Ratepayers set to carry leaky homes burden

[ActionMan]

Another rates rise!

City councils is the only body still in existence (directly involved in building process) after liquidation of the building companies. Building inspectors should be ensuring that the building process was in compliance of the building code. So city council should bear full responsibility if the companies no longer exist.

Increasing rates should not be the solution. Rate payers were in no way responsible for the leaky buildings so we should not pay.

Can ratepayers take legal action to prevent another rates rise because of this?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10420422

[tillerman]

leaky homes

Another rates rise!

City councils is the only body still in existence (directly involved in building process) after liquidation of the building companies. Building inspectors should be ensuring that the building process was in compliance of the building code. So city council should bear full responsibility if the companies no longer exist.

Increasing rates should not be the solution. Rate payers were in no way responsible for the leaky buildings so we should not pay.

Hi Action Man,
I agree that there is no way that the cost of this should be heaped onto all ratepayers - where is the culpability of Carter Holt Harvey and Branz in all of this. CHH for designing and producing the crap materials in the first place and Branz for certifying them.
The poor councils are merely acting on the best practice recommended by Branz.

[captaincrab]

Is it true that James Hardie liquidated their old trading companies to be able to avoid any product liability those companies incurred as a result of selling "leaky "product?
And now trade under a newly established entity.

[muppet]

Hi Tillerman

You said:

I agree that there is no way that the cost of this should be heaped onto all ratepayers - where is the culpability of Carter Holt Harvey and Branz in all of this. CHH for designing and producing the crap materials in the first place and Branz for certifying them.
The poor councils are merely acting on the best practice recommended by Branz.

AND what about the stupid architects who designed the buildings anyway.
The builders only build them according to the architects designs and use the materials that are suggested.
Nothing wrong with the materials.

Regards

[tricky]

Hi Tillerman

You said:


AND what about the stupid architects who designed the buildings anyway.
The builders only build them according to the architects designs and use the materials that are suggested.
Nothing wrong with the materials.

Regards

I thought the architects did a good design with the buildings?
And it was the on-site builders who didn't install the flashings on the windows as a cost-cutting measure? Or used untreated timber instead of H3.

[BusyLizzy]

I would think both are at fault (and not always at the same time).

Yes, builders have been guilty of cost-cutting measures as you mentioned - whilst going against the architect's plans.

But architects have also been guilty designing places that just aren't sound design principles. A good builder would hopefully have pointed these out and perhaps not agreed to build to the plans in these cases... but where does that leave the builder liability-wise if they DON'T follow the plans?