Builders to Insure?

[John the builder]

Everyone can refuse to do jobs if they are not happy.
Builders went ahead and then blamed everyone else.
The buck stops with the builder - he's the only one who swings the hammer.
Everything else is on paper. The builder turns the paper plan into reality.
If he is unhappy with no flashings, no cavity vent holes, etc, then he doesn't take the job.
To argue otherwise is to argue that the were forced to build a leaky building ie the building was designed to leak and they were forced to follow that design. That would be a stupid thing for a builder to do.

spoken like someone who never had to build? you the builder are there to follow the design not be a peer reviewer of architects who know more than you!!! what a load of sanctimonious rubbish!!

what is forgotten in this saga is that builders who followed manufacturers recommendations to the letter and did their best still ended up with leaky homes Why?? because they weren't told the technical manuals they relied on many with BRANZ appraisals had in fact not had any weather tight testing. In the case of a current supplier being sued at present they didn't even tell the industry that when they finally did the testing in 2003 they found the system leaked.(and quietly withdrew it) and yes it was BRANZ who did the testing for them.

A friend who has this information has been threatened with court action should be disclose the info!!!! and you bastards blame the builder???

and don't get me started on untreated timber to boot!!!!!

[Bobsyouruncle]

John it's the same with weatherside, asbestos products, the list goes on. People should be accountable for what they are responsible for. In a builders case that is quality of workmanship and following code/plans/specifications. That's it!

[Bobsyouruncle]

For some reason the whole topic reminds me of this.

[flyernzl]

The bottom line is that when you sue the Council you actùàlly sue the Council's insurance company.
The Council takes out insurance, pays the premium, and the cost of that premium is passed on in rates.
So all of the ratepayers are the ones who foot the bill.

If there is insurance for the builders, then the builder takes out insurance.
The builder pays the premium, and the cost is passed onto the buyer of the building.
So the end purchaser pays the bill.

In economics, there is always a clear distinction between the the imposition of a cost or tax and the burden - frequently not the same entity.

I see that when there is discussion around Auckland's housing problem silly people often make the statement 'The developer should pay . . ." Obviously the developer does not pay for anything, either he passes the cost on or he goes broke and the unsecured creditors pay.

[John the builder]

the council have lost their insurance long ago and are now self insured (read ratepayers) Risk pool always was an indemnity fund?

[Davo36]

The bottom line is that when you sue the Council you actùàlly sue the Council's insurance company.
The Council takes out insurance, pays the premium, and the cost of that premium is passed on in rates.
So all of the ratepayers are the ones who foot the bill.

If there is insurance for the builders, then the builder takes out insurance.
The builder pays the premium, and the cost is passed onto the buyer of the building.
So the end purchaser pays the bill.

In economics, there is always a clear distinction between the the imposition of a cost or tax and the burden - frequently not the same entity.

I see that when there is discussion around Auckland's housing problem silly people often make the statement 'The developer should pay . . ." Obviously the developer does not pay for anything, either he passes the cost on or he goes broke and the unsecured creditors pay.

Yes, this is how I see it. The end user pays no matter what.

But I'd rather building companies have to carry the insurance than the council.

the council have lost their insurance long ago and are now self insured (read ratepayers) Risk pool always was an indemnity fund?

Really JTB? Have you got a link or something for this? What kinds of things are the council not insured for? Leaky stuff? Earthquakes? Other things?

[John the builder]

their bldgs are likely insured for fire and EQ

we are talking cover for negligence for their work I dont have a link just what I have been told.

[Bob Kane]

spoken like someone who never had to build? you the builder are there to follow the design not be a peer reviewer of architects who know more than you!!! what a load of sanctimonious rubbish!!

Fit for purpose.
That's the magic saying.
When you build something, it has to be fit for purpose.
If you build a house and it rots and grows black mould after 10 years then it wasn't fit for purpose.
You should have built it better.
Or not built it at all.
If someone forces you to build it with certain materials then you need to cover yourself - possibly through insurance.
The big cop out that builders use is to say untreated timber was allowed therefore they (the builder) isn't at fault when the untreated timber rots.
All builders know that untreated timber rots when wet.
But because it was allowed, the builders now think they are are free from blame.
Sorry, we rely on builders to use common sense and their training.
Untreated timber for exterior walls is foolish - unfit for purpose.
To argue otherwise is to say builders are thick and can't be liable because they have limited knowledge and skills.

[Perry]

It's a nice idea, but it is not that simple. I was told that some building inspectors took the sort of stance you suggest. They were told that there was nothing they could do to stop its use or deny a CoC.

[Bob Kane]

It's a nice idea, but it is not that simple. I was told that some building inspectors took the sort of stance you suggest. They were told that there was nothing they could do to stop its use or deny a CoC.

I don't think the inspectors should stop untreated timber being used if it is legal or deny a CoC.
The buck stops with the builder - he should pay if he builds a house that isn't fit for purpose eg doesn't last for 50 years.
The builder should have insurance if he doesn't back his work.
Quite simple really.
Builders have nothing to fear.
Do a good job or take out insurance.
Or maybe do both?

[Kaye]

When I was Project Managing the EQ repairs on a rental I manage I had suspicions Building Co had used untreated wood around the windows. So went around to the property armed with a screwdriver and a hammer took one batten off and sure enough untreated wood. Took photos to email to Insurance Co and kept a piece of the wood as evidence should it be required (still have it). Insurance Co took me at my word having previously proved Building Co was incompetent.
Likely it was more they didn't want me to come to their office with a length of wood and throw it at them. Interestly never heard a squawk from the Building Co they did replace the existing non treated wood with treated wood.
Sadly this Building Co is still in "business" doing who knows what yet to be discovered damage with their shoddy workmanship.

[Nick G]

What's the cost difference between the two? I'm curious (and horrified) to see how much money is in it for the bad guys here? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

Some people go to extraordinary lengths to glean extra money that they could have made anyway by obeying the rules, working a bit more and spending a bit less.

[John the builder]

When I was Project Managing the EQ repairs on a rental I manage I had suspicions Building Co had used untreated wood around the windows. So went around to the property armed with a screwdriver and a hammer took one batten off and sure enough untreated wood. Took photos to email to Insurance Co and kept a piece of the wood as evidence should it be required (still have it). Insurance Co took me at my word having previously proved Building Co was incompetent.
Likely it was more they didn't want me to come to their office with a length of wood and throw it at them. Interestly never heard a squawk from the Building Co they did replace the existing non treated wood with treated wood.
Sadly this Building Co is still in "business" doing who knows what yet to be discovered damage with their shoddy workmanship.

How can you tell timber is untreated with a screwdriver?

[Kaye]

Removed the entire batten to confirm my suspicions

[John the builder]

but how did you know the timber that you saw was untreated?