Building inspections

[Hope]

We are looking at buying a house at the moment and one of the ones we are interested in has no CCC on an extension they put in sometime in the 90s (the rest of the house was built in the 60s). The vendor had the plans for the extension all signed off with the council but according to the estate agent, forgot that last tick in the box.

They have this final inspection scheduled and the estate agent has said that in order to help it along, have had a building inspection done and she has passed that document on to us. I am not sure how objective these inspections are and so I am not sure if I should have my own building inspection done.

I am hoping somebody with a little more experience in this kind of thing could give me some pointers.

Thanks.

[ralf-nz]

They have this final inspection scheduled and the estate agent has said that in order to help it along, have had a building inspection done and she has passed that document on to us. I am not sure how objective these inspections are and so I am not sure if I should have my own building inspection done.

If it is the local authority in general or a structural engineer as part of the building process they are deemed impartial here in NZ - and basically are. If it is the same engineer as part of the sale they are not deemed impartial but still they have legal, professional and ethical obligations.

On the other side it is more about the competence. I have too often performed site inspections on structural elements that have been ticked off by a building inspector where I noticed considerable defects.

[nickiware]

I would be very wary of anything with no CCC

[Hope]

Thanks Ralf. One of my colleagues has recommended I use Realsure and have an independent inspection done. He said their reports are very detailed and have persuaded him twice to back out of a house purchase. I think it is probably worth the peace of mind.

I definitely am very wary of this lack of CCC Nicki - we will only expressed an interest in it and have said we will not take it any further until it has been issued a CCC.

[catt]

Get the LIM report on it and see if there is any mention of an extension in there. Even if its not had boxes ticked if the council have been involved then the LIM will reflect it.

[Hope]

Thanks Catt - we got the LIM and it states they had approval to do the extension but no CCC issued.

[ralf-nz]

Thanks Ralf. One of my colleagues has recommended I use Realsure and have an independent inspection done. He said their reports are very detailed and have persuaded him twice to back out of a house purchase. I think it is probably worth the peace of mind.

Don't know them personally. However, define independent and also compare to impartial. What qualifications do they have?

[Super_BQ]

On the other side it is more about the competence. I have too often performed site inspections on structural elements that have been ticked off by a building inspector where I noticed considerable defects.

I've come across the same issues where there's no level of consistency among all inspectors. Kinda like the WOF as various garages don't have a set standard of what passes or fails.

Unless you know what to look for, I wouldn't advise buying ANY house without some sort of independent inspection. The ones that the real estate agent supply aren't really unbiased.

I would be very wary of anything with no CCC

I prefer to see with my own eyes. Here in Christchurch people would jump to buy if a house with no code of compliance, passes inspection with flying colours. The issue is the test of time is a factor. Many houses were built with no CCC by architects or simply, fussy builders that made houses well beyond what the minimum code states (yet, at the time, no provision was allowed to build in such a way). Nowadays the rigidity of the building code makes getting CCC a big hassle if the project exceeds the code in a dramatic way. From an engineering point of view, the only test of say withstanding an earthquake is to simply subject a house to a real earthquake. If it possesses no damage - then what would be the issue of worrying about a code of compliance? (i'm speaking loosely as the same issue applies if say for weatherproofing, etc). hence, the test of time...

However in the original post's query, we're dealing with an addition that was put on later. This would have to be looked at closely.

[ralf-nz]

Nowadays the rigidity of the building code makes getting CCC a big hassle if the project exceeds the code in a dramatic way.

That is not my professional experience! What do you base it on?
The code is firm - yes agreed - which serves us well as a society. But the code clearly allows for exceeding its scope; using an AS instead of a VM. This is part of the design phase followed by the building consent application.
The construction will then match the code exceeding, consented design and thus be granted CCC easily.

From an engineering point of view, the only test of say withstanding an earthquake is to simply subject a house to a real earthquake.

No, there are comparable tests feasible and actually carried out. Especially re earthquake Christchurch university do have this equipment, e.g. 'shakeable' plates on which houses or parts thereof are tested in withstanding earthquake like forces.

[Super_BQ]

That is not my professional experience! What do you base it on?

Just look at how residential houses are built today. Ask any major high volume building company why they build the same format as many other building companies? I'm talking rotating a garage 90 degrees and having windows high up to the eaves doesn't make that much of a difference in the overall design from one house to another. Why? Because it's easy to get building consents. Architects are no better - just look at how many of their houses have been destroyed here in Christchurch - yet an old 1950s state house next door sees little or no damage.

Take timber wall bracing for example. Why is it today's code doesn't accept the old fashion diagonal cuts into the studs to 'check' in a diagonal piece of timber to brace the wall. It then went to diagonal metal bracing, then they went to what we have today, Gib (wallboard) internal bracing. To the eye you would think the diagonal check wood cut piece or the metal angle bracing is stronger than to rely on 10mm Gib ? Perhaps the industry has gone to building cheaper and cheaper a la the transition to using less and less labour.

Putting labour costs aside, could it be that the simplicity of NZ building is more to do with the fact that builders don't want to take the risk? Risk such as using non-standard materials and methods from overseas that would possess a problem later on?

No, there are comparable tests feasible and actually carried out. Especially re earthquake Christchurch university do have this equipment, e.g. 'shakeable' plates on which houses or parts thereof are tested in withstanding earthquake like forces.

I'm not questioning what tests they do in the building industry but rather, i'm questioning the politics that got involved in the NZ building industry that allowed unproven designs to be used in NZ. Good example - The $20+ billion damage from leaky house syndrome - mostly on part because BIA's lack of real testing for NZ climate. (the earthquake machine to shake a house can not factor all the variables and certainly, BIA didn't see how overseas methods + untreated wood + poor flashings + NZ's climate would be enough to prevent leaky house). Instead, a conflict of interest came about in BIA (a certain member) that was convinced to allow the use of systems such as EIFS monolithic cladding and put in the building code that such claddings does meet the NZ building standard. Yet all the builders of that time didn't feel comfortable 'in practise' but to those academic newly grads at city council saw nothing wrong because ... it met building code.

Where has NZ gone in the past 20 years in the building industry? IMO, it seems like the bureaucracy has scared all the creativity and different methods away. Some will credit BRANZ for coming up with 'acceptable building solutions' - but they've been wrong in the past, and yet, hold no accountability when one of their solutions turns to a disaster.

To brush up on some reading.. http://dontbuyaleaker.weebly.com/index.html

While reading that site - question why those methods and different materials were ever approved for use in the NZ building code? In the case of earthquakes, i'm not betting on it just because some university has a machine that can shake a house.