The best public interest advocates are heroes. They go into bat for the little guy. They challenge the vested corporate interests. They prod politicians into action. One such person is John Gray of the Homeowners and Buyers Association of NZ (HOBANZ).
John Gray is the go-to guy when it comes to the leaky homes issue. He is one of the smartest commentators on the issue. And over the last few years he and his organisation have helped countless distressed homeowners navigate their way through the financial, legal and bureaucratic nightmare of dealing with a leaky home.
He went through his own nightmare when he discovered his new Auckland townhouse leaked, and after taking his claim to court and winning a settlement, he was beseiged by other home owners in a similar predicament. He went on to form HOBANZ. And tonight on ONE he fronts an hour long investigative documentary about the leaky homes disaster which affects up to 89,000 homes and has left a repair bill estimated to be up to $23 billion.
(Tomorrow on Parliamentary TV we’ll be debating the committee stages of the Weathertight Homes Financial Assistance Package Bill which is the latest attempt by Government to tackle the problem.)
The $23b cost has to be sheeted home to the National Party. They were the ones that introduced the freemarket to the housing market. Here’s a lesson: Never mess with the homes of your voters.
Media 7 tomorrow night (Thursday) on TV7 at 9.00 has John Gray and the director of the documentary. And we shouldn’t overlook the producer of this documentary (Rachel Stace) whose idea it was to document the struggle and has been working on getting it to screen for several years.
Funny how National ducks liability for their changes to building laws in the early 90s which lead to the leaky homes.
Privatising inspections.
Lax specifications.
Non Builders Liability.
Abolishing building Apprenticeship schemes.
So tonight on TV1 9:30 for me. Interesting comment from John Key near the end I believe.
We need to be very very very wary of believing the government package and the “new” Building Act will solve this problem. I work in this area. It has been and remains a mess. One reason is the same people who rewrote the 1991 Act, are rewriting this one. There is not alot of evidence of learning between those periods. In addition a leading voice on leaky homes (not John Gray) is still running 1999 arguments and methodology despite huge change sin investigation and learnings around science.
The DBH is a mess on this issue, the WSG and Determinations sectors are the blind leading the blind. In the WSH, in particular, there are too many bureaucrast with knowledge of administration but not buildings. We need a mixture of both in WSG. The Assessor system is a rort. An entire industry has built up around this crisis and they are determined to preserve their territory. Accordingly they focus on the status quo and their business models not on the puiblic interest and greatest good.
John Gray is one voice, among many. We would do well to listen to many competing voices. When we only listen to those who all say the same thing we might be missing something crucial.
There is a basic lack of understanding of the science of moisture and wall systems.
Recently I have had communications with a lawyer and building experts in this area where they were all convinced that if the building had a defect, it is irrelevan tif the home/building is damaged. That is patently stupid and contrary to law and common sense. IF a home has a defect, say an apron flashing turn down not up, or whatever, BUT the water that is entering is draining and drying freely, and not rotting the timber, then there is no claim. Unless it is for the $20 to upturn the flashing.
If you go to mediations/adjudications as I do, you see this BS all the time. Find a defect and collect the money. This keeps lawyers and epxerts going.
The PM and Minister took great pains to blame lawyers. And some do more harm than good but they rely on experts to form the evidential foundation. The experts are feathering their own nests, with some exceptions. The DBH is using the featherers more and more, and the quality/impartial/knowledgeable experts less and less.
Hence the mess.
getting timber suppliers and cladding manufacturers incvolve din claims, as Elders were int he 80′s culd solvre alot of problems.
kiln dried is NOT the same as treated and the timber suppliers knew this.
absorbant cladding was required to have H3 timber behind it, everyone ignored this without compensating, and didnt specify this level of treatment in their information.
Labour and National have dirty hands on this. It’s going to take courage ( a word that frightens most politicians and bureaucrats) to shake this up and get it right.
And before the blame game starts on th ehome owners, ALL HOMES LEAK. Alway shave and always will. The key is the speed with which they DRY. This is what changed when we closed up the walls with claddings and untreated timber.
Some of you need to see what the DBH allows assessors/experts to do to buildings to determine if they are “leaky”. One such assessor recently told a home owner that when he has done what he needs to do it will have to be reclad. This is because the investigation method is dated and cannot be repaired. NO cladding manufacturer will give you a fix for what they do, so everyone gets a reclad!
the invesitagtion techniques used lead to reclads. An assessor recently told a home owner that because of how he tests/investigates, the house will need a reclad.
This is common knowledge. Cladding manufacturers have NO guidance for repairs after this process because they never envisaged the cladding and building paper being breached.
There are other ways, but some in the industry resist this. Most assessors also have roles as supervisors of reclad projects. They dont supervise any they assess for the government, but you cn see where this is heading…
Now they have their sights set on our schools. $25m to take photos, more to drill, and then more to reclad.
All the while cheaper, more effective methods are eschewed.
Remember an expert makes $50k from supervising a reclad (average). They need to do ten partial repairs to get the same…
Just finished watching John Gray’s doco. The guy deserves a medal.
AND THE NATIONAL PARTY NEEDS TO MAN UP AND ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR PART IN THIS DEBACLE.
As long as you understand that he advocates a reclad for every leaky home and that has made the system right for rorting by everyone in th eindustry, and home owners now believe anything less than a reclad is failure.
Me on Red Alert – wow. Perhaps the debate for FAP should focus not on how money should be divided and sheeted for the blame but what money is required to fix each home fairly. I watched JG as well and for the life of me as he did with dear Colleen Dicks his cameras found NO ROT or nothing to shock – the digger bit looked great. The tear down is one of upmanship – not solutions. Doesn’t it remind yourself of 2004 – we knew all these things then JG – the only thing NOT knew is why he left out of his investigate program solutions that are available to him and his clients (JG is a business by the way) ie cheaper more cost effective solutions which you can’t clip. Perhaps the driver of leaky homes are the drivers of the trucks who take owners money from them.
In 2004 there have been 4 directions available to people. Sue, fix, hide or flick. Imagine paying some Harvard $500/hr to tell you what’s fair – or should we spend our resources actually fixing homes – and by that I don’t mean $50,000 to a so called expert. Now JG knows solutions are available for 1/5th of his knock down client – but then he and his mates miss out on the lawyers fee and his experts the 50 so I guess JG you have changed – from the advocate to the problem.
Phil please ask Shane about me before the debate and then maybe a good question of Maurice on the floor regarding communication from me – “what has the Government actually researched from Ian regarding his solutions that can save the owner money”. I’ll listen because this is the hour of power so Maurice better be straight up. Saving owner’s money will also save the 25% Govt share. Ie more for something that doesn’t yet have a solution like ChCh or our debt.
Perhaps also ask your mate John Banks why he and his Council walked away from the University of Auckland:Auckland City Council research program with me on cheaper solutions – when politicians mess with science it will always come back and bite them, hopefully enough.
Perhaps ask Maurice why his DBH (particularly WSG) ignore innovation – like monitoring homes to find and better determine the problems rather than as Tracey says – cut and rip until it needs a reclad – ever heard of a hospital removing ALL the skin to see the bones.
Shane may not know but the research he requested of SCION found out that the so called brush on treatments being applied to framing as a reason to remove claddings (to treat the wood) has failed within 12 months of testing – whatever happened to the 50 year durability promise? Pity the experts choose to ignore this for the 50 they get paid to manage its application. SCION doesn’t publish this except under OIA. So I guess we all get what we sow and sometimes the harvest is crap or if the ingredients are left off the jars we’ll never know unless your name is Fonterra.
Question: When is a solution palatable?
Answer: When the blood letting is high enough
Gray is an airline pilot. He took a well used methodological analysis used in the airline industry that analyses systemic faults across the entire spectrum i.e. not simply investigating the plane itself, but the engineering, manufacturing, maintenance, etc.
I thought he did a great job in using the swiss cheese analogy. There are weaknesses in every system, but the strengths of other interacting systems cancels these out, UNLESS the weaknesses ‘line’ up with other weak spots in other systems, in which case the entire system fails.
He applied this methodology to the leaky home debacle. Not surprisingly, he finds faults right across the system, but the major fault lay with the government of the day (in this case National) as they set out the ground rules.
For this reason, he ended the documentary laying the fault at the feet of the National Party (and I suspect that must have been hard for him as I think he probably would have been a National Party man) as they were the government in 1991 that enabled the orginial fault to happen.
The moral for ANY government is don’t f**k with people’s homes. And for this reason, the National Party needs to man up and pay for their mistakes.
“ALL HOMES LEAK. Always have and always will. The key is the speed with which they DRY. This is what changed when we closed up the walls with claddings and untreated timber.”
You have summed it up right there Tracey. An absence of sheltering eaves and lack of decent flashings to protect wall penetrations of windows and doors all contributed to the admission of moisture which then was unable to dry, due to poor ventilation (if any), of wall cavities. Using untreated timber framing accelerated the rotting process.
so what happened to my comment?censorship. nevermind, i will email phil directly, see if he has more to say than the useless Mr Key.
nothing in moderation Simon. Did you use language which sent you to spam ?
RT1
The other thing is that people think that bungalows and villas don’t leak. They do, BUT heartwood timber and ventilation dry them out. of course some of these owners have shut of one of these tools by closing up the walls with insulation (floor, ceiling, walls) and even heartwood will rot in time.
John Gray has done great work identifying the problem and advocating for its exposure and accountability. However some years ago we needed to move toward genuine solutions. This mantle needs to be taken seriously, and taken up.
Disclosure: I work for Mr Holyoake, above. I had a leaky home and got the royal runaround from experts and industry. I embarked on my own research which led me to his company, his tools, methods and solutions. I presented his solution to ACC and they rejecte dit. The cost to all parties at that time was in the region of 65k to 85k. Building works said no. When I return tot he country I will be lodging my claim. Quantum is at approximately $400k. Why? Because everyone now says reclad. Experts say reclad. DBH Assessor said reclad (after putting 100 holes and ten A4 cutouts, James Hardies say they cannot recommend a repair for that and suggest I consult a buildiing expert (who destroyed the cladding!!!). Expert fees, relocation and on and on and on – no legal fees included in this claim.
Now, who will pay? ACC will pay, which means ratepayers and tax payers. I may be “lucky” many parties to my claim still exist and operate so the pain will be shared.
18 months ago my partner and I would have accepted a $65k to $85 k repair, because science backed it and it is the “right” thing to do. ACC building works refused…so here we go.
Someone here tell me that is a “solution” not a problem?
So appalled by this and motivated by Mr Holyoake’s passion, science, intelligence, common sense and drive, I accepted a job offer to set up and run a claims resolution division for him. Hard as it is to believe, I’m doing this because I think there is something worth fighting for. I did not ever expect top go back to law, quasi or otherwise. It was always going to take something special for that to happen. It’s not about money. No offence to Mr Holyoake but my salary is not one of a lawyer of my experience. Thats not the point. He has put inliterally hundreds of thousands oif dollars of his own money into fighting for what he believes. His team are passionate and science/common sense based. What they know about how buildings work and dont work is intimdating.
They are feared by parts of this industry. The industry has been clinging tot he notion that if enough of them agree or say the same thing it must be right, or at least they will be safe because people will think it’s right. many do not want him to have a voice, he is discreditted (wrongly) and impugned by some. They do not produce contradictory fact or science just that many of them :think ” the same thing. His methhods can expose their shortcomings. Who amongst us feels good about that?
I am a lawyer by training. I have an analytical brain. I look for facts and then apply the law. I seek practical answers/outcomes for clients.
Phil T – I read your press release. Kudos for removing the assessor immunity. Either experts will be forced to shift positions and base decisions on science or they will stop assessing for the Government (DBH). The former will take some pride swallowing. The later will force the system into paralysis.
Sometimes paralysis is required to start rehabilitation.
And did you see John Key’s snakey reply to the woman who had some sort of degenerating disease, had paid cash of $130,000 for a $180,000 apartment so had a small mortgage to pay off, and could NOT afford to take up the Govt offer of half cost of repairs because she is on a sickness benefit. John Key’s response to “how would she be able to pay the half cost of repairs ?” was “well, of course, we want people to come off benefits ….”
How callous is that ? How uncaring ? and how blinkin’ unthinking a response from the so-called leader of this country ?