Talk:Leaky homes crisis

Anti-paean for juvenile sapwood or general overview of the crisis?

This article would benefit a lot from a strong edit that recontextualises the timber story in the overall market, government, cultural and architectural context. Too many digressions into hyper-specific details of NZ’s pinus radiata rotation and not enough anchoring of the big picture (move to monolithic cladding, style and typology of 1990s–2000s infill housing, demands for larger houses, market flooded with untested building products, industry supply chain irresponsibility, poorly conceived govt interventions and regulatory failures, etc. Just feels like the big picture gets lost here with the sheer volume of infodumping about NZ timber. Maybe move to a sub-article which could go into exhaustive detail about NZ forestry and timber construction research (also how this connects to questions about consents, council planning etc?). This article would be so much better if it skimmed across all of these subtopics and linked out to the best written articles to support it, rather than presenting such a singular monopole narrative. - maetl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.151.208 (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, - I've added much of the material regarding juvenile sapwood, and I sense from the queries and comments a frustration with my language, with how broad the topic is, that the contents seem near unbelievable, and that it is not referenced enough for users' satisfaction. What I have attempted to provide is the most broad overview possible of what is an extremely complex and commercially sensitive subject, almost every sentence of which requires some reasonably detailed academic knowledge to fully understand, and is my attempt to distill the contents of decades of industry publications, government statistics and national and international peer reviewed research papers into no more than a broad and incredibly simplified overview.

When, for example, I say that the majority of our current harvest comprises "atypical" or "abnormal" wood, and I get the request back for sources or a note that this is a "dubious" claim, or that input from a "wood scientist" to correct the article is needed - my frustrations are as follow:

(a) I'm not pulling the terms "atypical" or "abnormal" wood out of thin air. These are accepted scientific and wood processing terms. If you want to relate that terminology back specifically to juvenile wood, the short answer is that you can find a comprehensive discussion of the types of recognised abnormal woods in pretty much every wood physiology text, or technical wood processing manual, published over the past two decades at least, a huge number of which are freely available online. A google search will give you an innumerable number of reference texts, chapters, papers etc to get you started on the bare fundamentals of the types of wood that comprise abnormal woods, and a overview at least of some of the charectorstics of juvenile wood, the "juvenile core", and the incidence of compression wood and spiral grain (and their functional relevance) within the juvenile core. Zobel's "Juvenile Wood in Forest Trees" is a good starting point, - although in some portions obsolete given how fast the science is moving.

(b) If you want to know the extent of the juvenile core of our current Radiata crop, there are now freely available online well over twenty years of peer reviewed New Zealand studies mapping, independently, micro fibril angles, density gradients, cellular anatomical features, chemical characteristics including lignin content and buffering capacity, and prevalence of associated characteristics such as spiral grain and increased compression wood, both horizontally and vertically through the trees, readily available online. Those can be correlated with the separate studies of the rate of heartwood conversion with age in New Zealand's Radiata crop, and yet separate New Zealand studies converting ring-width from pith figures into overall mass percentages, all of which boil down to the fact that of our current crop, well over 90% by mass comprises juvenile wood, and the majority of that consists of juvenile sapwood, whereas pre 1988, such juvenile wood as was present was (in the lower logs destined to be converted to structural timbers) predominately juvenile heartwood. If you want a good starting point, read every published paper and article by Dr. Dave Cown of Scion (pretty much all available free online) regarding wood quality from say '77 onwards. Dr Cown was not only recognized for his work on wood quality with Scion in 2017 by way of a Lifetime Achievement Award, but was also in charge of Scion's various wood quality projects (both as to attempts to improve wood quality through breeding and silviculturee, but also through processing, - i.e. modification, development of kilning regimes etc) from the early 1990s onwards. Dr Cown was the researcher who first promulgated the ten-rings from the pith definition for the juvenile core (for Radiata), only to refine that (upwards) to fifteen rings from the pith in the past decade. When someone of Dr Cown's calibre warns that most of our wood now comprises juvenile wood, is problematic in service, and is thereafter put in charge, by Scion, of joint industry taskforces which completely revolutionised how we process and build with our Radiata, is it worth trying to understand why Dr Cown was issuing the warnings he did, and why our processing and building technology had to change so much (and yet still gives such poor results). I have simply attempted to give an overview.

In summary, I fully appreciate that much of what I have written directly contradicts "common knowledge" in New Zealand regarding our Radiata. We are simply told, and accept, that Radiata has been used satisfactorily for construction in New Zealand for most of the twentieth century, and that it is a high quality structural wood. Yet the contemporaenos historical records are clear, - you have the Hansard records of parliamentary debates as late as the 1960s with MPs near coming to blows as to whether or not Radiata was safe to build with. You have, very public, published proposals within the forestry industry again all the way throgh the 1960s and 70s as to whether or not to abandon Radiata as a lost cause for anything other than pulp production. You have the actual national timber grading analysis in the 1960s noting that Radiata was still illegal to build with in much of the Country. You have published economic analysis prepared for Treasury in the late 1960s noting that our then (first) 50 year rotation crop had been a commercial failure in terms of structural timber, was so poor that it had little to no prospect for export other than for pulp or other non-structural use, and that the next crop (rotation) would be even worse. You have over fifty years of periodic papers by New Zealand Forest Research recording its complete unsuitability for any exterior use even if treated. You have the building materials breakdowns from the 1970s onwards showing that even through to the mid-1970s only a small fraction of all timber used in housing construction in New Zealand was Radiata. You have, freely available online, now over thirty years of discussion, in scientific papers and industry publications, of just how problematic the new timber has been in use. You have the Hunn Report's finding that the change to untreated timber was not the cause of the leaky building crisis, but rather simply exacerbated it. You have, readily available, decades of published graveyard and laboratory test results for boron treatment.

I don't have the patience or frankly time to collate what is now well over fifty thousand pages of research papers, industry publications, government statistics, and basic scientific texts to spoon feed this via a wikipedia page. I'm just providing an overview. If you strongly disbelieve any aspect of what I've written, and it interests you enough to query it, - then query it. The information is all readily out there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.136.60.192 (talk • contribs) 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Misleading and over simplified.

The article perpetuates a number of simplistic myths - Such as untreated timer is a primary cause of the problem, as is shoddy workmanship. Although there is no dispute these are contributory causes, it is overly simplistic. The media, who are incapable of dealing with the complexity of the issue, perpetuate the myth. To understand this problem, you need to dig much deeper than a simple web page.

For instance - treated timber rots - it just takes longer - a cynic would say, that as New Zealand has the "10 year long stop provision" in the building act, treating the timber means using treated timber is not a problem - liability has expired before the problem is found...... Blaming "shoddy builders" - I have never seen a "Shoddy builder" stand up and be counted. Why not blame the materials suppliers, - There are effectively 2 in New Zealand, why not blame the trade organizations builders belong to0- there is one - these organizations were being warned of the problem (Sorry cannot find my references) in the mid 90's, yet nothing was done till 2001, when the media exposed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.109.206 (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It is correct to state that the New Zealand "Leaky Home Crisis" was the result of more than just a few contributing factors. In fact the crisis was the result of what we might call "a perfect storm", since a number of situations contributed to the situation, least of all the use of a new Standard for locally grown Pinus Radiata timber, based on stress-grading and the absence (for much of the timber framing used for building work) of the use of any kind of timber treatment. The reasons behind this change is a separate story. In any event, the period of the 1970's and 1980's saw both changes to the economy and to New Zealander's perceptions of what a new house should look like. This led to new building methods being tried including the increasing use of plastered "monolithic cladding systems". Initially such new methods were more trials than tried and true methods, since much of the required product information and components were simply not available in New Zealand at the time. With an inconsistent training of apprentices and professionals policy to do building work, the country saw the overall quality of building design, product literature, construction and checking of building work diminish. As evidenced in numerous court cases, many houses were designed, constructed and supervised by those without the requisite skills and experience needed. C Prouse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.96.136.74 (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Same in BC

It seems New Zealand is experiencing a similar crisis that crippled the British Columbia residential market more than a decade earlier, where it wss known as the "leaky CONDO crisis". Like in NZ, inappropriate "Mediterranean-like" design (lack of overhangs, flat decks, face-sealed stucco finishes, poor detailing at parapets, etc.), shody construction with inadequate professional oversight, and changes to Building Codes in the 1980s (that emphasised energy conservation over an understanding of the wet coastal climate in BC) were the main culprits. An inquiry in 1998 (see here) resulted in significant changes, the creation of the Homeowner Protection Office, builder warranties and better oversight by architects and engineers. The lack of financial support for the "victims" is an ongoing issue 10 years after the inquiry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.198.253 (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree

I have added your suggestion in a new category LawrieM (talk) 07:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Some notes

The report commissioned by the Department of Building and Housing, carried out by Price Waterhouse Coopers in 2009, estimated the costs of remediating leaky buildings to be between $5.9 billion and $22.9 billion and affecting between 22000 and 89000 homes. Most of the leaky buildings were constructed while the Building Act 1991 was in force. The Building Act 2004 is now in force, but it has been observed that its enactment did stop leaky building syndrome.

Some relevant legislation is:

Unit Titles Act 1972

Unit Titles Act 2010

Building Act 1991

Building Act 2004 - s 396 provides a 10-year long stop period, after which no actions for negligence can be brought (even if the limitation periods for negligence have not expired)

Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006

Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Act 2010 - this broadly provides that the government pays for 25%, the local council pays for 25% and the owner is liable for 50% of the costs of leaky building remediation.

Limitation Act 1950

Limitation Act 2010

Some relevant judicial decisions:

Attorney-General v Body Corporate 200200 (Sacarmento) [2007] 1 NZLR 95 in which case Young J stated at paras [26] - [30]:

"Leaky building syndrome emerged as a problem in the late 1990s and the early years of the current century. The syndrome is associated with the ingress of moisture through the external membrane of a building and inadequate water management. This results in the building's timber framing retaining sufficient moisture to permit fungal activity. This fungal activity causes decay to the timber framing and also, in itself, poses health risks for those who use the building."

Discussing the cause of leaky building syndrome, he continued:

"During the 1990s increasingly diverse building systems came into common use (including the use of face fixed monolithic cladding)and a number of design practices, building techniques and consumer preferences emerged which are relevant in the present context. These include: flat roof structures, buildings without eaves, the replacement of flashings with sealants, balconies and decks, and an increasing focus on energy efficiency at the expense of natural ventilation."

Dr Michael Rehm, in (Dan Parker and Tim Rainey Leaky Buildings (New Zealand Law Society, 2011) at page 68, has noted that another effect of leaky building syndrome is leaky building stigma. This is where the price of buildings unaffected by LBS reduces because it is built in a certain area, or with certain materials.

LBS can affect both physical and mental health - physical mainly from respiratory issues relating to fungal activity. Mental is mainly from stress from living in such an environment and trying to get the issue resolved (will add reference and details later).

The main cases in New Zealand:

Invercargill City Council v Hamlin [1994] 3 NZLR 513 (CA) - NZCA deciding to deviate from English line of reasoning

Invercargill City Council v Hamlin [1996] 1 NZLR 513 (PC) - Judicial Committee of the Privy Council permitting New Zealand to deviate from English law on this point

North Shore City Council v Body Corporate 188529 [2010] NZSC 158 - Supreme Court of New Zealand extending the "Hamlin" duty to all residential homes whatever their form (among other things)

North Shore City Council v Body Corporate 207624 [2011] NZCA 164 - NZCA making a very bad decision which has recently been overturned

Body Corporate No 207624 and others (Spencer on Bryon) v North Shore City Council [2012] NZSC 83 - New Zealand Supreme Court stating that the duty to take care incumbent on councils should also extend to commercial premises, thus overruling the above case, and Te Mata Properties Limited v Hastings District Council [2008] NZCA 446 (no duty owed to commercial owner), and Queenstown Lakes District Council v Charterhall Trustees [2009] NZCA 374 (no duty owed to commercial owner even where risk to health and safety).

~~This is a very basic overview, of SOME of the law and will come back and update it when I get an opportunity to. Hopefully this is of some help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord of appeal in ordinary (talk • contribs) 09:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leaky homes crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120827224136/http://www.consumerbuild.org.nz/publish/maintenance/ext-monolithic.php to http://www.consumerbuild.org.nz/publish/maintenance/ext-monolithic.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Original research

I intend to quite brutally either find references for material on this page or remove it. This seems to be a contentious issue and Wikipedia is not a builders Wiki. That said I am a recent home owner and am grateful for all the interesting perspectives. I will mark the date so interested party's can still see what the real story is. Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Most of the material removed[1]. It seemed to me to be a reasonably well written monologue by someone who know the industry. But not written in Wiki voice and not referenced.Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)