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.
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.
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!!!!!
Comment