Update on leaky buildings!
In June of 2003 I wrote an article in this magazine summarizing the types of things that had been written about “leaky buildings” in the New Zealand Herald. In this month’s addition, I wish to again summarise the articles written on this topic in the last 6 months. But firstly, I wish to report upon statistics on claims made with the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service (“WHRS”) as at 13 May 2004.
There are 1829 active claims with the WHRS. The WHRS has completed 87 resolutions: 58 using mediation, 6 through adjudication and 23 resolved by other means. The mediation and adjudication processes are underway for a further 170 homeowners. An additional 129 homeowners have had their cases deemed eligible by the WHRS Evaluation Panel and have yet to decide whether to proceed to mediation or adjudication.
On 4 December 2003, B Osman wrote in the New Zealand Herald that the Auckland City Council was tipped to announce that it would not certify hundreds of existing plaster clad homes without a cavity to drain water away. In short he reported that the Council will not issue a code of compliance certificate for any residential properties with a monoclithic cladding system without a cavity. Before issuing a certificate, the council will require homeowners to remove the cladding and install a cavity at a cost of thousands of dollars.
Then the very next day on 5 December 2003, B Osman reported that his tip had become the reality. The Council confirmed that it would not certify Mediterranean-style plaster, stucco and fibre-cement homes without a cavity to drain water. It was reported at the time by Council that 1800 homes were effected by the policy in that they were monolithic homes without a cavity. Mention was made of the fact that Council had a $2m excess applying to every claim, such that the costs of leaky building claims would have to be borne by ratepayers ultimately. In response, the Building Industry Authority stated that the Council applying such an approach, was incorrect and the council should be assessing the matter on a case-by-case basis. It went onto state that other Councils would not be discharging their responsibilities under the Building Act if they introduced a blanket policy of withholding code of compliance certificates in these situations.
On 8 December 2003 B Osman reported in the New Zealand Herald that the North Shore and Waitakere City Councils were following the Auckland City Council and not certifying plaster-clad homes without a cavity to drain water. In this same article it was reported that the Rodney District Council had also introduced a halt on certifying homes without a drainage cavity.
Then on 10 February 2004, Simon Collins reported on the costs involved in recladding houses. The Building Industry Authority (BIA) announced a rule change that could mean that builders would be forced to strip stucco cladding off almost-completed houses and rebuild them with air gaps to drain away water. It was reported that stucco-clad houses were no longer an “acceptable solution” under the Building Code unless they have ventilated cavities behind them to drain away any water that gets through the outside wall. The article went on to state that the Council may still approve stucco houses without cavities if they have an alternative solution to keep water out, such as wide overhanging eaves and good fittings around windows and doors.
Dissent amongst builders to this retrospective change was reported from Builders. In particular the president of the Master Builders’ Federation John Marshall was quoted as saying that most smaller councils took their cue from the Building Industry Authority. “To make this retrospective is a horrendous cost.” Mr Marshall was reported as saying he knew of houses in Taupo, some being built by his firm, that had valid building consents issued under the old code for stucco walls without cavitities. But they were now unlikely to be certified as complying with the new code.
“If you have finished and you have to redo all the cladding, some houses could cost $30,000. Some might be only $8,000. If you hadn’t started, then the cost is a lot less – it might only be $1,000 or $2,000.”
Consumers’ Institute Chief Executive was reported as saying that people caught by the change of rules should be compensated. “We believe there should be some relief for those people who, through no fault of their own, rely on the builder and the architect and the national building code.”
But in response to this comment, the Building Industry Authority responded that there were no plans to compensate anyone.