Summary of Press Offerings on Leaky Buildings Syndrome.
I thought it would useful this month to summarise some of the things that have been written on and around the subject of leaky buildings, in the New Zealand Herald in the past 6 months.
On 31 January 2003 it was reported that a “significant number” of leaky home owners were looking to the Government’s Weathertight Homes Resolution Service for help. You will remember that this was the Government’s fast track resolution service set up specifically to deal with these types of claims.
As at this date 361 claims had been registered covering 722 dwellings. More than 2000 calls had been received by the resolution service’s free phone line.
In February 2003 Andrew Laxon wrote about insurance for the building industry. He reported that most insurers were canceling cover for leaks, rot or mould to building certifiers who inspect new homes for councils and building surveyors who often check homes. Reports were given of Building Certifiers closing shop because they could not get insurance, or alternatively facing huge increases in insurance premiums due to insurers reassessing the risks they were exposed to in insuring these types of companies.
The Government was at that stage not ruling out having to set up a scheme that would insure these types of companies, as they were a necessary component of the building industry.
On a slightly lighter note, on 14 March 2003 Andrew Laxon reported that Auckland mayor John Banks’ former Paritai Drive mansion had become the latest victim of the leaky building crisis.
The palatial home – which overlooks the Waitemata Harbour and is thought to be worth about $4 million – was reported as being covered by a giant tarpaulin as builders repair widespread leaks discovered in May last year.
On 19 March 2003, Andrew Laxon wrote about the fact that the leaky buildings crisis was bringing a ban on the use of untreated timber being used in houses. It reported that the Building Industry Authority (BIA) would change the code such that untreated timber would be banned as a building material, in outside wall frames as a result of the leaky homes crisis.
The impression at that point was that the BIA would recommend a return to boric-treated timber, which had not been compulsory since 1996. The standard treatment would be known as “H1 Plus”, which gives medium-term protection against rot, but is less toxic than the H3 standard required for outdoor timber.
The 1996 change to “chemical free” timber is regarded as being a leading cause of the leaky building crisis. On 26 March 2003 Francesca Mold reported on a parliamentary committee proposal for the Government to dispense with private building certifiers as part of its plan to clean up the industry and resolve the leaky building crisis. There were allegations on the committee to the effect that “unscrupulous” developers and builders were exerting pressure on certifiers to pass substandard work. There was also evidence that private certifiers were handing over “problem projects” to territorial authorities, which were compelled by legislation to pick them up.
On 1 April 2003, Simon Collins reported how Phillip O’Sullivan of Prendos and John Scarry had received praise at the annual conference of the Institution of Professional Engineers (Ipenz) in Hamilton.
It was conceded at this conference by its own representatives that in fact Ipenz had been slow to react to the leaky building crisis.
On 8 April 2003 Andrew Laxon wrote about a potential new Ministry of Construction. It was also reported that the BIA would no longer operate as a stand alone authority, but would become part of the Ministry of Economic Development. The aim being, that by putting the authority into a Government Department, it would be directly accountable to a minister, and therefore the public.
Some parties had mooted the idea of a Ministry of Construction that would bring together the best technical experts across a range of disciplines – something the authority desparately lacked. However Commerce Minister Lianne Dalziel was playing down rumours that this was the Government’s intention.
On 11 April 2003 Francesca Mold reported an accusation by Act MP Debra Coddington, that the BIA had accumulated its reserve of $12m by overcharging people for building consents. The accusation, she went on to state, had been supported by findings of a parliamentary review which in fact found there was evidence of over-charging and under-paying. The select report expressed concern that the level of accumulated funds was high in proportion to the BIA’s annual spending.