Planning permission for a new garage: $830!

[Molly]

Had a beer so I'm moaning about everythin'.

Had to pay $830 this week for permission to put up a Versatile 7x6 garage.

Robbin' c***s.

[Indiana_Jones]

.........Cunts you mean?

-Indy

[Espresso]

..don't feel too bad, at least you're not in the Rodney Criminal District Council area. Just about to spend the last of $400,000.00 to replace my entire house (the one I already have a monster mortgage on which is now literally buried), not a thing saved.Leaky. Signed off by the Council 14 years ago as a perfectly fit and built house.

Compensation: $0.00
Liability by anyone, Council, builders, James Hardie products: zero

...and get this....I had to pay the $2600 to resubmit the virtual exact same house plans to the Council for (re)building approval.

I can find no words to describe the 'people' at Council, same as NZ Law.

Still, I have a new bike coming to keep me sane :soon:

[YellowDog]

..don't feel too bad, at least you're not in the Rodney Criminal District Council area. Just about to spend the last of $400,000.00 to replace my entire house (the one I already have a monster mortgage on which is now literally buried), not a thing saved.Leaky. Signed off by the Council 14 years ago as a perfectly fit and built house.

Compensation: $0.00
Liability by anyone, Council, builders, James Hardie products: zero

...and get this....I had to pay the $2600 to resubmit the virtual exact same house plans to the Council for (re)building approval.

I can find no words to describe the 'people' at Council, same as NZ Law.

Still, I have a new bike coming to keep me sane :soon:
Good to hear you are not one of the ones who decided to commit suiside.

The leaky thing was such a scam and there are thousands of people living in such houses who will find out in the future.

If you want to blame someone, blame the builder. Builders are not stupid people and always knew full well that they were throwing a construction together with a very limited life span.

BTW: This scam happened in North America 30 years ago. No one heard of it here so NZ was an easy target.

MOLLY: That sounds a bit excessive for such a small amount of work. Please look at this plan and confirm it fits within your regulatory guidlines and the stamp it as approved or tell me what I need to do to gain approval.

$830 = Get Real

[Grahameeboy]

Good to hear you are not one of the ones who decided to commit suiside.

The leaky thing was such a scam and there are thousands of people living in such houses who will find out in the future.

If you want to blame someone, blame the builder. Builders are not stupid people and always knew full well that they were throwing a construction together with a very limited life span.

BTW: This scam happened in North America 30 years ago. No one heard of it here so NZ was an easy target.

MOLLY: That sounds a bit excessive for such a small amount of work. Please look at this plan and confirm it fits within your regulatory guidlines and the stamp it as approved or tell me what I need to do to gain approval.

$830 = Get Real

True....not sure how true it is that if the Builder's had used better timber that the Council would not have approved...

It is wrong....we pay rates so that the Council can run their area...so wages being one of them and then they expect us to pay for permits...you only pay $40 to park in a council mobility park for 5 years....in Devonport they spent $400,000 putting new sand in Torpedeo Bay....it is not used as a beach, it is 5 mins walk from Cheltenham Beach with views of Rangi...not the docks....they want to spend $5million tarting up the Wharf area...

Then because the QV goes up you get stung for extra rates...

I often think that Councils are more dodgy than the Govt....

[Grahameeboy]

.........Cunts you mean?

-Indy

The English lessons working out for you then Indy

[cowpoos]

..don't feel too bad, at least you're not in the Rodney Criminal District Council area. Just about to spend the last of $400,000.00 to replace my entire house (the one I already have a monster mortgage on which is now literally buried), not a thing saved.Leaky. Signed off by the Council 14 years ago as a perfectly fit and built house.

Compensation: $0.00
Liability by anyone, Council, builders, James Hardie products: zero

...and get this....I had to pay the $2600 to resubmit the virtual exact same house plans to the Council for (re)building approval.

I can find no words to describe the 'people' at Council, same as NZ Law.

Still, I have a new bike coming to keep me sane :soon:

I feel for you and other leaky house sufferers!!! would be a total mind fuck!!
and I wouldn't stop fighting it..and someone with a heap of money and flash lawyers will at some stage set a precident in the courts..they you can screw shit loads out of product suppliers and Co...

[cowpoos]

If you want to blame someone, blame the builder. Builders are not stupid people and always knew full well that they were throwing a construction together with a very limited life span.

How the heck is it all the builders fault??? I think you have a limited grasp of the situation...seriously...not being a smart arse right now

[YellowDog]

How the heck is it all the builders fault??? I think you have a limited grasp of the situation...seriously...not being a smart arse right now
OK - The reason I blame the builders (to a degree) and I don't blame the timber (as much) is because the timber in question may well have been fine if it had not been put into a situation where any timber would rot after a short period of time.

As I said, builders are not stupid people and the knew the buildings were farked right from the start.

BUT yes I do put most blame with the authorities to have allowed a worldwide know 'failed building practice' to destroy the lives of thousands of innocent people. And then to turn their backs on them. They approved the design and signed it off. They should accept some responsibility. The builder will get away with building as cheaply as possible within the given guidlines. Why shouldn't they? (complete U-turn then) :)

[BMWST?]

OK - The reason I blame the builders (to a degree) and I don't blame the timber (as much) is because the timber in question may well have been fine if it had not been put into a situation where any timber would rot after a short period of time.

As I said, builders are not stupid people and the knew the buildings were farked right from the start.

BUT yes I do put most blame with the authorities to have allowed a worldwide know 'failed building practice' to destroy the lives of thousands of innocent people. And then to turn their backs on them. They approved the design and signed it off. They should accept some responsibility. The builder will get away with building as cheaply as possible within the given guidlines. Why shouldn't they? (complete U-turn then) :)

leaky buildings are the responsibility of the design,(ie flat rooves WILL leak),poor building practice(no flashings on windows),unsuitable materials(who really thinks two 7mm sheets can be butt jointed with sealant and NOT leak),and then using unsuitable materials in conjuntion with the above errors.
In the face of all that how does a council(who arent supposed to be site supervisors for the quality of the building) be responsible for the QUALITY of a building.That role is supposed to be taken by architects and or proper supervisors.(the actual proffesional role escapes me but it is a role that has largely disapreared)All that went out the window with home owners managing their own projects with labour only builders.

[HenryDorsetCase]

YellowDog I feel for you, I really do. Ive had a couple of horror stories like that come my way. One of my clients (who incidentally is the best builder I have ever seen) now works full time on "leaky home" rectification. He sends me photos of particularly appalling ones because I am interested in it. He also spends a lot of time at the WHRS and acting as expert for claimants.

The biggest problem with the leaky home crisis is that there are waaaay too many lawyers involved, and not enough people out swinging hammers getting stuff fixed.

My view is that its not really the builders to blame, more the pressure groups who pressured the Govt into changing what was acceptable in terms of material and building practice, which coupled with a chronic underinvestment in skills training over the preceding 20 years (starting in the 1980'2 when most of our building industry moved to Australia) resulting in a chronically underskilled workforce, so that instead of builders you have component assemblers, and a culture of thats not my problem, then a huge upswing in demand. Then when it all turns to shit the gummint disestablishes the relevant authority, and tries valiantly to lock the stable door when the horse is in the next county, and blames the builders.....

Sorry, hobby horse. And probably not too useful for you in your current state of mind. Enjoy the new bike.

And I presume that instead of investing $100k in legal fees to fight and maybe not win, or win and have no ability to collect your winnings, you've decided to use that money fixing the actual problem? If so, that might be the best thing long term.

[Howie]

leaky buildings are the responsibility of the design,(ie flat rooves WILL leak),poor building practice(no flashings on windows),unsuitable materials(who really thinks two 7mm sheets can be butt jointed with sealant and NOT leak),and then using unsuitable materials in conjuntion with the above errors.
In the face of all that how does a council(who arent supposed to be site supervisors for the quality of the building) be responsible for the QUALITY of a building.

A bit off the topic of excessive fees charged by council's:

But for design faults who sets the Building codes that the building should meet? Are they government set, or council set, or a mixture of both. If the original design meet the code at the time then isn't the code at fault? and responsibility lies with the authority that made the code. As for compliance to the code isn't that the Job of the council's employee commonly referred to as the Building inspector? Or are you saying it is the fault of the person who paid for the house to be built at the time.

As to Molly's OP shit thats a lot for a resource consent for a garage, mind you I haven't applied for one to build anything in recent years.

[ynot slow]

So many at fault with leaky homes,council building consent officers not monitering the build,dodgy as developers speccing building materials,of which the builders have no say in,but decide to use them instead of saying no way.

Saw the balcony on one appartment/home which was held on by 4x2 butted onto side of house,no bracing,how the hell did a competant builder manage to erect it,let alone council(again) certify it.

[oldguy]

F**k make's my jayline fire place I brought a year ago, pal in comparison, thats going to cost me $500.
Why its still in the box in the middle of my lounge, I wounder if I should applie for the permit before we go super city or wait?

[JMemonic]

Thanks for the info we need to build a new garage at some stage as the one we have is lower than the drive so water runs into it, the concrete pad in one section I would never put a bike on as it is so thin I broke through it with a broom handle, and it all has council compliance. Oh I wonder how much the demolition permit will be.

[The Stranger]

If you want to blame someone, blame the builder. Builders are not stupid people and always knew full well that they were throwing a construction together with a very limited life span.



The Building Industry Authority approved the building systems based on Building Research Association of New Zealand testing and recommendations. Both of these were govt quangos. The BIA was rapidly disbanded as the problem unfolded so as to avoid liability on the govt - obviously this was all the builders fault.

The BIA reacted to pressure from greenies in approving the use of untreated timber - again, clearly the builders fault.

The builder builds to the designs of the architect, who in turn designs in accordance with BIA and BRANZ standards - again, clearly the builders fault.

Should a council knock back a construction system, the developer may appeal the decision and will back this up using the BIA and BRANZ approvals. The council often has no choice but to accept these - I guess this is no doubt the builders fault also.

The builder is contracted to construct a dwelling in accordance with such plans and specifications and prices accordingly. If they price above the minimum requirement they don't get the job as everyone knows lowest price=quality. Moreover, case law dictates that the lowest complying price must get a tender, so even if a builder allows super duper timber and the lower price allows as per spec for untreated timber the contract MUST go to the lower price. The statement in many tenders that "lowest or any tender may not be accepted" does not permit one to accept a higher tender - only to cancel the project. - you guessed it, builder's fault

It is niave to believe that a group housing builder could have offered a product at a better price based on better materials that people could not even see. They would have had no customers and been out of business due to the excessive cost. - Well, builder's fault again I guess, nothing to do with dumb arse clients wanting the cheapest they could get.

Poor workmanship is no doubt a contributor in many cases however the majority of the problem rightly lies with those that both tested and approved the systems thereby placing them into service often against the wishes or advice of others.

[Forest]

My view is that its not really the builders to blame, more the pressure groups who pressured the Govt into changing what was acceptable in terms of material and building practice, which coupled with a chronic underinvestment in skills training over the preceding 20 years (starting in the 1980'2 when most of our building industry moved to Australia) resulting in a chronically underskilled workforce, so that instead of builders you have component assemblers, and a culture of thats not my problem, then a huge upswing in demand. Then when it all turns to shit the gummint disestablishes the relevant authority, and tries valiantly to lock the stable door when the horse is in the next county, and blames the builders.....


The builders were definitely a part of the problem. A lot of the new cladding materials they were using required careful and skilled installation.

Having said that, the manufacturers should have placed more emphasis on training and certifying the installers. So I certainly don't want to lay all the blame on the builders.

[Indiana_Jones]

The English lessons working out for you then Indy


<img src="http://www.usinkorea.org/North_Korea/videos/refugee_tale_north_korea/kim-jong-il-2.jpg">

Getting there srowry ^_^

-Indy

[The Stranger]

The builders were definitely a part of the problem. A lot of the new cladding materials they were using required careful and skilled installation.



You will also note that with a lot of the "new" cladding systems, particularly the monolithic type claddings, the installation instructions changed at such a pace that it was nigh on impossible to keep up. We certainly had to obtain new instructions each time they were used, and keep the new instructions as each time a claim was made the manufacturer would claim it hadn't been fixed in accordance with the instructions. But it had, just not in accordance with the latest instruction.
You had to be able to produce the old ones or the blame simply fell on you.

Only reason I could see for changing their instructions so frequently is because they found a problem with the one's before - this suggested to me that those issuing the instructions fucked up - big time. But there may be another explanation I guess.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Thanks for the info we need to build a new garage at some stage as the one we have is lower than the drive so water runs into it, the concrete pad in one section I would never put a bike on as it is so thin I broke through it with a broom handle, and it all has council compliance. Oh I wonder how much the demolition permit will be.

dig or cut a wee trench across the front of the garage and put a slot drain across it. our drive slopes down to the gargre and thats what they did there. works like a charm.

[JMemonic]

dig or cut a wee trench across the front of the garage and put a slot drain across it. our drive slopes down to the gargre and thats what they did there. works like a charm.

That maybe a plan for the future but I really want a bigger garage :)

[Swoop]

If you want to blame someone, blame the builder.
Tui advert, huh?
It had absolutely nothing to do with the architect who specified what materials to use...

True....not sure how true it is that if the Builder's had used better timber that the Council would not have approved...

He would have been bollocked for deviating from the plans and specs... that is of course IF the inspector picked up on the fact.

The old saying is "those that CAN, do. Those who can't, inspect...

The builders were definitely a part of the problem. A lot of the new cladding materials they were using required careful and skilled installation.

Having said that, the manufacturers should have placed more emphasis on training and certifying the installers. So I certainly don't want to lay all the blame on the builders.
The simple fact that monolithic cladding systems are the typical kiwi way of doing a job on the cheap. If you want a plastered brick/stone effect, use bricks or stones and plaster over those. If you want lightweight timber framing with shit on the outside, use that and have your wallet ready for the future issues that will arise.
James Hardie has a fuck of a lot to answer for with their crap.
Just wait until the Linea Weatherboard ussues start raising their head!

[SPman]

Agree with Henry D, BMW and Noel. 'tis not the builders fault alone - it spans the entire spectrum from the government, down, but everyone has done a legal runner.
The leaky building scandal has also been widespread in areas in Canada.

Building Inspectors (if they're doing their job properly) are only policing the Building Code and Standards. They aren't Clerks of Works, although (in Aucklands case ) some of us used to put in cryptic notes about poor standards of building in inspection files (we weren't meant to) and I have informed owners of the abysmal standard of work on a couple of jobs (also not meant to), even though it (just)complied.

In Auckland, the building compliance section is the only dept. that pays its way. And you're right, the costs and fees are, I reckon, extortionate, especially on small jobs. Strange that Rodney council didn't have to front up with at least 10% of the claim - that's the reckoned amount the councils are generally held to be liable for - Auckland city, anyway.

Thanks for the info we need to build a new garage at some stage as the one we have is lower than the drive so water runs into it Another slack job by the builder that should have been picked up by the inspector, at least! I failed 5 houses for that very fault on final inspections - one of them a $3mil dollar house that would have had water running through the garage and entrance in any decent downpour.
He would have been bollocked for deviating from the plans and specs... that is of course IF the inspector picked up on the fact.
Not so - depends on the inspector. I've come across many builders who have upspecced the framing, and it is perfectly acceptable. It seemed to be the Asian builders and developers who were quite prepared to spend a bit more to well exceed the basic standards....
old saying is "those that CAN, do. Those who can't, inspect... Yeah, whatever. There are some right shockers amongst the inspectors, but no more so than any other part of the building industry..

[Ixion]

..
Just wait until the Linea Weatherboard ussues start raising their head!

Wotz Linea Weatherboard? I never heard of weatherboard houses having problems ? (Mainly well before the leaky house era of course).

The leaky house debacle is down to get rich quick property speculators ignoring two fundamental rules : You need to have ventilation . Bugger this silly modern notion of closing everything up tighter than a nun's twat. Open the windows. Let some ruddy fresh air in. It'll be better for you and better for the building . And let some air into the walls as well. Older houses had open cavities in the walls and ventilation grilles and such like. So there was air flow through the walls. And drainage to allow water that did get in to get out again.

And second, whatever crooked cunt signed off on using untreated pinus radiata for structural framing needs to flayed alive in front of a slow fire.

Houses will *always* leak. If not when first built then certainly after a year or so of twisting and moving and flexing. Ventilation and drainage allows the water to escape, and the timber to dry out. And treatment (tanalised is obviously better, but boric's good enough) will stop any rot starting while the drying out is happeneing.

Simple as that. And every handyman and chippy in the land knew that perfectly well. Just the bloody bureacrats and shysters wouldn't listen.

I reckon that morally CHH and Fletchers should cop the lot.

And for Gawd's sake, go and open those bloody windows. Yes, right now.

[Molly]

Thanks for the info we need to build a new garage at some stage as the one we have is lower than the drive so water runs into it, the concrete pad in one section I would never put a bike on as it is so thin I broke through it with a broom handle, and it all has council compliance. Oh I wonder how much the demolition permit will be.

My new garage is going further back on the section. Because the combined lenght of my two garages would be over some or other length there was a question over the distance the new one would have to be from the boundary. To get around that I had to sign to agree that the old one would be removed but not before they asked that the old one be removed first (meaning all my f'kin' tools / bikes / bike lift etc. would be sat in the garden...). What a load of crap. Didn't ask about a demolition permit. I'll just pull the fucker down. Oh, on top of that they want the garage gutter water pumped up to the street (we're on a hill) even though there's 650 squares of garden right behind it I could've drained into (another $1,200 to do that).

F'kin' 'rules'. Gives you the shits.

[JMemonic]

F'kin' 'rules'. Gives you the shits.

Yeah its going to be a problem for the garage I want them.

[Swoop]

Wotz Linea Weatherboard? I never heard of weatherboard houses having problems ?
Another shoddy product from jimmy hardly (http://www.jameshardie.co.nz/index.php/page/product/pi_productid/4/title/Linea%99+Weatherboard).
The product is delaminating and the failure rate is shocking.

Yeah, whatever. There are some right shockers amongst the inspectors, but no more so than any other part of the building industry..
I have been surprised by the lack of skills that it takes to become a building inspector. One example is an ex jib-stopper who works for the Auckland council as an "inspector".

[doc]

You really do have to worry about councils though. Yesterday I had to talk to an architect about excavating below a footing , he mentioned that they just had a job delayed until the council was informed how some underfloor building paper was fixed to the floor joists. He phoned them to explain that staples are what they specificy.

These are the people who will approve the design to excavate under a footing, wtf :sleep:

[Espresso]

Molly - one builder suggested to me, and it would have saved about $20,000 on the cost of my house rebuild, and may well help you (but don't quote me :msn-wink: )...do what you will and tell no-one. It's kind of sad that I would even suggest this, however here in Rodney even with a Council signed-off house, it means absolutely nothing, worse than that, it's cost me half a million dollars. Authority and no responsibility, still. If I had bulldozed my house, as I did, and rebuilt with reliable builders I would have saved at least 8 months of waiting for Councils various approvals, over $5k in Council consents and required inspection fees, and absolute b.s. 'new' safer regulations (e.g. unable to use galvanised exterior bolts on a deck because my house now deemed as high salt spray area - but original bolts had zero rust on them after 14 years outside...the new an unbelievably expensive stainless steel bolts etc already have 'tea stains' i.e. rust...oh and $3000 worth of extra stainlees steel strapping :wacko: ).
Oh and even key original documents have been 'lost' by the Council....yeah right, so the ONLY reason I bothered with so called sign-off is if I go to sell the house and the buyers insist on sign off (I believe many in Rodney who are putting up sheds etc aren't now bothering with consents because of the Council sham).

The underlying thing is that not one single person, not one single person is responsible for doing anything wrong, nothing at all. Yet my home lies dead and buried. Doesn't that just typify NZ's entire b.s. PC culture. Spineless.

I decided to treat this (bit of life) like a card game, I got dealt a bad hand -and it's up to me what to do with it. Either gamble $100,000 minimum taking the Councils insurance company to court...oops no I can't because the Government overode existing law to protect Councils by limiting claims to just 10 years...spend years being bitter, stressed and still live in an extremely unhealthy house (couldn't live down stairs for the past 5 years the mould was so bad) or get positive, go hard and build a great new life, look at it as a challenge and rise to it. Hey after all it's just a house, I still have a fantastic son and my health.

Sorry I don't mean to hijack your thread, just wanted to heads up as there are probably several options open to you to get what you actually want without getting screwed, best of luck with your challenges there.

[The Stranger]

The leaky house debacle is down to get rich quick property speculators ignoring two fundamental rules

And second, whatever crooked cunt signed off on using untreated pinus radiata for structural framing needs to flayed alive in front of a slow fire.

Houses will *always* leak. If not when first built then certainly after a year or so of twisting and moving and flexing. Ventilation and drainage allows the water to escape, and the timber to dry out. And treatment (tanalised is obviously better, but boric's good enough) will stop any rot starting while the drying out is happeneing.



Absolutely.
For a good picture of the causes all one needs to do is ask why we never had a problem (or very few) for the previous 200yrs and lets face it, many during that period were build by home handymen.

Why would you leave James Hardy out of your list?
It occurs to me that most all leaky home are clad in a hardies product of one kind or another.

[The Stranger]

do what you will and tell no-one.

That is truely a very sorry situation.
Not exatcly sure what you are saying here, however it should be noted that recently someone did just this and sold their house. The new owner sued and the vendor had to pay $430,000.00 in compensation + costs.
Concealing the issue may well have it's downside too.
If you find you have a leaky house, you should act and act NOW! BEFORE the 10yrs is up as noted. Get a good lawyer, who specialises in this and get appropriate advice. If you don't, it will cost YOU!

P.S. I do know of one such lawyer if anyone is looking for one.

[Brett]

OK - The reason I blame the builders (to a degree) and I don't blame the timber (as much) is because the timber in question may well have been fine if it had not been put into a situation where any timber would rot after a short period of time.

As I said, builders are not stupid people and the knew the buildings were farked right from the start.

BUT yes I do put most blame with the authorities to have allowed a worldwide know 'failed building practice' to destroy the lives of thousands of innocent people. And then to turn their backs on them. They approved the design and signed it off. They should accept some responsibility. The builder will get away with building as cheaply as possible within the given guidlines. Why shouldn't they? (complete U-turn then) :)

I think you are under the assumption that builders do more when building a hosue than they actually do.
Process =

- Approach architect/architectural draughtsman to design house. This will have ALL flashing details, timber treatment grades etc stipulated on the plan.
- Take finished plan to council for permit. Council review documents in accordance with NZBC and either pass them or ask for more detail to be provided or ammended.
- Plans are approved, owner or builders sends plans off to prenail manufacturer who does a take off of all timber required (sometimes material and hardware too). Prenail bunch fabricate prenail frames and trusses IN ACCORDANCE with the plans, put together random timber etc and send out to site.
Builder takes delivery of framing and proceeds to put them together until ready for roof & Preline stage. Builder leaves site until he comes back to fit skirtings, doors, architraves, hardware and accessories such as toilet roll holders etc.

Yes one could argue that the builder should have spoken up when they noted the timber was not treated, but as this was legal under the NZBC and was actually pushed by many timber merchants it is not exactly reasonable to place more blame with them than any other party involved in the process.

Still leaky buildings are a horrendous problem to be lumbered with and anyone who builds a house with flat roofs, houses monolithic cladding systems with questionable flashing details and other such leaking indicators need their heads read.

There is a reason I just built our house with Brick & Tile.

Oh yeah, I am not a builder, so have no vested interest in the above statements either.

[MadDuck]

Yes one could argue that the builder should have spoken up when they noted the timber was not treated, but as this was legal under the NZBC and was actually pushed by many timber merchants it is not exactly reasonable to place more blame with them than any other party involved in the process.

Two things are really quite shocking about this whole thing. Two Auckland Frame & Truss merchants went out of business only last year for allegedly using the incorrect timber in the Frames & Trusses for housing. Completely against CHH guidelines. This was in fact picked up by an inspector some ohh 100 homes later......

Problem 1. These companies were undercutting other larger companies on quotes on F&T by $1,000sss. So of course the unsuspecting home owners decide on the cheaper option.

Problem 2. The F&T companies are now bankrupt or in the process of. So the next poor bugger in line is the builder.

Sadly I know of one or two builders who have lost everything just because they built to the architects specification.

[The Stranger]

Yes one could argue that the builder should have spoken up when they noted the timber was not treated, but as this was legal under the NZBC and was actually pushed by many timber merchants it is not exactly reasonable to place more blame with them than any other party involved in the process.


Actually the builder has a legal obligation to speak up if they know or believe something to be amiss on the plans or specs. This has ben established by case law. So building to the plans and specs is not in and of itself a valid defence.
Not applicable in this case as the govt had both tested and approved the use of untreated timber.

[Swoop]

If we trace the issue back to the source...

"Someone" or a group of people had obviously lobbied the regulators who then permitted the building code to allow untreated timber to be used.

The theory went along the lines of "we use kiln dried timber which is too dry for insects to attack". Some of these morons conveniently forgot that timber always takes up moisture/releases moisture to remain at EMC. When that happens Mr Insect & Mr Fungus is really quite happy.

Who the instigators of the legislation change actually are, would be interesting to find out.
They should be held accountable.

[HenryDorsetCase]

If we trace the issue back to the source...

"Someone" or a group of people had obviously lobbied the regulators who then permitted the building code to allow untreated timber to be used.

The theory went along the lines of "we use kiln dried timber which is too dry for insects to attack". Some of these morons conveniently forgot that timber always takes up moisture/releases moisture to remain at EMC. When that happens Mr Insect & Mr Fungus is really quite happy.

Who the instigators of the legislation change actually are, would be interesting to find out.
They should be held accountable.

thats pretty well known to be honest.

But it wasnt JUST the use of unteated timber or JUST the changes to the Building Act and Code or JUST the debt fuelled housing bubble... it was all those things.

[Ixion]

Another shoddy product from jimmy hardly (http://www.jameshardie.co.nz/index.php/page/product/pi_productid/4/title/Linea%99+Weatherboard).
The product is delaminating and the failure rate is shocking.

I have been surprised by the lack of skills that it takes to become a building inspector. One example is an ex jib-stopper who works for the Auckland council as an "inspector".

Those aren't weather boards. They're just another fibroboard crap thing. Weatherboards is made of wood , from tree things.

[Swoop]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10588536

A new-home warranty system has been announced as part of a shake-up of the construction industry to tackle the leaky-building disaster.

Building and Construction Minister Maurice Williamson says it will guarantee that houses are fit for sale.

Mr Williamson told the Building Research Association's Build magazine he was surprised at the enormity of the leaky homes saga and previously "had no idea of the magnitude". That had changed.

"The best estimate we have currently is that the repair bill will be about $3.6 billion - a huge number. We think that's about 20,000 properties."

Early this year, Mr Williamson announced a major investigation into the scale of the problem and the Department of Building and Housing led the weathertightness project taskforce. Its findings are yet to be released.

Now, Mr Williamson plans a radical shake-up of the leaky-building system, which he says is not working.

"It's just dreadful. We are going to completely revamp the whole process because the whole weathertight resolution process so far has seen huge chunks of money go into the hands of lawyers and litigation and tribunals and almost nothing going into fixing the rotting buildings," he told the magazine.


%3Cbody%20style%3D%22margin%3A0%22%3E%3Cdiv%20id%3 D%22adDiv%22%3E%3CSCRIPT%3E/*XXXIXXX*/%3C/SCRIPT%3E%0D%0A%3CSCRIPT%3E%0D%0Avar%20isFF%20%3D% 20navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase%28%29.indexOf%28 %27firefox%27%29%20%21%3D%20-1%3B%0D%0Aif%28isFF%29%7B%0D%0Adocument.write%28%2 7%3CS%27%20+%20%27CRIPT%20language%3D%22JavaScript 1.1%22%20SRC%3D%22http%3A//ad.nz.doubleclick.net/adj/N3995.NZ_Herald/B3655084.4%3Babr%3D%21ie%3Bsz%3D300x250%3B%3Bclick %3Dhttp%3A//ads.apn.co.nz/accipiter/adclick/CID%3D0000516767d37c2500000000/aamsz%3D300X250/acc_random%3D175747278/pageid%3D16637096508/site%3DNZH/area%3DSEC.NATIONAL.STY/keyword%3Dleaky%20home%20warranty%20announced%20bu ildings%20residential%20property%20new%20home%20sy stem%20part%20shake%20up%20construction%20industry %20tackle%20leaky%20building%20disaster%20building %20minister%20maurice%20williamson%20says%20guaran tee%20houses%20fit%20sale%20told%20research%20asso ciation%20build/relocate%3D%3Bord%3D175747278%3F%22%3E%3C/S%27%20+%20%27CRIPT%3E%27%29%3B%0D%0A%7Delse%7B%0D %0Adocument.write%28%27%3CIFRAME%20SRC%3D%22http%3 A//ad.nz.doubleclick.net/adi/N3995.NZ_Herald/B3655084.4%3Bsz%3D300x250%3B%3Bclick%3Dhttp%3A//ads.apn.co.nz/accipiter/adclick/CID%3D0000516767d37c2500000000/aamsz%3D300X250/acc_random%3D175747278/pageid%3D16637096508/site%3DNZH/area%3DSEC.NATIONAL.STY/keyword%3Dleaky%20home%20warranty%20announced%20bu ildings%20residential%20property%20new%20home%20sy stem%20part%20shake%20up%20construction%20industry %20tackle%20leaky%20building%20disaster%20building %20minister%20maurice%20williamson%20says%20guaran tee%20houses%20fit%20sale%20told%20research%20asso ciation%20build/relocate%3D%3Bord%3D175747278%3F%22%20width%3D300% 20height%3D250%20MARGINWIDTH%3D0%20MARGINHEIGHT%3D 0%20HSPACE%3D0%20VSPACE%3D0%20FRAMEBORDER%3D0%20SC ROLLING%3Dno%20BORDERCOLOR%3D%22%23000000%22%20id% 3D%22iframe20839%22%3E%3CS%27%20+%20%27CRIPT%20lan guage%3D%22JavaScript1.1%22%20SRC%3D%22http%3A//ad.nz.doubleclick.net/adj/N3995.NZ_Herald/B3655084.4%3Babr%3D%21ie%3Bsz%3D300x250%3Bord%3D17 5747278%3F%22%3E%3C/S%27%20+%20%27CRIPT%3E%3C/IFRAME%3E%27%29%3B%0D%0A%7D%0D%0A%3C/SCRIPT%3E%0D%0A%0D%0A%3CNOSCRIPT%3E%0D%0A%3CA%20HR EF%3D%22http%3A//ads.apn.co.nz/accipiter/adclick/CID%3D0000516767d37c2500000000/aamsz%3D300X250/acc_random%3D175747278/pageid%3D16637096508/site%3DNZH/area%3DSEC.NATIONAL.STY/keyword%3Dleaky%20home%20warranty%20announced%20bu ildings%20residential%20property%20new%20home%20sy stem%20part%20shake%20up%20construction%20industry %20tackle%20leaky%20building%20disaster%20building %20minister%20maurice%20williamson%20says%20guaran tee%20houses%20fit%20sale%20told%20research%20asso ciation%20buildord%3D175747278%3F%22%20target%3D%2 2_BLANK%22%3E%0D%0A%3CIMG%20SRC%3D%22http%3A//ad.nz.doubleclick.net/ad/N3995.NZ_Herald/B3655084.4%3Babr%3D%21ie4%3Babr%3D%21ie5%3Bsz%3D30 0x250%3B%3Bord%3D175747278%3F%22%20BORDER%3D0%20wi dth%3D300%20height%3D250%20ALT%3D%22Click%20Here%2 2%3E%3C/A%3E%0D%0A%3C/NOSCRIPT%3E%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A%3C/div%3E
A new-home warranty insurance scheme is part of the big changes he plans to promote and he released some details.

"Why, on the most valuable asset you're ever going to buy in your life, wouldn't you want to have some sort of guarantee that it's fit for purpose and is going to function as promoted for many years?" he said.

"Everything we do from the new policy will be targeted to fixing the problem and lawyers won't like me at all because it won't be going to them." Last week, Mr Williamson said the Building Amendment Bill would reform the construction sector and reduce delays and costs.

The warranty could be through insurance companies or builder guarantees, but homeowners could opt out of taking the warranty if they were confident the builder was up to the job, the magazine reported.

Mr Williamson told the Building Industry Federation annual meeting in Wellington last month that the Government was taking a fresh look at weathertight issues and was committed to getting leaky homes fixed.

"The Department of Building and Housing has undertaken a comprehensive review of the approach currently taken to weathertight issues. Once the results are known, the Government will decide on the best option to address the problem," he said.

Auckland law firm chief Paul Grimshaw said he was keen to know more about the minister's plans. Grimshaw & Co is representing about 6000 property owners who are suffering after buying leaky houses. Many are in body corporates in large apartment blocks.

The High Court at Auckland is also handling leaky building cases on an almost-daily basis.

The country's largest leaky building claim is apartment block Hobson Gardens, Hobson St in Auckland's CBD. That twin-tower complex could cost $20 million to fix.

But John Gray, president of the Homeowners and Buyers Association, said Mr Williamson had severely under-estimated the scale of the problem.

Industry sector estimates that 80,000 houses and units would cost $5 billion to fix could even be a big under-estimate, he said.

"I think it might be higher than that."

He called for Mr Williamson to urgently release the national investigation into the scale of the problem, saying this would come closer to revealing the true nature of the systemic failure.

Local councils were the very entities driving up legal costs on leaky building litigation, Mr Gray said, fighting victims in court over payments.

"They're defending the indefensible."

Mr Gray said he was concerned to hear that Mr Williamson wanted to stop private litigation. This would deny people of their right to access the court system.

* Estimates

Maurice Williamson:

$3.6 billion, 20,000 properties

Homeowners and Buyers Association:

$5 billion, 80,000 properties

[SPman]

and absolute b.s. 'new' safer regulations (e.g. unable to use galvanised exterior bolts on a deck because my house now deemed as high salt spray area - but original bolts had zero rust on them after 14 years outside...the new an unbelievably expensive stainless steel bolts etc already have 'tea stains' i.e. rust...oh and $3000 worth of extra stainlees steel strapping :wacko: ). I had a,"strong" argument with the auditing officer over this point on one job - didn't help any - left the poor householder in tears and she had to spend another $1000 on fittings for no good reason that I could see. I wasn't happy.
I have been surprised by the lack of skills that it takes to become a building inspector. One example is an ex jib-stopper who works for the Auckland council as an "inspector".Who was that? There were 2 or 3 Bozo's in there, when I was there that the rest of us would quite happily have buried in any convenient foundation! There are some good ones in Auckland, though, as well. The new minimum requirement is a Diploma in Building Surveying, which was being introduced in 2005 and we all started doing extramuraly. The English guys normally had a Degree in Building Surveying. My experience was Advanced Trade Certificate in Carpentry, 25yrs building in house and commercial, with 3 yrs cabinetmaking and joinery thrown in, and a Diploma of Quantity Surveying. I generally found the ex trades guys had a better handle on things, apart from the power junkies who were there, who were just arseholes!

[Brett]

Two things are really quite shocking about this whole thing. Two Auckland Frame & Truss merchants went out of business only last year for allegedly using the incorrect timber in the Frames & Trusses for housing. Completely against CHH guidelines. This was in fact picked up by an inspector some ohh 100 homes later......

Problem 1. These companies were undercutting other larger companies on quotes on F&T by $1,000sss. So of course the unsuspecting home owners decide on the cheaper option.

Problem 2. The F&T companies are now bankrupt or in the process of. So the next poor bugger in line is the builder.

Sadly I know of one or two builders who have lost everything just because they built to the architects specification.

That is why, if you are not familiar with construction, for the sake of all things good, DO NOT TRY PROJECT MANAGE IT YOURSELF!!!!! Pay a Building Company, they understand the industry, the pitfalls and are legally and professionaly set up to carry out such works.


Actually the builder has a legal obligation to speak up if they know or believe something to be amiss on the plans or specs. This has ben established by case law. So building to the plans and specs is not in and of itself a valid defence.
Not applicable in this case as the govt had both tested and approved the use of untreated timber.

In the case of inadequate or incorrect specific detailing such as flashing details, wall junctions etc I agree.
Would struggle to see that a case could be put forward saying that a builder, back when untreated kiln dried radiata pine was being promoted heavily and indeed was legal under the legislation of the time, could be found culpable and having acted in error in allowing the timber to be used.
The theory behind untreated timber is sound...it wont rot or get eaten by NZ bugs SO LONG AS IT STAYS DRY. The timber only failed as a result of systematic failure of other building elements such as cladding, water proofing membranes etc.
I am not defending any particular party here, I just think that average Joe Public is not well enough aware of the industry to make an informed and fair comment. And it does seem that people are quick to come out with their verdict rather quickly without knowing the facts behind the facade.

[Molly]

I think if I'd faced the collapse of a $400k house due to rot I'd have torched the f'ker and claimed on the insurance. Not an honourable thing to admit but how does an average working bloke recover from that kind of loss?

One question for the builders. I see houses going up in my area and the framework seems to be a mix of green and pink stained wood. What do the colours signify?

Wish I'd been a builder by the way. Must be nice to have something to show for your efforts. You get f'k all back from a day's teaching.

[Brett]

I think if I'd faced the collapse of a $400k house due to rot I'd have torched the f'ker and claimed on the insurance. Not an honourable thing to admit but how does an average working bloke recover from that kind of loss?

One question for the builders. I see houses going up in my area and the framework seems to be a mix of green and pink stained wood. What do the colours signify?

Wish I'd been a builder by the way. Must be nice to have something to show for your efforts. You get f'k all back from a day's teaching.

Different colours can be a few things, different treatment plants treating the timber use different colour dyes to distinguish timber types and in some cases it can also indicate the timber treatment.

I started out as a builder, but am glad I moved off into project management because you get exposure to many different types of projects, you have to know a lot about a lot, ie I need to be able to do QA etc on all different trades which means I get to learn about a lot of different stuff, you get to be involved in the design aspects, the financial control aspects and the more technical aspects of construction that the builder does not, ie engineering etc.
Once upon a time builders were able to do a lot more than they get to today. The way the residential construction industry is moving here (very similar to the states and aussie) it is becoming very modular, ie like putting a puzzle together except different companies and trades do their little bit of the puzzle. The only party who really get to be involved in the whole process is the project manager, hence I didn't find the decision to move into it years ago very hard.

[Molly]

Sounds like the right move. I take a walk past local builds all the time and like to watch the day to day developments. Would love to spend some time out of my job and on some of these sites getting a bit of exercise and maybe some skills. Maybe one summer holiday.

[The Stranger]

One question for the builders. I see houses going up in my area and the framework seems to be a mix of green and pink stained wood. What do the colours signify?

Wish I'd been a builder by the way. Must be nice to have something to show for your efforts. You get f'k all back from a day's teaching.

Used to be that the pink was boron treated and the green was tanalith treated.
Generally - green for in and on ground and where exposed and pink for where dry and enclosed. Although there were different grades of pink and green.
That was before I was a nerd, may have changed somewhat of late however.

[Swoop]

I see houses going up in my area and the framework seems to be a mix of green and pink stained wood. What do the colours signify?

Pink = H1.2 Boron treated
Blue = H1.2 Permethrin plus.
Green = H3.1.

*Places pens back into pen protector pocket, folds up pointer stick, exits classroom*

[MadDuck]

Red = a whole new can of worms!

[MadDuck]

That is why, if you are not familiar with construction, for the sake of all things good, DO NOT TRY PROJECT MANAGE IT YOURSELF!!!!!

Yep only a fool would do such a thing!

[jim.cox]

Yep only a fool would do such a thing!

Doing the project management / site foreman is actually the best place for the average bloke to save money on building for themselves.

There are plenty of guides / manuals / books on the subject

Its not rocket science...

[Brett]

Doing the project management / site foreman is actually the best place for the average bloke to save money on building for themselves.

There are plenty of guides / manuals / books on the subject

Its not rocket science...

Yeah it is great so long as everything goes according to plan...the moment the train leaves the tracks however, then the pendulum has just swung. Also, it is easy so long as the house or buidling you are building is simple and straight forward...not too many complicated details.

[ready4whatever]

the council are robbing bastards. they just put the rates up here. then when i walk past it theres a councilors new porsche parked outside

[SPman]

Its not rocket science...

Shhhhhhhh..........<_<