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

[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

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