Weathertightness
FEATURE
SECTION
Inaction worry
Fear of being stigmatised? Lack of money? Ignorance? Whatever the
reason, there’s a huge difference between estimates of the number of
leaky buildings in New Zealand and the number of claims for redress.
BY STEVE CODY, MANAGER SEISMIC ASSESSMENTS AND WEATHERTIGHT CLAIMS, WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL
at 42,000 failures with estimated costs of $11.3 billion. The financial
assistance package (FAP) was established to help fix leaky homes, but
this only helps those with homes less than 10 years old.
Major cause of the problem
Between 1992 and 2008, approximately 79,000 homes were built
using flush-finished fibre-cement, stucco or polystyrene (EIFS) as
a cladding. A further 24,000 multi-unit dwellings also used them.
Evidence from the investigation and repair of leaky buildings has
shown buildings using these systems have a higher risk of developing problems due to poor design, incorrect installation or poor
maintenance, since any water that gets behind the cladding doesn’t
easily drain or dry.
IN 2003, the government established the Weathertight Homes
Resolution Service (WHRS) with the purpose of providing home-
The numbers don’t match up
owners with a speedy and cost-effective means of seeking redress
The numbers before the WHRS and Courts aren’t insignificant.
for water ingress problems affecting their home.
However, compared to the number of at-risk homes, we have to
ask whether the estimates in the PWC report are wrong or whether
Estimates of 42,000 homes
the low number of reported failures is evidence of other problems.
The WHRS had received 7,006 claims for 10,496 properties – a single
This shortfall in reported actual failures could be attributed to:
claim can represent a multi-unit development – by 31 July 2013. An
●●
lack of understanding of the problem
undetermined number of claims are lodged with the Courts, but
●●
owners’ denial or fear that they have a leaky home
numbers are considered lower than WHRS claims due to the legal
●●
lack of funds
costs of taking a claim to court.
●●
no signs of leaking.
In 2005, BRANZ estimated 40,000 homes could be at risk. Industry
Lack of understanding
experts determined 30% or 12,000 of these homes might fail with an
There is a general lack of understanding around leaky buildings.
estimated repair bill of $1 billion.
Most people are aware of the problem, but there is little public
In 2009, the Department of Building and Housing commissioned a
review. Coordinated by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) it estimated
22,000 to 89,000 homes would leak. The consensus view was forecast
discussion about causes and consequences.
The issue has been aggravated by the misconception that some of
the claddings were maintenance free.
Build 138 — October/November 2013 — 49
FEATURE
SECTION
Weathertightness
Fear or denial of having a leaky home
owners are not always being given the opportunity for a targeted
If known failure rates versus suspected failure rates are considered,
repair where it could be an appropriate option.
there must be homes that owners know are leaking. Fear of being
No signs of leaking
stigmatised as a leaky home or denial prevents them seeking advice.
Of the reasons presented, no visible sign of water entry poses the
On-selling to an unsuspecting buyer is not an option. Many banks
greatest risk. It may be years after the problem starts before damage
require building reports, and assessors are more astute at identifying
is seen, and by then, the cladding and framing have to be removed.
issues. Disclosure rules in sale and purchase agreements also mean
Consecutive owners may be unaware of a problem. In some cases, there
Courts can penalise owners who knowingly sell a leaky home.
has been a slow leak that dried out and then leaked again.
Doing nothing isn’t the solution. It will only get worse, slowly eating
away equity in the home.
Going forward
Lack of funds
We know a lot about why buildings have leaked but not enough about
Some owners know their home leaks but are financially unable
the true extent of the problem. This needs to be better quantified, and
to fix the problem. It should be simple to fix a home in a cost-
solutions considered. Given the nervousness of owners, a blind survey of a
effective way. However, the litigious nature of this problem means
sample of homes by an independent group could help define the problem.
some solutions recommended by experts involved in fixing leaky
Once we have a better understanding of the size of the issue, an educa-
homes are as much about protecting against future litigation as
tion programme for owners and the sector should follow that includes how
addressing the issue.
to identify signs there may be a problem, promoting regular and on-going
Sometimes a radical remediation solution is needed as the problems
maintenance and monitoring, and developing cost-effective solutions.
are widespread, but in other cases, a specific or defined problem
Doing nothing is not an option, and while there is no silver bullet for
could be addressed without having to remove the cladding from the
fixing leaky buildings, a well developed strategy will help minimise future
whole building. The building sector’s fear of future litigation means
losses.
50 — Build 138 — October/November 2013