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

[dangerous]

They provided information in all of the distributors sites that guided the installer on correct use and installation, Hardies assumed they where dealing with professionals............Oh they werent they where dealing with Monkies making a quick buck at the expense of honest families

Will you stop calling me a MONKEY
Sure that info is there, butr ya have to look for it and any Jo builder or not as a kiwi knows beter so wont look at it, what I ment was obvious as hell on the sheet... then again same applies aye, it would be ignored and used incorectly any way.

Cost to some degree, but any grade of stainless will still be susceptable to some corrosion influences. Guess it's a cost / benefit thing, there's nothing wrong with galvanised steel if it's assembled and fitted out right.

same goes for untreated timber...

I think we have covered many a issue here guys from attude, material, applacation, design, inspection... put it in a big melting pot and its all at fault.

[Quasievil]

Will you stop calling me a MONKEY
Sure that info is there, butr ya have to look for it and any Jo builder or not as a kiwi knows beter so wont look at it, what I ment was obvious as hell on the sheet... then again same applies aye, it would be ignored and used incorectly any way.

Sorry words just used to demonstarte the lesser talented, not you dude, I think all KB knows your fine upstanding reputation in the building industry bro

[Swoop]

1) Brick and tile is just another cladding option right? A house is still framed the same no matter what the outside is like? Are B&T places immune to this leaky home BS?

Simple answer = No. The timber framing could be untreated, leaks could still occur, etc, etc.

2) The steel framing you see advertised looks like a good option but there are different grades of stainless steel as well eh?

As previously posted, they use galv mild steel.

Also, stainless steel is still just that - stainless. It will still rust... eventually.

[SPman]

If you want a crash course on what not to do and just how bad some buildings and builders are, go out with a decent Building Inspector for a few days - espec. in Auckland, or , probably, any of the major cities.

Just when you think you've seen it all...........

Its not the monotec thats the problem, but the thin arse plaster, use a old school 20mm thick plastering system and no worries at all.

..like the '30's Stucco addition to a Villa in Herne bay we inspected......the front 3 ft of the house was basically rotting away.......ah...they don't build them like they used too..............

Steel framing is used a lot in the country around where I now live.(W.A.) (the city still uses traditional double brick) I like the idea of steel roof trusses, but the framing always seems insubstantial and the bracing isn't really up to much. It's OK in areas where we only have 300mm of rain a year and the idea is good, but, I've seen examples of severe corrosion caused by leaks - and you've got to fix everything with screws.
The main reason for using steel, though is termite resistance, not weathering. West Australian builders wouldn't know how to weatherproof a concrete shithouse.
The first week over here, walking around Subiaco (a poshish suburb) I would have failed most of the new buildings, just looking at them from the street, based on a NZ perspective.

Mac is the same, different natural in-built protection and it grows well here but is it OK untreated as a framing timber?

It was, last time I looked. There are a lot of timbers that can be used, but most are rare, imported or just plain expensive - and are a bastard to use as framing!

[dangerous]

Sorry words just used to demonstarte the lesser talented, not you dude, I think all KB knows your fine upstanding reputation in the building industry bro

Fuck, thought you were going to say "in the motor cycling world"

[ellipsis]

....macro carpa is one of the finest timbers that, if sourced in clears form, has been likened to rival some of the best boat building,timber materials in the world...alas, a lot of it is destined to end up as firewood and a lot of it is just old and too weather beaten, stressed, to be of much use other than being used as a general purpose timber....i am lucky to have a couple of local millers who give me a call when they drop a tree and it turns out to be good timber, inside...it was brought into disrepute a few years back, by a TV 'expose', and much villified...truth is, again someone used it where it shouldn't be used, it gets bad press, and its classed as an unsuitable timber in exterior applications in some council jurisdictions....yet it is one of the most durable, weather resistant, hassle free....green... cladding that is avaiable.....no money in it for the boys in being sensible though ...not half enough 'PRODUCT' being used...eh....

[SPman]

....macro carpa is one of the finest timbers that, if sourced in clears form, has been likened to rival some of the best boat building,timber materials in the world.

Monterey Cypress - far superior to Monterey Pine (radiata). Good straight Mac is lovely to work with, as well.

[Ocean1]

Monterey Cypress - far superior to Monterey Pine (radiata). Good straight Mac is lovely to work with, as well.

I've used it in boatbuilding, is a good material. Just a pity a lot of it is shit from some cockies shelter belt, gives it a bad name.

Haven't used it for spars, bit rubbery.

[Spearfish]

Fresh Rimu is nice...totara...matai......Is that even allowed as a thought?

[Laava]

It will still rot put in the same situation as will H3.1 radiata. Which is why the industry std has gone back to H1.2 now from H3.1 for framework.
The trick is to not have those LHS mistakes in your building! So there is a whole raft of do's and don'ts, most of which have been covered ad nauseunm by the building act, some which are common sense and some which are preference.
When you are using many products together, all of which have their own expansion/contraction rate, the problems are waterproofing them relative to each other. Some can be done mechanically and some should be avoided. If you have to use silicon as your main seal, then maybe you need to re-think that option.
Not totally against silicon but I believe it is only good as a gasket, not a bead type seal.
Just my opinion.

[flyingcrocodile46]

It will still rot put in the same situation as will H3.1 radiata. Which is why the industry std has gone back to H1.2 now from H3.1 for framework.
The trick is to not have those LHS mistakes in your building! So there is a whole raft of do's and don'ts, most of which have been covered ad nauseunm by the building act, some which are common sense and some which are preference.
When you are using many products together, all of which have their own expansion/contraction rate, the problems are waterproofing them relative to each other. Some can be done mechanically and some should be avoided. If you have to use silicon as your main seal, then maybe you need to re-think that option.
Not totally against silicon but I believe it is only good as a gasket, not a bead type seal.
Just my opinion.

Notice now that sufficient time has passed since the advent of the LHS, our Govt (DBH) has decided they can safely remove the last remaining bastions of untreated framing (interior wall framing, roof framing and external wall framing behind SIMPLE single story brick homes). The BIA couldn't do it when the LHS first reared its head as that might have been interpreted as an admission that they shouldn't have allowed Chem free framing (Note: it's not untreated as Kiln drying is considered as a form of treatment) in the first place, and that might have made people look a bit harder at the Govt's intent when they dissolved the BIA and indemnified both them and BRANZ under The Cunt Act 2004 whilst proclaiming that homeowners did not have a direct line of reliance on them. That has got to the most dishonorable act that I have seen the NZ govt serve up on its people.

Fortunately the Govt had the wisdom to create the DBH (to replace the BIA) and employ all those poor retrenched BIA experts and employees who were at the helm when the industry forged its way toward the stinking mess we are in now Particularly as people were needed to clean up the mess left behind by ..........

Good weathertightness detailing revolves around the 4D's (Deflection, Drainage, Drying & Durability). Any junction needs and should have two lines of defense. The outer face (or rain screen in the case of cavities) should preferably be sheltered by way of face cover/head flashing/scriber etc (Deflection), but may (though not ideally) rely on a silicone seal at the outer face of the junction. The second line of defense should ideally comprise a water management system (mechanical flashing) that is positioned so as to capture any water that enters past the first line of defense and redirect it either to the exterior or the base of the wall plane (Drainage). Not always easy to do, but it is always do-able.

I have found the biggest sector of the market that resists the above philosophy are designers. Boy how they seethe and squirm when you insist that they detail their wondrous wet dreams to properly demonstrate how their fantasies will meet the NZBC requirements. Many of them are clueless when it comes to the practicalities of building (shockingly so in some cases) and can't see past their pretentious atheistic considerations TODAY. They don't seem to care what it looks like later on when the mushrooms start growing out of it. This sector of the industry is the most irresponsible IMO. Did you know that until very recently that architectural students in NZ have never been required to learn about or demonstrate any knowledge about the NZBC, any design or construction standards, Good practice guides or products? It was not mandatory for them to know anything about construction. Many of them learned that lesson most thoroughly.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Leaky homes Financial Assistance Package passed by Parliament
Owners of leaky homes can get their homes fixed faster following the third reading of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Bill in Parliament today, Building and Construction Minister Maurice Williamson says.
Under the $1 billion package, qualifying home owners will receive a 25 per cent contribution from the Government and may receive 25 per cent from their local council. The contributions will be based on actual repair costs.
“Help has been a long time coming but this Government has stepped up to deliver home owners this financial assistance package,” Mr Williamson says.
“I believe this is a fair solution that will assist many leaky home owners to get their homes fixed so they can move on with their lives.”
The package is voluntary and offers an additional option to the current Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. Home owners who discover they have a leaky home must lodge a claim within 10 years of the completion of building work to access the financial assistance package.
“I would urge home owners close to the 10-year limit to ‘stop the clock' by lodging a claim with the Department of Building and Housing now.”
For more information on the financial assistance package visit www.dbh.govt.nz
Media contact: Anna Rushworth (04) 817 9783 or 021 831 599



25% from the Govt is pretty generous really.

Especially when they get 60% of that back in the GST take

That makes a net 10% contribution (if you don't count the personal and company income tax which adds up to approximately the same as the remaining 40% of the 25%).

Now that is what I call stepping up to the plate and taking ownership for the 75% extra cost of the disaster that (in the real world) relates to addressing the lack of timber treatment that the Govt allowed in the first instance. FAP is such an appropriate acronym for the scheme too. You gotta admire politicians eh!

[jaffaonajappa]

25% huh...

So four FAP's would be 100% satisfaction?

[Laava]

I have found the biggest sector of the market that resists the above philosophy are designers. Boy how they seethe and squirm when you insist that they detail their wondrous wet dreams to properly demonstrate how their fantasies will meet the NZBC requirements. Many of them are clueless when it comes to the practicalities of building (shockingly so in some cases) and can't see past their pretentious atheistic considerations TODAY. They don't seem to care what it looks like later on when the mushrooms start growing out of it. This sector of the industry is the most irresponsible IMO. Did you know that until very recently that architectural students in NZ have never been required to learn about or demonstrate any knowledge about the NZBC, any design or construction standards, Good practice guides or products? It was not mandatory for them to know anything about construction. Many of them learned that lesson most thoroughly.

I have come up with this situation exactly with architects. Isn't that your job they say when being asked about details. Some of them genuinely do not know, they are selling a concept and it is up to draughtsmen, designers and engineers to be responsible for the finished product. They are more than happy to be responsible for the profit however.
My son finishes his architectural degree this year and doesn't dream of being an architect. After 5 years, go figure! He also qualified and worked as a draughtsman for a few years before that, so is experienced in what goes on.
Many people have different ideas of what is acceptable and ultimately the responsibility often falls back onto the person who is found to have either installed faulty product/workmanship or the person supervised it.

[Winston001]

25% from the Govt is pretty generous really.

Especially when they get 60% of that back in the GST take

That makes a net 10% contribution (if you don't count the personal and company income tax which adds up to approximately the same as the remaining 40% of the 25%).

??? Lets say the repair total is $100,000. The Government contributes $25,000.

GST component is $13,000.

That's 13% of the total repair, a helluva long way from 60%. Ok, its about 50% of the goverment's own contribution but that comes from all taxpayers so we should be happy.

The next portion comes from ratepayers which seems a bit rough but thats life.

That leaves 50% from the original builder (probably long gone) etc so really its the house owner.

You assume the builders etc who do the work make a profit on every job and pay 30% tax but in real life it doesn't always work out that way. I know a builder who always went the extra mile and ultimately he'd have been better off working for wages. Sod all profit any year.