Header Ad Module

**nzfrazer** · 02-09-2012, 11:37 AM

Sorry to hear of you situation....aren't you are paying for a mentor? Surely they can advise you.

**speights boy** · 02-09-2012, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Social_Media_NZT View Post

On asking the builder what the advice was that could rectify the issues they had, they said the house needs to be bought up to current code of practice.

SO after asking more questions we find out the code changed in 2005 and this is what they used to see if our house complied.

I think the builder is just advising the purchaser, who paid for advise, what would have to be done differently if it was being built now.
The purchaser has simply decided not to take on the risks with these aspects, as they are now better understood than they were 12 years ago.

How long have you owned the property, and what did your builders report say when you purchased?

You may want to seek further advice, as you may now be required to pass on the knowledge you have to all future purchasers including your backup.

**Blind Egg** · 02-09-2012, 01:05 PM

Agree with Speights boy, builders reports are there to protect the purchaser. It is a big asset for them to purchase and would be wise to get one. What did other reports say or what did your's say?
The code will change from time to time to meet the current building requirements, if it does not comply and something happens to the property in the future, insurance companies may use this to not pay out.

Regarding Speights last sentence, yes seek legal advice as you may be required to pass on this information now,

**NomoneyNotalk** · 02-09-2012, 01:25 PM

This happened to me just 2 weeks ago. But i was the buyer. The house was built in 2002, before the new code of compliance. There are many leaky issues with house built around 2000, so that is why the new code of compliance came into regulation in 2005.

My building inspector found some leaks in the house and some of the wall downstairs which is covered with soil was not waterproofed properly. And bricks on the exterior were not done properly also which cause water to be trapped in the wall.

The builder then quoted me on the cost he would charge to fix those problems, and the vendor refused to pay, so i cancelled the deal.

**Meehole** · 02-09-2012, 01:45 PM

That is called moving the goal posts as it is obvious that the house was built to the building code of the time.
To be a building/property inspector at the moment is a very risky profession. So much so that shortly they will be few and far between and their insurances will be sky high so the cost of their services will be reflected in the cost of their report.
NomoneyNotalk don't tag all houses built around 2000 as having leaky problems. There were plenty of houses built that didn't have monolithic cladding or no eaves.
Auckland has a high number due to the amount of houses built at the time where the "French provincial or Mediterranean style" was in vogue, meaning they had no eaves, insufficient flashing on the windows and/or plaster type exterior.
Also at the time some builders were using private companies instead of the Council to do the building inspections and many of us are sure that at times the inspections were somewhat suspect. Quite a few of those companies went under as well, say no more.

**Social_Media_NZT** · 02-09-2012, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by nzfrazer View Post

Sorry to hear of you situation....aren't you are paying for a mentor? Surely they can advise you.

Your right but they are are not the holy grail and more wise men the better, hence the question on the PT forum............

**TheLiberalLeft** · 03-09-2012, 01:04 PM

I'd want to know how much emphasis the report makes on the house NEEDING to be brought up to current code, because that's a load of bollocks. It doesn't need that at all (and I haven't seen the house). It may or may not need some work done to it, but it most certainly doesn't need to be brought up to current code before it can be sold. If that were the case 95%+ of houses in NZ would never be sold.

How many 75+ yo villas do you think exist that meet 2005's code?

**Maccachic** · 03-09-2012, 01:12 PM

My guess is it doesn't meet durability and Weathertightness requirements whereas your 75 year old villa may. Many leaky homes have been signed off by Council / Independant certifiers - it pays to have your house inspected prior to hitting the 10 year old mark, as 1 day after this date you have no comeback if there are issues.

http://www.3news.co.nz/Home-buyers-w...3/Default.aspx

**Maccachic** · 03-09-2012, 01:16 PM

You now possibly legally have to disclose this to the second purchaser?

**TheLiberalLeft** · 03-09-2012, 01:35 PM

That's fine - it may leak, but that doesn't mean it has to be brought up to latest code before it's able to be sold. It's the "mandatory requirement" of how the OP reads that's confusing. Probably not the case, but it's not easy to tell.

**speights boy** · 03-09-2012, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by NomoneyNotalk View Post

The builder then quoted me on the cost he would charge to fix those problems, and the vendor refused to pay, so i cancelled the deal.

BTW, I guess this was the subject of your other thread.
Have you got your deposit back?

**Keys** · 03-09-2012, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by Social_Media_NZT View Post

Your right but they are are not the holy grail and more wise men the better, hence the question on the PT forum............

You pay your mentor. What value do you place on advice from here?

**Maccachic** · 03-09-2012, 03:07 PM

Remediation involves repairs and reconstruction, which are alterations under the Building Act and so must comply with the Building Code.

The requirements of the Building Code and the need for building consent must be considered in light of each particular remediation. The guidance below sets out some factors that may be relevant to compliance with the Building Act and Building Code, but this guidance does not replace professional advice given in light of the particular circumstances.

Under Schedule 1 of the Building Act, like-for-like cladding replacement is often exempt from the requirement to gain a building consent. However, the exemption does not apply where any component or assemblies have failed the durability requirements of the Building Code (typically 15 years for claddings) or where complete or substantial replacement of any component or assembly contributing to the building’s structural behaviour or fire-safety properties is required.

This means a building consent will generally be required:

for remediation work on leaky buildings less than 15 years old
where failure is known to have happened within 15 years of construction
where any structural elements are being replaced due to leaks (for example, decayed timber framing)
where repairs are being made to fire separations in non-detached houses.

Also, with alterations, all building work must comply with the current Building Code, and the rest of the building must continue to comply with the other provisions of the Building Code to at least the same extent as before the weathertightness failure.

http://www.dbh.govt.nz/weathertightn...diation-design

**xenophobicfruit** · 03-09-2012, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by Social_Media_NZT View Post

I am URGENTLY looking for guidance on this matter:

How can a house that was built in 2000 and was built by the chief engineer at the Hamilton City Council at the time be issued with full code of compliance, all ticked off and a perfect LIM report today (2012) get a negative report from the building inspector that the prospective buyer commissioned ?

...

How can a builder do this? Use a newer COC against a house built before the code came into existence ?

I call that money well spent and a good builders report.

Your house should be measured against the latest standards. It is only proper to do so.

Would you think it appropriate for a building inspection to measure a buildings earth quake strength compliance based on historic code of compliance rules when it currently has a notice from council that it needs strengthening? Obviously any buyer would want to know how it measures against current earthquake standards.

This line of reasoning can be extended to any building standard.

My friend actually bought a home that did have earthquake strength issues, negotiated a discount based on the report and fixed it afterwards.

You will just have to accept that

a) You will need to reveal this if asked
b) lower your price expectations

Part of life, shit happens

Header Ad Module

Announcement

How can a building / builders report get away with this ?

How can a building / builders report get away with this ?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment