Tweet
I think this is a really good idea actually. There's no reason at all for the council to be the entity picking up the costs when things go bad.
-
I think this is a really good idea actually. There's no reason at all for the council to be the entity picking up the costs when things go bad.Squadly dinky do! -
the council are the ones clipping the ticket and inspecting and passing the plans drawn up by architects and designers.........the builders build to the council approved plans using the products specified by the architect and passed by the council why should the builder be liable and have to carry what will be a expensive insuranceOriginally posted by Davo36 View Post -
Another cost for home buyers. Add it to H&S costs and everything else that has made it cost prohibitive to go above one storey. Builders will pass on every cost they bear... just like every other business must do.Free online Property Investment Course from iFindProperty, a residential investment property agency.Comment
-
But, but, but hang on - you people.
This will all make housing more affordable, along with double glazing, enhanced insulation requirements and even WoFs.Comment
-
-
So what is the incentive for more young guys and girls to get a trade as a builder then? Seems as if they are intended to eventually be a scapegoat for any bad design or sh&#ty product that passes BRANZ appraisal and is used on the project.
The houses that had a tendency to leak invariably had no eaves for a start and the design of these places was market driven. The style doesn't suit our climate but if that's what the client wants then that is what is drawn up by the draughtsman or architect. The builder just follows the plan and hopefully just sticks with the specs.Comment
-
Bleating Up The Wrong Tree
I concur with Meehole and the builders-as-scapegoats thing. I've had dealings with a Building Certifier (now retired) who told me a lot about how a certain section of the timber industry conned BRANZ / the gummint into accepting timber that had not been treated as had been done in the past.
Hint: it was going to make houses more affordable.
Comment
-
It's a stupid idea. Builders should be liable for bad building; surveyors, architects and engineers should be liable for bad design/spec. Simple.Comment
-
Can we make politicians liable for bad rules?Free online Property Investment Course from iFindProperty, a residential investment property agency.Comment
-
Builders should be liable for their work - plain and simple.Originally posted by jimO View Post
If a building leaks then the builder has not done his job properly.
We have had this discussion before.
For the last 20 years builders have ducked and dived, blamed the architects and planners and wound up their businesses to avoid their responsibilities.
Builders do need to be insured in case they cock up.
And they may pass this cost onto their customers.Comment
-
The 'no eaves' comment is a load of crock.Originally posted by Meehole View Post
We have been building houses for over 60 years with no eaves without a problem - think of all those 50s-70s weatherboards in the suburbs - no problems with leaks or rotting timber.
Is the builder an unskilled labourer who can't think and should be excused if he makes a mistake?The builder just follows the plan...
How many years training and what qualifications do they need to pass before they can be let loose to build houses?
They should be held accountable for their work - why would anyone argue against this?Comment
-
An unusually silly statement from you Bob. It's nonsense. If they followed code and their work was done properly then they did do their job. I have a friend who is a very good civil engineer. He refused to do any jobs for mono clad because he could see they would leak. The ones who knew and didn't call it are at fault not the builders.If a building leaks then the builder has not done his job properly.Comment
-
Everyone can refuse to do jobs if they are not happy.Originally posted by Bobsyouruncle View Post
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.Comment
-
but they shoukld only be liable for their own negligenceOriginally posted by Bobsyouruncle View Post
under Jolint and several the last man standing pays the lot amd that means the ratepayers. This is the rort that makes even the good guys vulnerable
NZ now has a litigation industry like the states where experts and lawyers have their noses in the troughs and wont take them out.
Owners accept lowest price "morris minor"and then expect the "rolls royce" what about caveat emptor.????
if builders cant mitigate their risk with limited liability then they cannot afford to do the work. If owners dont accept that risk them they shouldnt be owners!Comment
-
Exactly right, that is the situation, they should not be liable.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.Comment
Comment