Comments on: Building Matters (1): Mandatory Warranty?

By: KJT

KJT — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 21:35:49 +0000

“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.

By: Herodotus

Herodotus — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 07:53:13 +0000

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

By: Jack Ramaka

Jack Ramaka — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 11:22:09 +0000

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.

By: Draco T Bastard

Draco T Bastard — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 04:50:28 +0000

With the fashionable cladding, if you followed the manufacturers instructions you would certainly build a leaky house.

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.

PLEASE NO expensive blanket warranty

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.

By: ghostwhowalksnz

ghostwhowalksnz — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 04:47:10 +0000

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.

By: Paul B

Paul B — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 01:23:50 +0000

@ 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

By: Lou Peters

Lou Peters — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 23:16:12 +0000

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.

By: Nick K

Nick K — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:05:40 +0000

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?

By: KJT

KJT — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:38:44 +0000

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.

By: Paul B

Paul B — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 05:53:33 +0000

@ 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