New building code

[awa355]

[QUOTE=flyingcrocodile46;1130270070]Lol. I must admit to my own skepticism in the early stages, but given that the woes caused by "those responsible for most the problems in the 1st place" are mostly (but not solely) born out of a lack of adequate governance, (as well as political interference) I don't see how the much needed increase in industry knowledge is going to occur without something along the lines of the LBP system, which at the very minimum at least provides a mail out list for educational material (industry updates from DBH, BRANZ, Councils, Suppliers etc) which otherwise doesn't exist.

All these accusations of builders not complying with best trade practice are questionable when there is no mechanism for the distribution of the knowledge of those practices. You can't be held to be negligent if you are ignorant.[/QUOTE]

If you are Trade trained, where's the excuse for being ignorant of trade practices? Isn't that what Apprenticeships are for?

[flyingcrocodile46]

Well the powers that be are running out of nails to get all of those BAD BAD BAD home handyman types that built all of the leaky homes and apartment biuilding complexes.

FOR FUCKS SAKE. This really pisses me off. CORRUPTION.

So what is happening here is that the councils are organising to get themselves leglislated out of any liability for the service(?) they provide. By requiring "licensed" peeps to do all structural work....

Not at all. The govt (not councils) make legislation. The govt has had to (in their eyes) pass law to force it on the industry because the industry has proven it isn't capable of doing it itself (unlike plumbers/drainlayers and electricians) and needs to be.

Someone recently pointed out to me that Councils in civilized country's (i.e England) don't have this level of problem (perceived failure of their ability to properly take ownership of the liabilities of those who design and build the defective work). I pointed out that in those councils aren't expected to police or take accountability of the building industry so no one is crying about the fact that they dropped the ball. (they never carried it). In England you can't buy a house without a recent building survey/condition report from a registered building surveyor. If you suck a lemon you sue your building surveyor (who is insured)

In NZ if we buy a car without a vehicle check don't look to sue the council or the motor industry when we find it's a lemon. Why do we expect to be able to sue a council for not satisfactorily doing a job (which they had foisted on them by the govt) and that they are charging too little for in an industry that is allowed to build what ever it likes using any material and building system they choose to use.

Councils tried to manage the public's interests by making it hard for owners and designers to build risky designs using untested products but the industry and public cried foul, so the govt stepped in (the building act 1991) and forced Councils to accept the risks and limited the time which they could take to approve them. The govt forced councils to approve untreated framing in housing and that is the core problem/cost driver in leaky buildings.

If everyone who wants councils to be fully accountable had to be satisfied, the councils would have to charge ten times more for building consents than they currently do. No longer would applicants be able to benefit from cost savings generated by inspectors doing between 8 and 13 inspections a day (which with travel time taken out leaves about ten to fifteen minutes to actually inspect the work). They would have to pay more per hour for better qualified inspectors (with an enhanced training similar to that of a building surveyor) and pay for them to do proper inspections of every nut/bolt/nail plate/stick of wood/cladding junction etc etc (rather than cursory inspections of a few examples with reliance on the integrity of the contractors) that would take two to five hours each inspection. Then those same whiners would be pissing and moaning about the costs.

[flyingcrocodile46]

If you are Trade trained, where's the excuse for being ignorant of trade practices? Isn't that what Apprenticeships are for?

When new products are appearing on the market every week and acceptable solutions and NZ standards are being changed every 6 months and there is no registration (list of recipients) so the information regarding all the changes can be sent out to, your apprenticeship knowledge is outdated in a matter of a few years.

BTW I have read determinations that have ruled that builders failed to comply with good trade practices (in the late 90's) because they omitted to install kick outs at the bases of sloping apron flashings when the only record of 'trade related reference documents' that first cited this detail requirement weren't published until circa 2003. Small wonder builders don't complete their work to best trade practices when they are being judged by standards of trade practices that have yet to be published and distributed to them.

That's what happens when you rely on lawyers and judges to get it right.

[paturoa]

Not at all. The govt (not councils) make legislation. The govt has had to (in their eyes) pass law to force it on the industry because the industry has proven it isn't capable of doing it itself (unlike plumbers/drainlayers and electricians) and needs to be.

Disagree, govt made this leglislation after EXTENSIVE lobbying. The propoganda uses the word "consultation". The council's role is to esnure through inspections that the relevant standards and methods comply both before and during construction. So now we have the situation where if there is a problem then it is all on the builder. So what exactly are we paying the council approval and inspection stuff for???

Anyway at least all those incompetent home handymen wont be able to build any more leaky apartment complexs or homes that comply with all the buidling anc construciton codes et al.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Disagree, govt made this leglislation after EXTENSIVE lobbying. The propoganda uses the word "consultation". The council's role is to esnure through inspections that the relevant standards and methods comply both before and during construction. So now we have the situation where if there is a problem then it is all on the builder. So what exactly are we paying the council approval and inspection stuff for???

Anyway at least all those incompetent home handymen wont be able to build any more leaky apartment complexs or homes that comply with all the buidling anc construciton codes et al.

That consultation process involved anyone who cared to submit comments (the whole industry). The Councils neither suggested it nor had much of a hand in shaping it. From memory the facility of the LBP scheme was mooted and included in the original draft of the 2004 act and extensive consultation was called for ideas on how various trade categories should be set up etc. I suspect that the DBH (previously BIA) provided the majority of input into the draft so it is more likely them that first shaped it. (though the 2002 Hun report into leaky buildings suggested it) Excerpts below;

Recommendation 16
That the BIA in conjunction with the appropriate affected sector groups:
a) explore the issues involved in advocating the national registration of builders and building related trades, given the contents of this report and concerns expressed about the standards of some trade practices on-site; and
b) support such advocacy if it is convinced of the benefits to the Industry.

Potential contributing causes such as, but not limited to:
a) Inadequacy in the Building Code and Approved Documents
b) Inadequate documentation supplied for building consent.
c) Insufficient checking at building consent, during construction, and at Code compliance stages
d) Inadequacy of building products, materials and components, including evaluation of their suitability or fitness for purpose
e) Insufficient technical information provided by manufacturer’s literature and instructions
f) Inadequate contract documentation
g) Inadequate trade skills and supervision on site
h) Lack of co-operation and sharing of responsibility on site

If the houses complied with the building code they would not have leaked and the materials they were built from would have been durable enough to handle a little bit of moisture.

As stated, the govt forced the councils to approve untreated framing (and suspect cladding systems) and that is the straw that broke the camels back in respect to the methodology and costs of repairs. You can't repair a a leaky building with untreated framing without first removing ALL (not just the leaky bit) of the cladding and then paint on a second rate insitu preservative.

[SPman]

If everyone who wants councils to be fully accountable had to be satisfied, the councils would have to charge ten times more for building consents than they currently do. No longer would applicants be able to benefit from cost savings generated by inspectors doing between 8 and 13 inspections a day (which with travel time taken out leaves about ten to fifteen minutes to actually inspect the work).

Auckland City reckoned (2004), that the inspection costs charged, just covered costs - the only division in council to do so. 60 mins for a final inspection (incl getting there , sometimes across the City) wasn't really anywhere near enough. I met an ex German building inspector on 1 job - in Germany, they work through the Justice dept. and are on similar levels (and pay) as lower court judges, and have 7-8 years study/training!

[flyingcrocodile46]

NotPC says bullshit

I went back and had another read of this guys story.

On re-reading the first three paragraphs it appears that (pretty prose and tears aside) he is claiming , in his own words,......... "we must conform to the grey mandates of the collective. No longer are we required to explore new ideas. We are able to formulate new ideas in our minds but we are not to take these ideas any further unless we have received permission from our grey leaders; those more equal than us"...... What a crock. The whole purpose of the Act in the first place was to provide ways for suppressed (by Councils) arty farty designers to visually assault the landscape with their cutting edge visionary flair (or 'Wet dreams' as I like to call them). The LBP scheme changes nothing in that respect. It simply asks that the artist take some accountability for their work by signing their name to it. If they are doing their jobs properly they wont suffer any penalty.

As for driving people out of business with red tape and more working hours? Again a nonsense. A one of application process followed by an annual fee of less than $100 and signing off a two or three page memorandum for each job. Seriously???

Then the next two paragraphs made the claim that "while being given ‘guidelines’ within which to build (the rigidity of which belies the name, the practices being spoken about being ‘enforced’ on us)" .....
What a load of bollocks. A complete denial (or gross misunderstanding)of the reality of the Building Act and NZBC. We can design what ever and build however we want as long as we can demonstrate that it will comply with the NZBC(as we have always [since 1992) been obliged to do)....
and... "we will nonetheless bear all responsibility when any of these guidelines fail. As they will. This means we will have to find ways to hide our finances to protect ourselves when our grey leaders come to clean us out regardless of whether we are to blame or not".
More bollocks. If he is referring to 'The Acceptable solutions' as "guidlines" and they fail to satisfy the NZBC then there is no blame attributed to any party (accept if it is possible, The DBH who drafted them). Again, the LBP scheme changes nothing in that respect. It simply asks that the artist/builder take some accountability for their work by signing their name to it. If they are doing their jobs properly they wont suffer any penalty.

After that his carriages started jackknifing and all the contents became a jumbled mix of tears, poetry, spiritualism, fragments of conspiracy theories and fuck all reality or facts so I gave up taking him seriously.

God! designers are such over dramatic ponces when they wind themselves up over their misinterpretation of the building act/NZBC.

I shudder to think what his opinion on the leaky building debacle is. I don't want to even read it. If what he has had to say about the impact of the LBP scheme is anything to go by he will likely have it all wrong.

[ellipsis]

....anybody can err to the left or the right of a debate and still be taken seriously...but err too far to either and some sort of zealotry begins to emerge, or it seems...when the dogma of the string pullers starts to become gospel and heart, soul and spirit is taken, taxed or outlawed... I hope the zealots who side with the pro's have a happy life in their regulated, overly safe and insured world...

[flyingcrocodile46]

....anybody can err to the left or the right of a debate and still be taken seriously...but err too far to either and some sort of zealotry begins to emerge, or it seems...when the dogma of the string pullers starts to become gospel and heart, soul and spirit is taken, taxed or outlawed... I hope the zealots who side with the pro's have a happy life in their regulated, overly safe and insured world...

My god. The LBP just isn't that onerous. PITA yes, but it ain't hard and as for the accountabiliy. It's already there anyway.

HTFU

I can't waste my time soothing people who are upset by what they cleary don't understand. I have enough problems already.

[ellipsis]

My god.

I can't waste my time soothing people who are upset by what they cleary don't understand. I have enough problems already.

...ahh...the condescending tones of someone who THINKS 'THEY' have the right answers...and whats god got to do with it...

[oneofsix]

...ahh...the condescending tones of someone who THINKS 'THEY' have the right answers...and whats god got to do with it...

I suspect he is his own god, this is why he thinks he knows it all.

[Scuba_Steve]

...and whats god got to do with it...

Not alot I'm just hanging round for personal interest in the subject

[Zedder]

A lot of what the Levitating Crocodile wrote was bang on. It's obvious he's in the industry and knows the facts on the leaky building syndrome etc.

However, the latest impression I got was one of frustration not condescention.

[pzkpfw]

Having second thoughts about building a shed outside for an office, now thinking of walling off part of the garge (as it's used for 1 car plus 1 bike; I don't need to get 2 cars in).

The walls would be non-structural (just two walls to make a corner into a "room"), but there'd be a door and some windows.

Would that count as needing a builder?

[Scuba_Steve]

Reading DBH & BRANZ propaganda I'm not impressed by 1 statement if I'm reading it right...

At present, the scheme is competency-based, but from 2015, it is intended to be qualification-based

That appears to be going the wrong way. "at current it's skill based, in future they will have read a book" is the way I'm reading it, I hope I'm wrong cause I'll take real skill over book skill any day of the week.