John

Many thanks for your background and details.
I'm sure there are many who did all the checks they could.
But why should I as a taxpayer help to bail out people who suffer misfortune? You could argue that I was 'responsible' for government failures on regulation, but then you're getting into some fairly vague territory.
This is an ugly situation and you're right it has to be fixed.
But there is a market solution for it. The banks and the owners will lose. Transactions will happen.
That's the market at work.

Sorry I'm not much help and you make a good point about emotive language. I'm just sick to death of governments using my money to fix other people's problems or compensate them for misfortune.

Kind regards
Bernard

John

I think it's time the people who bought the houses (many of whom are sitting on large capital gains) should take the pain, as should the banks who lent them the money in that frenzy for capital gains that doubled house prices from 2002 to 2007.

NZ cannot afford to bail out home owners. I'm sorry, but they must take the pain and move on.
If the government bailed out everyone we would see a good NZ$5 bln handed over to the poor souls stuck in finance company debentures. Or what about those who bought Telecom at NZ$9 a share?

I'm sorry. But New Zealanders who took the risk should take their hit and move on.

Kind regards
Bernard

John

When did you buy? If you bought after 2005/06 you may have lost. But why should taxpayers pay for you buying at the peak and being unlucky on leaky buildings?
Someone made the capital gains. Investment property owners made about NZ$100 billion in capital gains between 2002 and early 2008. Median house prices are still only 5% below that. At most the cumulative capital gains are around NZ$95 bln.

Bernard

John

I'm big on personal responsibility. Ultimately the person responsible for the house is the owner. I'd love to see all the developers, builders and architects and bureaucrats prosecuted. The owners need to prosecute these people and get their money back.
If leaky home owners get a bailout then so should finance company investors. Where would you stop?

Bernard

You make a good point about the lawyers. I'm also no fan of the bureaucrats involved here.
But the last thing I want to do is for the government to let everyone off the hook by using my money to make the problem go away. Unfortunately, the problem will simply be transferred to younger generations. The generation that took the decisions (to build, to design, to approve, to buy) should take the pain. Not those too young/or stupid to organise themselves to vote against these sorts of policies aimed at keeping babyboomers happy.

Bernard

Vaughan

You made me laugh a little.

Where can I buy a leaky house so the govt. can rebuild it for me.

But only in a pained way.

Stay in Japan for now. This government won't fix our problems.

cheers
Bernard

Bernard - seconded!!

I'm sick of hearing about how I have to cough up for peoples misfortune...WHY I ask?. I didn't force them to buy, and I don't give a toss about how much due diligience they said they did - don't they have bloody eyes! One look at the exterior of any of these buildings and it would be very apparent that the cladding would allow water in, not keep it out (in other words its basic common sense).

John - Sorry, but that is life, you bought a lemon - get over it .Why should I (and every other taxpayer) be held to ransom for your misfortune? My advice: sue your council or walk away, but don't ask me to pay.

Hi,
Have just read your article on the bail out for people with a leaky home.
I for one are sick and tired of these moaning bluddgers,as they signed the cheuque to buy there home,and if they did not do there home work do not go and blame someone else, It is there problem as they are the ones that thought they were onto a deal. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.
The problem is the country is insolvent at present and there is no money,so pull out your hammer and saw and get on with it.
Cheers.

Bernard,

The Government is not offering to pay for the repairs, but to guarantee the loans. It is the safety net that allow repairs to proceed.

We are in a complex of 55 units, all of the same design and very modest. In order to fix the problem, each owner needs to find between $100k and $150k. A great number of the owners are unable to raise such funds. End of story. We have no-one to sue. If we can't get guaranteed loans, our complex will simply rot away, creating even more beneficiaries. ( We are considering a re-build, rather than a fix)

I have suggested a capital gains tax to fund the costs as well. It is the only way to address the problem, without making the taxpayer at large to cough up for someone else's problem.
At the recent meeting Maurice Williamson held in Ellerslie, he kept on talking about this 11 point something billion problem. The size of the problem to the government however is likely to be a very small portion of the cost, so why mention this astronomical figure in the first place?

Common sense will fix it, not inflated figures and heads in hands.

Hi Bernard,

Thanks for your reply.

I completely agree with you re the capital gains.

The loan without repayments is deemed to be available to only a small number of people, such as retirees. The opinions we got from Maurice Williamson was more on the lines of low interest loans based on peoples income. Some people would not qualify for any special rates.

Based on your opinion, I take it that you are not presently (or knowingly) affected by a leaky home. Every single owner in our complex, apart from the units bought off plans, did due diligence and had a building report commissioned prior to purchase. They all came back clear until recently.

Looking back what causes the majority of the problem (untreated timber) the government is clearly liable (if only morally). Your choice of words, calling it a poor decision of home owners, is hardly appropriate, especially in a case, where local shortages of accommodation and financial constraints prevented ordinary people from buying a better quality home. This incidentally is not a guarantee that it would not leak, judging by the number of claims from "elite" suburbs.

In most cases you are talking about ordinary people, simply trying to live in a place of their own. This is different to people losing in the stock market or finance companies. I hope capital gains is introduced!

Kind regards

Rolf

Bernard,

I'll just remind you that the "Younger Generation" you keep referring too will need a place to live, go to school, etc. If every leaky building own walked away (we can't because we are not allowed to sell) the only solution is to bulldoze. So were will these children live?

BTW I’m all for a capitol gains tax...leaky problem or not.

Jamie,

Why should taxpayers who are not home owners feel part of a community that has created and managed the single largest transfer of wealth between generations in the history of New Zealand.

Why should 20 year olds who are graduating with big student debt and the prospect of 50% plus income tax rates after 2020 pay for babyboomers to retire now with reclad houses. It just locks in that intergenerational theft.

cheers
Bernard

I'm not sure where I stand on this issue (I genuinely feel there are many who made good decisions but have been punished). On the other hand, it does remind me of the bank bailout mentality (personalise profits, socialise losses).

Not that John but agree with his sentiments.

So as a law abiding citizen I have been screwed by the government and I have no redress, they made the rules, the rules were flawed and I have to pay again *rap!

The government cannot make rules and not bear the consequences, thats why they have the power to make the rules.

Am I annoyed at having to pay, yes I am, but I should be able to sue the government for negligence and the government should go after the materials suppliers.

It is totally irrelavent to say that you should use your capital gains, for the market to work we should be able to sue the government and the government has the power to go after the materials suppliers.

Typical property owner bashing, as they are easy targets, I don't see any naming of the ministers of government and sub committees, I see no indepth analysis of the causes and materials suppliers, the decision manking process and where it all went wrong, the property owner is the weakest party so pick on them.

Do the analysis find the fault or systemic failure and then go after the culprits instead of saying the market will work it out.

John Typical NZ BBB (Baby Boomer Bludgers) Mentality from you.

You can't sue the government because it is bankrupt always at all times it has no assets no money nothing, everything it earns it either takes from living taxpayers or unborn ones.

John both of you why do you support slavery??? and please don't give me any democratic arguments that the people voted for this legislation, they didn't how did a baby born today vote for legislation. I know the typical BBB response is to force unborn NZ children to be their personal tax slaves but at some point you have to see the evilness of your position John.

No. I saved for five years and sacrificed a lot in my late 20s-early 30s while others were partying to save 70k to buy my own place (a humble $250k flat in Wellington) last year so I could escape the rental trap. I'm sick of the government paying for everyone's lives. I'm truly, truly sorry for other people in this situation, but why should I pay for it? I've also got a 35k student loan from the 1990s, a third of which is compounding interest from day one. Can the government please wipe that for me too?

this is a tricky one.
I certainly think there is a case for Govt assistance, as reluctant as I am to support that view.
This crisis was largely a result of failed government policy, so it makes sense for Govt to (at least partly) resolve the problem.
I do think like many others though that there is a an element of "buyer beware" here too
Perhaps owners such as John who got a positive report (faulty though it was) could be entitled to compensation, and those who didn't do due diligence don't get compensation?
On my scale of sympathy, it is those owners who got a false building report that I feel for the most
don't know if that would really work....

I have been very depressed over the last years by the fact that I cannot have my own house. I went through multiple attempts and found myself renting for probably the rest of my life.

I have good profissional income and quite substantial deposit, well above required 20% of so called "value" of the house.

However, every time I looked at buying, I saw horrible risks involved, that *will* jeopardise the well being of my family. Among those risks is very poor quality of houses that are left available since the hosing boom.

I can now call myself prudent and responsible, however, I have to accept the fact that I will probably never have my own place to live in. This is the price for being prident and responsible. And this is not something that I can easily live with, belive me.

I pay top income tax and have to support two dependants, without any help from the government. I pay for my daughter (student) accomodation, living cost, etc. just because I have above average salary.

Now, could somebody like John please explain, why should I, on top of my own struggling and suffering, "help" those who did not *think* they were putting their famiily in jeopardy?

Why I had to overcome the temptation of buying a horribly overpriced wet matches box but not you John?

Bernard

Why is the responsibility for this problem laid solely with the regulatory authorities?

Yes, the building code and NZ Standards were slightly at fault for not giving specific enough weatherproofing details. Yes, councils were responsible for not doing rigorous enough inspections of vulnerable areas both while under construction and at the planning stage. However 95% of the problem lies with the use of materials which the manufacturer had not only endorsed as meeting necessary standards of durability but had often also provided full construction details showing how their products should be installed.

Why are James Hardie, Fletcher Building, Carter Holt Harvey etc not being held accountable for the failure of their products? They escaped much of the blame over asbestos (despite tens of thousands of properties around the country still containing the potentially hazardous substance), now they seem set to escape the blame over leaky buildings.

James Hardie is the most culpable. Their monolithic cladding products fail even if installed over treated framing. Initially some of the first monolithic clad homes even used ungalvanised external corners (which rusted within a couple of years). The manufacturer is required to prove to BRANZ that they meet the NZ Standards for durability, the obvious failure begs the question, did BRANZ get it wrong or were they misled?

The same goes for the use of untreated kiln dried framing. CHH and Fletchers both benefited from the change. No one who had taken a good look at the frame of a then 40 year old 1950's house built with untreated non-heart timber would then decide that changing to kiln dried chem free was a good idea. Forget about weathertightness, borer alone makes this a silly idea. (Which leads to another question: how durable (against borer) will a repaired house built with untreated framing be?)

Yes, it's easy to blame Branz and Bill Porteous but are they the real villains? I remember on a site visit in one of Bill's Victoria University classes in the late 90s, he demonstrated how an internal balcony should be constructed at a block of Te Aro flats (that now leak). So, yes I guess they were wrong, but what about the manufacturers who made hundreds of millions from these products but are no worse for wear.

This problem should be solved by bankrupting James Hardie, Fletchers etc, yet like the tobacco industry they seem to dodge the bullet.

At present lawyers are making millions through litigation on individual leaky home cases. What we need is a class action. In general it's not the builders or developers fault (there are exceptions to that though). Having council and governments pick up the tab isn't fair either as this just means everyone pays.

My solution would be to try to force the manufacturer's to pay for the replacement of the products that were unsuitable for their task.

Anyone who was negligent in the products' installation should also be liable.

The rest of the cost will need to be borne by the property owner.

Landlords are able to claim the cost of genuine repairs as a tax deduction. Why not do the same for owner occupiers? Perhaps the government could even make leaky home repairs GST exempt?

Whatever happens, the problem is that probably a lot bigger than the aforementioned 89,000 buildings. Yet another reason why housing supply will come under serious pressure within the next 5 years.

Government should just hire the required people themseles instead of getting the private sector to fix things. Private sector will milk the tax payer for millions and still not fix the problems.

Sam - Governemnt (local and central) contributed to the problem through legislation and bylaws therefore they are liable in the end. And you obviously can't deal with it because you are whinging.

The saddest part of this whole sorry mess - a carbon copy of what happened in Vancouver some years previously - is that fixing these homes actually increases GDP !

So everyone sees GDP going up and comments - aren't we doing well.

This is simply money down a black hole for zero return.

Rob said:

"@John You could say exactly the same things that you said about the building act, as the whole NZ financial services market. It is all a shambles, and many people have lost a lot of money. I say that if we bail out leaky building owners, then the government should also bail out those people who have lost money in finance companies. It is another example of our systems giving benefits for investing in property, over other forms of investments."

Thats a very good point. Govt policy failed investors in the whole NZ financial service market. A parallel can be drawn there with the failure of Govt with leaky buildings.
If govt bails out leaky building owners then it is just as logical to bail out victims of the financial services fiasco.

Doing both is likely to bankrupt the country.

So based on that argument, it is perhaps "sorry guys, we sympathise with you but thats life"

Roger T - hear hear. If I, with no outside assistance and starting with $50 at the age of 28, can learn enough to build a 135 sqm house new in 2004, for 50g, and it doesnt leak, so can anyone.

It's not rocket science. Floor, roof, walls, keep the rain off. Been happening for a while, quite a lot of precedent around.

Seems very simple to me: the solution to this, is the same as the solution to negative equity mortgages. The banks own the problem until the mortgage is paid off. So hand the keys back into the banks (who have been making record profits for the last few years) and walk away.

The banks can then finance the construction of multi-storey units to make their own profit.

Any other problems anyone wants solving?

We bought our current house around the same time as John and I'm intrigued by his claim he 'took full care and diligence'. I recall the extensive media coverage of leaky building issues at that time. It was a hot topic for anyone buying, with the systemic causes being very publically discussed and widely understood by then. John was aware enough of the issue to withdraw from the Newmarket deal but notwithstanding this , evidently did not identify similar potential exposures with the Elerslie property and now believes he was entitled to rely 100% on an 'expert' report .
There were numerous 'leakers' on the market back then as owners became increasingly aware. The pitches from agents to disguise the problem were impressively inventive but it took just a few simple but pointed questions over the phone to eliminate most. If the agent was adroit enough to avoid our probing, one quick external viewing was enough - we both quickly knew the game was up; knowing smiles and goodbye. Plenty of other suckers or people consciously deciding to take a calculated risk on a 'bargain'.
I am a pen pusher not a tradie but it was a simple matter for this layperson to do the research, identify the issue and construction methods we wanted. Just the same as buying any big ticket item. Sorry if that sounds smug or callous but by 2004 the cause of leaky building syndrome and the failure of the various professionals involved, including building certifiers and issuers of expert reports, was old news.

I agree with Bernard,

We the taxpayers shouldnt bail out the affected homeowners. Bailing out the homeowners also means bailing out the government as well for its past mistakes. It cant go on like this everytime they screw up.

Why should I bail out the homeowners? Buying a house is risky here and that risk should stay with the homeowners. With high risk comes either high reward or ruin which we all are aware of. I'm not giving my hard earned tax money to make others wealthy. Of course, I want to be wealthy first. Why would that risk be transferred to me when I have and want nothing to do with the issues?

Bailing out homeowners wont fix the underlying problems.

Central government is culpable - the problem was a top-down regulatory one. Government doesn't need to spend taxpayers dollars on fixing it - it simply needs to massviely downsize the bureacracy.

Has anyone ever added up the cost of all quangos/commissions/committees and other sundry "governance" (i.e. jobs for the boys) boards - isn't the former BRANZ one of those? Axe the lot of them - transfer whatever they do that is actually necessary (and I doubt there is much of that) to the relevent 'overseer' departments.

Then once we fix this "ginormous" government-created problem - we'll really be able to introduce serious tax cuts.

Not that John

I am more than happy not to pay any taxes and look after my self and pay for everything, I assume that Bernard would go down this path as the market will sort out who gets what, and if you don't like this, then its obviously not the tax payer argument, its a personal view re OK to pay taxes for your pet projects.

Open a Weatherboard factory.......

This is worth a read:
http://www.standards.co.nz/news/Media+archive/July+-+Sept+06/Amendment+t...
here is a clip:
"Tim Barton, an architect in Blenheim, experienced practical problems with sagging lintels made under the old Standard and says the Amendment helps to solve these problems. “We were receiving many complaints about the aluminium-framed doors we had specified. These doors are difficult to ‘ease’ and are sensitive to any bowing of the over-head beam, to which they’re attached.”

“This caused arguments between the door suppliers and the carpenters who had installed the timber beam, concealed immediately above the doors – it’s difficult to see whether this beam (the lintel) had bowed under the weight of the building above or not. I’m sure many of the defects in the doors had been caused by lintels we had specified from the old Standard and neither the aluminium window suppliers nor the carpenters were to blame.”

You see the problem comes from the type of timber used. The standards were not up to standard!...even if they were...would the council inspector spot the use of the wrong grade of pinus rubarb. How many homes have been built with weak rubarb??

Kate - not really - the investors who were stuck in the 20 or so Finance companies/mortgage funds that went down before the guarantee came in will receive NO retrospective relief - in all I reckon $5 billion has gone up in smoke.

Its up to those investors to try and chase their money by what ever means they have available - in the same way it should be up to homeowners who have the leaky building problem.

More reading worth the time:
http://www.nzwood.co.nz/images/uploads/file/Designed%20PDFs/NZW13611%20D...

Chris_J - good points, well made.

Bernard - how can you sue a party that has acted within the law at that time?

Some years ago the person who held my power of attorney stole from me and was convicted and imprisoned. The NZ court did not impose any repayment as they said that he would never have any money. I was upset, and angry, and wanted to blame, quite correctly in my opinion, banks and lawyers and the court system, but I realised that I had to take the loss and get on with life and earn some money overseas.

I do not wanting to be paying taxes for people who made a poor decision and bought or built what are now referred to as leaky buildings even if they got poor advice. That's life; take your loss. Your leaky building is not my loss. Some years ago I built using tried and true old-fashioned building methods eschewing the new claddings and when I return to my house I don't want to be saddled with your costs.

My parents old house was built in 1968 of the most basic materials, rimu framing and floors, iron roof and hardboard interior walls with no insulation. Still standing and NO leaks! So what went wrong? well, muppet architects, simple as that. Your home leaking? tough, buyer beware. Not mine or any other taxpayers problem.

Wally - those lintels will always sag - they were stipulated (still are as far as I know) to be solid timber. You never attatch them hard to the alloy joinery - I used to screw up through the top track, and and that gave you adjustment, with a spacer gap. Ply lintels would be better, but as I understood it, they needed individual certifiation.

Deja Vu - I've just replaced the old man's roof (went on when I was 4, in '59). He used (solid!) ply trusses - unheard-of in '58. Building inspector nearly had apoplexy. They placed two trusses alongside each other, on bricks at each end, bridged them with 4x2's, drove a '36 ford V8 pickup onto the middle. 1/16th inch (it's an old story) deflection. Up yours Mr Inspector, end story. They're still as-new, and I took some pix from the top, for old times sake. Untreated ply too - looked pretty good at 51. Good for the same again.

You'd need a producer statement (the cost of which includes a percentage of the engineers idemnity insurance) to do it now.

Bah humbug.

I'm not sure what gives the owners of leaky homes the sense of entitlement that leads to their hands in my pocket. Governments do not have magic money trees, its my money they are after. The last Government forced the unbundling of the local loop upon Telecom and my shares went from $6.50 to $2.05, yet I do not expect the taxpayer (or ratepayer for that matter) to make good my loss. Leaky home owners can keep their hands out of my pocket, and I'll keep mine out of their's. Deal?

In many cases if you are building a house today,you have no choice but to buy the materials that are available. In many cases these are substandard. The problem goes on and on.

it's pure greed that fuelled this issue. now you want to take our money again.

tell me why would we now want to share our money with you?

Kate - the gurantee was an emergency measure brought in because the Aussies guaranteed their banks. If they hadnt done it cash would have disappeared over the Tasman. The government lumped in the still standing Finance companies (which maybe make up 20% of the total investments once held by the sector) because they could not think of anything better to do. Note that the guarantee will shortly be reconfigured in October (and hence any taxpayer liability, which will no doubt be dramatically reduced) - in 2011 the government will no doubt seek to remove the guarantee completely.

The fact remains that the $5 billion that disappeared with the bust of the 20 odd companies has GONE. The government has made NO suggestion of a bail out for those that lost in that crash. The point remains valid - why bail out folk who invested wrongly in badly designed property if you are not going to bail out those who invested in badly designed financial vehicles? Both areas recieved official regulatory approval, ergo both are deserving if that is the path which is to be chosen. The path, unfortunately, leads to vast borrrowing and the socialising of private debt.

A plague on it I say.

Chris J and Sam,

You're right on the money, it's BB's screaming blue murder for yet again their own investment mistakes. Like many others I sympathize with their housing issues as I have sympathized with their poor property investment company investments.

In the mean time they want to sell their investment properties to me for far more than they are worth and have me underwrite any losses if they don't sell for a profit.

What nobody has touched on here is what the government will do?

Given the "supposed" average age of the effected parties (the political majority), and that all of the politicians have the ear of their friends who are no doubt effected for the better if the government starts a free handout it wouldn't surprise me if the country does bear the costs.

I can only compare such a decision (if it were to go ahead), with Hitler's treatment of the Jewish community in Germany, dispossessing a people ~ in this instance, generation x and y of their future through a heavy debt burden.

I hope that that comment isn't to strong.

John (10.31) quite right - and an 'as-is-where-is' approach makes a lot of sense too....

Peter Says:
"I’m not sure what gives the owners of leaky homes the sense of entitlement that leads to their hands in my pocket. Governments do not have magic money trees, its my money they are after. The last Government forced the unbundling of the local loop upon Telecom and my shares went from $6.50 to $2.05, yet I do not expect the taxpayer (or ratepayer for that matter) to make good my loss. Leaky home owners can keep their hands out of my pocket, and I’ll keep mine out of their’s. Deal?"

Yes..we did major renovations during that period, We talked to several old school builders...they all said the kiln dried framing, new fangled sealing compounds and no eves was not a good idea....
And talked to a couple architects and flashy builders..."oh this new technology when done right will last 25 yrs" Real Kean sales pitch, sorted of reminded me of a used car salesman. And 25yrs? hell the current old technology has already lasted 50yrs and its pr oven. Hmmmmmm.
Having a long term home was more important than a flashy spanish designer fad house.
We did our homework yet I have trouble working the mechanics of a hammer.
Others decided a flash home to impress was more important..vanity.
Why the hang should I have to be part of or pay for their vanity...they made their choice to build or buy such a structure..... we made ours.
I wonder what the cost would be to simply bulldoze the lot down, and replace with 1970s type universal/Keith Hay homes?..at least they would be dry and warm.

Kirk, what makes you think home owners were "duped", many of them would have known the issues and went ahead thinking they could sell the property at a profit. Building profits didn't just come from buying the worst house on the street and doing it up, they also came from building as cheaply as possible and flicking the problems on.

Personally, while I wouldn't wish anyone to buy a dud anything, the fact remains that we cannot be sorry for everyone who makes a bad decision.

Well Steptoe, why should I pay for their bad luck? If the bill is $28bn that's $18,600 for each and every taxpayer, and I ain't paying that for nothing in return. What did I do to be taxed to pay for their misfortune? Nothing. Ain't paying. Socialising losses works fine when they are small, but ain't so great when its a disaster. I may have to loot some one else to pay my share. See, that's how socialism works.

But KW John, you are the first one to "pass it on", where are the regulators, the insurance companies, the guarantors, councils, builders and lets not forget the banks, you say.

Yes, everybody except the poor property investor is at fault. The person who expected to gain most from the process is innocent.

The real estate people will find it tough sellling the crap that was built in the last 15 years as the government rules now say they must point out the potential for a leak even if the property currently appears ok - see page 3 of:

http://www.reaa.govt.nz/sites/default/files/u31/22349_REAA_Rules09%20(A5)%20FA%20lr.pdf

"where it appears likely, on the basis of the licensee’s knowledge and experience
of the real estate market (1), that land may be subject to hidden or underlying defects, the licensee must ensure that a customer is informed of any significant potential risk so that the customer can seek expert advice if the customer so chooses."

"(1) Houses built within a particular period of time, and of particular materials,
are or may be at risk of weathertightness problems. A licensee could reasonably
be expected to know of this risk (whether or not a seller directly discloses any
weathertightness problems). While a customer is expected to inquire into risks regarding a property and to undertake the necessary inspections and seek advice, the licensee must not simply rely on caveat emptor."

So don't imagine they will be easy to sell if built of untreated framing, monolithic and with now vented cavity.

Peter Says:
"Well Steptoe, why should I pay for their bad luck? If the bill is $28bn that’s $18,600 for each and every taxpayer,"
I think you have the wrong end of the stick to my post m8...
I have made some bad calls, or rather could have made better ones..I dont cry bail me out or piont fingers of blame, i just think back see i didnt do my homework deep enough, took something at face value...then take the flak and move on.
As far as leaky homes goes..a lot of people didnt do their homework, and at the end of the day it is the investor who is responsable because they didnt....like I said I have trouble with the tscnology of a hammer, yet it wasnt hard to see through the BS at the time, so built old school...and it was cheaper to.

"This panel estimated 90 per cent of all apartments, townhouses and units built between 1992 and 2005 could leak badly in the next 15 years."

That's a huge condemnation....of builders, developers, designers, architects, suppliers...indeed just about anyone in the building industry.

regards

Bernard is right. We can't have a economy that privatises profit and socialises risk.

There are also many compelling arguments being made that in banking and housing the risks are so big they must be socialised, if only implicitly.

The disturbing conclusion is that in these sectors we should not privatise the profits to begin with.

This needn't be as bad as it sounds. Banks could be charged for complusory deposit guarentees (effectively an extra tax to compensate for government risk). In the housing sector, the government could build and sell houses with a government guarentee for ten (or twenty) years against defect. Privately developers could be required to purchase a government guarentee for the houses they build before they could be sold.

But what we must not do is let the banks and developers transfer the risk of their business to the taxpayer and not the rewards.

Because we can't retrospectively recover the profits made privately - there needs to be an overwhelming argument for socialising the losses now. In the case of leaky homes, there is no such case. Leaky houses won't cause an economic colapse. The personal circumstances are tragic, but we have a social safety net and none of the property owners will go without food, medical care or education for their children. In our sort of economy, that is the best we can do. Plenty of people end up hitting the safety net through no fault of their own. Leaky building owners have no more claim on taxpayers than the poor bugger whose house burns down the day after he loses his job.

Can people please use the words tax payer instead of government when that is what they mean.

The people who own these houses are in an undesirable situation, but they bought the houses. Those of us who didn't want a cheap house without a roof didn't for good reason - it was obvious in the 90s that these building were only temporary to anyone who opened their eyes.

These is no reason why other tax payers should act as a de facto insurance company for those who made bad choices. I had a Fiat once that rusted - should other tax payers make good my loses on that?

Similarly, the idea of councils being liable is daft. They are just there to maintain services as public servants. They should not be able to tax people to pay a few - and should not be forced to by the courts.

The only fair and just course of action is that the home owners and the builders share the loss on these buildings.

Jeez Nick...didn't Fiat come to the party and give you a new Bambina!...oh and the builders of leaky homes were companies and the companies no longer exist and the builders work for other companies which doubtless will soon be gone when another problem turns up because that is the sick legal system we were left by idiots in the past. Now you would think the current bunch of useless inept fools in the Beehive would change the law to end the game of 'running' away from problems and liabilities but NO...they are incapable of that as well. Seems there is an election coming up and the effort is going into spin and BS while the pork is sliced to buy the votes.

Bernard - Re the house price poll you are running. You have run a few of these over the last few years. It would be interesting to dig them from the archives and see who has got it right so far. My feeling is that in previous polls the lower the percentage an option got the higher it's chances of being correct.
Also Roger T has suggested running some sort of predictions contest on the topics discussed here several times. Damn good idea I say. (Keep nagging him Roger).

Topics; OCR, house prices, 5 year fixed mortgage rates, oil-gold-copper prices, fonterra payout, trade deficit/surplus, immigration numbers, unemployment rate, which month will Wally vaporise in a fit of rage etc.

Haaaaaaarhahaha...oh nice to be needed Pete. It is not rage dear Pete but the pleasure of poking a sharp stick into the govt...all govt. You gotta agree with me that these fools who sell themselves as a govt are dragging us deeper into the hole. One billion a month Pete. 12 billion a year. No end to it. By 2015 we will be past the point of no return and desperate for the IMF to enter stage centre right. The fools will depart the scene with bloated pensions intact and jobs for life in the old boys club. YOU will be left to pay the bill by Bill. Kinda funny really.

Chris B said, And as a taxpayer/ratepayer I REFUSE to accept any moral (let alone actual) responsibility for the mess these building owners find themselves in.

But do you accept a moral and/or actual responsibility to;

- provide accomodation supplements to those unable to afford market rents?
- provide free reading materials to those not wishing to spend their own money to buy or borrow books?
- provide less congested roads to private motor vehicle owners who are unwilling to make use of public transport?

And of course the list goes on.

Kate, you're way off on this one.

A house, like buying a new car, starts to breakdown the moment you have purchased it. Just as a car needs regular maintenance to keep it running a house needs regular repairs.

The only question is how much do you need to spend to maintain it? I have never owned a Lada because I read the articles, compared the reports and decided that a more expensive car would be cheaper to own in the long run than a Lada.

Similarly, I never brought a monoclad house as I have worked in the building industry and have an idea of the problems.

You can point the blame at the innocent rates payer and tax payer, all you like, but it doesn't take away the home owners responsibility to do their own homework and understand the true costs of buying cheap anything.

Also note that the products and methods used in many cases were not necessarily consented by the regulatory authorities. In allot of cases the manufactures and suppliers produced the design and installation guide specifications and certified that they meet the building standards.

Kate - I'm surprised at you - you're usually a bastion of common-sense logic on this site but comparison of a leaky homes bail-out with the ongoing provision of public services is a complete straw-man argument. I am more than willing to pay for services which i have a reasonable chance of requiring and which improve the society in which I live (health, police, libraries, infrastructure, education etc.). I'm happy to pay some welfare if it keeps some sort of lid on the development of a poverty stricken underclass with no recourse other than criminality and anarchy.

But why should I - a gen X'er who has been shut out of the house market by spiralling house costs (and a refusal to buy a cardboard house that is colder ont he inside than out) be expected to pay to bail out individuals with far larger asset bases than my own and who made their own decisions to enter into this investment?

You are right that an analogy with the finance companies is complicated by the government guarantee - better examples are telecom shares, rusting cars or a washing machine that breaks down inside a year. In all cases the consumer/investor loses out due to failures in their inital purchase/investment. in all cases there is some sort of government oversight of the industries (SEC, consumer affairs, LTA etc.). But there is no recourse to the taxpayer because your washing machine broke-down - you go after the manufacturer and if they've gone bust - well tough.

The argument about code-compliance certification is also obfuscatory at best. Granted, Councils charge a stupidly large amount of money before they give you permission to build. But thats all it is - permission. There is no actual or implied guarantee associated with compliance or permit documentation. I am firmly of the view that anyone who believes differently and wishes to test this in a court of law will be sorely disappointed.

Governemnt has a role to play in co-ordinating prosecutions and civial damages against manufacturers, developers etc and I am happy for them to use my money to pay legal costs for this - just as i pay for public prosecution of criminals. Government might also consider waving a big stick at the banks and forcing them to cough up loans to put right what can be fixed. But interest free loans and bail-out money are spending MY money to fix something I explicitly avoided and gain NO net benefit from except watching house prices disappear even further out of my reach. Forget it.

Scorpian - I'm not pointing blame at the innocent ratepayer/taxpayer by any means - clearly regulators are culpable - and if not their fault, then they should take action against manufactuers or whomever.

The fact that regulators draw their income from ratepayers/taxpayers is another matter.

There is so much job/self-preserving excess in the regulatory industry that ratepayers/taxpayers need not bear the cost of putting right this appalling regulatory oversight.

Government, both central and local should be downsizing to put this right - and citizens (artepayers/taxpayers) need to stand up and insist on this in my opinion. The general public needs to support the leaky homeowners who bought properties that were fully consented under the then regulatory rules.

KW John,

The dilapidation (or as you put it "deliberate self destruct mechanism), of products are inherent in their design. For instance you cover up your monoclad home with paint to hide the ugly grey fiber board - which is water permeable and sits attached to your non-treated timber framing.

But the paint is water based it transfers moisture through osmosis, as a builder you know this, so you cover up the paint with a fine coat of sealer (similar to varnish).

You know this supper fine coat of of sealer is guarenteed for five or ten years at most and you also know that you're following the manufacturers installation spec's.

The owner of the property now owns the equivalent to a lada. and it's their own fault.

"the most deliberately over-hyped, much bandied-around figure I’ve seen for years"...wasn't that a blonde sheila in Wallywood..!

Bernard, the Government should help victims for the same reasons I am paying taxes so while being childless myself, your children can have an education, your parents can have pension, your wife can have maternity leave every time you choose to procreate, you get a benefit when you end up losing your job, or get an operation paid by the public health when you need one, provided you can put up with the waiting lists.

Your view is dangerous, divisive, and outright selfish. I am a leaky building victim and can tell you that apart from the financial devastation this has brought me, my physical and mental health suffered greatly too.

I paid my dues when I bought the unit, I am paying rates, developers and tradespeople paid the Government taxes using the money I borrowed from the bank for that unit, trusting the building legislation the Government put in place.

Now you are saying that people like me should be let down the drain while still being liable to pay the rates, taxes etc., so that your family can have social security? I would be perfectly happy to pay my own way if the Government gives me back all the contributions I have paid over the years and let me fix the place on my own.

If you were reading what the Government was suggesting, you'd realise that none of the victims would actually get money from the Government to keep, but would be just given access to some funds (not 100% of the repair cost) on interest free basis until the ownership of the property changes hands. Where did you get this "until they die?". If you have made an effort to meet some of the victims, you would have realised that the emotional trauma caused by this disaster is such that most will not choose to live in their property until they die even after it is repaired, but will be able to move on only after they save enough to repay the Government.

Your children have access to interest free loans for their education, don't they? The taxes I am paying for are providing the funds for this. So how come when someone else in need is considered for access to funds that will allow them to move on with their life and continue being productive member of the society contributing more than they would if they are left on their own, you are against it? Think about it Bernard, do you know how many people ended up on benefits as a result of stress caused by the leaky building issue and not being able to see the light at the end of the tunnel? I personally know two such individuals that have been condemned by Helen Clark and her Labour Government, and only now they may be given some hope that they can climb up from the gutter they ended up in by no fault of their own.

Following your line of thought (or lack of thought in my honest opinion), the Government should have never paid out to the victims of the Agent Orange either, as this is none of your selfish concern and it was much before your time, so why would you be liable for it?

Please when you decide to write an article about a topic you do not know much about, do everyone a favour and do some factual research first.

Luby,

Many thanks.
I know plenty about leaky buildings and have spoken to plenty of victims.
But I will not pay in the same way I will not pay the housing costs of others. We have not chosen to make housing a state-provided service for all in the same way we do for (most) health and (most) education.
I've had enough of the bailouts and the transference of other people's pain and needs to the taxpayer at large.
You also make the point that this bailout is simply "access to funds on an interest free basis" and not a government handout.
Who would provide the funds? The banks? They would only do it with a government guarantee. Eventually that means we all pay with higher interest rates on government debt, and more widely, higher interest rates on normal mortgage rates.
You're welcome to tell me to shut up, but only when you're not not asking me to pay more of my taxpayers money.
I understand the pain many in leaky homes are going through. But is it the government's job to use taxpayer money generally to make everyone's pain go away?
If that was the case the government would bail out all the finance company investors who lost money (my broad estimate is over 150,000 investors owed over NZ$6 billion), all the Telecom investors (who lost upwards of NZ$2 billion of market value because of a government decision) and many others who lost money cause of regulations.

Where does this bailout mentality all end?
When there's no money left. When our children have revolted at all the debt we've piled up for them to repay.

Let's stop the bailout s now

cheers
Bernard

AndrewJ - yes it can afford it - just look at this prime list of quango agencies that we can do without!

http://www.nzcpr.com/Weekly203.pdf

And then once the leaky home disaster is resolved - think how wonderful a society we would live in if all these 'jobs for the boys' simply no longer existed!

Lots of emotion in this issue.

Bernard - how about a well researched article on this issue. So far you have stoked the fires with an emotive piece. Can you do a well researched, thorough investigation of the issue?

This is a start for you:
"Why aren’t they also going after individuals who may be able to be proven to have known, or reasonably MUST HAVE KNOWN due to their experience and supposed ‘expert’ status and involvement in getting those materials approved?"

Ask why is this not happening?

@john: "In this case the government is complicit! The Building Act in the early 90s set this disaster on the road that it has taken. " From what I recall the building professionals and in particular architects wanted more scope to design solutions, the Govn trusted these Pros....and opened up the regulations...the ppl who should beheld liable are the professionals, the developers and the cowboy builders....not govn ie not my pocket....

Further example, can you sue over a car because its not WOF compliant?

no.

regards

@John: "The only thing I can say to that is what capital gain? " You gambled to make a capital gain, you lost....I mean hells bells if your 7 year old TV dies do you expect the Govn to give you some money? If its 3 years old use the CGA not the Govn....to settle privately / civil issue.

regards

@Jamie:

> Ownership of the problem:
> It’s a community problem because:
> 1 Community greed contributed to the building of these properties

No it didnt, developers and professionals, the community had no issue...ie gain...or loss.

>2 Community stupidity contributed to the change of standards and the use of >non-treated
>timber in the framing

No it didnt, developers and professionals,

Treated timber (anti-rot) is locking the door after the horse has bolted, you need to get keep the timber dry...then it wont rot.. My house structural wood is still dry and sound 50 years later...borer protection yes....rot protection in the wood is the wrong solution to the problem. Look at what else is in the wall...the electrics, they are not designed to last in that damp environment....are you saying make power sockets water proof? absolute rubbish, you go from a $20 unit to $100 each plus then careful fitting to ensure the joints are water proof that's hard.....what about the lining? use only the green (water resistant) gib? even then its not water resistant for years....and it costs significantly more...

3 Community greed and stupidity contributed to the design and building of dwellings
completely unsuitable for our climate.

No it didnt, developers and professionals, developers to build cheaper but mainly architects who could then design anything the prospective owner wanted. ie "flair" and not common sense...owners got what they wanted form over function, they are paying for it.

If you want to lay the blame anywhere its developers, builders and architects....its really bad design.

regards

@BH: "Stay in Japan for now. This government won’t fix our problems." look at Japan's fiscal problems, my advice would be move this month!

regards

@Wally: We can adequately treat pine and its good enough for the job....its a balancing act of cost ie affordable and life expectancy. The problems are bad design related which is clearly laid at the foot of professionals like architects...

regards

"The problems are bad design related which is clearly laid at the foot of professionals like architects…"

This only part of the problem.

Read this:
http://pc.blogspot.com/2009/11/leaky-homes-part-2-whats-going-on.html

and this:

http://pc.blogspot.com/2009/11/leaky-homes-part-1-myth-of-deregulated.html

Ignore the author's hatred of Mr Porteous, that aside, he summarises the situation well.

They could always setup a leaky building loan scheme, like they have for student loans, and the loan plus interest is repaid from the sale of the house. Not sure if the country could even afford this, but it could be a win win system, and simplify the whole situation. Currently the only winners from this whole mess have been the lawyers, and we have too many of them. Then the govt could impose levies on new house construction, like the current Branz tax (which should have prevented this problem anyway), to develop a book of standard building details, that TA can use to check building construction .
Even many houses being bult today have future potential problems. I refer to those with concealed guttering in the eaves, where if the downpipe gets blocked, the overflow from the guttering can backup and flow into the internal cavity of the walls of the house. Even brick and tile houses built today have this problem.

@steven
The thing is the timber shouldn't be getting wet anyway. Using treated timber is saying that the building does leak, but the structure is protected for a while against that leakage. However that only delays the problem, as treated timber will still rot, unless it H5, but houses aren't built from H5.
Many of these cheap houses being built today are using steel frames, which will rust if subjected to long term moisture. The problem is solely with the detailing of the envelope. Once that is solved, you can use untreated timber for the structure, as moisture should never come in contact with it anyway.

"We can adequately treat pine and its good enough for the job"...well I have to disagree steven...rubarb is rubbish and the kiwi option to go with shite that's "good enough for the job" is at the heart of problem.
Rubarb doesn't even make good firewood. We need house and building designs that reduce the chance of moisture getting at the wood. Designs that reduce the need for wood and in the meanwhile greater use of DFir.
I was told by a nationwide building chain that they would need to use treated wood if the exterior was not clad in brick. Bugger that. I don't want to lay awake wondering how bad the rot is between the brick and the gib. If I build it will be with H3 bottom plates and D Fir studs with D Fir everywhere else. If that costs a tad more..so be it. The eaves will be extended and verandahs designed into the plan. The house will be built on a platform above ground level. If I had access to heart Redwood or Black locust..I would use that instead of H3 rubarb.

"Once that is solved, you can use untreated timber for the structure"...no no no Robby you can't use rubarb or most OB grade crap unless you wanna feed the borer family. That's why most of the school buildings bashed together in a hurry in the 50s and 60s are chocka with borer. I know because I have seen the damage.

@jimmy397 Yes that will still mean that the tax payer/all of us, will end up paying. Also it is still difficult to say how much to blame they were. I think the best solution is a loan, becuase it mean that the house owner will still benefit from the capital gains on the property, and can pay it back once they cash out. I think too many parties have part of the blame, which makes it all too difficult. The govt needs a simple solution and that solution needs to be a loan system. Perhaps they could offer the same loans to those who lost money in these finance company failures. The govt can then take on the parties as a collective, such as taking on the manufacturers of the cladding systems that have failed.

@Robby
All homes 'leak'... it how this is dealt with

Best explanation I've seen so far.

http://pc.blogspot.com/2009/11/leaky-homes-part-2-whats-going-on.html

We've beliittled the problem by giving it a silly name - I can't think of a better name.

Borer... well that's another problem again...

@trev & KWJohn: that's a good piece...and its pretty right....no one thing is too blame...but some are far more responsible than others....

regards

@Robby: "Remember that most commercial buildings and highrises have flat roofs and internal guttering, and they don’t leak."

Ive seen enough leaking over 2 decades to dispute that...personally seeing that one detail would be enough to make me walk away...The problem usually comes down to the materials say cracking in even one small area and not being discovered for years....security is defence in depth no one failure in anything should compromise the system.

regards

Thing is Robby...cement block, stone and brick are all poor insulators. Rammed earth and straw bale are the best low cost maximum insulation value systems. Trouble is, getting one passed a council costs a bloody fortune and the labour costs are high.
Everything begins with good site selection, then platform elevation, then a design with verandahs and wide eaves. Topped off with a roof built by pros with product designed to last 100 years. That's why the govt opted for a copper roof on the Beehive back in the 70s. No shite for them.
We are lumbered with rotting piles because the attitude is as steven posted.."its good enough for the job”…(pardon the pun)

@KW John Says: All houses leak.

That is not correct, not all houses leak. There are systems in a building to move water that does get through the top layer of cladding, to the outside, and on most houses this extra form of protection is the building paper. NO water should get beyond the building paper, if the house is well detailed and designed. By saying we need H3 timber in our building, is essentially saying that it should be expected that both layers of protection on the building have failed. That however should never happen. It actually doesn't fix the leaky building problem, becuase mould can still grow in the wall cavity, and the timber will also eventually rot.

@Robby: Isn't this the definition of a leak ? "..there are systems in a building to move water that does get through the top layer of cladding" or is that just the definition of leak that is anticipated?

Macrocapa is apparently resistant to borer Wally.

FYI to all

Here is the full 82 page report from PwC on weathertightness that Williamson got his numbers from. It has all the detail and various forecasts. I read it before writing this piece.

http://www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/News/WHRS/pdf/PWC-weathertightness...

Can I say that my desire for food is a national problem given everyone needs food? Should the government provide it? They do provide it for some people. Why not everyone?

At some stage someone has to say we've had enough of bailouts and payouts and compensation and freebies and benefits.

No more.

cheers
Bernard

A good read of that link way back from KWJ...http://pc.blogspot.com/2009/11/leaky-homes-part-2-whats-going-on.html...and you end up with nice warm thoughts about govt and politicians...not.

Agree entirely , Bernard , that we've had enough of the decades long descent of politics into bail-outs/ pay-outs/ compensation/ freebies & benefits . So you tell me , what action can we as voters take ! The buggers in Wellington are up to their eye-balls in these shenanigans . There is no current option to sensibility in parliament . No ciicuit breaker to stop the rot .

Well put Bernard. As a Gen Y person, the mountain in front of my generation looks a bit too daunting.

I am very hopeful that National will do something to help future generations, reducing the payouts, freebies, waste, lack of productivity that we currently have. Thing is, I get less hopeful and more pessimistic by the day.

Cheers Nicholas.

Robby
It was no more than a quote from the link.....(I did read further!)

First of all, all houses leak. Always have. It’s all about pressure: apply a high wind outside and you get high pressure. Close all your doors and windows and on the inside you get low pressure. If that reminds you of a vacuum cleaner, then it should. It’s pressure differences like this that make your vacuum cleaner work – and when the wind and pressure difference around your house are high enough, your weatherproofing systems are going to suck

We've redefined the word 'leaky' and it now seems to mean 'badly constructed/public to pay'.

Trivial point... 'not weather tight' may be better, but it isn't so catchy.

@BH - the full report link has been sabotaged!!!!!!! Management summary only now....

@Bernard - Given some of the blinkered and self-centred criticism you have copped from those too close to this issue to express themselves without reactionary emotion, I would like reiterate Jimmy, RT's and co's support for this. As I said above - I'm Gen X, don't own a home and would very much appreciate some government assistance with siting and building an adequate supply of affordable first homes with commuter transport connections to the main cities. An interest free mortgage would be nice too...:-) Until that happens I am pretty bitter about the concept that my tax might go to prop up a market I personally cannot enter and support a population who bought indiscriminately in an attempt to profiteer off the backs of my and my children's future income.

And don't take any cr*p about interest free mortgages not costing anything... There's no such thing as a free lunch and if the building owner isn't paying interest you can bet your bottom dollar someone else is - Gubbins future taxpayer again, Gee thanks guys!

http://www.dbh.govt.nz/pwc-weathertightness-questions-and-answers

"Q4. How many homes are affected by the weathertightness issue?

A4. The PwC report shows there is a wide range of the possible number of homes affected, from a low of 22,000 to a high of 89,000. The wide range reflects the fact there is a high level of uncertainty about the number of homes affected that prevents an exact, and accurate, estimate to be made. Nevertheless, the report goes on to estimate it is most likely approximately 42,000 homes (called the ‘consensus forecast’) built between 1992 and 2008 have been affected. The evidence suggests only a minority have been repaired to date.

Of the leaky homes covered by the ‘consensus forecast’ approximately:

* 3,500 have already been repaired;
* 9,000 are likely to be outside the 10 year limitation period for legal liability.

Using the ‘consensus forecast’, it is therefore likely up to around 30,000 dwellings have already failed, but not been repaired, or will fail in the future (within the 10 year limitation period).
Q5. What is the total economic cost of the leaky homes problem?

A5. To remediate all of the 42,000 affected dwellings in the ‘consensus forecast’ would incur a total economic cost of an estimated $11.3 billion. Some of this cost has already been incurred in the past for dwellings that have already been repaired. But the future total economic cost is likely to be around $6.3 billion. "

So, 89,000 homes is the complete worst case.

@Nicholas Arrand Says:
March 9th, 2010 at 1:46 pm

My point goes to your comment to KW John, Robby. You post @ 1.23pm, “That is not correct, not all houses leak.” And yet @ 1.32pm you say,” All top layers of a cladding system will leak,”

No, you didn't read or interpret my post properly. I said that the very top layer of cladding may leak, due to things like wind blowing water upwards, but the lower layers of the system will pick up and shed that water to the outside. I refer to the cladding system as a WHOLE, which includes ALL Layers, including building paper. No cladding system should not leak as a whole.
This is why the new building code, they require a cavity behind the monolithic cladding, because the top layer may leak, it will be picked up by the layer underneath, and it requires a cavity so water doesn't get trapped due to capillary action, and is free to drain out.

Buying a house is the same as electing a government. Both don't come with any guarantee of performance as has been proved in the recent past. Both can create much damage and loss of sleep. Elected politicians get away with too much. Witness the Super City moves underfoot now.

We should blame Bush/Obama/Paulson for introducing the idea of 'bailout'
They treated their banks as too big to fail.
We are treating our housing sector as too big to fail.
In USA it is easy to walk away from the under-water homes because the other assets are not touched. Not so in NZ.

If any rescue of leaky-home owners is contemplated it should be limited to only owner-occupiers and not for investment properties ans should be limited to about 25/30% of the cost of repairs. And the building industry, building materials industry should be legislated to share a burden out of their profits.

In the meantime owner-occupiers of leaky homes can be given holiday from paying rates, etc.

They could also try initiating criminal action against some of the bankrupt builders/inspecting firms, etc to have a deterrent effect for the future.

Has anyone thought of the age that the modern houses are built to last for?

When we had our fence built (years ago) it was by an Aussie builder who had moved to NZ and we got talking about the leaky buildings. Basically, he pointed to my in laws house and said that was designed and built to last 100 years (and it has), ours was built to last about 50 years (and its just hitting its straps in its teenage years)...the 'modern' homes of the last decade or two were designed and built to last about 20 - 25 years in his estimation as they were built to a price, not a lifespan.

So is it not surprising that they are now falling apart - they are after all reaching the end of their service lives, and were designed to be torn down and a new one built in its place. And this was the estimation of an aussie builder who couldn't believe the crap being put up, nor could he believe that any person with a hammer could be a builder as over in Australia apparently every builder has certificates (licenses) as to what they can build.

Housing just became another pawn in the consumer-driven society.

The developers need to be personally accountable. Companies are not meant to serve as a facade offering complete protection from misdeeds. If the individuals are incapable of recompensing then the buyer should SOOL.

I wonder if all people that were involved in the building and supplying and certifying of those houses are not personally responsible, also has nobody any insurance against shoddy workmanship, or other responsibility?
There might have been thousands of people being involved.
Instead of putting the responsibility on the public, you could ask them to contribute to the disasterfunds and then the burden on taxpayers would be not that great.
In 1990 we already knew the buildings were leaking and stil they carried on building and suppying and certifying.
I also feel this is an national disaster and what about that funds that should have billions in it?

Quite right AndyC...the real cause was useless govt over a long long time span. Throw is equally useless local govt and the other players to get tens of thousands of sub prime buildings. Those who bought back 10 years or more are cut off from any help...again by stupid govt regulations...yet many of the rotters will not not show up for more than ten years. Key's stupid comments about inflation and immigration etc just made it clear how he lacks good judgement. On top of that silly comment his govt expects gst to be paid on the materials needed for repairs and on all other costs.

The Govt Ministers involved over those years when the system was corrupted by stupidity and govt idiocy are in my opinion absolute scum.

@IndianKiwi

Similar thought -
I think the continued use of the word 'government' instead of taxpayer is part of the problem.

Nice work on this entry! It was very informative. I've saved the link to your web page and I'm certain that I'm going to return again in the future.