BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like builders are here, except on the advice of their lawyers they voluntarily liquidated themselves, formed a new company and escaped liability because one of the contracting parties is deemed to no longer exist…

This is happening on a larger scale with guys like Mr Blue Chip.

It’s not hard to see who did the lobbying when some of these “white collar” regulations came in.

There will always be cowboys and people will get stung, but this leaky building thing is about more than cowboys after a quicky buck, it cuts across several industries and professionals the Council and Government de regulation

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

BJ

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

So if he does a cr@p job he’s out of business and into bankruptcy court pretty damned fast. My experience was that about $200 covered it, as all this guy does is inspect and report… and no, he doesn’t stop cr@p building. The liability of the builder does that.

See, the builder can’t SELL cr@p in the first place, because an independent inspector WILL catch it and will bust him. There is another level where it has to do with the license that the builder has, and the responsibility to use proper materials (which CAN be hidden until they fail)… but the inspectors check the in-wall moisture… among other things. If a builder falsifies the materials it may not get spotted… I didn’t go through a build process, just a buy, but if he does and gets caught he’s gone. I mean, his personal bankruptcy is assured and he’ll have trouble getting another builders license anywhere.

The point I’m making is that the people who have skin in the game are the most likely to pay attention. With the system here, the council is taking the responsibility off the home buyer. This can only work while the council is actually shouldering the real responsibility and it has no natural reason to do so.

If the bank is taking a risk and an insurer is taking a risk, they’re going to be real careful that the house is built right and the inspections get DONE, not gundecked. If the homeowner is aware of the actual risk, he’s going to be looking for that same assurance. Trust me, it DOES work.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

How is the person buying a house, which they do maybe once in 10 years, able to distinguish a “separate independent entity” from a charlatan in the pay of the slightly secret society of rip off merchants?

And if they do they need to be expensive to do a good job.

And all they can do is describe, they cannot stop shonky stuff being built in the first place.

What ever solution you propose is going to add to the cost and the better it solves the problem the more expensive it will be.

Which is my point, we need to get use to that.

blissfully

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

So in New Zealand both our temperature profiles and earthquake and wind loads make well insulted light timber frames a good bet. Keep down the thermal mass and the mass mass.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I expect it to flex just fine… and it will take a higher compression load. Not to mention the other advantages.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

IN the famous Alaskan earthquake a light timber frame house ( which looked just like a New Zealand bungalow) was jolted off its foundations and rolled down a hill to settle on some flat land below.
Not a single pane of glass was broken.
The hundreds of nails act as “energy absorbers” and absorb much of kinetic energy of the quake.

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The same comment applies to the food industry and has even more validity when easily-duped children are the market.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Interesting comments. I can see the value of that way of doing things indeed. People in the industry occassionally talk about the cost added to the process if we do this or that…

I have had probes installed by MDC Moisture and for 1800 I can fully monitor moisture levels in my house. Knowing what I know now, and had it been available at the time, for a mere additional 1800 bucks I would have told my Builder and architect and developer that these were going in…I bet they would have paid very close attention tot heir systems then.

This company MDC, explains instances where people now building have told the builder they are installing probes and he has very carefully checked wood arriving on site and in some instances more than a third is sent back as being too moist before construction begins.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I appreciate your comments.

Buyer beware is useful except in societies where the seller invests millions of dollars in “marketing” to dupe the buyer.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

You are correct, the buyer is almost certainly NOT an engineer or qualified inspector, and has no way to know whether he/she is buying good work.

In the USA the “housing inspector” is a separate independent entity. His/Her reports are the basis on which the house is able to be marketed. The “council” and the feds, have rules and regulations which provide much of his checklist, but he has the responsibility to find problems before they become big. An inspection typically costs a few hundred $. It provides the insurance company a basis for issuing a home warranty, and a bank a basis for being confident of its lending against something that is in fact resellable if there is a default. Both entities have an interest in the result… and of course the prospective home buyer does as well.

The builder has to have his own inspections in self-defense. Just to be sure.

The difference between this system and letting the council take the responsibility is obvious. The council doesn’t have skin in the game.. at least it didn’t think so until the leaky-homes litigators wound up looking to councils to provide the damages.

The agency already existed. It WAS the council’s responsibility. They blew it.

The fact that it will add costs to the industry is irrelevant. Private or public it will add costs. The question is whether the appropriate agency is an agency of the state… and I don’t see a compelling argument that makes it so, and I have the experience of seeing the alternative system working well… because the people who were doing it had skin in the game.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

Totally agree. If the system is applied properly (and with Hitec, Nuplec, etc. running their own assurance programmes today,m they are) there are no problems.

The problems as I see it, back in the day when the majority of these buildings were constructed, rest purely and simply with the specifiers, builders and their negligence to get the systems applied and signed off that it met the suppliers specifications.

They knew within a short period of time that there was problems with incorrect installation yet the developers and builders were so keen to get it signed off that the specifiers simply prostrated themselves before the almigthty dollar available from the next building being planned by the owner/developer that common sense and all their training went out the door.

Most never did. Hence the big push by architects to lay the blame at BRANZ when the specifiers (architects) should have had clerk of works on site to make sure the building (not just the cladding) was buld as per their specs.

That is the point I’m trying to make. Specifiers abandoned their responsibility to ensure their specifications were adhered to and left it to the council inspectors.

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

A person buying a house will do so a few times in their life. They are not equiped to judge the claims of the builders, and are trying to get the best value for money.

The builder of the house has an incentive to do the absolute minimum to get the house up and sold.

So to protect the buyer there needs to be an agency that certifies the work of the builders and holds them to account. Otherwise crooks will prosper, honest builders will struggle to compete and buyers will unwittingly buy crap houses. (As happened)

This agency needs to be empowered by the state and it will add costs to the building industry. It is unavoidable. Get over it.

peace
W

Like or Dislike: 3  1 (+2)

It is infinitely possible to use the monolithic cladding and be weathertight.

http://www.hitec.co.nz is a company which all leaky building owners and parties to any civil action should visit. We are using them and the potential to save the ratepayers money on full reclads is enormous.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)