sharetrader
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 49
  1. #16
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    chch, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    21

    Default

    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.




  2. #17
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Auckland, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    2,431

    Default

    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

  3. #18
    Guest

    Default

    Duncan can you post reference for this Please

  4. #19
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Auckland, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    2,431

    Default

    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

  5. #20
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  6. #21
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Auckland, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    2,431

    Default

    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.

  7. #22
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    29

    Default

    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.

  8. #23
    Guest

    Default

    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

  9. #24
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    29

    Default

    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.

  10. #25
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Auckland, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    2,431

    Default

    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

  11. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,321

    Default

    MacDunk, what is your *industry-knowledge* take on this surface-treated wood that they are now on about? Is it an over-reaction?
    Death will be reality, Life is just an illusion.

  12. #27
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Auckland, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    2,431

    Default

    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

  13. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,321

    Default

    So the current noise about wood is just for political purposes?...
    Death will be reality, Life is just an illusion.

  14. #29
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    29

    Default

    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.

  15. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Wainui, New Zealand.
    Posts
    876

    Default

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

    quoteesign, 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.

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
  •