| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 114850 | 2010-12-20 01:26:00 | Council held liable for leaky homes | 1101 (13337) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1163462 | 2010-12-20 02:25:00 | Once again for other reasons I am so pleased I don't live in a Super City!! | Snorkbox (15764) | ||
| 1163463 | 2010-12-20 02:28:00 | The council building inspectors check the house periodically during the building process & they are supposed to inspect the workmanship & the building itself to ensure it complies with the building code. They didn't check properly, the materials they said could be used weren't suitable, they're liable & in my book, should be liable for the whole cost. If the builder or the architect stuffs up, the inspection process is there to identify that & have the situation rectified before being passed & an inspection pass certificate being signed & handed to the builder. NZ was warned by other countries not to use the materials as they're unsuitable, but they went ahead & used them anyway. They're liable for the lot | Phil B (648) | ||
| 1163464 | 2010-12-20 02:28:00 | Lets say you're The Warehouse. You sell a toy bike. That bike breaks. Customer comes back to you and returns it. You replace it. Not The Warehouse's fault that the bike broke, they didn't make it, but they did "sign off on it" as a product suitable for sale, with a warranty... It's not that difficult. Huge difference there is the Warehouse imported & sold the product. The councils build & sold nothing, except an inspection. Given councils poor reputation, at everything across the board, can the buyer honestly say they only thought the house would be OK because of a council sign off. Heres a better eg, I want to buy a $500k car. I get the local incompetent garage to inspect. The car blows up or rusts to bits . Can I really hold the car inspector liable for the majority of the cost, rather than the seller of the car. Should I not have got someone more qualified & with a better rep than the local garage to inspect a $500k car. All this talk of 'the council' , 'the govt' must pay. You've got to realize that its you & me who will be paying. |
1101 (13337) | ||
| 1163465 | 2010-12-20 02:32:00 | The difference being that you had no choice as to who was going to sign off the work. If the Council did not sign off then you were in the gun anyway so you could not just go to a better qualified outfit. | Snorkbox (15764) | ||
| 1163466 | 2010-12-20 02:33:00 | As a builder and joiner myself let me point out that The council signed it off as fit for habitation without asking the builders opinion The builder accepted the architects plans without questioning design issues that his experience should have told him existed The architect should have done more homework on the design and asked for input from the builder who has experience of building quality homes In my view they are all equally responsible but the council should have been asking questions right at the sign off stage as the ultimately hold the reins as to whether a building complies or not. The scheme that they have been trying to introduce where trades certify there own work will not work as cowboys will sign off their work and in the event of problems shut up shop start again under a new name. There still needs to be an independent inspection which the councils are trying to wriggle out of supplying. :2cents: |
gary67 (56) | ||
| 1163467 | 2010-12-20 02:33:00 | The difference being that you had no choice as to who was going to sign off the work. If the Council did not sign off then you were in the gun anyway so you could not just go to a better qualified outfit. that no excuse for not using a 2nd competent inspector. |
1101 (13337) | ||
| 1163468 | 2010-12-20 02:38:00 | Its a mess! There are so many people to blame And we keep going round and round. What about the materials suppliers who pushed the building authority (was it Branz) to start using mono-clad coating and no soefits and no flashing and kiln dried timber) Why did not experienced builders point out that using these materials and these construction methods would result in disaster. Why did not the councils building experts say the same Why did not the architects say this is ridiculous it works in sunny Spain but not in rainy NZ. So they are all to blame and they should all pay. Call the builders back from Australia and make them pay. The architects and the building supply companies are still here. And what about the greedy developers who took a lower cost building opinion, bring them back from Australia to face the music. And the Green Party who pushed for non treated timber to be used, they are still there. Sue them as well. And the councils of course. |
Digby (677) | ||
| 1163469 | 2010-12-20 02:53:00 | The terms "experienced builders" and "architect" are mentioned more often than they were involved. | PaulD (232) | ||
| 1163470 | 2010-12-20 02:56:00 | Heres a better eg, I want to buy a $500k car. I get the local incompetent garage to inspect. The car blows up or rusts to bits . Can I really hold the car inspector liable for the majority of the cost, rather than the seller of the car. Should I not have got someone more qualified & with a better rep than the local garage to inspect a $500k car. All this talk of 'the council' , 'the govt' must pay. You've got to realize that its you & me who will be paying. That depends on if the local garage is signing off on a document saying "We believe this car to be fit for the use of XYZ, and it won't leak or rust etc etc". To a certain degree it's in the wording, and what they're staking their name on If you don't like it, then write a letter to the council, vote differently next time, convince others to vote differently, or leave the country. |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1163471 | 2010-12-20 03:38:00 | CORRUPTION ?? | bk T (215) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||