Building inspection report for a brand new property?

[RedVee]

Would you bother?

Things have tightened up a lot here with the Licensed Building practitioner regulation and the codes of compliance. Most of the things a building inspector would visually check for is things in poor condition, i.e. overdue maintenance, structural issues, heating system, windows and doors, walls and ceilings, insulation - many of these things are covered by the CoC certificate.

The house I'm looking at also has ten years "Master Builder" warranty on the structure and "leakiness cover", and two years for defective materials.

I will more than likely get a LIM (or do the research myself at the council offices), and the bank will probably insist on a valuation.


PS - trying not to get too excited

[batgirl1001]

It depends on how many years left there is on the warranty. If you are not buying brand new, then it pays to spend a little to have a house inspection because it may not always be about the structural defects of the house but rather the small things.

[Super_BQ]

You'll need to find more details on the house such as when was the building consent issued? The LBP is relatively a new thing and consent could be passed before. The building could also be on hold for some years before construction starts which means at the end, you may get a house that is not up to the most recent requirement. A building report may be able to check for these thing but in my experience, they're not evasive enough to give any insight on issues like leaky house syndrome. They will pick up on things like if the water taps work, but they can't pick up issues if there's a slight micro-leak of water seeping from a poor plumbing joint inside the walls.

The Master Builder warranty is nothing more than a marketing gimmick. Many builders use them because they offer home owners some insurance while the building company uses their financial "progress payment" scheme (a win for the builder because they don't have to worry about huge outlays of $$ while the home owner is committed to these progress payments). If you read the details of what the warranty covers, it really doesn't cover the important things like structural damage, leaky house (to full limits), basically the important issues of a house. Your real warranty would be how much over minimum code the house was built.

The LBP doesn't offer any better built house than before. It's just a requirement that on site, there must be a foreman or worker that has this license while the rest of the team could be apprentices or low wage labourers. The assurance that LBP does offer is if the house fails, then that person could risk losing their LBP license. But since building a house involves many other sub-trades, 1 mistake could lead to another where the blame is passed along. Keep in mind, building inspectors can't check for everything during the progress build and a building report can't check for the things that matter.

It's a good thing I watched every step of the way when we built our house. NZ builders are 'lazy'.

[batgirl1001]

Yes the MB does only give limited warranty for structural defects, and also for a limited amount but it is certainly in my view better than nothing. Previously no such thing existed but there has been small measures only recently to try and bring some accountability from the builder to the design/structure of the house they build.

[Super_BQ]

Actually under the consumer rights act, the guarantee should stick on a house for a reasonable period of time. Home owners always had the right to sue the builder on defects or the previous owner.

There was a landmark case in Auckland where a home owner won against city council over the leaky house fiasco. The end result is a dumbing down of how residential houses will be built as it deters any creative, different methods of construction / techniques. By being stung once, you can be sure the council will not want to be stung again - meaning, they don't like to see different things in building but rather, prefer to pass building consents based on tried & true methods.

[batgirl1001]

Legally it is very hard to argue a case under such a broad consumer act although it is necessary to have such a law to protect the rights of the consumer against poor and defective products and/or service and delivery. The issue has to deal with what is a necessary and reasonable length of warranty, protection and extend of liability of the product and it is very hard to argue and not to mention lengthy as well as money-consuming to fight every battle in court or mediation when it comes to product liability. The MB isn't perfect but in the long run it makes sense to have a reasonable warranty on structure, defects (given that houses are usually our largest purchase in our lives). A consumer act is meant to be broad-based and it is meant to cover all manners of purchases but you find that to use such an act to argue complex cases such as house purchases can be time and money consuming and often when owners are left with little recourse (where it is hard and nearly impossible to sue the builder) they often go for the next best thing - the council.

[Super_BQ]

Of course legally it's difficult and costly to sue. But it doesn't mean it hasn't happened before. The design build life of a new house today must meet 50 year durability. Now not 50 years on the floor coverings, tap-ware, or window drapes, but 50 year use on the building structure (the bones of the of the house). What MB offers is a very limited coverage on such damage. I don't even think they cover issues like soil subsidence? (last I read the fine print, this isn't covered). So what does 50 year design life mean to the builder? It means that they need to use products that meet this specification - which so happens every other builder uses. Which means a complete lack of creativity in the design of the house as builders are too scared to try non-standard materials, non-standard or unproven techniques ("Under NZ Conditions"). Each time I look at the TV shows (ie Ty Pennington / Mike Holmes etc) that show the work they do on houses in N. American, my mind says "I would truly love to have something like that in NZ". But the problem is everyone is too scared or more likely, they're too lazy and there would be no profit for the builder.

As a matter of interest, here at the Chch City Council, their engineers charge a consulting fee @ $160/hr. That's a lot of $ to charge on the client just because they want to do this or that on the house. I was told a home owner paid $8000 for building consent (permit) just to build a conservatory on their house. I'm sure to close in an area to build a conservatory wouldn't cost that much in materials and labour.

[RedVee]

Thanks both, and some interesting points raised. Building consent was given Nov 2011, build commenced 2012 and house completed 2013. I've had a good look at the property info at the local council, including all the inspection reports. All the other risks are identical as I live in the same area now (flood, tsunami, liquefaction, etc). The comments about the guarantee are very similar to those raised about the NHBC in the UK. Have commissioned a valuation, but probably won't get a building inspection report. I think we agree that they are too limited - they would see even less than a council building inspector would have done at the membrane, preline and post line inspections for example.

One thing I am still unsure of is who approves the earthworks? That would be for me the biggest risk and doesn't currently
appear in the council info. Is that done before sections can be marketed for sale?

[Super_BQ]

One thing I am still unsure of is who approves the earthworks? That would be for me the biggest risk and doesn't currently
appear in the council info. Is that done before sections can be marketed for sale?

If you're speaking about a new residential sub-division lot, the earthworks would be done by the developer. (specifically the compaction / drainage / road layouts / electrical / etc) Again, these works must be approved by city council. If you're speaking about the digging for the construction of your house (foundation / piles) then again, that should be with the building consent.

There's an element of luck. Just because a house has a code of compliance doesn't mean it's fool proof. When EQC inspectors look at our house (recently) they were very amazed how little damage was done for the size of the house. I told them that's proof by building more than minimum code.

[RedVee]

Yes, it is a show home built on a new residential sub division lot, and I've now found the geo surveys, with details of what was filled, and what was cut. Happy that my target section had little of either. I realise this is no guarantee against land slip, but it helps

Spec is very, very high, as the builder is showing off But I will never be able to tell if his guys had a bad Friday, or a bad Monday, and botched something internally , until it shows up. Good on you, SuperBQ, for being able to be assured at every stage.