• Full Story

Claim launched against leaky homes

Email
Print

Thu, 27 Jan 2011 8:12p.m.

(File pic)

(File pic)

Owners of six apartments in a Grey Lynn building have lodged a claim at the Weathertight Homes Tribunal against a non-cavity "monotek" cladding system.

Some "leaky homes" cases at the tribunal seek compensation from builders or designers. When developers and tradesmen or contractors have either vanished, become insolvent, or died, they have tended to seek compensation from the local authority which did the building inspections or signed off on the code of compliance.

Though many claimants have alleged systemic failures of various moisture management process, lawyer Adina Thorn said today she thought her clients were the first to challenge the integrity of one of manufacturer James' Hardie's Monotek cladding systems.

"I believe this is the first weather tightness claim where the direct-fixed Monotek cladding system is in issue," she said. "This will be a benchmark claim for affected homeowners throughout New Zealand.

"The claimants allege that the non-cavity Monotek cladding system, as sold at that time, varies significantly from the standards of weathertightness now required, despite it being sold as a premium product," she said.

Ms Thorn noted that the claim did not involve James Hardie's cavity Monotek system, for which the company has a Building Research Association (BRANZ) appraisal from August 2005.

The Weathertight Homes Resolution Service was set up by the Department of Building and Housing and the Ministry of Justice after some experts reported that the vast majority of monolithic-clad dwellings constructed before 2006 will suffer weathertightness failures.

According to the service's website, many of these failures will be in homes built before 2006 "particularly those dwellings with so-called monolithic claddings".

It suggested the use of such claddings coincided with more complicated building designs and construction methods vulnerable to water penetration through the exterior of the building, though other commentators have also pointed to a shortage of skilled builders after training requirements in apprentice schemes were relaxed.

NZPA

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

30 Jan 2011 11:29a.m.

bArt wrote:

Whatever the cause was, faulty product, faulty installation or poor workmanship, it is the local body councils around New Zealand that issue permits for where one can build, when one can build, what one can build and how one can build. Not only that but they are pretty adept at making anyone who wishes to build pay dearly for the privilege. They are a protection racket in my opinion and promote the products of multinationals who print convincing glossy literature in much the same vein as companies print their prospectuses. No, it is the local body councils first and foremost who are the culprits, as they are supposed have the knowledge and experience to 'see through' manufacturers claims, before they tick off on products and systems. I hope this case fails because I still say that it is the local bodies are the primary culprits.