*ARCHIVE* - Weathertightness News - No. 8, August 2004
What's inside
- Weathertightness - the builder's view
- Weathertight Homes Resolution Service - latest figures
- Have homeowners' needs been met?
Weathertightness - the builder's view
Being a builder over the past years has been challenging and testing. Not only have builders had to cope with an increased volume of work, they have also had to deal with the rapid change in construction methods and practices - and get to grips with the future of builder licensing.
Change was required. And a great many of our builders have changed the way they build. There are, of course, some who would argue that, if we had maintained the practices of the 1980s, these changes would not have been necessary in the first place. Yet out of it all has come considerable good.
We have reviewed the way we build; we have reviewed the way we understand; and we have reviewed the way we need to comply.
So, how has the weathertightness situation affected the average builder two years on? From the small one-man builder undertaking alterations, to the group-home builders, building 100-plus houses a year, all have been affected in some way by weathertightness.
Two of the very significant and tangible changes we have had to deal with are the changes to the B2/AS1 (treated timber) and E2/AS1 Acceptable Solutions. For the average builder, the 4Ds principle - which has been the guiding philosophy behind the changes to E2/AS1 - can be boiled down to three focal areas:
- Timber treatment
- Flashing details
- Cladding material
Timber treatment
Without doubt, treated timber is the issue that has created more confusion and more difficulties than any other for builders. What timber can be used where? How do we identify it? Is it available? How much is it going to cost? When do new requirements take effect? Have we got what we asked for? Are there health and safety issues associated with its use?
Interpretation by territorial authorities of the requirements has appeared to differ from one TA to another. In fact, in some cases they seemed just as confused as the builder.
And then there was the yardman at the builder's merchant, whose understanding was even more confused. 'Our timber is treated,' they claimed - and, despite no identifying marks, in some cases out it went.
The BIA and Standards New Zealand has published a booklet called Timber Treatment Requirements - Notes for Builders, which is widely available free to builders from timber merchants. We welcome it.
Recent changes to construction practices have been a challenge for builders
Flashing details
For many, flashing has been less of an issue, and in most cases many have not changed the details used over the last 20 years. Those who were formally trained understood the value of mechanical flashing, understood how it had to be used, and installed it correctly.
However, changing building trends such as mono pitch roofs and monolithic claddings have forced builders to put more thought into these areas. There are plenty of proven traditional flashing details, but knowledge is required to design flashings for the intersection between modern materials. This is where it is important to have an experienced and qualified person designing the flashing.
Cladding material
The cladding of the dwelling has seen the most significant changes, as far as the builder is concerned. He or she has become less inclined to apply the cladding and, more often than not, has relied on professional fixers and installers. For many builders, this is not the preferred way of working - and, in order to take back the responsibility, the builder has had to become more proactive about obtaining technical information on the performance of the materials used to create the envelope.
Some builders have also been concerned by what they perceive as the continual moving of the goalposts by some territorial authorities around cladding requirements. Rules applied retrospectively have proved challenging for many builders.
In conclusion
The changes that have been made are for the good of the industry, even though some builders continue to question their value. The irony is that these same builders would say the changes wouldn't have been necessary at all if we had continued to use the same trade practices - and the same robust materials and standards - that made the building industry such a healthy and enjoyable environment to work in 10 to 15 years ago.
Weathertight Homes Resolution Service - latest figures
The WHRS was set up to help resolve disputes over 'leaky homes'. Here, the WHRS gives an update on its active claims.
The WHRS Assessments to determine eligibility for the Service and the extent of property damage are provided at no cost to homeowners. To date 1092 assessment reports have been sent to homeowners.
If claims are eligible, homeowners can choose to use the WHRS's voluntary mediation process, opt for compulsory adjudication, or decide to take no further action. Homeowners are required to pay $200 towards the cost of mediation and $400 towards the cost of adjudication.
The WHRS has completed 152 resolutions: 103 using mediation, 11 through adjudication and 38 resolved by other means. The mediation and adjudication processes are under way for a further 310 homeowners. An additional 220 homeowners have had their cases deemed eligible by the
WHRS Evaluation Panel and have yet to decide whether to proceed to mediation or adjudication.
The WHRS freephone help line 0800 116 926 operates Monday to Friday from 8.30 am-7 pm. To date 7840 calls have been received.
A breakdown of active claims by the region in which they occur is available below.
The WHRS website www.dbh.govt.nz also contains information about the work of the Service and issues related to leaky homes.
WHRS active claims by territorial authority
Have homeowners' needs been met?
David Russell, Chief Executive of Consumers' Institute, considers just how far the building industry has come in addressing the public's weathertightness concerns.
Worried homeowners started coming to the Institute in 2000. The stories, now so familiar, were that relatively new houses were leaking - often badly.
The number of complainants grew to the point that, in September 2001, we published an article discussing the problem and came to the conclusion that designers and builders were too often lacking in technical knowledge, some proprietary building systems weren't up to coping with the New Zealand weather and the Building Code was failing to protect consumers' interests. There were estimates that 75,000 to 90,000 recently built houses were at risk.
So how well are we doing in addressing the significant failure of the New Zealand house building sector? Here is the Institute's scorecard.
Legality of BIA Interpretations
Only the courts can issue binding interpretations of the Building Act 1991 and Regulations. Indications and guidelines issued by the Department of Building and Housing, either in Weathertightness News or other communications, are provided with the intention of helping people to understand the legislation. They are, however, offered on a “no-liability” basis, and, in any particular case, those concerned should consult their own legal advisers.
Please copy - copyright waived
Articles in this newsletter may be freely reproduced, in full or in part, in other publications as long as Weathertightness News is acknowledged as the source, including issue number and date. Disclaimers relating to an article must be included.
Editorial enquiries:
Please contact Ryan Nielson, Communications Adviser,
DDI: 04 495 2711 or nielson@bia.govt.nz
Subscriptions and general enquiries:
Weathertightness News is a free, monthly information service. To subscribe contact the Authority by telephone, facsimile or email.
The Authority is a New Zealand Government Crown agency established by the Building Act 1991 to manage the building control system.
The Government
The Government's response was relatively quick and effective. The Hunn inquiry was thorough and clear with its recommendations. The main outcome has been the establishment of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service (WHRS) and the rewrite of the Building Act. By comparison with usual parliamentary processes, the performance so far has been impressive.
The BIA
The Building Code had clearly not been understood and urgent action was needed. While serious questions were asked why the system had failed so badly, little was to be gained by dwelling on the past. The Authority has moved quickly with republications of two of its Acceptable Solutions: one on the use of treated timber and the other on weathertightness. Consumers are well served by both.
Local authorities
It's a mixed scorecard for local authorities. Some helped and guided consumers with problems. Others have looked more to their liability and have developed a fortress mentality. This has not helped homeowners saddled with leaking houses.
The building industry
Lessons have been learnt. While fingers have been pointed at the Building Code and the certification system, material manufacturers and suppliers also have to shoulder some of the blame for promoting ill-conceived and badly researched systems. And as for the quality of building work? Well that is a matter of sad record.
Garry Shuttleworth, of Certified Builders Association NZ, considers how weathertightness issues have changed recent building practices.