Under the Building Amendment Bill No. 4 brought in by Minister Maurice Williamson, consenting authorities (city councils) are no longer required to issue a Code Compliance Certificate. Instead, they are only required to issue a Consent Completion Certificate.
Does that mean consenting authorities will no longer have any direct role in checking the quality of the building work? Or Mr Williamson would only confine his concerns to the aspect of semantics?
I agree with submitters that that move will not necessarily improve consenting authorities’ “last-man-standing” position. But it will be the consumers that will be left to pick up much of the bill for any claims resulting from substandard building work.
One submitter said the intention of the proposed change is no more than “ring-fencing” the consenting territorial authorities from any liability in the event of building failure.
The irony is that this system will still see the Consumer paying fees for the part the Territorial Authorities will play in monitoring the building work, but it will not provide the Consumer with any surety as to the performance and durability of that work,” says Home Owners and Buyers Association of NZ.
This is a step too far until such time as the Licensed Building Practitioner regime matures and the qualification is actually worth something to the Consumer given that the bar has, in our opinion, been set far too low and therefore the competency, commitment and care of building practitioners cannot be assured even if they are licensed.
By no longer certifying compliance with the Code, the consenting authorities will almost certainly find their liability for non-compliance of building work is significantly reduced, as pointed out by another submitter.
Many serious defects are only discovered many years after construction, often near, say, the ten-year-cutoff. By removing this Code Compliance Certificate, many owners who discover very serious defect will be time barred from seeking damages from any party.
The situation will get worse taken in context of section 362P: “Building contractor must remedy defect notified within 1 year of completion”.
“Where is ‘completion’ defined?” – asked Structural Engineer John Scarry: “Is it when that part of work is completed or ‘practical completion’, or is it when the CCC is issued?”
Which CCC anyway?
Please click here to find my Building Matters posts 1, 2 and 3.
consumers already pick up the bill Ray. Do you actually know how many leaky home owners are out there with no one left to sue or are outside the ten year limit?
I agree things have to change, but how about starting here;
Regulate the so-call building inspectors/experts (including HOBANZ who make some good points but also reinforce bad ones)
Have a system to hold them accountable
Do what the BIA tried and failed to do, make sure everyone, inclduing building experts have insurance which covers the owner’s problems, not theirs, or they dont get registered. Most will probably go out of business.
Promote responsibility to home owners. Obligation to repair and maintain their own homes, not sit back and do nothing
Promote technological advances which assist experts and owners to “look behind their walls” without removing cladding, technology which is currently resisted/opposed by the DBH and many “experts” because it cuts into their business models.
As for completion, it’s currently defined by the courts as when the owner/builder calls for the final inspection, and provided the inspection passes, the works are complete, whether a CCC issues or not.
Have you submitted a different definition for the Bill to be considered?
Howdy Raymond! It’s always nice to see you blogging, even if the content often leaves me scratching my head. I realise that building and construction issues are the only things you’re allowed to talk about now, but this is a serious question for you. Have you actually got any policy alternatives? Are you saying that Labour won’t support this legislation? Are you going to vote against it?
“always nice to see you blogging, even if the content often leaves me scratching my head”
So it’s Labour’s fault you’re a dummy?
WDI is one of those strange creatures who think its the oppositions job, with no resources, to run a parallel government. To have all the answers nicely teased out, 2 1/2 years before the next election, ironically so he personally can then criticise them.
ghostwhowalksnz is one of those strange creatures who think it’s the opposition’s job to criticise even the most mundane legislation rather than come up with any actual policy.
Ray view this as an opportunity to get many home owners to support some proactive alternative. As for many the home the only tangible financial asset many own. So if this is placed at risk (Like Leaky homes’) then with some astute strategy and well place communication to show how many could be exposed and followed up policy. Then Ray you could be the one who could say that thanks to you there is a new government, and that as a consequence new homes are to be well built, to certifiable standards with suitable building materials.
Who wants a repeat situation of the leaky building. And unlike the 5th Labour government that opposed but did nothing perhaps the 6th could be seen to act as well protecting Kiwis.
A plea to accomodate owner builders. The new regs require expensive oversight by a registered builder? Surely we could be much more DIY friendly? Of course ‘Owner Builders’ homes would be CLEARLY TAGGED on the title. No one could ‘accidentally’ buy one!
I would even go so far as to suggest recycled materials could be used – Has anyone noticed how many magnificent rimu framed windows sell for a dollar on ‘Trademe’ these days! Crazy. Double glazing is magnificent, but is it worth financial hardship and stress. I am just slightly intriqued by our apparantly ‘cold seriously life theatening’ older homes which have housed so many healthy kiwis. I would suggest that a comprehensive, scientific, cost benefit analysis that includes stress and health opposed to cost might be very interesting. We seem to have a knack for gross overkill when we attempt to correct problems.
Of course the leaking/rotting homes catastrophe was largely driven by industry attempting to maximise profit at any cost to consumers. If proven durable materials are used minor probems need not be immediately critical
The paperwork/consents etc could be reduced for single level ownerbuilt conventional homes. The consenting authority could even have no liability at all?
As our once proud and common ‘serious can do’ attitude has already been largely crushed the many ‘couchies’ among us need not worry that there will be too many ‘home made builds’ erecting next to them to threaten their very existance
Furthermore we could allow much smaller homes. Also we could allow owner builders to live in uncompleted homes for a limited time provided proper sanitation existed.
“I can ‘smell’ the fury on many breathes” particularly from the industry which of course ‘knowingly’ led us into the problem which initiated all the fuss.
Our new homes are becoming prohibitively expensive for less affluent couples. It is a sad feature of human nature that if a select group is given a monopoly then very soon a scary proportion of that group will realize that they can gouge.
As ordinary consumers become less DIY able they become helpless to see through the hype of unscrupulous ‘experts’.
To be fair of course the sometimes ‘overdone’ regulations can add a huge cost.
Otherwise sadly, we can always build a cheaper home in Australia!
Have we been trained to become excessively risk averse, and are now paying dearly for that.
THOSE NOT TERRIFIED AND STILL A LITTLE BOLD, SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THEIR OWN THING, SO LONG AS NO ONE ELSE MUST BE IMPACTED. Where is the problem?
Fire away