Submissions made to the Local Government and Environment Committee regarding the Building Amendment Bill No. 4 summed up the issues well:
There is no accountability for manufacturers of building materials and products, said one submitter.
We remain unable to fathom why product manufacturers are not identified as part of the regime when all other parties are (councils, owners, builders and designers, said another.
Obviously, these submissions are largely from our construction sector/building practitioners but they raise valid and important points.
In response, Minister for Building and Construction Maurice Williamson gives off the impression that these issues do not concern him or his National-Act Government in the slightest.
Therefore the concerns regarding building materials are not addressed in either of his building Bills No. 3 and 4, although they had played an significant role in the leaky building saga.
Hence the leaky home problem should “more correctly” be called “the rotting framing problem” as Paul B put it in his comment to my blog on Building Matters (1) published on Friday August 3.
To help understand building matters and the feelings of New Zealanders, it is important to note some of the following comments made to my blog last week:
KJT said: When are you going to stop blaming builders, who were only following the specs they were given.
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.”
Draco.T.Bastard said: Follow the manufacturer’s instructions and you don’t meet the building code but if you follow the building code you lose the manufacturer’s warranty on the product. Can anyone say Product not fit for purpose?
Herodotus said: Who protects the industry from the manufacturers of building materials ?
From comments above there appears a real reluctance from the Government or governmental bodies towards these manufacturers.
I will make sure to bring these views to the attention of the Local Government and Environment Select Committee, which is currently hearing submissions on the bill.
These views will be valuable to us while shaping our position as to how to get these concerns addressed.
Note: Building Matters (3): CCC is no longer CCC: will that concern you? Will be released later this week.
At the time of the 2002 election when homes were still being built of untreated framing (and continued for 2yrs or so)I wrote to Forestry spokespersoms of the political parties suggesting that they should warn homeowners that they were riding for a fall if they allowed their home to be framed with untreated Radiata pine. Well only one party replied in a useful manner. You might be surprised who that was. Sadly Labour was not very helpful. Nationals Phil Heatley’s office advised that he would reply in a week. – still waiting Phil! The others did not reply either ( I did not write to the Dunne party), except Winston Peters who suggested that I ‘take’ to the Advertising Complaints Board, a timber manufacturer who was distributing very misleading advertising material to builders headed… “The truth about Chemical Free and treated timber framing”. Failing any better advice, I did just that .
You can see the result if you Google; Advertising Complaints Board DECISION 02/297 . It was an amazingly flawed investigation – they would not let me input except for the simple complaint. They left it to the manufacturer alone to provide evidence!!! It was just bizarre! Amazingly I ‘won’ on 2 of 3 points, but by some strange logic ‘failed’ with the most important point. I was advised that the major timber producer intended to appeal. I replied that if they did that I would appeal the point that was deemed “acceptable”… but this time “I would drop real science on them” You guessed it – there was no appeal!
I then passed all my material to an excited young reporter at a major paper, but it was just ‘buried’.
I have an honours degree in forestry but was not working in that field. If I had been, I suspect I may not have been working long.
BRANZ were supportive, sort of.. not in writing, but of course they are largely financed by industry….Hamstrung
I used some material from The Forest Research Institute (now SCION) but suspect I may have caused annoyance.
Sadly it seems that the state must have independant scientific input… that association with industry can often cause costly compromise
I am bound to say I wondered who was getting donations like the recent ‘obfuscator’.
Well done Paul. However, why have you not named the timber manufacturer who was distributing the very misleading advertising material to builders headed… “The truth about Chemical Free and treated timber framing”? Is it not in the public domain now? Hamish
Lucky nobody actually listens to Shearer–that beneficiary beat-up at Grey Power was more befitting Don Brash. Your warped “social contract” attempt-at-a-message is so weak and misguided in so many ways it’s not even bad. You might think the common people are morons, but anyone with half a brain can hear 1987 heavy breathing down the phone line and won’t have a bar of it.
And the stab at an absent Cunliffe is pathetic.
Long time in the wilderness. Hope those lower listers are getting their CVs out and about.
@fls – situation is retrievable, easy, our MPs can either deny the substance of Garner’s claim or Shearer can deal with the two worms that provided the info.
Goff dealt to Carter, time for DS to step up.
The reason the building product manufacturers are out of scope is quite simple. If their products are used correctly they tend to work. The problem has been that most often they are not. Sure, it’s fairly easy to apply weatherboards, but the more innovative cladding technologies need to be done carefully. If builders are too busy to get trained on their application, and too lazy to do the job right, and the inspectors too casual to check properly, that’s not the makers’ fault. It’s like blaming GM for a parking ticket. The solution is a building warrranty, not scapegoating.
@ Jennifer
Your analogy is fatally flawed
You could use an example like GM being ‘in the gun’ for faulty brakes..So A ‘product recall’ or expensive fines….. BUT NOT a parking ticket, that is more like.. just not paying your rates on time?
Having said that -since the ‘rotting framing crisis’ we are more alert and product is scrutinised better.
That is why I would suggest that each new building owner can select his own level of Warranty – Or none at all except perhaps in so far as some consumer law might apply?
SURELY if that is clearly noted on the title there is NO problem, except perhaps for those who truely love ‘Nanny State’ and demand everyone is equally covered in cotton wool? …. and are prepared to pay very dearly for insurance.
I actually suggest to you that post, and despite, the Christchurch tragedy, that increasing numbers will opt out of the rapidly escallating cost of home insurance. Of course the banks may insist on impoverishing their mortgage holders….So now you are convinced I am Mad ?
Good to hear Paul. My partner refused to work with the flawed timber. He went back to boat building and it’s associated flaws. Now, he is told in his later years, (40 years as a builder) that it’s the builders who need to have bits of paper to prove their ability.
@ Hamish
The brochure was from Carter Holt Harvey titled “The facts about ‘treated’ and chemical free framing” ( I had it ‘back to front’ above )was placed in building supply outlets. While the Advertising Complaints Board was deliberating – took much longer than I was advised it would – Carter Holt Harvey released a further somewhat misleading brochure defending their original leaflet. The whole lot was withdrawn when the Board finally reached a decision and considerably later released their findings – during the holidays as I remember.
The product was Laserframe – very widely used to build now rotting homes, but only after a leak – of course!
BUT the whole report from the Advertising Complaints Board is easily sighted by Googling;
Advertising Complaints Board DECISION 02/297
@ Paul B, the parking ticket analogy is fine, IMO. You can’t blame GM for the use to which the vehicle is put, for example, parking over time. The vehicle is sound, just used wrongly. As for the warranty, a manditory scheme across all houses would spread the risk and lower the cost, and the risk would reduce further if time limited, say 10 years, and fair wear and tear excluded. What’s a couple grand on a $300k home build?
Jennifer,
Well.. if you like but.. I would suggest that untreated framing was in a sense an absolute design flaw! The consequent rotten homes were so unnecessary. It was absurd to promote home framing that could not suffer a leak for any period – Like you would get skeletal cancer if you suffered scratches. I cannot emphasis enough that the perhaps 20 billion dollar rotting home disaster was largely because a harmless salt treatment was removed from framing. It was crazy, and a cynical means for manufacturers to make more profit…Then builders were seduced by the very straight and dry timber which they could gib out immediately – quicker, neater, more efficient and profitable… but ‘fatally flawed’. Surely anybody with untreated radiata lying in a damp place knows it can rot very quickly if it stays wet (Bats is part of the problem – a sponge), Manufacturers and experienced builders should know it was unsuitable for a home that is bound to leak one day. Some packets of timber became rotten before opened because of a little damage to the plastic wrap!
We should never have used untreated radiata for anything that MAY get wet – (ie All framing of course). Did the manufacturers not realise this? … experienced builders?
Note .. we may have experts claiming that there was insufficient borate even in timber that was treated… well to maintain the minimum level in a variable product much higher average levels (Good durability) were required. If I had much quick rot in a home with treated timber I would take samples from dry areas and check that the product was actually all treated to the required spec.
As for the warranty, I for one have no desire for it.
In our present fearful and risk averse state , particularly after the rotting problem, we will surely be conned to pay a great deal more to cover the now much lesser risk. Surely we are building durable homes by now. A leak now might be 5% of the consequence compared with a home built of untreated framing and of the previous design detail( now there is better flashing, membranes, ventilation etc)
SO WHY NOT PROVIDE THE HOME OWNER WITH CHOICE AS WITH OUR CARS. I would prefer to carry most of my own risk
I am sure that a comprehensive long term warranty will in reality actually be much much greater than $2000 for an average home.
There are obviously standards of construction and finish that can and must be checked during the construction (code compliance).
AGAIN.. I would actually absolve local bodies of liability, if the owner so wishes, for much lesser charges
We have had an unnecessary prolonged episode due to stupid material use combined with some bad workmanship and then an inability to react sensibly and quickly – but we have finally sorted it for future construction. Lets relax a bit
I intend to – but then – no one would ever have used a stick of untreated radiata in a home of mine.
Jennifier “The reason the building product manufacturers are out of scope is quite simple. If their products are used correctly they tend to work.” CHH did not even supply the correct material that they claimed. So how can we trust these boys ???.
“The case was purely about people who paid too much for Laserframe timber compared with other products on the market at the time, given that some of the timber was not of the grade claimed,”
http://www.buildingtoday.co.nz/MagazineArticle.aspx?id=200
http://tvnz.co.nz/content/853631/425823/article.html
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news/article.cfm?c_id=30&objectid=10432922
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1111/S00316/chh-pays-15m-to-christchurch-rebuild-in-comcom-settlement.htm
@ Herodotus
Yes. Your references refer to the appalling action of CHH when they fiddled their stress grading machines to read false grades and so rip off the consumer. It is almost akin to watering down medication, or giving short measure at the petrol pump.
The discussion above refers to an entirely different attempt to mislead the public, by means of propaganda in the guise of a ‘factsheet’!
Amazingly if you read CHH`s defence to the Advertising Complaints Board(my Google Ref above)they actually praise themselves for their accurate and precise mechanical stress grading procedure!!! It was much latter that legal action was taken against them on the issue. I was amazed as during my much earlier discussion with experts I was advised that they were fiddling their machines. There is far too much whispering, rather than bold and quick investigative action and exposure to protect the vulnerable consumer.
“Your Building Partner”…..indeed
If building materials are used properly they tend to work.
No they don’t. And they did not.
If you used monolithic cladding and untreated timber as the manufacturers specified, at the time it did not work.
I know some experienced builders who insisted on treated timber on outside walls and proper flashing overruled by architects, councils and engineers.
I remember having an argument at the time with an Engineer, influential in BRANZ, who insisted that boric treated timber was no better than untreated. Having dealt with many renovations I know that is untrue.
Typical. Blaming builders for a failure of manufacturers and regulators.
It is not the builders job to test and specify materials.
The only shower I installed that leaked, was the first one, where I followed the manufacturers instructions to the letter.
The main problem is you have two major building supply companies that control the industry, Fletchers and Carters.
They have been screwing New Zealanders for years.
They have contacts in high places who can change regulations to suit their profit driven motives.
Big business and Government work hand in hand feeding off each other. Ever wonder why Fletchers always get the big Government contracts, ever wonder why NZ building costs are so high, ever wonder why these building companies are not held to account for faulty building materials when they lobbied for the changes in the Building Codes. The building industry is like the Brotherhood.
It’s just like milking cows for Fletchers and Carters.