sharetrader
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 49 of 49
  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,221

    Default

    Don't forget that just because a house is called a 'leaky house', it may not actually be one...

    Auckland builder says he did not build a leaky house
    The builder of a home at the heart of the leaky building landmark case has defended his workmanship and vowed to continue building.

    Robert McDonald told the New Zealand Herald the Hobsonville home of Colleen Dicks "is not a leaky home.

    "I've always maintained it is not a leaky home. It is 100 percent right but for two flashings that aren't working," he told the Herald.
    Death will be reality, Life is just an illusion.

  2. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Auckland, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,408

    Default

    Just like a bucket with holes in it.
    It does not leak until you put something in it

  3. #43
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Auckland, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    2,314

    Default

    I think This is the thread you were interested in . Macdunk

  4. #44
    Advanced Member airedale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Above the high tide mark.
    Posts
    1,508

    Default

    I know a builder in Auckland. He has a job with one of the companies that have a contract to [try and ] deal with " leaky homes". The house that he was working on a few months ago had actually won the Master Builders Home of The Year two years ago. It still leaked.

  5. #45
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by airedale View Post
    The house that he was working on a few months ago had actually won the Master Builders Home of The Year two years ago. It still leaked.
    There must be some mistake? Dunc started this thread in 2005 - and leaky homes had been around before then. The master builders home was probably built in the last four years - hopefully the tax payer isn't stumping up to repair this one!

  6. #46
    Advanced Member airedale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Above the high tide mark.
    Posts
    1,508

    Default

    That is the point, Minimoke, "leaky homes" have been around since building standards were changed for the worse, and they are still being built.

  7. #47
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Well there we go folks. The politicions in there wisdom cut out apprenticeships; by the time they realised what a muckup they had made all the old fellas who had the knowledge were gone. A huge vacuum existed and was filled by people who knew nothing passing on nothing; this was further complicated by the green party deciding untreated timber was best and this also endorsed by the timber industry saying "if timber is smooth it does not need treatment" . Further more the use of open cell polystyrene as an insulation material which is also hygroscopic does not help. You are correct about old houses . dry rot in any timber is caused by moisture trapped in crevices without ventilation. My last attendance at a leaky home meeting was a complete farce. Conducted by a political appointee who had no knowledge of building attempted to run a meeting of this nature without an agenda or direction . After nine hours without resolution we all went home ; estimated cost $800.00 PER HOUR.
    Three of the attendees and myself [old time tradesmen] just could,nt believe what transpired but decided that it was just another case of the blind leading the blind which is so prevelant in todays world. I,m pleased to reveal that i live in a home built of heart rimu and matai that has stood the test of time for 82 years.
    It is interesting to note that the govt dept that introduced these building regulations, and therefore would be financially liable has been done away with. How convenient|||

  8. #48
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Auckland, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    2,314

    Default

    When will we ever learn from the mistakes made in the past?. First of all it was leaky homes brought upon the unsuspecting public who thought they might have a spanish plaster copy look over a timber frame. Now we have an earthquake, which is an expected occurence in NZ which caused massive damage. This could have been avoided with a little bit of thought. All houses should sit on a raft foundation for starters. The house should be able to move similar to a ship in water. If you want a brick veneer, then the foundation beams should be strong enough to take the extra weight. The foundation should sit on a layer of sand to allow ground movement lessening the force of the shake from the structure of the building. Concrete tile roofs should not be allowed in areas of high risk. Long run colour steel roofs should be encouraged, with weather board exteriors. The insurance industry should get with it and charge accordingly, but first of all they should understand the risk and learn a bit of practical. The greatest problem in the industry is the ignorance is bliss attitude to practical reality, where the gullible end up paying the piper.
    In an earthquake situation your house should remain standing even although it might be on an almighty lean and still habitable. macdunk

  9. #49
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duncan macgregor View Post
    In an earthquake situation your house should remain standing even although it might be on an almighty lean and still habitable. macdunk
    Duncan. No house fell down in the earthquake - with the exception of some really old ones and even then they didn't totally fall down. The severely damaged ones were the ones that were built on a raft foundation on a base of sand. Unfortunately the sand liquefied and the slabs broke. Most house remain habitable - if you don't mind being on a lean, have no sewage due to broken pipes and water to broken supply.

    The brick veneers essentially stood up to the stress - unless they were old buildings which didn't have the bricks tied and the mortar was a bit old. New brick house veneer broke - no surprise given it was the slab that broke when the ground split.

    Concrete tile roofs didn't cause too many problems. Its was the brick chimneys falling that was the issue.

    My place is on a raft and didn't break. Indeed at 4.35am it rocked precisely like a ship on a big swell - the floor pitched so much the kids couldn't stand.(edit - and its why it continues to rock as I type when every after shock comes through!) But the cracks now make it a leaky house. One of my ex-rentals had a weatherboard exterior and the bulldozer will go through it once it gets to that street.

    The problem wasn't so much the house construction (which on the whole was pretty good - hence no deaths). It was the land the houses were built on. And the bone for those problems can be pointed to the developers who developed the land.
    Last edited by minimoke; 08-10-2010 at 12:23 PM. Reason: aftershock

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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