• Login:
Welcome, Register Here
follow PropertyTalk on facebook follow PropertyTalk on twitter Newsletter follow PropertyTalk on LinkedIn follow PropertyTalk on facebook
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 15 of 15
  1. #11


    it is suitable for eaves as there is a well ventilated space above and frankly is rarely wetted. It isnt the product per se but the way it is used. The manuafacturers never did weathertight testing of the jointing and window details etc. When they did they found they leaked like sieves? Did they tell us this when they found out ?? ? NO they didnt, Do they now insist on a cavity ?? yes they do.

  2. #12


    Quote Originally Posted by John the builder View Post
    The product is crap and because it is absorbent transmits moisture to the frame unless the face seal is perfect. There are court cases currently deciding if James hardie are liable for misrepresenting their products.

    It works well with a cavuty because the cavity allows moisture to dissipate. Your house has well treated timber so is resilient to moisture, The serious problems occur untreated timber used between 1995-2003

    board and batten effect is good because you can easily replace parts and remove to inspect framing if there is a problem.

    mr S;

    the cavity we refer to is on outside of frame. There should be insulation in walls as this was a mandatory requirement from 1976(?) (albiet not well done or generous)

    From what i can gather, any problems related to fibre cement board were confined to monolithic clad buildings. Those are the only cases presently before the courts. The vast majority of homes built with the fibre cement boards which was the most popular external cladding product of its time in the 70's & 80's have not had issues.

  3. #13


    the houses of the 70's and 80's had well treated timber.

    The boards were likely weatherboards which allow leaks to drain and have minimal contact with the frame

    I have personally seen brick veneers and weatherboards involved, but yes the worse ones were (and are) the monolithics because they usually represented the worst designs and the highest risk.
    Strictly speaking this case is a monolithic as well?

  4. #14


    Thanks for clarifying that John, and yes advice to original thread poster to proceed with caution as they may have used untreated timber for the framing though very unlikely if built in 1986 as that falls outside the period of 95-2003

  5. #15


    No untreated framing was unheard of then but the workmanship was the same?


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Fibre installation in a small BC
    By Merlot Mike in forum Property Improvements (NZ)
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 20-07-2018, 06:04 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-12-2016, 02:48 PM
  3. use of external walls
    By Diskrete in forum Commercial Property (NZ)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 20-04-2016, 10:31 PM
  4. Hardiplank, fibrolite and fibre cement houses
    By OneStepCloser in forum Property Investment (NZ)
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 17-02-2016, 05:15 PM
  5. Difference between steel cladding and "normal" cladding eg weatherboard?
    By YayHouses in forum Property Investment (NZ)
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 12-05-2013, 09:48 PM
  6. External house - painting
    By Lenny69 in forum Property Improvements (NZ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 28-01-2010, 08:30 PM
  7. Fibre Plank
    By williamfieldman in forum Property Investment (NZ)
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 19-07-2009, 06:27 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts