Leaky Buildings $5-10 Billion cost to taxpayers from NZ Herald
Jan 23rd 2007, 2:39 am
#16
Here in Dunedin
Joined: May 2003
Location: Dunedin
Posts: 1,975
Re: Leaky Buildings $5-10 Billion cost to taxpayers from NZ Herald
a) I doubt these companies required an audit be done
b) they have a ready made defence "we didn't know there was a claim likely, and all our work was inspected and signed off the building inspectors so at the time we thought it was weatherproof".
Remember, it has taken until now to get some case law on this, which unfortunately makes it very difficult to get the right people to pay up.
b) they have a ready made defence "we didn't know there was a claim likely, and all our work was inspected and signed off the building inspectors so at the time we thought it was weatherproof".
Remember, it has taken until now to get some case law on this, which unfortunately makes it very difficult to get the right people to pay up.
Jan 23rd 2007, 2:59 am
#17
Forum Regular
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 68
Re: Leaky Buildings $5-10 Billion cost to taxpayers from NZ Herald
Quite,
It's pretty well explained in the original Herald article. Whatever happens, there will be one of two outcomes. Either the govt (taxpayer) will foot the bill, or the homeowner will be saddled with it, generally through no fault of their own.
As a buyer, the designer tells you it's fine, the developer tells you it's fine, the builder tells you it's fine, the inspector tells you it's fine, the council tells you it's fine and finally, by lending you money, the bank tells you it's fine.
This came about mainly because the timber industry in cahoots with the building industry and developers managed to persuade the government that building regs were too draconian and that treated timber was unnecessary.
Most of the houses were built to and complied with the specification, it's just that the specification was a hopelessly flawed document .
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/stor...jectid=2998760
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/stor...jectid=3003283
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/features/...e.php/2372d240
Now think of this in UK terms. It would equate to half a million houses or so and a bill to the taxpayer of up to 30 billion pounds, that gives you an idea of the scale of the problem - $3,000 from every adult in NZ, but nearer to $6,000 from each taxpayer
It's pretty well explained in the original Herald article. Whatever happens, there will be one of two outcomes. Either the govt (taxpayer) will foot the bill, or the homeowner will be saddled with it, generally through no fault of their own.
As a buyer, the designer tells you it's fine, the developer tells you it's fine, the builder tells you it's fine, the inspector tells you it's fine, the council tells you it's fine and finally, by lending you money, the bank tells you it's fine.
This came about mainly because the timber industry in cahoots with the building industry and developers managed to persuade the government that building regs were too draconian and that treated timber was unnecessary.
Most of the houses were built to and complied with the specification, it's just that the specification was a hopelessly flawed document .
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/stor...jectid=2998760
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/stor...jectid=3003283
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/features/...e.php/2372d240
Now think of this in UK terms. It would equate to half a million houses or so and a bill to the taxpayer of up to 30 billion pounds, that gives you an idea of the scale of the problem - $3,000 from every adult in NZ, but nearer to $6,000 from each taxpayer
Last edited by Dave in Auckland; Jan 23rd 2007 at 3:14 am.
