Leaky buildings. Thinking of buying a post '95 home? Own one?

[Kickaha]

Of interest are the reports of builders leaving the city since their work has dried up! The council has not got off its arse with issuing building permits. !

On the way home tonight they said on the news that for this month there was a 100% increase in permits issued over this time last year, but they didn't give total numbers

[mashman]

money makes the world go around the world go around the world go around, money makes the world go around... fuckin insurance company's :tugger:

[flyingcrocodile46]

I regard the rebuild efforts to date as an embarrassment. Fletchers should be sacked and replaced with one of those Chinese construction giants that builds whole cities from scratch in as little as three years. Watched a time lapse video of a 45 story apartment building being built in just 15 weeks (fully finished ready to live in). Our country has been castrated by red tape.

Chinese investors (within China) have started looking for large scale building investments around the world that they can and will finance as long as there is a payday. Kill two birds with one stone, sell them chch with an undertaking to buy it back off them for pre agreed $ when they finish re-building it. (have to suspend NZ law there for a while to make it workable)

[flyingcrocodile46]

On the way home tonight they said on the news that for this month there was a 100% increase in permits issued over this time last year, but they didn't give total numbers

They haven't been called permits since 91. I wonder how many were demolition consents

[Kickaha]

They haven't been called permits since 91. I wonder how many were demolition consents

Well consents or whatever the fuck they call them, 100% increase in some building shit anyway

They didn't say anything about demolition

[dangerous]

...10,000 new tradespeople is a bit of a misnomer really...a few will be tradesman, a lot will be good enough to call , experienced in some field, and the vast bulk will be poorly trained tools for the gathering of money for the crooks in charge of the rebuild...if it ever kicks off..and the dodginess has been obvious from day one and wont improve...fark man... tis the main reason why I got the hell out... couldnt work with chippies that cant speak english (or spell it) ypu me man.. dieing breed... bread, fuck it

[JimO]

wonder how many of the "new" builders will be LBPs, and who will sign of a job done by numpties and be responsible for it for the next 50 years

[dangerous]

wonder how many of the "new" builders will be LBPs, and who will sign of a job done by numpties and be responsible for it for the next 50 yearsNot me... refuse to be (yeah I knoe cut me nose of to despite me arse or some weaid shit) look 30yrs in the trade and ya cant teach me much yet the last company I worked for had ONE LBP in the company... what a fucking looser thick as shait, BUT he had the $380 or what every to pay for the licence... the systems screwed mate well screwed.

[ellipsis]

...it's coming back our way D...it's been a good break, despite being poor for a couple of years...fuck 'em...
.

[Swoop]

...there was a 100% increase in permits issued over this time last year, but they didn't give total numbers
I wonder if that number is "two"? ;)

[SPman]

"a pole house, with Harditex cladding" :gob::facepalm: Who approved that?

1993 - complied with all regs and approved by local new Plymouth authorities.....:weep:

at least the framing was still treated............:killingme

[flyingcrocodile46]

1993 - complied with all regs and approved by local new Plymouth authorities.....:weep:

at least the framing was still treated............:killingme

Experpt from James hardies Harditex manual December 1992 (wasn't in the 91 version)



Harditex should not be used in full pole house construction where excessive structural movement could be encountered.
It can be used on the upper level of pole platform construction where the poles terminate at the underside of the floor level.

[SPman]

Ah - that's OK then........it was a pole platform house. (sloppy use of terminology there)...:-)

[Brian d marge]

...Linea weatherboards will warp in certain temps right?
Its happening to a few houses at Omaha beach.

Same with Bamboo flooring...our humidity here is just to tough for it, even the importers of the product will tell you that.

Humidity ??? you dont get humidity ....come over here !!! its 32 and well into the 70s or 80s humidity , I have curtains close , aircon on Max and traditional clothing and I’m dying ....fk me its hot

On saying that ,,,Im not a builder , but I do recognize crap design,,,such as Spanish style houses !!!

Stephen
ps vid wouldnt play !

[flyingcrocodile46]

New Zealand has a year round, outdoor RH of between 70–80% in coastal areas and about 10% lower inland. Indoor relative humidities are generally lower than outdoor relative humidities ranging, in New Zealand dwellings, from 30% to 65% during the day-time in a “dry” house, and 50% to 75% in a “damp” house. Cold bedrooms can have relative humidities of 80% - 90% at night-time. Generally, most people will be comfortable in a humidity range of 30–80% if the air temperature is in a range of 18–24ºC. WHO recommendations for a healthy home environment are for RH to be between 40 to 60%.

Our high average annual RH of 73% isn't good to start and with and our recent trend toward monolithic claddings and airtightness combined with NZers bad habit of not opening windows enough to allow a continuous air change rate of .5 per hour results in very high levels of mold growth and mold spore in the air... We have very unhealthy environments in our houses and as a result we have the worlds highest incidence of Asthma. When we occupy our homes the RH goes up between 10 to 30% depending on how much we breath, shower, cook etc.

Yes, it fucks with building materials as well.

If you want to understand it a little more you can read this to start with
http://www.level.org.nz/passive-design/controlling-indoor-air-quality/humidity-and-condensation/


P.S The current trend to install heavily advertised ventilation systems is most often making no difference or making things even worse as they typically take air from roof spaces (which typically have a much higher RH than the living areas). Some have been installed to take air from the subfloor and that is even worse .:rolleyes: There have been more than a few disasters as a result of poorly thought through ventilation designs. Simple passive venting through slightly open windows and good dehumidifiers are better imo.

[Brian d marge]

New Zealand has a year round, outdoor RH of between 70–80% in coastal areas and about 10% lower inland. Indoor relative humidities are generally lower than outdoor relative humidities ranging, in New Zealand dwellings, from 30% to 65% during the day-time in a “dry” house, and 50% to 75% in a “damp” house. Cold bedrooms can have relative humidities of 80% - 90% at night-time. Generally, most people will be comfortable in a humidity range of 30–80% if the air temperature is in a range of 18–24ºC. WHO recommendations for a healthy home environment are for RH to be between 40 to 60%.

Our high average annual RH of 73% isn't good to start and with and our recent trend toward monolithic claddings and airtightness combined with NZers bad habit of not opening windows enough to allow a continuous air change rate of .5 per hour results in very high levels of mold growth and mold spore in the air... We have very unhealthy environments in our houses and as a result we have the worlds highest incidence of Asthma. When we occupy our homes the RH goes up between 10 to 30% depending on how much we breath, shower, cook etc.

Yes, it fucks with building materials as well.

If you want to understand it a little more you can read this to start with
http://www.level.org.nz/passive-design/controlling-indoor-air-quality/humidity-and-condensation/


P.S The current trend to install heavily advertised ventilation systems is most often making no difference or making things even worse as they typically take air from roof spaces (which typically have a much higher RH than the living areas). Some have been installed to take air from the subfloor and that is even worse .:rolleyes: There have been more than a few disasters as a result of poorly thought through ventilation designs. Simple passive venting through slightly open windows and good dehumidifiers are better imo.

Having lived in NZ . ( and just returned from ) Auckland , chch and Napier ..and am now it Tokyo’s summer .... makes NZ look like a walk in the park ...trust me on this one ,, Mold growth ( we have just built a new house , you should see the Bathroom ,,,,,!!! constant battle )

Just checked the phone , its 33 humidity is 55% wind 14 km, ,,,I cant go outside , and if you do, about ten min later you are completely wet from sweat ... horrible

Our house ( rooms ) are closed up plants growing up the windows ( Goya , green curtains ) the curtains drawn , and the aircon on max ....and I still feel sticky and horrible ( a little )

I wont go into my workshop until October ,as its unbearable ,,,,

Give me NZ anytime ,,,Ill pay ! good money , please send "Cold " in as much quantity as you can!!!!

Stephen

ps , A lot of children diseases are on the rise due to "sealed homes " ...on saying that , I wouldn’t want to return to the place I used to live in London , they were draughty shtholes!!!!

I’ve become interested in "Eathships of late ....very tempted ,,,very .......

[flyingcrocodile46]

I’ve become interested in "Eathships of late ....very tempted ,,,very .......

Our building act and code makes it near impossible for meaningful development of alternative construction methods like earthships. You would have to be prepared to spend millions before you would be able to build one (for anything more than testing).:(

[Brian d marge]

Our building act and code makes it near impossible for meaningful development of alternative construction methods like earthships. You would have to be prepared to spend millions before you would be able to build one (for anything more than testing).:(

I know ,,, same in America, still there are always ways and means ....whats the minimum size for not needing a permit?

Just tested my bedroom , 39 deg like a friggen oven in there ...thank fk for cheap Nuclear energy ......

Stephen

[flyingcrocodile46]

I know ,,, same in America, still there are always ways and means ....whats the minimum size for not needing a permit?

Just tested my bedroom , 39 deg like a friggen oven in there ...thank fk for cheap Nuclear energy ......

Stephen


I assume you meant maximum. Yes, there are always ways IF you have the means

You haven't been able to get a "building permit" since 91 when they were legislated out of existence and replaced with *building consents* (waves to kickaha) ;).

This is just a small snippet of the first hurdle.

Schedule 1 of the building act. (about page no 276 ish)


..does not exceed 1 storey, does not exceed 10 square metres in floor area, and does not contain sanitary facilities or facilities for the storage of potable water, but may contain sleeping accommodation (without cooking facilities) if the detached building is used in connection with a dwelling:

It really is only one of the hundreds of hoops and in any event you still need to comply with the building code and run the risk of having to demolish your non compliant work irrespective of whether it needed a consent.

It really is fucked up.

[Ocean1]

It really is fucked up.

Ain't it just.

And why, exactly is it their business how we choose to build our own hovels?

And are they really the absolute authorities on quality construction?

And why aren't we demanding better quality for the fucking fortune we pay for "compliance" costs?

[Brian d marge]

I assume you meant maximum. Yes, there are always ways IF you have the means

You haven't been able to get a "building permit" since 91 when they were legislated out of existence and replaced with *building consents* (waves to kickaha) ;).

This is just a small snippet of the first hurdle.

Schedule 1 of the building act. (about page no 276 ish)



It really is only one of the hundreds of hoops and in any event you still need to comply with the building code and run the risk of having to demolish your non compliant work irrespective of whether it needed a consent.

It really is fucked up.

Well that sets civilization back a bit , how do the local Maori get along with traditional meeting houses ?

Stephen

[Brian d marge]

I feel like Im dragging this thead of topic a bit but,,,its kinda sort of on topic

how does this guy get away with things then?

http://www.ecohouse.co.nz/old/emokuji.html

Stephen

[flyingcrocodile46]

Ain't it just.

And why, exactly is it their business how we choose to build our own hovels?

And are they really the absolute authorities on quality construction?

And why aren't we demanding better quality for the fucking fortune we pay for "compliance" costs?

1. I have no answer that I believe justifies the constraints (other than the standard 'in the interest of good public health). I prefer to echo the question rather than answer it.

2. No but the law isn't about striving for quality. The law bestows the authority, sets the benchmark and regulates the pathway by which the authority must assess approvals. There really isn't any wriggle room.

4. Because the way compliance monitoring works it actually costs more than you get charged for. If you want proper quality control you will have to pay market rates one way or the other.. or start accepting the dearest quotes instead of the cheapest. Panic not though, things are changing and pretty soon costs and monitoring constraints will be reduced as self certification (by LBP's and the like) is introduced and Councils liability will be all but removed. Then you won't be able to blame or sue the council for its negligence and will have to settle for what the contractors, engineers and designers can afford to pay. My guess is an average recovery of 20 to 30% of costs (less if you keep taking the cheapest quotes)

[flyingcrocodile46]

Well that sets civilization back a bit , how do the local Maori get along with traditional meeting houses ?

Stephen

For the most part they have to satisfy the same hurdles as everyone else, but a meeting house isn't a a dwelling so its compliance requirements are both more and less onerous.

[flyingcrocodile46]

I feel like Im dragging this thead of topic a bit but,,,its kinda sort of on topic

how does this guy get away with things then?

http://www.ecohouse.co.nz/old/emokuji.html

Stephen

Without reading up on all of the details in his links (which would probably only tell part of the story and leave me with more questions than answers anyway) I assume that he is jumping through a shitload of hoops by way of hundreds of hours of research and data collection together with more hundreds of hours of presenting it in response to a myriad of requests to demonstrate compliance with the 33 primary clauses of the building code. Probably taken 10 years off his life ;) and as I didn't read enough of it to see if he actually had a building consent or if he's managed to get a code compliance certificate. He might not be getting away with it at all and he certainly won't be "getting away with it" if he has actually complied with the building act.

The monitoring and regulating (active policing) of non consented and or non compliant work isn't a revenue or glory earner, so unless someone is or has pushed a barrow, some stones will be left unturned. You always have the option of building a shanty somewhere out of sight and taking your chances.

[flyingcrocodile46]

I feel like Im dragging this thead of topic a bit but,,,its kinda sort of on topic

how does this guy get away with things then?

http://www.ecohouse.co.nz/old/emokuji.html

Stephen

I had a bit of a read through the links and it appears very light on content on anything other than solar heating, cooking, biogas and effluent management (and the info viewed wouldn't suffice to satisfy so much as a single code clause). It seems that the build may have been started in the early 90's, was only lived in for 4 months of the year (can't tell how many), may not have even been completed (can't see much in the way of dating but may have died in the arse some time after 96).

The hurdles have been multiplied many times since the 90's.

[Ocean1]

4. Because the way compliance monitoring works it actually costs more than you get charged for. If you want proper quality control you will have to pay market rates one way or the other.. or start accepting the dearest quotes instead of the cheapest. Panic not though, things are changing and pretty soon costs and monitoring constraints will be reduced as self certification (by LBP's and the like) is introduced and Councils liability will be all but removed. Then you won't be able to blame or sue the council for its negligence and will have to settle for what the contractors, engineers and designers can afford to pay. My guess is an average recovery of 20 to 30% of costs (less if you keep taking the cheapest quotes)

Yes, I'm aware that building compliance costs local authorities more than they earn from the supply of the "service", (becha the difference isn't coming out of their lunch money).

But that's got absolutely nothing to do with the quality or value of the service actually supplied...

...as you infer:


2. No but the law isn't about striving for quality. The law bestows the authority, sets the benchmark and regulates the pathway by which the authority must assess approvals. There really isn't any wriggle room.

And I rather suspect that given a coherent set of standards any industry advanced practitioner could carry out the required inspection for about a tenth of their charges.

My point was rather to note the disparity between the service requested by the client, (fuck all) and that charged for, (a more or less self-funded arse-covering excercise paid for by those that would rather keep their money thanks very much).

[flyingcrocodile46]

Yes, I'm aware that building compliance costs local authorities more than they earn from the supply of the "service", (becha the difference isn't coming out of their lunch money).

But that's got absolutely nothing to do with the quality or value of the service actually supplied...

...as you infer:



And I rather suspect that given a coherent set of standards any industry advanced practitioner could carry out the required inspection for about a tenth of their charges.

My point was rather to note the disparity between the service requested by the client, (fuck all) and that charged for, (a more or less self-funded arse-covering excercise paid for by those that would rather keep their money thanks very much).


Not that I entirely disagree with the guts of your beef, but I am pretty sure that if it wasn't a more or less mandated role for the council, they would happily let someone else take the glory. They are only doing what they are told they have to do to the best of their very limited abilities. They certainly do not welcome the resultant liability and it is certainly not 'self funded'.

Btw the compliance charges (building control element of the application fees) for the average $350K house generally sit between $1.8K to $2.3K which leaves about $1.3 to $1.8k after processing the initial application. That will buy you between 15 to 20 hours (at least half of which will go in travel time). Yup! 7 to 10 hours of on site independent quality control expertise should be more than enough for the most discerning customer :lol:

You won't find a real industry expert/'advanced practitioner' who would do it for less than 200% as much. Hell the PI and PL insurance (assuming they could even get it) would likely cost them half their fees for each job.

[Swoop]

Well that sets civilization back a bit , how do the local Maori get along with traditional meeting houses?
Loosely involved with one. The requirements that the council put forward were those of a public building requiring fire sprinklers, emergency signage/lighting, etc, etc, etc.
Emergency egress is entertaining as there are only two doors. Loooong drawn out battles were fought with the council (no surprises there...).

[Ocean1]

Not that I entirely disagree with the guts of your beef, but I am pretty sure that if it wasn't a more or less mandated role for the council, they would happily let someone else take the glory.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that mandate created because councils were already charging for what was essentially QA compliance inspections and then refusing to be accountable when their unsolicited services proved ineffective?

I'm pretty sure it's still ineffective, how many times has a council paid any house owner the full cost of repairs to sub-standard work?

As for the direct costs of inspection: that's bullshit too, how many times in an average build does a council evade responsibility by requiring further design specification even when both engineer and client are happy with it?

You don't actually have to have the numbers to identify poor service, just ask if the supplier is an effective monopoly.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that mandate created because councils were already charging for what was essentially QA compliance inspections and then refusing to be accountable when their unsolicited services proved ineffective?

I'm pretty sure it's still ineffective, how many times has a council paid any house owner the full cost of repairs to sub-standard work?

As for the direct costs of inspection: that's bullshit too, how many times in an average build does a council evade responsibility by requiring further design specification even when both engineer and client are happy with it?

You don't actually have to have the numbers to identify poor service, just ask if the supplier is an effective monopoly.

Before the 91 building act they were still required to perform much the same functions under law, so while their services may be regarded as unsolicited, they didn't provide them out of choice. BTW neither the law nor councils undertake to provide a QA service. That is the job of the builder (who has never done it and still doesn't)


I don't believe 100% recovery has ever been awarded. But yes, the council would have paid 100% of the actual awarded amount only a fraction of the number of times that all of the other parties (who actually created the defective work) had either mysteriously disappeared or had empty pockets. But that is what happens under NZ's joint and several liability laws. As long as there is one party who has money to pay (councils can't go into receivership or bankruptcy to void liability) the victim will be assured of receiving 100% recovery of the awarded claim damages. Even if that parties negligence only accounted for 1% of the damage.

Councils and ratepayers are also the victims in this scenario. Forced by law to provide a service that they didn't want to provide, restricted by law from doing the job the way (and to the standard) that they wanted to and then held to account and made to pay for mistakes made by other people under inherently unfair joint liability laws. Of course we should all feel sorry for the owners of these leaky homes, but most of the grief could have been avoided if the market hadn't screwed the fuck out of the industry over the preceding 30 years by taking the cheapest prices nearly all the time so they could afford a fourth bedroom and double garage instead of the single garage 3 bedroom home designed and built properly by people who were paid a fair amount....etc.

The market shapes the industry and the industry delivers exactly what it has been shaped to provide. It's as much the fault of NZ home owners (the market) as anyone else (particularly the owner builders who seemed to account for 50% of all builds during the 80's and 90's).

Regarding the comment about council "evading responsibility by requiring further design specification even when both engineer and client are happy with it". I would ask if the client, designer etc were happy with their significantly cheaper documentation over the preceding 20 years (in which 50 % of the required project specific details were missing and the other 50% was either in conflict with itself or related to another project that the designer did 5 years earlier or was just plain wrong)? As it can be argued that it was the deviation from previously known products, construction methodology and design limitations resulting in new situations with insufficient design detailing that caused the bulk of the failures. It's the designers job to design details appropriate to the situation and that's what he gets paid for. He didn't do it then, and yet here you are still questioning the level of detail that councils want before they will be satisfied that the designer has the first fucking clue about what is involved in providing a professional design service. Everyone wants to cut the cake and eat it.

But as I said earlier. Soon the market will have what they want. Self certifying building practioners with much less council involvement and minimal liability... just the way you want. Anyones guess who's going to pay for the fuckups then... won't be the council very often though. Customers are going to have to be very very careful about who they employ moving forward.

PS. Yes many designers (incl LBP's) really don't have a fucking clue. I see it every day.. rooms without roofs, designs that are simply unbuildable, flashings that work as funnels to direct water into the junctions rather than preventing it from going in... etc tec tec etc. Seriously fucking useless designs that only serve to demonstrate their fucking ignorance. Hope you don't hire one of them when they are able to self certify, as the council wont be able to be blamed then.

[Ocean1]

Before the 91 building act they were still required to perform much the same functions under law, so while their services may be regarded as unsolicited, they didn't provide them out of choice. BTW neither the law nor councils undertake to provide a QA service. That is the job of the builder (who has never done it and still doesn't)


I don't believe 100% recovery has ever been awarded. But yes, the council would have paid 100% of the actual awarded amount only a fraction of the number of times that all of the other parties (who actually created the defective work) had either mysteriously disappeared or had empty pockets. But that is what happens under NZ's joint and several liability laws. As long as there is one party who has money to pay (councils can't go into receivership or bankruptcy to void liability) the victim will be assured of receiving 100% recovery of the awarded claim damages. Even if that parties negligence only accounted for 1% of the damage.

Councils and ratepayers are also the victims in this scenario. Forced by law to provide a service that they didn't want to provide, restricted by law from doing the job the way (and to the standard) that they wanted to and then held to account and made to pay for mistakes made by other people under inherently unfair joint liability laws. Of course we should all feel sorry for the owners of these leaky homes, but most of the grief could have been avoided if the market hadn't screwed the fuck out of the industry over the preceding 30 years by taking the cheapest prices nearly all the time so they could afford a fourth bedroom and double garage instead of the single garage 3 bedroom home designed and built properly by people who were paid a fair amount....etc.

The market shapes the industry and the industry delivers exactly what it has been shaped to provide. It's as much the fault of NZ home owners (the market) as anyone else (particularly the owner builders who seemed to account for 50% of all builds during the 80's and 90's).

Regarding the comment about council "evading responsibility by requiring further design specification even when both engineer and client are happy with it". I would ask if the client, designer etc were happy with their significantly cheaper documentation over the preceding 20 years (in which 50 % of the required project specific details were missing and the other 50% was either in conflict with itself or related to another project that the designer did 5 years earlier or was just plain wrong)? As it can be argued that it was the deviation from previously known products, construction methodology and design limitations resulting in new situations with insufficient design detailing that caused the bulk of the failures. It's the designers job to design details appropriate to the situation and that's what he gets paid for. He didn't do it then, and yet here you are still questioning the level of detail that councils want before they will be satisfied that the designer has the first fucking clue about what is involved in providing a professional design service. Everyone wants to cut the cake and eat it.

But as I said earlier. Soon the market will have what they want. Self certifying building practioners with much less council involvement and minimal liability... just the way you want. Anyones guess who's going to pay for the fuckups then... won't be the council very often though. Customers are going to have to be very very careful about who they employ moving forward.

PS. Yes many designers (incl LBP's) really don't have a fucking clue. I see it every day.. rooms without roofs, designs that are simply unbuildable, flashings that work as funnels to direct water into the junctions rather than preventing it from going in... etc tec tec etc. Seriously fucking useless designs that only serve to demonstrate their fucking ignorance. Hope you don't hire one of them when they are able to self certify, as the council wont be able to be blamed then.

Dude, I know fuck all about existing law surrounding building consents and compliance protocols.

All I know is that every fucking time I've ever wanted to build aught I've had pitched battles with a council. Not the designer, not the builder, but the council. Every fucking time. And this I get from an entity I didn't commission, wouldn't use and would gladly pay to see the back of.

As for someone to blame if my decisions turn out to be bad ones? My decision, so that'd be me. How come BRANZ and the various councils that until now have purported to set standards and ensure compliance to them don't carry the can for their fuckups?

Maybe councils have the thick end of the pineapple too, dunno, but I'm fucking sick of the professional incompetence and the massive waste of time and money their building compliance activities represent.

Guess that's all we can ever ask for innit? that whoever supplies a service is held responsible for clearly sub-standard work. Some industries manage that OK, some don't.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Dude, I know fuck all about existing law surrounding building consents and compliance protocols.

All I know is that every fucking time I've ever wanted to build aught I've had pitched battles with a council. Not the designer, not the builder, but the council. Every fucking time. And this I get from an entity I didn't commission, wouldn't use and would gladly pay to see the back of.

As for someone to blame if my decisions turn out to be bad ones? My decision, so that'd be me. How come BRANZ and the various councils that until now have purported to set standards and ensure compliance to them don't carry the can for their fuckups?

Maybe councils have the thick end of the pineapple too, dunno, but I'm fucking sick of the professional incompetence and the massive waste of time and money their building compliance activities represent.

Guess that's all we can ever ask for innit? that whoever supplies a service is held responsible for clearly sub-standard work. Some industries manage that OK, some don't.

No arguments, I concede that a lot of unnecessary hassles are caused by council or it's employees incorrectly interpreting requirements, but in my experience more are a result of insufficient information being supplied. A fair amount of application delays seem to revolve around town planing hurdles which I have little knowledge about.

Re BRANZ and Councils, Councils don't set any of the 'standards' or the "Acceptable solutions" (to the NZBC). They work within a prescribed framework to assess and certify compliance with the NZBC. Neither does or did BRANZ set any 'standards' or "Acceptable solutions". BRANZ only make recommendations (which are often ignored by govt). Standards NZ (govt) establish the 'standards' (but standards are only "Acceptable Solutions" if the DBH say they are) DBH = Dept of Building and Housing = Govt. The goverment removed the requirement to treat timber to protect it from the effects of decay from water entry despite advice from it's own depts and officials and Branz etc.. It was a political decision made to placate the Greenies as part of MMP negotiations. The decay damage that resulted and the unsuitability of leaving it untreated is the real reason that targeted repairs are not considered effective and force significantly more expensive full reclads.

You can thank the Greenies ;)

Oh yeah! When the leaky building fiasco first reared its head the govt passed legislation to wind up the BIA (Building industry Authority) which was the predecessor to the dept of building and housing. Some of the employees even had to move office. This was done in order to overhaul governance and enable the dept (formed as part of the process) to better manage things moving forward. It is exceedingly difficult to make a good case for a claimant to claim direct reliance on the now non existent BIA. BRANZ was also indemnified along the way and it would be very difficult to support a claim of direct reliance on them anyway. (yes also a govt agency).

[SPman]

PS. Yes many designers (incl LBP's) really don't have a fucking clue. I see it every day.. rooms without roofs, designs that are simply unbuildable, flashings that work as funnels to direct water into the junctions rather than preventing it from going in... etc tec tec etc. Seriously fucking useless designs that only serve to demonstrate their fucking ignorance. Hope you don't hire one of them when they are able to self certify, as the council wont be able to be blamed then.We used to see it all the time as well - fucking big name architects trying to pass off flashing and design details that would embarrass a third form tech drawing student and then get really shitty when we'd tell them it wouldn't work and we wouldn't accept, it so design it so it works and can be built! Yes, councils can be a pain in the arse - town planning and conservation depts especially - a pack of muppets, most of them......

I'm aware that building compliance costs local authorities more than they earn from the supply of the "service"
Auckland City Council used to just break even on inspections, apparently - everything else ran at a loss.

Self certifying building practioners with much less council involvement and minimal liability... just the way you want. Just like Aus...and the amount of dodgy work we see around the place is rather worrying......

...responsible for clearly sub-standard work.. There is plenty of that about - normally carried out by the builders! Several of us were in the habit of informing the owners/clients/customers, of work, or workmanship, that we considered clearly, was shit! Didn't make us popular, but, jesus h christ, there are some dodgy builders out there......

[Brian d marge]

Trouble is , we need building codes , ( even I had to have a play with them back in the day ,pre 91 ) , but when rules or the people using them aren’t proficient ? for want of a better word , then innovation IE earthships , that I am so in love with , and we could do with ,,, simply dont fly ..and that ain’t right

Stephen

[dangerous]

what is this earthship you talk of?

And these days someone has to be acountable for someone else, because so we cant build what we want we have to have rules n regs so as when broken someone can screw some ones arse to the wall for MONEY

[Brian d marge]

http://earthship.com/

some of them look weird , others are stunning

Stephen

[flyingcrocodile46]

http://earthship.com/

some of them look weird , others are stunning

Stephen


If you are prepared to work within design constraints (such as earth bricks, big eaves and low/single level walls for your dwelling to prevent erosion) you could possibly get there without too much drama using the acceptable solution design documents NZBC E2/AS2 Earth buildings complying with NZS 4299 (Earth buildings not requiring specific design).

From what I understand, the drama and cost involved in getting the mix right for the bricks (or buying them) and the design constraints (in order to maintain acceptable solution status) makes the process desirable only to those that really really want a low profile single level mud brick home ... though I have had limited involvement with this type of construction so I can't be sure.

We really need to get govt involvement (national and local body) and their liability out of our homes and remove all of the acceptable solutions from the building code. Let people build, live in and/or sell using whatever means they have available. Let the buyer make their own assessment (using only the building code against which to measure performance rather than limiting acceptable solution details/constraints). Banks can make mortgage lending conditional on professional assessments of the dwellings by insured professionals to guard against lending against a lemon (that will likely cost a percentage of the home value.. maybe 4 to 7%). If the buyer or their builder or the professional assessor get it wrong then they can sort it out themselves via negotiation or litigation (and suffer their own lumps when no one has the money to fix it).

Then we would have rules (standards of performance) for NZ homes while maintaining maximum freedom to build however and out of whatever we want. Though buyers will have to be very very careful about their choices as recovery of damages will very likely be unsuccessful in the majority of claims (win or lose) as performance is subjective, particularly when there aren't any "acceptable solution" benchmarks and insurers are a lot more careful writing the wording of their policies than customers are when reading them. It is likely that lenders would be more reserved about the limit of their exposure in such a market so we would probably be able to borrow a lot less and have to pay a lot more. Frying pan... Fire?

Of course we would still have town planning constraints and infrastructure costs and limitations to contend with.:lol:

[Ocean1]

Oh yeah! When the leaky building fiasco first reared its head the govt passed legislation to wind up the BIA (Building industry Authority) which was the predecessor to the dept of building and housing. Some of the employees even had to move office. This was done in order to overhaul governance and enable the dept (formed as part of the process) to better manage things moving forward. It is exceedingly difficult to make a good case for a claimant to claim direct reliance on the now non existent BIA. BRANZ was also indemnified along the way and it would be very difficult to support a claim of direct reliance on them anyway. (yes also a govt agency).

It's not an industry-specfic problem. It's caused by authorities needing to position themselves within a revenue stream without the usual ethical responsibility that goes with such.

It's apparent in almost every authority, the change over the last 30 years. We've gone from "These are the industry standards we believe provide adequate quality and these are the related guidelines within which we require you to work." to "We don't give a shit what you do, but if there's a problem we'll see you in court, an undertaking for which our budget's unlimited."


Fuck'em.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Fuck'em.

Yes, but to do that you must have a reaaaallly big penis or a verrrry sore anus.

[Ocean1]

Yes, but to do that you must have a reaaaallly big penis or a verrrry sore anus.


Or a pineapple on a broomstick.

Seriously, it's far easier to ask forgiveness after the fact than permission beforehand.

[mashman]

We had our little battle a while back. Held over a barrel by the builder with the council washing their hands of us even though I could find 3 items that did not meet code of compliance and argued that it shouldn't have been signed off. They directed us to their "complaints" process. Something that would take months before a decision could be made. We had a week before the builder demanded payment for a new build that looked 5 years old. Lies, lies, damned lies, uninterested council officials, commerce commission shoulder sloping their way away from the situation, BRANZ sayng there was nothin they could do. Got a lawyer involved, what a waste of 13k, got CloseUp involved and hey presto... finally some sense from the law and finally the builder. Anyhoo, fast forward to summer and the boards started sapping and shrinking. Back to the council blah blah blah told to talk to the insurance company. Fortunately they were A1, if not somewhat slow. The builder ()replacing the cladding) mentioned that we didn't need consent to replace the defective boards (re-clad of the entire house). Turns out that the cladding on the plans submitted to the council wasn't the cladding we were given. Paint samples taken and examined as people tried to play pin the $$$ on the donkey etc... The council found out that we were re-cladding the house and decided that it wasn't a valid replacement and told us that we needed some other fuckin consent. They were told that it wouldn't be paid. Long story short (oh yeah, it was a looooooong long story of cunts cunts and more fuckin cunts lying and blaming someone else)... everyone took a big wet bite and all because they could, standards, policies, processes, consumer advocates, all absolutely fuckin useless to be used as a defense where no one wants the hot potato.

The whole thing is a fuckin shambles. Standards don't exist if the inspectors aren't validating them. Policies are ignored given a nod and a wink "no worries mate, when you come back it'll be sorted... I can still see building paper hanging under a window and door and had to fence off the over metre high wall ourselves.). Processes taking an eon by which time everyone has been paid and you've got nothing left to fight with. Consumer advocates needing more than 1 person to complain before they'll do anything. Just about everyone around us has had some issue with their builder and has had a mare trying to get tradesmen back. Missing guttering and leaking plaster to mention a couple.

Who is at fault? Dodgy builder? The council inspector for not validating that what was in the plans was on the house and to a given standard? Us for not knowing fuck all about the building trade and materials? All of the above?

Moral of the story: Time is money folks, who cares how it all comes together and what the fall out is as long as people get paid.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Or a pineapple on a broomstick.

Seriously, it's far easier to ask forgiveness after the fact than permission beforehand.

I agree, it is a worthy consideration though risky.

[flyingcrocodile46]

We had our little battle a while back. Held over a barrel by the builder with the council washing their hands of us even though I could find 3 items that did not meet code of compliance and argued that it shouldn't have been signed off. They directed us to their "complaints" process. Something that would take months before a decision could be made. We had a week before the builder demanded payment for a new build that looked 5 years old. Lies, lies, damned lies, uninterested council officials, commerce commission shoulder sloping their way away from the situation, BRANZ sayng there was nothin they could do. Got a lawyer involved, what a waste of 13k, got CloseUp involved and hey presto... finally some sense from the law and finally the builder. Anyhoo, fast forward to summer and the boards started sapping and shrinking. Back to the council blah blah blah told to talk to the insurance company. Fortunately they were A1, if not somewhat slow. The builder ()replacing the cladding) mentioned that we didn't need consent to replace the defective boards (re-clad of the entire house). Turns out that the cladding on the plans submitted to the council wasn't the cladding we were given. Paint samples taken and examined as people tried to play pin the $$$ on the donkey etc... The council found out that we were re-cladding the house and decided that it wasn't a valid replacement and told us that we needed some other fuckin consent. They were told that it wouldn't be paid. Long story short (oh yeah, it was a looooooong long story of cunts cunts and more fuckin cunts lying and blaming someone else)... everyone took a big wet bite and all because they could, standards, policies, processes, consumer advocates, all absolutely fuckin useless to be used as a defense where no one wants the hot potato.

The whole thing is a fuckin shambles. Standards don't exist if the inspectors aren't validating them. Policies are ignored given a nod and a wink "no worries mate, when you come back it'll be sorted... I can still see building paper hanging under a window and door and had to fence off the over metre high wall ourselves.). Processes taking an eon by which time everyone has been paid and you've got nothing left to fight with. Consumer advocates needing more than 1 person to complain before they'll do anything. Just about everyone around us has had some issue with their builder and has had a mare trying to get tradesmen back. Missing guttering and leaking plaster to mention a couple.

Who is at fault? Dodgy builder? The council inspector for not validating that what was in the plans was on the house and to a given standard? Us for not knowing fuck all about the building trade and materials? All of the above?

Moral of the story: Time is money folks, who cares how it all comes together and what the fall out is as long as people get paid.

Yup! :argue: :oi-grr::brick::angry2::weep:

[Grumph]

We had our little battle a while back. Held over a barrel by the builder with the council washing their hands of us even though I could find 3 items that did not meet code of compliance and argued that it shouldn't have been signed off. They directed us to their "complaints" process. Something that would take months before a decision could be made. We had a week before the builder demanded payment for a new build that looked 5 years old. Lies, lies, damned lies, uninterested council officials, commerce commission shoulder sloping their way away from the situation, BRANZ sayng there was nothin they could do. Got a lawyer involved, what a waste of 13k, got CloseUp involved and hey presto... finally some sense from the law and finally the builder. Anyhoo, fast forward to summer and the boards started sapping and shrinking. Back to the council blah blah blah told to talk to the insurance company. Fortunately they were A1, if not somewhat slow. The builder ()replacing the cladding) mentioned that we didn't need consent to replace the defective boards (re-clad of the entire house). Turns out that the cladding on the plans submitted to the council wasn't the cladding we were given. Paint samples taken and examined as people tried to play pin the $$$ on the donkey etc... The council found out that we were re-cladding the house and decided that it wasn't a valid replacement and told us that we needed some other fuckin consent. They were told that it wouldn't be paid. Long story short (oh yeah, it was a looooooong long story of cunts cunts and more fuckin cunts lying and blaming someone else)... everyone took a big wet bite and all because they could, standards, policies, processes, consumer advocates, all absolutely fuckin useless to be used as a defense where no one wants the hot potato.

The whole thing is a fuckin shambles. Standards don't exist if the inspectors aren't validating them. Policies are ignored given a nod and a wink "no worries mate, when you come back it'll be sorted... I can still see building paper hanging under a window and door and had to fence off the over metre high wall ourselves.). Processes taking an eon by which time everyone has been paid and you've got nothing left to fight with. Consumer advocates needing more than 1 person to complain before they'll do anything. Just about everyone around us has had some issue with their builder and has had a mare trying to get tradesmen back. Missing guttering and leaking plaster to mention a couple.

Who is at fault? Dodgy builder? The council inspector for not validating that what was in the plans was on the house and to a given standard? Us for not knowing fuck all about the building trade and materials? All of the above?

Moral of the story: Time is money folks, who cares how it all comes together and what the fall out is as long as people get paid.

Multiply your story by, oh, say, 150,000 and you're starting to get an idea of what's happening in ChCH....
Then factor in EQC and bloody Fletchers.
I reckon we may yet see NZ's first public crucifixion of an ex woodwork teacher....

[ellipsis]

I reckon we may yet see NZ's first public crucifixion of an ex woodwork teacher....

...i'm sure we would see a stay of execution ...a big pie company would have enough coin to uphold an injunction on that one...

[mashman]

Yup! :argue: :oi-grr::brick::angry2::weep:

Well said.


Multiply your story by, oh, say, 150,000 and you're starting to get an idea of what's happening in ChCH....
Then factor in EQC and bloody Fletchers.
I reckon we may yet see NZ's first public crucifixion of an ex woodwork teacher....

Our neighbours are going through it at the moment, and have been since that Feb, and it is heartbreaking to hear. The constant stop start, this is happening, oh no it isn't, but this will happen, oh no it hasn't... you can see the strain it puts on them big time and all they really want is for someone to make a decision and pay the cash to get the work started.

Reckon Fletchers will have a crane available to hoist that cross?

[SPman]

I reckon we may yet see NZ's first public crucifixion of an ex woodwork teacher....
Oh please............:jerry::bash::corn::corn:

[Brian d marge]

Multiply your story by, oh, say, 150,000 and you're starting to get an idea of what's happening in ChCH....
Then factor in EQC and bloody Fletchers.
I reckon we may yet see NZ's first public crucifixion of an ex woodwork teacher....

may I suggest my old wood work teacher who used the strap with gay abandonand who made my life a misery
stephen
nearly ruined my wanking hand he did.....

[flyingcrocodile46]

may I suggest my old wood work teacher who used the strap with gay abandonand who made my life a misery
stephen
nearly ruined my wanking hand he did.....


Perhaps he was trying to encourage you to lift your sights beyond wood polishing for the rest of your life

[Brian d marge]

Perhaps he was trying to encourage you to lift your sights beyond wood polishing for the rest of your life

Epic Fail

Though it is getting smaller the more I polish it ,

Stephen

[flyingcrocodile46]

Epic Fail

Though it is getting smaller the more I polish it ,

Stephen


You have been doing it all wrong. Sustainability of wood is best achieved by planting not polishing.

[Brian d marge]

You have been doing it all wrong. Sustainability of wood is best achieved by planting not polishing.

Wood grows in well rotten manure, I wonder where I should be planting me wood ???

Stephen

[flyingcrocodile46]

Wood grows in well rotten manure, I wonder where I should be planting me wood ???

Stephen

Edbears ear would be a good place to start

[Brian d marge]

Edbears ear would be a good place to start

Thank god not the place I was thinking off......

Stephen

[flyingcrocodile46]

Thank god not the place I was thinking off......

Stephen

:lol: I wouldn't be too sure about that.

[mashman]

Edbears ear would be a good place to start

in his ears? are you dyslexic?

[flyingcrocodile46]

in his ears? are you dyslexic?

Ed B Arse / Ed B Ears, what's the difference?

[mashman]

Ed B Arse / Ed B Ears, what's the difference?

one of them's full of shit.... ohhhhhhhhhhhhh I see what you did there

[Swoop]

An interesting comment was made yesterday.
How many "leaky buildings" are there in Southland?

Answer = 0.

When the legislation was changed, their council saw what would happen and simply kept to the old rules.

[Berries]

And it rains less in Southland.

[ellipsis]

And it rains less in Southland.

...I heard it never rained there...

[flyingcrocodile46]

Southland Council isn't alone (as far as registered claim records go)

They are up there with Westland, Waitomo, Waitaki, Wairoa, Waimate, Tararua, Stratford, South Waikato, South Taranaki, Ruapehu, Rangitikei, Otorohanga, Mackenzie, Kawarau, Kaikoura, Grey, Gore, Clutha, Chatam Islands, Central Otago, Carterton, Buller, and Ashburton.

Waipa, South Wairarapa, Opotiki, Masterton, Manawatu & Invercargil, Kaipara, Hauraki and Central Hawkes Bay each have 1, Several have only two and several more only have 3.

Some of the difference is down to climate variation, Some down to designers, some down to builders and some due to Councils. However the biggest difference is simply down to the fact that for the most part, very little (by comparison) building has occurred in the above areas in the 90's and early naughties.

As a matter of interest I estimate that less than 1 in 10 (maybe as low as 1 in 20) "leaky homes" have been subject to a claim.

Southland probably has several home owners living in denial.

[Swoop]

Southland Council isn't alone (as far as registered claim records go)
I wondered about the claim.
Surely there will be an amount of work that is leaking in some way or another. The amount of claims would surely differ between territorial areas and I wonder if a ratio would appear?
Permits issued Vs "leaky". Most authorities would have "a" ratio, but would Southland's be vastly different?:scratch:

[Swoop]

Another issue looms on the construction horizon.

The quality of steel is in doubt.
Not just rebar steel but also the quality of nails. These can be of imported chinese steel which is not reliably quality tested. There are reputedly over 2700 steel mills in china and the standard falsification of documentation applies to the quality controls involved.

Another issue is stainless steel.
Instances of corrosion being seen after hardware was exposed to the elements for only one week!

Is the "steel" really steel?

Try cutting various nails with pincers and see the difference between manufacturers.
Buy NZ made.

[dangerous]

LOL, aprantly a mates boss brought him a great wall double cab... it rolled of the ship with rust on it...


easy fix for the stainless and nails rusting... is ban fucking timber treatment.

[Ocean1]

Another issue looms on the construction horizon.

The quality of steel is in doubt.
Not just rebar steel but also the quality of nails. These can be of imported chinese steel which is not reliably quality tested. There are reputedly over 2700 steel mills in china and the standard falsification of documentation applies to the quality controls involved.

Another issue is stainless steel.
Instances of corrosion being seen after hardware was exposed to the elements for only one week!

Is the "steel" really steel?

Try cutting various nails with pincers and see the difference between manufacturers.
Buy NZ made.

Don't think I've seen Chinese stainless here. And there's a bunch of factors that might make stainless corrode, nothing new there.

Where I've seen problems is with structural sections, RSJ, RHS, UBS etc, nowdays you often find flaws in the material, bad ones. When cutting a big piece of channel a couple of months ago I found a layer of hard, brittle stuff running right through the length of it. I've found an increasing number of similar faults over the last 10 years or so. I had to bend some 75x12 flat bar about the same time, simple 90deg bend, it cracked and broke, every bend. It shouldn't be possible to break mild steel like that.

In theory you can ask for manufacturing standards compliance records when you order it, in practice the only way to trace such records is to sick someone like SGS onto the source, and you can really only do that for complete shipments. Not sure there's much individual consumers can do about it, I suppose IPENZ could start blacklisting manufacturers of dodgy material, but I suspect the supply line for some of it get's strangely untraceable once you get anywhere near the Chinese border. For now simply insist that the stuff's not Chinese.

[AllanB]

Ah - that's the steel they will be using to rebuild CHCH ..........

[Erelyes]

what you want in a house is a wide soffit, no parapets especially parapets with no cap flashings, the Mediterranean look might be fine in spain where ist 35 degrees all the time and if it rains it pisses down for a hour and is dry in 10 minutes plus most of those houses will be concrete not timber framed with a 20mm coating on them

Yeah we looked at buying a place before we knew anything about leaky homes

Double story, no eaves, roughcast cladding fixed directly to timber (no gap), top flashing only around windows (no side flashing), not recoated in 13 years, complex design... needless to say it was fucked

And needless to say we bought the opposite of all those things

[dangerous]

Where I've seen problems is with structural sections, RSJ, RHS, UBS etc, nowdays you often find flaws in the material, bad ones. When cutting a big piece of channel a couple of months ago I found a layer of hard, brittle stuff running right through the length of it. I've found an increasing number of similar faults over the last 10 years or so. I had to bend some 75x12 flat bar about the same time, simple 90deg bend, it cracked and broke, every bend. It shouldn't be possible to break mild steel like that.These steels, imported or local?
Like bolts any engineer wort his salt will specifie a grade which must be stamped on the steel/bolt, it shouldnt pass inspecion with out the correct markings... but alas people still use sub standard to save money.

[Ocean1]

These steels, imported or local?
Like bolts any engineer wort his salt will specifie a grade which must be stamped on the steel/bolt, it shouldnt pass inspecion with out the correct markings... but alas people still use sub standard to save money.

Almost all large structural sections are imported. Local or imported; all such steel is required to meet certain minimum standards, and that was never covered by the "BHP", (for EG) formed on rolled sections. I think what you're talking about is traceability to manufacturing standards, heat numbers etc. And yes, while such data isn't usually stamped on the steel you can get the cert's delivered with it. What we're finding, not to put too fine a point on it, is that for anything out of China whatever certification ios available is often not traceable. That means you can't track the quality back to a particular batch and it's ingredients and production process controls, and that's the whole point of the documentation.

So it's not quite as simple as checking that your bolts have 8.8 stamped on the head, that tracking excercise isn't cheap and in recent years it's been left to the local importers to verify certification for anything they sell. However, like I said insisting that Steel & Tube, (to pick a vendor at random) don't supply you with product manufactured anywhere near China is a reasonable fix, for now. Interestingly, sometimes there's no immediate alternative.

[sofree]

I understand this is an old thread, I am looking to purchase a home - cladding is linea, it's 3 years old, any advice welcome or PM me. Have there been improvements since this thread was initially started in 2011.

[Laava]

Get a builders inspection. And a decent conveyancing lawyer.

[AllanB]

Should read 'get a decent builders inspection' I've seen houses that have had 'builders inspections' and have serious issues.

If the builder is fat are they likely to inspect the sub-floor or roof space ..............



3 year old house - who built it originally? What's their reputation like in you area?

[Berries]

I understand this is an old thread, I am looking to purchase a home - cladding is linea, it's 3 years old, any advice welcome or PM me. Have there been improvements since this thread was initially started in 2011.
As long as you are nowhere near the Hawkes Bay you'll be sweet.

[Winston001]

Well let's be realistic. The leaky homes tragedy started in Vancouver in about 1996 (a Kiwi mate and biker got caught) and the contagion caught on in Auckland (mostly). There are leaky homes in Christchurch too but not many other places.

Napier has a dry warm climate which can probably sustain Mediterranean style building. For clarity, houses around the Med have flat roofs and no roof overhang because rain is sudden and gone. Dry climates.

I'd be really surprised if a 3 yr build did not have cavity walls and roof overhangs. In other words you should be fine. Get a local builder to check it out just for peace of mind.

[dangerous]

I understand this is an old thread, I am looking to purchase a home - cladding is linea, it's 3 years old, any advice welcome or PM me. Have there been improvements since this thread was initially started in 2011.

It will be fine... I just dont like the shit personal opion only. at 3yrs it will not be direct fixed, check by feeling for a cavity closer.

Im not sure what or how involved other posters are, but I am a builder of 30yrs, now in managment and have spesilised in leaky home rebuilds.

[SPman]

Should be generally OK. As others have said, if in doubt, get an inspection by a reputable builder or firm. (Builder for 25 yrs, Auckland Building Inspector for 2 yrs, in the middle of the whole debacle, Quantity Surveyor for 15 yrs)

[BMWST?]

It is still possible to build a direct fix w bd house,As long as the design is traditional and wind speed not too much direct fix claddings are still ok

[dangerous]

It is still possible to build a direct fix w bd house,As long as the design is traditional and wind speed not too much direct fix claddings are still ok

yes... its about "the risk matrix"

[Swoop]

Also. If you are having repair work done DO NOT touch "Linea" weatherboards from James Hardie. This is another product that will be in the news...:facepalm:
If you want weatherboards on your house, use real timber.

Oh dear. Look what is in the news... It also mentions the deals (sorry, "settlements") made out of court.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11411847

[Laava]

Oh dear. Look what is in the news... It also mentions the deals (sorry, "settlements") made out of court.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11411847

Intersting that the article never makes mention of what the actual issues are with it. I have lined loads of houses with Linea and have heard of batch lots delaminating but have not seen it myself. It is made exactly the same way as all the other Hardie cement/ fibre products as well.
Be intersting to see if there is a basis for this claim or is it just some architect being extremely pedantic?

[ellipsis]

Intersting that the article never makes mention of what the actual issues are with it. I have lined loads of houses with Linea and have heard of batch lots delaminating but have not seen it myself. It is made exactly the same way as all the other Hardie cement/ fibre products as well.
Be intersting to see if there is a basis for this claim or is it just some architect being extremely pedantic?


...like Swoop, I have had grave misgivings about clients wanting it, but the customer is always right...right!...I have not used any for years now...I refuse...I saw jointing problems appearing within months of putting the stuff up... my bro had to strip his house of it entirely as it had blown in many places as well as the joints, his district council actually stopped it being used until the manufacturers could prove it's product to them and helped him get reimbursed...some areas may be worse than others due to climate...if it is a batch related type of thing, then all the more reason to avoid...

[dangerous]

Intersting that the article never makes mention of what the actual issues are with it. I have lined loads of houses with Linea and have heard of batch lots delaminating but have not seen it myself. It is made exactly the same way as all the other Hardie cement/ fibre products as well.
Be intersting to see if there is a basis for this claim or is it just some architect being extremely pedantic?

IMHO... issues rehydrating, swelling and delamanation, the material just wants to return to its natural form, like the memory of steel. Its man made compresed and cooked, once on a building add paint and then the weather hits wet and heat the shit swells and falls apart... give me farking asbestos anyday :cool:

[Laava]

...like Swoop, I have had grave misgivings about clients wanting it, but the customer is always right...right!...I have not used any for years now...I refuse...I saw jointing problems appearing within months of putting the stuff up... my bro had to strip his house of it entirely as it had blown in many places as well as the joints, his district council actually stopped it being used until the manufacturers could prove it's product to them and helped him get reimbursed...some areas may be worse than others due to climate...if it is a batch related type of thing, then all the more reason to avoid...


IMHO... issues rehydrating, swelling and delamanation, the material just wants to return to its natural form, like the memory of steel. Its man made compresed and cooked, once on a building add paint and then the weather hits wet and heat the shit swells and falls apart... give me farking asbestos anyday :cool:

I have not seen this happen yet although I have heard of some sort of issue with delamination. Pine weatherboards I have used have been much more problematic, esp where they are fingerjointed.
And lets face it, who can afford cedar these days?

So what would you guys rather use? As far as I know, every product you can buy has it's drawbacks. We just did our place in shadowclad and there are multiple problems that can rear their heads if you are not very careful.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Intersting that the article never makes mention of what the actual issues are with it. I have lined loads of houses with Linea and have heard

The claim against CHH won't have anything to do with Linea (a JH product). IMO (as a professional expert witness in leaky home claims) it most likely relates to direct fixed CHH flat sheet products such as Shadowclad. Most likely the real evidence of failure relates to junctions to windows, other cladding etc. Though there is a chance that CHH fingerjointed weatherboard features in some failures. I imagine the real failures will be generic to the type of cladding system rather than a genuine product specific failure (such as was the case with the old JH Harditex system or earlier products/systems such as Weatherside sheets and weatherboard).

Though I don't like or recommend Hardies products generally (mostly flat sheet systems), aside from some teething and batch problems, I don't think that Linea weatherboard is a worse product that some timber weatherboard cladding (i.e some Finger jointed timber, rusticated profile boards and vertical shiplap). If Linea is installed properly on a well constructed cavity it's probably a better than average bet. Don't think I'd recommend it (or any cladding system) for direct fix though.

[Ocean1]

I have not seen this happen yet although I have heard of some sort of issue with delamination. Pine weatherboards I have used have been much more problematic, esp where they are fingerjointed.
And lets face it, who can afford cedar these days?

So what would you guys rather use? As far as I know, every product you can buy has it's drawbacks. We just did our place in shadowclad and there are multiple problems that can rear their heads if you are not very careful.

A friend is a naval architect. I've seen him fondle a length of genuine Yankee Oregon, actually giggling in delight as he worked out how he was going to use it. I gave him a hand one day, picking up some timber from the local retailer. We had to give up, nothing was good enough for him, every piece we looked at had faults he just wasn't prepared to accept. He was really upset, it was for a project he wanted done for a birthday present.

Now this guy is no prima donna, he really knows his timber, and he wasn't asking for anything unreasonable, just good quality treewood. Some of his issues were with obvious deficiencies in drying, a few with multiple shakes, splits and knots but his biggest bitch was how it'd been cut. Even pine, he said should be cut so that as much as possible is radial cut. He reckoned many of the faults would have been OK if the cutting plan had been better and the stuff had been dried properly. The bit extra that's wasted by radial cutting is for boxing, he reckoned.

He'd spotted some Cedar cladding near where we'd just trashed several ton of neatly stacked framing timber and he was as angry as I've ever seen him. Bloody rubbish, he said, look, it's cupping as we watch. And he was right, I pity whoever bought it because there's simply no way it was ever going to be anything but a heart breaking fuckup.

I've since adopted Bruce's highly qualified opinion on timber quality, as a result of which I've given up even bothering with anything from the local Mitre 10 or Bunnings for anything more than garden boxes. If it's worth doing at all then it's worth the extra cost of finding proper stuff, difficult as that's become.

Oh, my last two houses have been brick. Which has it's potential problems, but they tend to be apocalyptic, as opposed to decay.

[flyingcrocodile46]

IMHO... issues rehydrating, swelling and delamanation, the material just wants to return to its natural form, like the memory of steel. Its man made compresed and cooked, once on a building add paint and then the weather hits wet and heat the shit swells and falls apart... give me farking asbestos anyday :cool:

If it remains wet for extended periods the wood fibre (which replaced the asbestos fibres) decays and the product becomes mega brittle, (cracking on corners and around fixings). Similar brittleness (carbonation rather than decay) occurs as a result of long term unprotected (unpainted) exposure to the sun (without getting wet).

FC manufacturers experience batch problems from time to time. A good test of sheet products (Ply and FC) is to wet the outer face (and let it dry) before installing. The expansion/movement differential on the outer face that is caused by the wetting will often reveal poor product lamination (big blisters). Better to find out on the stack rather than the wall. Tough to carry out when the product is pre-sealed though.

[dangerous]

I have not seen this happen yet although I have heard of some sort of issue with delamination. Pine weatherboards I have used have been much more problematic, esp where they are fingerjointed.
And lets face it, who can afford cedar these days?

So what would you guys rather use? As far as I know, every product you can buy has it's drawbacks. We just did our place in shadowclad and there are multiple problems that can rear their heads if you are not very careful.

yes every product does have its draw backs granted, but I believe natural products will and do last longer, hardies products I have seen fail time after time, I will add tho house maintance or the lack of has defnitly not helped ie: lack of paint, plants left to grow onto etc

shadow clad... thats the rough sawn ply aye? if so yeah that shit will out last cement fiber by a long shot... but i will say it is loaded with sianide arsnik etc to the max, working with it is bad news, hate to be around it in a fire.



I've since adopted Bruce's highly qualified opinion on timber quality, as a result of which I've given up even bothering with anything from the local Mitre 10 or Bunnings for anything more than garden boxes. If it's worth doing at all then it's worth the extra cost of finding proper stuff, difficult as that's become. yeah... grown to fast, good luck in your hunt for the right timber.



If it remains wet for extended periods the wood fibre (which replaced the asbestos fibres) decays and the product becomes mega brittle, (cracking on corners and around fixings). Similar brittleness (carbonation rather than decay) occurs as a result of long term unprotected (unpainted) exposure to the sun (without getting wet).

FC manufacturers experience batch problems from time to time. A good test of sheet products (Ply and FC) is to wet the outer face (and let it dry) before installing. The expansion/movement differential on the outer face that is caused by the wetting will often reveal poor product lamination (big blisters). Better to find out on the stack rather than the wall. Tough to carry out when the product is pre-sealed though.

yes and yes, you talk great sence and no your shit, My last job was building all JH houses, I saw these packs you mention but fuk me if it wasent obvious till after it was installed. I believe stacking incorectly after being made did not help matters... well so the JH reps from NZ and OZ told me.

[flyingcrocodile46]

yes every product does have its draw backs granted, but I believe natural products will and do last longer, hardies products I have seen fail time after time, I will add tho house maintance or the lack of has defnitly not helped ie: lack of paint, plants left to grow onto etc

shadow clad... thats the rough sawn ply aye? if so yeah that shit will out last cement fiber by a long shot... but i will say it is loaded with sianide arsnik etc to the max, working with it is bad news, hate to be around it in a fire.

CCA (Copper Chromate Arsenic.. or some such) isn't used to treat plywood much. Certainly not Shadow clad (as it turns it green and some people don't like that) It comes in bandsawn finish and smooth machined finish with T&G lookalike grooved options.

[ellipsis]

...if houses had a four foot eave this constipation wouldn't be happening...

[dangerous]

CCA (Copper Chromate Arsenic.. or some such) isn't used to treat plywood much. Certainly not Shadow clad (as it turns it green and some people don't like that) It comes in bandsawn finish and smooth machined finish with T&G lookalike grooved options.

ahh yes sorry makes sence... well every time i have worked with shadow clad I come up in a mean as rash its farking horrid this must be your CCA at work, as above it cant be good for you.

[unstuck]

ahh yes sorry makes sence... well every time i have worked with shadow clad I come up in a mean as rash its farking horrid this must be your CCA at work, as above it cant be good for you.

I get the same when working with timber that has been treated with copper naphthenate, drives ya farking mad.
Anybody got any recommendations on where to buy roofing membrane at a reasonable price? Prefer 500mm wide sheets, but have the means to join if I have to. The shit in a tin is bollocks I recon.

[dangerous]

I get the same when working with timber that has been treated with copper naphthenate, drives ya farking mad.
Anybody got any recommendations on where to buy roofing membrane at a reasonable price? Prefer 500mm wide sheets, but have the means to join if I have to. The shit in a tin is bollocks I recon.

roofing membrane? butanol? mate, in Gore Id thought ya just go shoot a shammy or 5 and grandma would sew em together theres ya roofing membrane :2thumbsup

[unstuck]

roofing membrane? butanol? mate, in Gore Id thought ya just go shoot a shammy or 5 and grandma would sew em together theres ya roofing membrane :2thumbsup

Chamois are up the coast at my brothers place.

http://www.nuralite.co.nz/Products/Nuraply_3PM/images/hero/5.jpg More what Im after.

[BMWST?]

yes every product does have its draw backs granted, but I believe natural products will and do last longer, hardies products I have seen fail time after time, I will add tho house maintance or the lack of has defnitly not helped ie: lack of paint, plants left to grow onto etc

shadow clad... thats the rough sawn ply aye? if so yeah that shit will out last cement fiber by a long shot... but i will say it is loaded with sianide arsnik etc to the max, working with it is bad news, hate to be around it in a fire.


yeah... grown to fast, good luck in your hunt for the right timber.




yes and yes, you talk great sence and no your shit, My last job was building all JH houses, I saw these packs you mention but fuk me if it wasent obvious till after it was installed. I believe stacking incorectly after being made did not help matters... well so the JH reps from NZ and OZ told me.
Shadow clad etc is h 3.1 treated the carrier is a solvent,very distintive odour

CCA (Copper Chromate Arsenic.. or some such) isn't used to treat plywood much. Certainly not Shadow clad (as it turns it green and some people don't like that) It comes in bandsawn finish and smooth machined finish with T&G lookalike grooved options.