that ones suffering and irrespective of the builders skills a poor design and materials (coupled with lax monitoring) always meant ‘there would be tears.’ at some stage.
This all starts with poor design, poor workmanship and poor materials – predominately in the booming Auckland market.
To repeat myself – not all houses built during this same period suffered the same ravages.
So far Invercargill Council received just three claims totaling less than 500K (from memory) – so clearly builders/designers/authorities in that region of the country were largely competent.
Leaky homes numbers are estimated to be between 25,000 to 95,000 so 3 houses is probably what you would normally get with normal negligence.
The builders and developers, council etc in Southland went about their work ethically and with due diligence.
I therefore doubt Southland taxpayers want to bail-out Auckland property owners and who blames them?
The further south we get – the less leaky houses are an issue.
After-all it is not the Governments fault a house-owner picked a less qualified ‘shonky’ builder/developer over an experienced and more expensive one who could have pointed-out the pitfalls and will still be around today?
It is not the Governments fault architects designed houses that were doomed to fail.
Is it the taxpayers responsibility someone choose a cheaper option over a more expensive one?
It is the taxpayers fault some council official didn’t do his/her job?
This is a very complex and emotive situation – but please stop trying to look to the tax-payer (a.k.a Government) to stump-up and take the blame.
Cheers.
Paul.
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:23 pm
RRM, yes read with caution, as always. I agree that Peter is fairly stringent in his “regulation is bad” philosophy.
I’m not an expert on this (sounds like you are), but there was a lot in Peter’s two postings which I hadn’t seen discussed elsewhere.
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:48 pm
What the govt should do is provide free legal representation to allow affectees to take developers builders architects etc to court.
Dont forget the elected officials as well. Not too mention dumb arse cheap bastards who wanted to save a couple thousand dollars by building and buying cheap.
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
The root of Council liability is some negligence by a Council officer. Why shouldn’t Councils be liable for the negligence of their officers? Why should there be a taxpayer magic fairy. Especially taxpayer fairies who live in TLAs that either didn’t have in-fill or didn’t incentivise it.
The problem with this is that this just leads to the same homeowners paying the bill via their rates.
What would be needed is some personal culpability by those in the Council and inspections during that time period – however in the current legal framework that isn’t really possible.
Anyone baying for taxes or rates to pay for this needs to get back to the root issue that it is just spreading the cost onto more innocents, which does nothing to reduce the inequity.
As a real solution to preventing in the future why not bring in a new building insurance like in Australia where these types of issues end up being a private insurance companies liability with the advantages that:
a) A party with a vested interest and large enough to have expertise conducts the inspections
b) A party with sufficient legal clout to chase builders etc after the fact has the liability
As long as the council is left charging for meaningless pieces of paper these types of atrocities will continue.
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:52 pm
MikeNZ – I made a wobbly teapot stand in Third Form Woodwork. I am no handyman. But I do have common sense. I still see no compelling reason why I should be taxed to pay for other people’s investment mistakes.
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Canterbury Atheist – If you were not an atheist, I would say “Amen” to your post.
December 23rd, 2009 at 2:09 pm
The trouble is that “whose fault is this?” is being blurred with “who pays for this?”.
It is pretty academic to talk about holding individual Branz or Council persons accountable when there are many many millions of dollars worth of remedial work required to fix these problems.
The law demands that owners of a new building jump through a range of what are essentially the Council’s quality control hoops, so that in 50 years time when the original owner is dead but the building is still there, plugged into council services and affecting its neighbours, it doesn’t pose unreasonable problems to anyone around it. If the first owner is made to pay for the privilege of jumping through these hoops in order to get the council’s seal of approval, why shouldn’t an owner feel that the council SHOULD be obliged to stand by its very specific approval of all these details of the building?
December 23rd, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Chris Diack said:
“Kiwirights:
“There is a real issue too about the damage done by the deregulating of the Building Industry during the 80’s and 90’s. It’s the kind of thing that should never have fallen under free market policies in retrospect, but at the time seemed completely logical.”
What utter nonsense. None of the problems relate to do-it-yourself builds. All of the problems relate to buildings done by architects, master builders and new approved building systems. What de-regulation.
In fact, if we went away from a rules based regulatory approach to a more personal liability approach then buyers would be more cautious about assuming that a Tuscan villa look-alike looks good enough to purchase.”
Chris, not sure how you got that out of what I said, but I’m not talking about do-it-yourself builds. I’m talking about relaxing standards and allowing buildings to be built by builders et al without applying rigorous building standards, monitored and enforced by a regulator. Industry standards also slipped with the dismantling of the apprenticeship system too, which in lots of industries didn’t matter, but made a big hole in available experienced resource in the building industry. So there were a lot of factors involved, but the “free market” caused this mess and regulation will have to fix it. And this (effectively) government created situation is why government should accept some responsibility for fixing it. Kerry P’s arguments may be weak, but her premise, about the moral and ethical responsibility, were right.
December 23rd, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Come on people, some of you are arguing that you did not have the bloody ability to go and hire the most grizzled old builder for a day when looking at either the plans or a new property.
That’s what I got my kid brother to do when he had plans drawn up to build one of those crap cladding, no window flashing ,no eaves places.
It was built to the design but, it was built in block for the external walls, with flashings on the windows.
But a lot of you wanted to put the top of the line kitchen in from the start, taking money from a decent structure.
A number here seem to be suggesting that even though they are well educated they did not have the ability to go and hire independent advice.
Want the government to dish out the dough, ok where is the money for we who still believe in let the buyer beware.
December 23rd, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Well I think the central Government should just come to the party with the full ~ $12 billion.
I mean, let’s face it, how much money does the taxpayer pay out each year for Social Welfare, most of which goes to complete losers who should have a job? Why is it OK to hand our money to them, but not to people who were ripped off?
I realise the two groups might not be fully mutually exclusive (i.e. some losers will also have been ripped off).
But overall it’s still not that much of the Government’s yearly tax take. And the full bill could be spread over many years.
And it would have benefits of stimulating the economy, with the money being spent on new construction. And not unfairly burden individuals.
BTW, I don’t have a leaky home. I just think fair’s fair (and am sick of Social Welfare losers).
December 23rd, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Also, regarding Kerry Prendergast, while it is good she is asking the Government to pay more, she is only protecting her own interests (as in, the WCC’s budget).
Did you know she is proposing to hike coupon parking rates in Wellington by 50%, all the while she gets a nice WCC supplied carpark in the basement of her building.
The sooner that woman is gone the better!
December 23rd, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Ton, Let me get this straight, all those on social welfare including widows whose husbands died early are a bunch of social welfare losers.
Whereas well educated types deserve welfare because their time was too valuable to look into what their house was being clad with.
That is different.
December 23rd, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Hmmm?
So then it was this free-for-all deregulation of the building industry that lead to all these crappy leaking buildings?
Predominately as it just happens Mediterranean style-ones, perchance located in the more affluent suburbs of Auckland and in another giant fluke, seaside locations in The North Island as well.
Strangely leaky homes are not a major issue outside the leafy suburbs of Auckland they are in say places like Southland, Otago and Westland for example – leading one to think this piece of legislation and even ‘the free market’ itself never made it to the lower South Island at all?
I gather ‘the free market’ prefers warmer more humid weather to work properly.
The free market and deregulation also likes metropolitan environments of New Zealand (more Coffee shops and beer in green bottles perhaps?) than rural locations?
Or are we mainlanders more in-tune with what one needs to build a decent house? Able to better employ builders that will construct something capable of lasting longer than two decades – rather than worrying what the neighbours & other mums at school think about the design?
Mainlanders prefer to pay more attention to the house-plans than the house-warming party?
Last week I saw a paper in Oamaru in which The Waimate Council was refusing to pay anything towards RiskPool with what it considered a North Island based problem. They had put aside just $50,000 for the whole region/township and anticipate to get change!
Hail the Waimate Council for calling-it as it is.
See ya.
Paul.
December 23rd, 2009 at 3:17 pm
grumpyoldhori – So, from the examples you’ve used, clearly in your world pretty much everyone on social welfare is a widow whose husband died early, and pretty much everyone who is well educated owns a leaky house?
Nice one!
December 23rd, 2009 at 4:45 pm
RRM makes a very good point re Hardie’s responsibility for the problem. Because of the banning of asbestoes content, the old ‘fibrolite’ became ‘Hardiflex’ which is a cement based product reinforced with cellulose (from wood) fibre rather than asbestoes. In my view ‘hardiflex’ and other like products are more prone to moisture penetration, and more importantly expand and contract more in different climatic conditions. Hence cracks and leaks. And remember Hardies specified the construction and erection details.
I also believe the elimination of protruding sills on aluminium windows in favour of easier to construct jamb extrusions all round the frame facilitated ingress of moisture.
The case re untreated timber is an interesting issue since most timber houses in NZ are built of untreated timber or insect proofed (boric) rather than moisture proofed wood. I guess the modern untreated framing was more susceptible to rot because it was kiln dried sap wood.
Unfortunately the whole debacle is a ‘perfect storm’ where a combination of factors led to disastrous outcome.
And do not forget the rapid rise on value of bare land; this encouraged cost cutting and the use of cheap materials; in the 1990′s weatherboard was getting expensive, brick veneer was unfashionable, and along came the faux ‘Tuscan’ look; a boon for Hardies who offered the cheap alternative to genuine stucco.
Be aware that leaky homes are still being built; suburban families now want four/five bedroom homes with two living rooms; maximum floor area built with the cheapest cladding envelope available.
December 23rd, 2009 at 4:51 pm
local councils more solvent than central government ? pigs arse. have a look at the high spending, high maintainance
council in dunedin they are just a bunch of cringing yes men run from 33 melville st.
December 23rd, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Let us not forget that local government charge like wounded bulls and always have done for building permits. I have just extended a deck .the labour and materials were $13000 The building permit resource consent enginners report drawings came to ……….wait for it $9000 Thats right $9000 70% of the construction costs
And if I have a problem the Rodney District Council will shrug their shoulders and tell me to FOXTROT OSCAR like they have to the leaky building owners.
Fact is central and local government pollies and civil servants were responsible for the problem just like pollies and civil servants were behind the finance company collapses.
Why They didnt do the job we pay them to do.
They stuffed up big time and then silther away like the snakes they are.
they knew Canada had a leaky building problem and yet continued on regardless.
We need to have the names of the individuals who were behind the decisions so we can hold them to account.
It will also put the current lot on notice to act in a more responsible and less reckless fashion in the future
December 23rd, 2009 at 5:43 pm
lastmanstanding – exactly; the problem is that landing the cost on the “council” itself actually just lands the cost again on the rate payers despite having paid through the roof for pointless building permits.
If your permit was anything like ours (and this is 1 year ago not in the dim dark past before these issues) the inspectors didn’t even check the new (required) piles existed let alone were up to scratch. So we’ve paid the council for what? A potential future liability…
December 23rd, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Houses have always leaked and houses have forever in NZ been inundated with floods and excess rain but they never rotted away before and that is the issue with all these houses.
The reason they have rotted away is clear and simple. The BIA’s promotion of kiln dry timber for structural framing.
the BIA with pressure from Fletchers and Carters and various others allowed the use of untreated kiln dried timber and that’s where this disaster starts.
Even when housed were flooded,( and I’m old enough to remember new houses in the Taita and Upper Hutt areas being flooded two or three times a year for a number of ears until the Hutt stop banks were built), all that was requires was to rip out the jib higher than the flood level, dry the framing and regib. The timber simply didn’t rot and those houses are still standing 50 years hence.
With kiln dried even if you dry the timber it continues to rot and will rot until the cell structure collapses, even when supposedly dry. Humidity at a high level is enough to get it going so it doesn’t take big leaks and thats one of the longer term issues and is why many houses built longer than 10 years ago are now showing the signs of rot. Bateria doesn’t sleep it hibernates in a spore form and returns when the next lot of favorable conditions arise.
There is no doubt that all the leaks and cladding failures contribute towards the problem but the bottom line really is that if the BIA had stuck to the knowledge that it had and refused the use of kiln dried timber for structural components then the problem would have been 20% of what it is.
But, don’t expect any Govt. department to put their hand up and take responsibility for this because Clark closed them down so the Govt. couldn’t be taken to court. It seems that the Nats. unfortunately sidelined the only member of their caucus that had any understanding of the issue and now Williamson is totally unable to grasp the understanding and fix it.
And if you wonder why consider what building knowledge he has. Zilch, none, nada. Worse he’s not intelligent enough to go learn and get to the real nub of the issue because that would require hard work and ignoring the public service goons.
His current mantra is that he will do nothing that will lose votes. Well he’s got a lesson coming.
Kiln dried was like building the house on a sand bar. Doomed to collapse.
December 23rd, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Good comments Viking2.
Another factor is condensation forming within the wall. This wasn’t a problem with uninsulated and drafty houses. However if you insulate the wall and make the house more air-tight with better sealed windows etc, then you can get condensation forming on the cold side of the insulation, within the wall.
Someone above mentioned that untreated framing is fine because the cladding + building paper is supposed to keep the water out. But you’re are still susceptibility to rotting from internal moisture. And of course the cladding + paper is not perfect and/or will leak at some point.
In colder countries they have a vapour barrier under the jib to kept the condensation away from the framing. I don’t think this is generally the case in NZ.
December 24th, 2009 at 7:40 am
The Government wants home owners to pay the bulk of the cost, while it pays only 10%. Why should home owners pay when the problem isn’t their fault? They bought homes in good faith and were unaware of any defects. Yet they are being told to pay. Meanwhile the Government, which changed the rules and made it easier for sub-standard homes to be built, tries to walk away from the problem. I wonder if John Key would pay up if his home leaked, or would he go after those responsible?
December 24th, 2009 at 8:01 am
ross – There is a divide on this issue between those who think people should take their lumps because they wanted houses built in non-traditional ways using non-traditional materials, and those who want the government to fix everything and absolve them of their own lack of responsibility and due diligence.
December 24th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Brian
That is not strictly true and if you don’t know it I’ll make allowances for you.
All the people who bought houses probably didn’t know what you are aluding to.
People trust the regulations and the inspectors because they are supposed to carry authority.
That came from Parliament and the councils.
Duh!
Does that mean that every law and reg we think isn’t spot on we can do what we like or take the consequences of obeying?
IMHO
The govt, Councils and Hardie amongst others who should have known better are liable.
At least equally.
No gst on repairs and legal fees paid would be a sop to the fact that Labour took away the only avenue for proper redress by disappearing the body owners could take to court.
Councils enforce regulations and take fees, if their inspectors aren’t up to scratch, tough shit everyone pays.
lets see some high up council employees sacked too as a consequence.
I don’t like Kerry at the best of times but on this one she is correct even as WCC screws around with the little people, which I abhor as they (the officers and lawyers in WCC) know what they are doing to ordinary people who trusted them doing their jobs properly.
December 24th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Well I took me lumps Brian, built in 1993 and by 1995 the problems were starting to become obvious, we’re talking buckets and towels. The fault was a workmanship issue, piss poor flashing, the builder had gone tits up, the council didn’t give a rats arse and wouldn’t sign the building off so there we were, with a $200k leaking house.
So we found an old boy builder and his advice was to STFU, stop looking to blame anyone, make damn sure that the house wasn’t tagged as a ‘leaky home’ and get to it and fix the fucking thing.
Fortunately the framing was from a local firm with the timber rated as H1 but the suppliers had a ‘one size fits all’ treatment regime so in reality the whole lot was tanalised and rotting timber and mould were the least of our worries. Old builder boy removed all the joinery and fitted new flashings, double glazed while we were at it, repaired all the water damage and got the council to sign the building off at a total cost of $45k.
My advice to owners of leaky houses is STFU, be seen by others as trying to help yourself and they’ll help you, and fix it yourself because no one else will.
December 24th, 2009 at 11:17 am
cha – and I bet you learnt a valuable lesson. I once brought a house that had what looked like a good roof, my pre-purchase inspection said it was OK, and a few years later my study ceiling collapsed from a leak. So I sort of know what you mean. It wasn’t 45K but still a lesson. I didn’t look to blame anyone else. If your house is tagged as a leaky home, chances are that unless you are selling to an Indian or Chinese family, it will be bloody hard to ever sell, even if the problems are fixed.
December 24th, 2009 at 11:19 am
MikeNZ – If you buy a car (the second largest purchase most people make after a house) and don’t do your homework on what vehicles are prone to rusting out etc etc – do you expect the tax payer to fork out because it once got a warrant issued by a Govverment certified agency?
December 24th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Warrant of Fitness is a bad example. It just says the car is safe and road-worthy for the next 6 months. It’s not intended to say anything about how well the car will last, how reliable it will be or how well it will hold value.
If we have building regulations, then the setters and enforcers of those regulations must hold some responsibility when the regulations are flawed and/or not enforced correctly. They can’t have it both ways, i.e. the ability to force you to build to their standards and regulations, but no culpability if that systems fails.
If you want me to carry the full responsibility, then you have to give me full responsibility to build the house as I see fit.
December 24th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Sorry I am lost here?
These major companies that supplied the alleged offending building materials that lead to all the grief – none of them bothered to send a rep to say Southland or Westland?
Or in what must be a first for the industry, it was predominately the materials they sold in the Auckland market that turned ‘tits-up’ rather than the identical product sold in the lower half of The South Island?
Why is the epicentre (per property/head) of this whole issue Auckland and not Invercargill?
Why are the houses built in Invercargill over the same era and with exactly the same materials under the identical building-jurisdictions not suffering these issues?
Am I missing something here?
Please explain?
Thx
Paul.
December 24th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Probably because there are more factors at play than the two you mention. I.e. style of building (no eves, inboard gutters, flush windows etc etc), quality of work, experience and effectiveness of the builders and inspectors, etc etc.
December 29th, 2009 at 10:01 am
Yes Malcolm, there were a lot of reasons why this leaky house came about , and deregulation is not one of them (convenient escape-goat for the unfortunate owners given the builders and designers – the ones that made the money – have mostly collapsed their companies and started-up again under a different name)
Let’s take an important over-view here: Athens gets 37 centimetres of rain every year, Auckland 116 and Invercargill the same amount.
The architects, builders and prospective owners of houses in Southland saw the folly of building a house not made for the conditions ‘for style and not substance’ and if the current figures are an indictment the local council down south policed this efficiently – that’s why Invercargill doesn’t have a major issue like Auckland and in small rural towns in The South Island like Waimate there is next to no problem.
The Southland builders used identical materials but they employed them in the traditional fashion, with traditional designs and they are ably standing up to a far rigorous test in Southland weather than their period counterparts, mostly in trendy North Island suburbs.
If we are looking for someone to blame the architects, vanity of potential owners, fly-by-night builders and negligent council inspectors are top of the list.
But by now most of this list is unable to clean the mess-up so we start looking at other ‘sugar daddies’ to come to the rescue – taxpayers like me or multi-national building companies.
Well this is one tax-payer who is decidedly unhappy at the prospect of being somehow responsible for the folly of designers/owners/builders/councils.
Have a good one.
Paul.