Issac Davidson at the NZ Herald reports (30 July):
New Zealand’s biggest councils are imploring the Government to introduce warranties in new building laws or risk “Leaky Buildings 2″.
The councils have made sensible calls. The Government has to introduce meaningful protections for consumers and consenting authorities/ratepayers or we could have another repeat of the leaky building saga on our hands.
Christchurch and Wellington city councils have urged the Government to introduce a warranty scheme to protect consumers and local authorities from liability when builders do not produce good work.
Unbelievably, Minister Maurice Williamson in the second of his two building amendment bills (No.4) is actually planning to reduce the level of protection for consumers and ratepayers!
In the absence of a more genuine reallocation of accountability, for example, through mandatory home warranties and the introduction of proportionate liability, consumers and ratepayers are further exposed.
But worse still, the home-owners will have fewer remedies (if any) when left in the lurch by a $1 shell company.
In the UK, a 10-year warranty protects around 80% of all new homes built in the UK. Every new home built with this warranty has to built in accordance with NHBC (National House-Builders Council) standards. The warranty covers the workmanship, insolvency of the builder and covers any faults, damages or defects discovered within two years of completion.
In Australia, Tasmania is the only state with a voluntary builders warranty scheme. All other state schemes are mandatory.
How do we improve our legislative protection?
As the Building and Construction Spokesperson I am interested in feedback and turn it over to the readers for thoughts on whether we should introduce a mandatory warranty scheme such as that of the UK and Australia.
Note: Building Matters (2) will focus on accountability of manufacturers of building materials.
Of course we need protection from quick as you go builders, who take short cuts, use shoddy materials etc.
We must regulate to ensure we have prevention and protection against the lowering common denominator, which of course is driven only for profit and not for care or kindness.
Deregulation was designed to ensure competition which then leads to more deregulation and the consequent demise of strandards. Let’s set regulations have cooperation ensuring standards are set and upheld.
Maurice Williamson, another joker. He was involved in the initial rounds of building deregulation and it seems he has not assimilated a single iota of knowledge from that debarcle!! National Party-slow learners or none learners?
Protections are of course necessary – but also the costs of consents are holding back new housing – it is prohibitive to obtain the consents to build a house – and made worse if a resource consent is required wich is often the case. I think this is an effort to try and re-balance the system somewhat.
Certainly the days of “chilly bin” houses are hopefully beyond us and as much as anything there is no longer the demand.
But again I feel this is faux outrage from a political party that denied there was even a leaky home problem for several years as George Hawkins denied the problem ever existed.
This might be more feedback than you want . Sorry
Can I make a plea for a separate category for owner builders.
At present it is necessary to have a licenced builder overseeing most work. That, with all the red tape, contributes to a very expensive home.
Why can there not be a separate process for genuine owner builders who are using conventional materials. There could be much less red tape… BUT ALSO.. of course, the title is so TAGGED and EVERYBODY including potential purchasers is properly informed!!! What can be the problem? There would be absolutely NO liability on local or central govt, or indeed on the builder, except perhaps for deliberate fraudulent behavior. I would buy such a home after I had inspected it and believed it satisfactory!
The construction of conventional ‘common or garden’ type homes is no real mystery, and as durable materials are now mandatory for structural parts there should be few problems. ANYHOW if a purchaser willingly takes the ‘risk’ -well then who owns the problem? Possibly banks will be scared off – but so what – once they would not lend on flat roofs! Less regulated owner builder homes would be very much cheaper – to build and buy.
Not so many decades ago young couples would buy a section and place a large garage with a toilet and shower and then build their own home . Seems a magnificent bonding and life experience to me. Now, of course, volumes of regs would prohibit this .. WHY???
The more we bundle everything in masses of red tape and need specialists for every action the costs rapidly get out of control.
By all means, do the intense regs/guarantees/ insurance /etc for those that want it. But there are still plenty of practical do -it- yourselfers capable of building their own home( Though sadly,they are a fast disappearing NZ breed for which we were once famously renown worldwide!.) Now, adventurous DIY for some can be assembling a set of drawers! Let us recover our birthright for “my home.. my castle”.
Anyone can fix, and many do, the brakes and steering on their car , and, quite frankly, that could be thousands of times greater threat to other NZers than building their own home!!! SO we are free to fix our own car now (I do), and am free from forced oversight and red tape except for an occaisional warrant (which cannot really assess my work properly at all!)
Some might scream doom and the end of ‘shelter’ as we know it… but seriously?
Please be carefull of allowing the ‘nanny state’ to compusorily overwhelm us. Of course our increasing numbers of ‘couch potatoes’ love to force others to join their slothful slumber. Please allow some of us to do our own stuff at NO risk to the super-cautious at all.
Does anyone think of the ‘killing’(yes) burden of the incredible debt(= stress) that super- regulating everything causes. A cost/ benefit analysis of the pervasive gross regulations, which also includes social costs in the equation would be interesting?
Again I repeat, pile on the regs etc for the super cautious, but please release the free souls among us.
The leaky home problem (more correctly ‘the rotting framing problem’) which has spawned the overreaction, was largely a consequence of insidious commercial pressure on inadequate govt departments to remove a harmless fungicide and presrvative salt fom framing timber. It is still a largely obscured scandal.
But capable NZ DIYers should not suffer for absurd govt decisions.
Williamson is so fixated with deregulation he cannot see the rot for the trees. Leaky homes mark two will be down to him. A mandatory warranty is just plain common sense. No matter how much Williamson legislates to make the builder responsible, the firm can liquidate and the guarantee goes up in smoke. They can’t get around the limited liability system. So the Bill is all hot air and hollow promises. A warranty is the only sure way to protect home owners.
@ Jennifer
We had minimal regulation for many decades and no huge crises to speak of. Did we have leaky homes – yes ..all over the place, but the consequences were minor because homes were built of durable materials and repairs could be deferred for a considersble period before serious decay resulted.
We again, finally, have homes framed with durable treated timber and so we have a reasonable period to carry out repairs before the skeleton turns to mush. A modest ‘sensible’ home is now unlikely to become a liability within a year or so of leaks developing! Damp gib etc will give adequate warning.
Also as we now place a sponge (Batts etc) in the wall we have introduced practical means to prevent that becoming something of a reservoir.
Some build huge and complex homes of challenging design and those may well be more risky.
But in reality, are some interested parties hyping the problem for their own purposes.
We have become risk averse and seem to be happy to pay huge sums for peace of mind. Perhaps we should scrutinise the motives of those trying to scare us, and as a result extract much money. They are now dealing with many terrified customers
My problem is that I prefer to be vigilant in my own interest and carry my own risks to a great extent. I simply do not want all encompassing security at clearly great expense.
Perhaps the answer is to allow builders/developers to provide clearly defined and legally enforceable warranties etc BUT there should not be a compulsory “one for all” prescription. The title must be clearly tagged and the purchaser chooses the level of security!? Why not?
A blanket scheme penalises those who require no such assurance. WHY???
Timber manufacturers and many builders behaved badly when homes were being built of untreated Radiata pine.
The manufacturers loved the deficient product because it allowed the now kiln dried framing which was totally untreated to assume higher grades and consequent profit, perticularly when machine graded (One major manufacturer fiddled their machines for even greater profit!!). The builders(master,certified DIYers and all) loved the dry straight timber(Neater, straighter walls, and can ‘Gib out’ immediately) The fact that clearly experienced builders would ‘ethically’ use untreated radiata, (because the manufacturers had conned authorities to allow it)is hard to understand as surely they must have known that was just a time bomb waiting for the first leak – Ussually 15-25 yrs.
The almost immediate leaks were totally unacceptable, but incipient rot within months was an inevitable consequence.
One can only presume that many experienced builders knew the compromised nature of the structures they made(with untreated framing) but did not expect to be caught out quite so quickly? Blaming the new designs (Mediterranean etc) is a bit of a convenient red herring. True, some of the flashing/sealing was disgusting, but the tragic consequence was because the framing was not suitably treated
Incidentally the untreated framing was much publicised as “Chemical free” – very ‘green’…even though the fungicide/preservative (borate) was hardly more toxic than common salt!
Despite scare reports, the major problem is sorted, and we can now afford to be more relaxed about serious and quick failure
Leaks will always be with us, but need no longer bankrupt us
When are you going to stop blaming builders, who were only following the specs they were given.
With the fashionable cladding, if you followed the manufacturers instructions you would certainly build a leaky house.
Haven’t seen any of them being made to pay out, or the deluded politicians, who relaxed regulation, to allow dodgy suppliers and other thieves to prosper.
I agree with warranties, but they should also apply to materials manufacturers and those who specify them and how they are used. Designers architects and suppliers who palm off responsibility on builders who do not have the time or the money to research the latest and greatest products.
As for allowing owner builders to escape regulation. You should see the dodgy things they try and get builders to do, to reduce the price, let alone the potential disasters I have seen while building. A lot of them would not be apparent to a non-destructive inspection, after the house is built.
Minimal regulation? Sure. The Building Act. The Building Code. Council consent notices and bylaws. The Torts of Negligence and Breach of Statutory Duty. Breach of contract.
To name but a few.
Who is giving this warranty that is talked about?
Use a reputable Registered Master Builder, they have warranties. Thats what I did, and it has worked. If you choose a cheap builder, you will always get a cheap job, crap materials and crap workmanship, in all forms.
@ Nick K
Minimal regulation – I was particularly refering to the 1950`s when some still sound homes built at that time seem hardly to have records at all in some council/ county archives.
Whose warranty – watch the bill – but whatever, the lawyers will surely fight to make it more or less effective at vast expense to the everyone concerned… do you think?
@ Lou Peters
Some previous master builders warranties have proved very ‘variable’?!
Paying a lot may only prove that one has been ripped off a
lot
Really comprehensive warranties will add hugely to the price of a home just when (despite the scaremongers) we are required to build much less ‘risky’ homes!
Australia is already a MUCH cheaper place to build .
Are we determined to even make our basic shelter another reason to emmigrate?
Comprehensive warranties IF you want one . Individuals should be able to negotiate their own requirement . PLEASE NO expensive blanket warranty
Lou , your warranty from a ‘Registered master Builder’ isnt worth the paper its written on. Mostly those are for completion of houses.
There is no builder who will warrant his work for 5years when he close down his business instead.
My nephew has commented upon that. Follow the manufacturers instructions and don’t meet the building code but if you follow the building code you lose the manufacturers warranty on the product. Can any one say Product not fit for purpose?
The materials used must meet code. As it is we’ve got manufacturers with a sure way of getting out of any liability due to substandard materials.
Actually, blanket warranties tend to be the cheaper alternative due to not having to negotiate every single bloody time and by having more people covered it also reduces prices.
I find it fascinating how a country which had a reputation for some of the best tradesmen in the world and some of the best building practices in the world has turned into a society of rotten leaking homes unfit for human habitation.
No wonder 2 & 3 bedroom ex State houses are going for $1.0 million plus here in Auckland, this is a reflection on the NZ Government and the NZ Building Industry practices.
Who protects the industry from the manufacturers of building materials ?
From comments above there appears a real reluctance from govts or governmental bodies towards these manufacturers.
http://www.google.co.nz/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=chh+fined&oq=chh+fined&gs_l=hp.3…1537.3417.1.4201.9.9.0.0.0.0.287.2348.2-9.9.0…0.0…1c.85M7a-i_btY&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=480b948ed2f29a91&biw=1157&bih=609
http://tvnz.co.nz/content/853631/425823/article.html
I hope and pray that the 20,000 homes that were built using CHH product MGP10 don’t suffer any actual results like those of the testing sampling ” timber bent during stress tests, and that has now led to bowed ceilings and cracked wall linings.”, and how would the owners of these houses even know, for me the houses affected should have been notified. And CHH were allowed to profited from this
“Master” builders, are a have.
All you have to do to join them is pay a sub. There is no requirement for qualifications.
And. The insurance not only costs extra, but almost any builder can offer it. The main advantage of insurance is you still have a warranty if the builder is no longer around for any reason.
Note’ that my insurance, and that of many “one man bands” would still allow me to cover a 10 year warranty when Master builders were only able to offer seven. Reduced because “Master” Builders had too many claims.
There are some very good builders that are members of “Master builders”. The cowboys, though, also join to have some legitimacy.
I also have an objection to “Master builders” grabbing that title..
A Master in any trade is one who has the qualifications, supervised experience and ability to be a “Master” in their trade. Not a description that one group, not all Master’s, should have been allowed to pinch.
If you want a good builder, look for a small outfit where the boss will do the job himself, don’t just try and get the cheapest quote (you will get what you pay for) and ask if you can talk to, look at and get references from his previous jobs.
A “Certified Builder” has to be qualified, and have a good track record to join. They can be a good place to start looking.
As for manufacturers warranties. These are normally carefully worded so that they have no liability once the builder has accepted the materials on site. Of course, as the builder is a commercial entity, the consumer guarantees act does not apply between him and the supplier.
The real culprits in the leaky building saga, The Government and their deregulation mania, BRANZ and the suppliers got off scot-free.