LEAKY HOMES & REASONS

Why do we have homes that rot out in this day and age when the old homes of yesteryear before treated timber was in use stood the test of time. What is the reason, and more importantely, what do we avoid in buying or building a home. The very basic general difference of yesteryears house and todays house is, the exterior walls could breathe. If you make a wall and line the inside with plasterboard, and the exterior with an airtight cover you create a vaccum in the wall. In other words the outside air pressure is greater than the air pressure inside the wall. A wall like that only requires a pin hole, and will suck water even uphill at an alarming rate. The builders use mastics and sealants that dry out and crack after a few years. The plumber screws his down pipes to the wall,that very well might be your first leak. The people that make the rules dont understand the problem. The master buiders are a complete and utter joke as an organization. Over the years some of their award winning homes are potential building disasters. When the building code gets changed its the blind leading the blind.
All the homes at risk are less than 25 years old. To avoid buying one at risk in that era, make sure its either brick or weatherboard.
The rules are about to get changed again, so dont get caught out. Make sure you have your code of compliance before then. The funny thing about it is, the old houses that stood the test of time wouldnt pass today, and todays houses are the ones with the problem. macdunk

I agree Macdunk. My 104 year-old kauri villa does not show any signs of rot, despite water seeping in the odd hole over the years. Why? Because it can BREATHE...

Sounds like my place Steve. My kauri villa is 110 years old - no rot despite everything. I even have a trapdoor for the old cold store under the house.

Agree MacDunk. Also one of my gripes is if a tradesman can't glue it they don't want to know about it.

The problem with the modern world is that we want everything CHEAP CHEAP. Cheap comes with a price. NZ rains so much, why do we want houses that is built for dry weather? All these Greek looking houses are designed for dry weather. Anyway, they all look the same and are ugly.

Quote:

---

quote:Originally posted by Bling_Bling

NZ rains so much, why do we want houses that is built for dry weather? All these Greek looking houses are designed for dry weather. Anyway, they all look the same and are ugly.

---

Because, someone said that it was what we all wanted/needed and like sheep we all followed...[^]

ONE of the reasons for problems is the master builders thamselves. I will give you all a true story, and leave the names out for obvious reasons. I have a resource consent allowing me to build houses on my property for removal to be relocated. I had an asian person with no building experience, but plenty of contacts wanted to buy four houses, to be placed at four different locations. I suggested to him that it would be much cheaper to build on site, with only one building permit, instead of two, less the added removal and resiteing cost. I also told him that i would get him to pay my man to draw up the site plan in his name, and lodge the permit application in his name. I ended up building at least thirty houses for this person who i must confess is a friend. He then asked me to build the leaky type houses in the high price bracket, which knowing better i refused. This person runs his own building company, and to put it in his own words is a MASSTA BUILDER.

Are the Master Builders still denying any liability for their members who were actually building leaky houses?!

STEVE When you dont understand what the problem is, how can you admit liability. They actually dont understand the scientific reason, and put the blame on bad workmanship. I argued for 20 years about it, and the idiots still dont understand. Look up duncan macgregor builder on google if you want long before leaky homes was an issue.

Aspex
Agree that eaves are useful. As a lay person observer I have some concern with the modern spouting system using the 'internal' overflow concept. I think it is fair to say that most city's storm water system is stretched to cope with the amount of water channeled into it. This will cause a back pressure on most dwellings and excessive overflow will run into the dwelling. An example was in the November 'flash flood' in Napier. A lot of modern houses got wet inside - most are not leaky houses. Thankfully our fully bricked 5 year old house was not affected. I think an 'external' overflow spouting system would be safer - especially with the increasing stress on the stormwater systems.
Would be interested in MacDunk's comments.

cheers

FOODEE,Any system of anything will go wrong sooner or later. What you must ask yourself is when it does go wrong and it will one day what happens then?. Would you feel confidenent to block the drainpipe and run a high pressure hose into it because one day sooner or later that will happen. If the answer is no dont do it or if it only means the water overflows onto the ground no worries.
macdunk

I have never been able to understand houses with internal gutterings

What I cant understand is how you can ever build a house with internal gutterings and not expect that one day , sooner or later , that the guttering will leak --- and where does the water go ? Not outside , but down inside the wall where it must get trapped because of all this modern stuff that doesnt allow the cavity to breathe --- result , a damp mouldy house and rotting timbers, especially in the area of the inside of the external walls
Is my thinking on this correct ? It seems pretty straight foward and logical to me
Regardless I would never buy a house with internal gutterings

As others have mentioned , the old houses with adequate eaves and walls that can breathe cope remarkably well

I am not a builder but in my humble opinion changing the old tried and true methods , for whatever reason , has been the major contributor to the current problems

Just finishing some repairs & mtce on a 3 year old "Rockcote" style home.
Corners not wrapped with fabric and now cracking at northern aspect. Painted in "low reflective value" dark colour has caused this.
Polystyrene decorative trim not covered in resin and birds have pecked holes in it. All decorative mouldings opening up as Poly straight edges haven't been fastened together - just loose butted and painted over.
Gutters brimming over with leaves etc - 60kg debris removed. Industry standard is minimum 50mm gap between roof edge and gutter not complied with so v/hard to clean..
Some butynol laps not glued down.
Naturally all signed off and Producer Statement hunky-dory.

Plenty of work for me - thanks MasterBuilders.

I sure hope that you found no major LEAKS or ROT during your investigations...

Out of interest, how long does it take for a 'leaky building' to start rotting?

STEVE,untreated wood that gets wet and cant breathe a very short time indeed. Trouble is it might only get wet on very rare occasions [the wind blowing in a certain direction]. The mastics and other sealers that are in common use are only gauranteed for a few years. If in doubt only buy a brick or weatherboard house all plaster exteriors avoid if you dont know what to look for. The master builders have been giving awards to those disasters for years. macdunk
PS about to change the rules again at the end of march be warned

macDunk - I had a good yarn with Robin Barnes the chemist at Fosroc today. I'm pretty fussy about what I squirt into other peoples' holes now.[:I][:o)]

Duncan,
Have you ever considered that the very reason that you can make so much money in Real Estate is one of the leading causes of leaky buildings

In NZ we have plenty of land relative to the size of the population, yet our elected (and unelected) officials squeeze more and more people closer and closer together in urban areas, downsizing minimum building site sizes regularly.

The positive results for property investors - scarcity of development land, high density infill housing, low home affordabilty -ie high and rising prices.

Architects have responded to the challenge of building large homes on small sites while still complying with recession plane regulations (for best profit margins, and the sheer challenge in some cases no doubt)have designed houses with box windows, no eaves and internal gutters and decks - the prime cause of leaky buildings.

Selling your house is going to place the vendor in a position that they cannot in all honesty sign in most cases. Under the latest terms of sale the clauses read.
A. THE VENDOR HAS FULLY COMPLIED WITH ANY REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED IN ANY COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE ISSUED BY A TERRITORIAL AUTHORITY UNDER THE BUILDING ACT IN RESPECT OF THE BUILDING.

B THE BUILDING HAS A CURRENT WARRANT OF FITNESS UNDER THE BUILDING ACT.

C THE VENDOR IS NOT AWARE OF ANY REASON, THAT THE VENDOR HAS NOT DISCLOSED IN WRITING TO THE PURCHASER, WHICH WOULD PREVENT A BUILDING WARRANT OF FITNESS COMPLYING WITH THE BUILDING ACT FROM BEING SUPPLIED TO THE TERRITORIAL AUTHORITY WHEN THE THE BUILDING WARRANT OF FITNESS IS DUE.

D THE TERRITORIAL AUTHORITY HAS NOT ISSUED ANY NOTICE UNDER THE BUILDING ACT TO THE VENDOR OR ANY AGENT OF THE VENDOR WHICH HAS NOT BEEN REMEDID BY THE VENDOR, AND THE VENDOR IS NOT AWARE OF ANY REASON, THAT THE VENDOR THAT THE VENDOR HAS NOT DISCLOSED IN WRITING TO THE PURCHASER, WHICH COULD ENTITLE THE TERRITORIAL AUTHORITY TO ISSUE SUCH NOTICE.

lots of trouble ready to boil over soon with that lot. macdunk

Duncan can you post reference for this Please

ENIGMA, The clauses that i quoted are now the standard additional clauses to a home sale contract on any mreinz contract. What i inferred was that a vendor now cannot in all honesty sign as a truthfull document, and this will lead to problems further down the track. macdunk

Duncan was this clause mandated or what made them insert this. I am looking to purchase a house in NZ for retirement within the next two years so imformation like this would be much appreciated thanks.

ENIGMA, All the said clauses are now mandated If you want a basic problem free house then stick to what basically is problem free. Houses that come in the range of plaster exteriors 1975-2005 unless you have building knowledge dont buy. If you really want advice ask an old time builder. If you really really want advice in auckland then it costs a bottle of whisky if you ken what i mean. macdunk.

Most private free standing houses do not have any equipment in them that requires a Warrant of Fitness therefore they don't need a WOF (infact I don't know of any).

Warrant of Fitnesses are required for lifts, sprinkler systems, etc, etc., in buildings that the public have access to. A lift in a private house does not need a WOF.

Private houses that were consented after July 1994 should have a Code Compliance Certificate (CCC) but that really only states that, on the day the house was inspected, it complied with the Building Act. It may not currently comply.

Houses built prior to 1994 (thats when the Building Act 1991 became law)under the old Building Permit system cannot be issued with a CCC but you can get a "Safe and Sanitary" letter from the local council.

That WOF clause would therefore only apply to a commercial building, which would include the public areas of an apartment building, ie the lift and any fire protection systems in particular.

Dinosaur that was my understanding to, that WOF only applied to comercial buildings. But there was some talk of making it an obligation to declare any defects they knew of. Duncan may take you up on your offer but Auckland is not the priority. But possible

Just a correction to my post above. Actually, there is one item found on some private residential properties that will need a annual Building Warrant of Fitness(BWOF)and that is residential cable cars. Mainly found in Wellington though.

We are now getting more nonsense about rotting timber from the knumbskulls that control the building industry. Very simple solution, easy to fix, problem solved in one stroke of the pen.
All building regulations and systems, to comply with the 1970 code of compliance, and any systems and materials developed after that to be severely tested. We have airtight walls that suck water up hill, we have mastics with a ten year life span, we fill walls up with batts to the extent that walls cant breathe. we have people building and designing, that are completely clueless, we dont teach appretices like we used to. The building trade is a complete shambles and getting worse. macdunk

MacDunk, what is your *industry-knowledge* take on this surface-treated wood that they are now on about? Is it an over-reaction?

Steve, That is not the problem. The houses of the last century are still up and serving their owners well. They didnt treat wood in those days. The problem is they dont have a clue about design, or any of the more scientific reasons that create this problem. Pressure treated timber, is far superior to painted treated timber, but that has nothing to do with the problem. The problem lies in the fact that design is completely wrong. Build a house with untreated wood exactly as your great grandfather did, and it will last 150 years. Let the timber breathe no stupid insulation in the wall.
macdunk

So the current noise about wood is just for political purposes?...

Just like to add my ten cents worth here.

One aspect the powers that be have not addressed is internal moisture. The cladding can be as water tight as a submarine, but unless you have systems to remove internal moisture, you will have moisture and rotting in external walls.

As Duncan mentoned, they didn't have a problem in the 1970 because houses still breathed then, although we have to insulate now. No building paper was used behind bricks or timber weatherboards, except shiplap back then. Holes were drilled for ventilation so that dry roof space air could circulate down through the walls. Now it is mandatory to seal the roof space off from the wall cavity. To make it worse, people now days tend to leave houses shut up during the day because they are working and at night for security, so that internal moisture just hangs around waiting for a cold surface to condensate on which are in the external walls.

That old black buiding paper which was absorbant has mainly been replaced by non-absorbant synthetic wraps which are basically plastic with a few holes punched in it and they call it breathable. They say they have been tested. Well have you seen what happens to carrots when you leave them in those plastic bags with holes in? Yes, they rot.

There are a couple of brands of wraps that are absorbant but I see mainly the cheaper wraps being used.

With no ventlation in the walls I believe we are sitting on a time bomb as the new Building Act has moved to make walls even more airtight.

In Canada, where our powers that be have looked for a solution, they heat the entire house 24/7 over winter, so interiors tend to be dryer than here in NZ. Here we are told only to heat the room we are in. Plus people still use unvented LPG heaters. You then can't use Canadian systems here and expect to get the same results.

But don't listen to me, I'm just an old dinosaur with 35 years experience in the building industry.

Finally someone is talking sense........

Quote:

---

quote:Design, not the timber, leads to leaky buildings, says expert
19.07.05
By Arnold Pickmere

Poor design, not untreated timber, is the leading cause of leaky buildings, says a Canadian expert.

Dr John Straube told an Auckland University symposium yesterday that the biggest problem was modern designs which exposed building seams to wind and rain - simple things such as not having eaves or proper flashings on windows, flat roofs and enclosed decks.

Better design of wall systems would ensure that water which got in could also get out.

Dr Straube, who has a joint role with the University of Waterloo's civil engineering department and school of architecture in Ontario, said using untreated timber in a modern building in which moisture and rain were not controlled was like using a canary in a coalmine.

"You put some untreated timber in a building, so you found out [about leaks] sooner," he said.

Moisture problems in buildings had occurred in various countries with both wood and steel framing.

Untreated timber was also used in many countries. But the qualities of such timbers varied. Dr Straube thought the best of untreated New Zealand pinus radiata was equal to the worst of Canadian timbers.

But when the timber was treated to H1.2 [full sapwood penetration timber] it was better than the best of untreated Canadian timber.

But the essential thrust of Dr Straube's lecture was that buildings leak. Even a glass-clad building may eventually leak round the sealants.

He said there were buildings hundreds of years old which had been designed to cope with the present problems. "It's not new technology and its not rocket science."

Professor Geoff Duffy, of the Auckland University's faculty of engineering, said: "Wood is hygroscopic as well as bio-active, so we must keep water away from it or remove it when it does invade."

Greg O'Sullivan, of buildings surveyor Prendos, said comparing untreated pinus radiata with, say, douglas fir in Vancouver was not comparing like-products.

The douglas fir was much slower-growing and had a lot of natural turpentine, which increased its resistance to insects.

Mr O'Sullivan said the biggest problem New Zealand faced was to educate designers and builders.

---

Sorry Ari, I might be sounding like the little boy in the story, The emperor has no clothes!
What if the system they want to educate us on is wrong?

Do you need to be an academic to know the problem, and is a academic "an expert"?

Building seams have been exposed to wind and rain for hundreds of years, in buildings built of untreated timber. I do agree about his comment on NZ Radiata Pine, as I have always believed our best wood is exported. Our pine now seems to have a very open cell structure because it has grown so quickly, hence it will take up moisture if exposed to it.

Take your average 100 year old victorian villa. Small to no eaves, large exposed faces, very exposed seams as in boxed corners, especially in two storied gabled villas, no back flashings, no silicone, no building paper and no rotting and built of untreated kauri which will rot quite quickly when exposed, especially prone dry rot. OK, they are as cold as heck in winter.

The reason for not rotting seems to be the top to bottom wall cavity ventilation, although I have recently been involved in a villa restoration and although the weather boards were only 12mm thick with as little as a 20-25mm lap and no weather grooves there was no sign of water staining which is associated with periodic water penetration and no rot. It did have borer though.
This villa was on a very exposed hill in the country. Looking from inside out through the weatherboards there was plenty of daylight showing hence you would expect that driven rain would have come in.

This breaks all the new rules yet it has stood the test of time for over 100 years????? Maybe it due to pressure equalisation, that is if the pressure behind the cladding is equal to that on the outside, water is not drawn in, even if there are gaps.

The new cavities E2/AS1 (the new acceptable solution for external claddings) calls for are NOT ventilated cavities, but in fact drainage cavities as there is no requirement to have vents at the top of the cavity, like in brick veneer constuction, only at the bottom, which will be prone to being blocked by insects, especially mason bees and wasps.

Having seen the verification method they are using to test claddings, my first reaction was that it didn't represent a real situation with unequal pressures on each side of the wall system that you get in a house, infact there was no internal lining and the test wall was open at the top to the back.

DINOSAUR, It is all very simple to understand really. All this treated timber, or untreated timber, or bad builders has very little to do with the problem. The problem lies solely with the people that make the rules. The rules up to the seventies never encountered the leaky home problems that we have today. They had bad builders idiot designers, untreated wood, so lets concentrate on what changed. The spanish look was born, thats when the rules changed. We had air tight walls full of insulation like it was the artic circle. That in its self is a great mistake the pressure inside the wall is less than the pressure outside the wall, so that the wall will suck water up hill like drinking with a straw. They still dont know that, that is the problem they run round like headless chooks each blaming the other.If you want a ROLLSROYCE job dont try and do it with LADA parts. If you want a Spanish house build it with blocks the way the Spaniards do not like these clowns on a timber frame. macdunk
PS brick or weatherbrds or nothing

Quote:

---

quote:PS brick or weatherbrds or nothing

---

I have moved from a brick house of 16yrs old into new 'chilly bin' house. This new house (with gas fire) has no condensation what ever as the aluminium joinery allows the rooms to breath. Whereas the brick house had the earlier joinery and condensation was such a problem that the varnished window sills had started to rot.
The new building system, whether it be weather boards or insulclad has a far superior system as a secondary barrier than anything before.
If certain persons on this site took the time instead of jumping on the wagon along with everyone else to familiarise themselves with systems such as Themocraft coverup and Protecta sill systems we might just have an informed debate.

ARI, Good luck with the new house, but it is you that has a lot to learn. Windows that can breathe are great . Your cavity system on your chilly bin house leaves a lot to be desired. It stops the suction problem but it falls over very badly later on as you will find. Lift a bottom plate up and look at the state damp course gets in after a few years. Remove the outside cladding and see what happened to the building paper. Fix lots of jobs up like i have done then you wont be so smug about living in a chilly bin. macdunk

Yes I agree there have been major probs with earlier 'chilly bin' houses. I assisted on repair of one 3 years ago and I tried to get owners to reclad as the probs are still onging. My bro built with monotek system and his probs are just starting so I certaintly did not go into this lightly.Time will prove whether paper rots just like the black paper did on the brick house.
What I am saying is that if people took the time to avail themselves of info available (it's not rocket science as someone said) and not keep saying it never happened 100 years ago!
The sealing system around doors and windows is certainly superior to anything (none) available in the past. As is the requirement to champher doors/ window bottom plates to outside for drainage.

ARI, The sealing system round windows and doors creates a great problem. In the old days there was a gap between the window liner, and the frame, other than wedges with a scriber on the outside. Today under the latest rules we have a 10 mm gap between the liner and the frame that gets filled with gap filler, which creates a suction in its self, plus a capillary reaction. The people making the rules never went to night school like we old timers did, and know nothing about the science side of building. The mastic sealers have a short life read what it says on the tube sometime. macdunk

Duncan...I give up, you win.
Pity you did not put your name forward for the Auckland Uni Symposium to expound your views.
Good luck with your crusade.

Ari,

Actually, I'm probably more of an "expert" than those in the media at the moment. I tried to warn the promotors back in 95 when the untreated timber was being introduced, but my concerns were dismissed. The "experts" knew better. So I will just sit back now and wait for the next disaster, as life is to short to keep hitting your head against a brick wall.

Just remember, many of those failed systems were Appraised by BRANZ as meeting the requirements of the Building Code. Now if you relied on those appraisals and used them you are unlikely to get a CCC. Now whose fault is that?

Those condensation channels have been standard on aluminium windows for many years now, and yes they do save the window linings. The reason your house may not show condensation on the windows is that you are probably heating it which will keep the internal water vapour airbourne.

I presume your gas fire is vented, that is, it has a flue.

Those DVS systems will help too.

Plaster Systems (Insulclad) Ltd actually recommend the use of a "semi-absorbant breather type-building membrane" in their cavity system. 'Thermakraft Cover-up' is a non-absorbant membrane and I would not use it in the situation you discribe. In fact I only specify asborbant wraps such as Thermakraft Watergate or Gib Frameguard II or the original bituminous type building papers of suitable weight. So I hope your house does not develop problems in the years to come.

I actually quite like the Insulclad cavity system, installed correctly its a good system.

2 houses built identically but in different locations could behave quite differently depending on the occupants and it's location.
A house on a north slope where someone is at home all the time and opens the windows during the day and heats it at night, especially with electric heaters, will be dryer than the same house type on a south slope kept locked up all day and heated by a portable LPG heater at night.

Look inside the walls of the latter in 15 years time and I think you will be very surprised.

PS: Claddings only have to perform for 15 years under the code although I would be annoyed as heck if I had to replace my house cladding every 15-20 years. Hence timber weatherboards have become very popular, in fact after brick, I would say they are the currently the cladding of choice.

I agree with Duncan, they made us Insulation walls, which means you need a still air space to make the insulation effective, but I don't think they ever bothered to test the system when it was first introduced.

In the late 70's, early 80's they used Gibfoil which formed a vapour barrier on the back face of the gib board, hence internal vapour could not get into the wall cavity. Maybe that was a fluke? Then gibfoil was "outlawed" in the late 80's. Now with some plastic wraps, we in effect have a vapour barrier on the outside of the frame, as I don't believe those micro sized holes will let all the excess vapour through. That was a big NO NO when I went to tech.

Just like my breathable $800 ski jacket fails to let all my body vapour out when I'm skiing hard out and wets the layer of clothing immediately under it. My wife with the same brand of jacket stays completely dry, but then she takes it gently.

Quote:

---

quote:Originally posted by duncan macgregor

Why do we have homes that rot out in this day and age when the old homes of yesteryear before treated timber was in use stood the test of time. What is the reason, and more importantely, what do we avoid in buying or building a home. The very basic general difference of yesteryears house and todays house is, the exterior walls could breathe. If you make a wall and line the inside with plasterboard, and the exterior with an airtight cover you create a vaccum in the wall. In other words the outside air pressure is greater than the air pressure inside the wall. A wall like that only requires a pin hole, and will suck water even uphill at an alarming rate. The builders use mastics and sealants that dry out and crack after a few years. The plumber screws his down pipes to the wall,that very well might be your first leak. The people that make the rules dont understand the problem. The master buiders are a complete and utter joke as an organization. Over the years some of their award winning homes are potential building disasters. When the building code gets changed its the blind leading the blind.
All the homes at risk are less than 25 years old. To avoid buying one at risk in that era, make sure its either brick or weatherboard.
The rules are about to get changed again, so dont get caught out. Make sure you have your code of compliance before then. The funny thing about it is, the old houses that stood the test of time wouldnt pass today, and todays houses are the ones with the problem. macdunk

---

I thought that i would bring this old post of mine back now that blame is about to be placed on who pays for what in the courts.
1, do we blame the home owner for being so stupid. YES.
2, Do we blame the people that changed the building rules without any practical knowledge. YES
3, I always refused to build this type of home do we blame the builders that did, when they should have known better. YES
4, Do we blame the people that extorts money at a ridiculous rate who issues the permits and inspects those leaky homes. yes
5, The people that changed the rules first the inspectors second the builder third and the home owner last. I think all are equally responsible and should pay in equal ammounts.
To fix the problem change the code back to the seventies before this all started. Pointless having a leaky gaurantee on a house of twenty years when the sealants round the windows have a thirteen year gaurantee. The master builders association are most at fault how many of their home of the year awards are leaky homes?. I have looked on in horror at what they have given awards to over the years.
macdunk

Quote:

---

quote:Originally posted by duncan macgregor
I thought that i would bring this old post of mine back now that blame is about to be placed on who pays for what in the courts.
1, do we blame the home owner for being so stupid. YES.
2, Do we blame the people that changed the building rules without any practical knowledge. YES
3, I always refused to build this type of home do we blame the builders that did, when they should have known better. YES
4, Do we blame the people that extorts money at a ridiculous rate who issues the permits and inspects those leaky homes. yes
5, The people that changed the rules first the inspectors second the builder third and the home owner last. I think all are equally responsible and should pay in equal ammounts.
To fix the problem change the code back to the seventies before this all started. Pointless having a leaky gaurantee on a house of twenty years when the sealants round the windows have a thirteen year gaurantee. The master builders association are most at fault how many of their home of the year awards are leaky homes?. I have looked on in horror at what they have given awards to over the years.
macdunk

---

MacD – you’ve left someone off your list – the designer / architect. So many consumers rely on the expertise of these people to have a design that is going to last the test of time – except these people continued to design homes which were not built to keep out the elements. They will no doubt say their designs were within the “Rules” – but they shouldn’t hide behind dodgy rules. I’d be putting these people at the top of your list!

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.

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

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airedale

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!

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

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|||

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duncan macgregor

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.