[anothertrekker]

Hi,

Reno on the house I bought is 95% completed. 3 weeks ago, the builder mentioned about the guarantee. He said that if I wanted the guarantee, I needed to pay an additional NZD800 to buy that guarantee.

I didn't know that I had to pay for a guarantee. My fault, I took for granted that a guarantee would come with the engagement of a certified master builder just like how a 2 year warranty comes with a brand new washing machine.

I asked why this wasn't mentioned at the beginning of the project even though he knew from the very beginning (in May 2009) that he was going to renovate the garage, 2 bathrooms and a bedroom? His lame excuse was, "oh, because the quotation for the house (approx $40k) was done after the quotation for the garage (approx $10k), and I am required to offer the guarantee only if the quotation is beyond $40k." Mind you, the quotations were given 1 month apart only.

According to http://www.masterbuilder.org.nz/index.asp?id=57, the builder should offer a guarantee for work >$25k. So, do ask your builder about the guarantee before you sign any papers or pay any deposit.

[Georgebulldog]

Thanks for that, good to know :nice1

[KelvinAng]

Interesting... suppose if you do not buy the guarantee cover, and in the event that something broke, would you then be covered under Consumer Guarantee Act or something similar? This guarantee thing sounds a bit like blackmail in the sense that if you don't buy it and something breaks a few weeks later and they aren't responsible to fix it and they don't even have to complete the job as the guarantee "protect you against loss of deposit, non-completion, defective workmanship, rot and structural defects, or if your builder is unable or unwilling to put things right."

Like you I'd think that the guarantee comes with hiring a registered master builder!

[GrumpyGoat]

So, if you don't buy it, there is no warranty on the work?

Or is this some kind of "extended warranty"?

[norma]

Can't you contact the Master Builder's association and ask if you've been treated fairly? I assume they will have a code of conduct or similar for their members.

[VileTraveller]

Can't you contact the Master Builder's association and ask if you've been treated fairly? I assume they will have a code of conduct or similar for their members.
If your contract documents do not have details of the warranty, I would second norma's suggestion. Even if he is contractually in the clear, this sort of behaviour is unprofessional at best and unethical at worst. If you feel you have a valid dispute, you should be able to appeal to the association for arbitration. Mind you, going by my knowledge of most professional organisations, I wouldn't pin too much hope on their internal disciplinary procedures ... :rolleyes:

[IanW99]

Hi,

Reno on the house I bought is 95% completed. 3 weeks ago, the builder mentioned about the guarantee. He said that if I wanted the guarantee, I needed to pay an additional NZD800 to buy that guarantee.

...


Have you contacted the Registered Master Builder Federation and asked them about this cost?

I can tell you that we have the mentioned guarantee and definitely didn't pay any fee to get it (of course this may have been built into the cost of the job?).

Ian

[Kiwi Mac]

We have learned (the hard way!) that we need to be 110% specific about absolutely everything when dealing with tradies here.

For example, we got a quote to paint the exterior of our house. We asked, in writing, for that to include painting the exterior of the 8 sets of French Doors and all the windows and varnishing the interior of same.

Quote arrived for $11,000 or so. We said go for it.

We then got one bill for $11,000 for the walls and another for almost as much for the doors!

We protested but had not noticed that the actual quote sent through did not specify the doors as included, despite our asking for it to do so in writing. We assumed we would be sent what we had asked for.

We pointed out the logic that we had, during several site meetings, pointed to the fact that we had a limited budget and getting the costs nailed down was very important - therefore why would we have wanted to incur a 100% increase in costs without a quote?

Turned out to be our bad and we had to swallow what we still regard as very dodgy behaviour by the contractor concerned.

To top it off, the numpty he had on site doing the doors and windows was super-slow and spent more time texting his mates and smoking than he did actually working. If I had known I was paying for every hour of that, I would have complained long and loud to his boss and cut the job time in half I expect!!

So now we are always very careful to nail down absolutely every little thing - even the bleedin' obvious! It can be painful but you have to do it here, we find.

[KelvinAng]

To top it off, the numpty he had on site doing the doors and windows was super-slow and spent more time texting his mates and smoking than he did actually working. If I had known I was paying for every hour of that, I would have complained long and loud to his boss and cut the job time in half I expect!!

This is something that I require a bit of adjustment to. I'm used to being quoted for a job based on the results itself and not based on hours of supposed work.

I'm a web developer and once, I went with a web designer friend for a meeting to quote the customer on a possible website job, and I told them I estimate my part of the job to cost them $500. The customer then came around and said... so, it's $500, fixed? Even if you later find that you need more time, you wouldn't charge us?

The typical Kiwi quote seems to be something along the line of "oh it would take me about 5 hours at $80/hr, but shouldn't take more than 8 hours but if I do I'll phone and let you know and you'll decide if I should continue working on it."

[Kiwi Mac]

This is something that I require a bit of adjustment to. I'm used to being quoted for a job based on the results itself and not based on hours of supposed work.

I'm a web developer and once, I went with a web designer friend for a meeting to quote the customer on a possible website job, and I told them I estimate my part of the job to cost them $500. The customer then came around and said... so, it's $500, fixed? Even if you later find that you need more time, you wouldn't charge us?

The typical Kiwi quote seems to be something along the line of "oh it would take me about 5 hours at $80/hr, but shouldn't take more than 8 hours but if I do I'll phone and let you know and you'll decide if I should continue working on it."
LOL - so true.

In fact I have just been stung by that very thing redeveloping my website. The quote is in hours, not deliverables.

I tried pointing out that the number of hours it takes is not relevant to me, but $6000 later they don't seem to have been listening....

Even worse, they accused us of being "difficult" and having "an attitude" when we questioned this - and here was me thinking I was the client not a paid skivvy.....

[KelvinAng]

In fact I have just been stung by that very thing redeveloping my website. The quote is in hours, not deliverables.

I've also found that most quotes I received were optimistic and often I have to pay more than what's originally quoted. Based on my experience I've learned to double the price of their quote which seems to make it just about right when the final bill comes!

Web development, to be fair, can often be complicated and it all comes down to getting the expectations right - what the client want and what the company can deliver. I'm not surprised that it cost $6,000 and the website is still not done right, much of it is really down to proper communication of what's can or cannot be done based on the technologies involved. It is often best that the client can talk to a developer directly, but many companies wouldn't want that and prefers the "customer services representative" middleman approach which frustrates both the client and the developer.

[Kiwi Mac]

I've also found that most quotes I received were optimistic and often I have to pay more than what's originally quoted. Based on my experience I've learned to double the price of their quote which seems to make it just about right when the final bill comes!

Web development, to be fair, can often be complicated and it all comes down to getting the expectations right - what the client want and what the company can deliver. I'm not surprised that it cost $6,000 and the website is still not done right, much of it is really down to proper communication of what's can or cannot be done based on the technologies involved. It is often best that the client can talk to a developer directly, but many companies wouldn't want that and prefers the "customer services representative" middleman approach which frustrates both the client and the developer.

Which is exactly what we got. One of the directors suddenly abandoned our project because she became pregnant and the 'client manager' (who has no significant experience and is younger than 30) simply tells us what we can't do and how much it will cost extra to do stuff we wanted in the first place....

[Sam B]

I haven't found this. We had a house built. They told us how much it would cost and how long it would take. They were right. The Master Builder's guarantee was included although I hadn't thought to ask about this. Other tradesmen have been similar. I think it is down to individual experiences and not a typically NZ thing. There are good and bad tradesmen everywhere in the world.

[langers]

Good site for this type of stuff is Consumerbuild.org.nz, it's put together by the same people as the Consumer magazine site, there's an article specifically about this very same subject:

http://www.consumerbuild.org.nz/publish/trades/tradespeople-guarantees.php

[anothertrekker]

Can't you contact the Master Builder's association and ask if you've been treated fairly? I assume they will have a code of conduct or similar for their members.

Was out of country. Just back.

I did call MB & yes, the guarantee has to be bought. I didn't ask about whether I have been treated fairly. There are some rules when dealing with builders or any kind of contractors:

1) Never take anything for granted - make sure everything is in black & white
2) Remember the golden rule - the person who holds the gold rules. I won't put too much hope on the Consumer Guarantee Act. The "golden rule" act has worked faster for me
3) No matter how nice the contractor is, please refer to rule 1

Cheers...

[anothertrekker]

To top it off, the numpty he had on site doing the doors and windows was super-slow and spent more time texting his mates and smoking than he did actually working. If I had known I was paying for every hour of that, I would have complained long and loud to his boss and cut the job time in half I expect!!



Ditto...the carpenter this builder sent to work on our house spent much time texting his partner, going to the bank, to see his podiatrist and GP for back/feet pain etc, taking long "smokos". Told the builder and his reply was, "it's the norm here."

[anothertrekker]

I haven't found this. We had a house built. They told us how much it would cost and how long it would take. They were right. The Master Builder's guarantee was included although I hadn't thought to ask about this. Other tradesmen have been similar. I think it is down to individual experiences and not a typically NZ thing. There are good and bad tradesmen everywhere in the world.

I must say, "Good on you, mate" because I know many people who have had bad experience with builders since coming to NZ in March this year.

I must agree with you that builders/contractors are the same everywhere...well, at least the countries I have lived it.

[anothertrekker]

When I first engaged the builder, he said he would gift a brand new front door and told me to choose any door I wanted. I chose an aluminium door with small double glazed windows. I received another invoice a few days ago and he billed me for the door. He said he was only going to gift a cedar door that is cheaper than an alu door - he didn't tell me that I could only choose any cedar door.

Hope to meet him face to face next week and tell him how disappointed I am with him.

[anothertrekker]

I've also found that most quotes I received were optimistic and often I have to pay more than what's originally quoted. Based on my experience I've learned to double the price of their quote which seems to make it just about right when the final bill comes!


Always remember to ask for money back if you decide not to go ahead with work already factored into the quotation because if you decide to add extra work or change the original reno/build plan, your builder will not hesitate to charge more..ka-ching, ka-ching.

[Super_BQ]

When I first engaged the builder, he said he would gift a brand new front door and told me to choose any door I wanted. I chose an aluminium door with small double glazed windows. I received another invoice a few days ago and he billed me for the door. He said he was only going to gift a cedar door that is cheaper than an alu door - he didn't tell me that I could only choose any cedar door.

That's why my preference is for the major building outfits because the conditions in the contract is more black and white. Of course with the smaller contract builder you get more of the personal relationship which leads to like gifting and such. But as in the previous post, it's much better to never assume and always ask questions!!!

BQ

[anothertrekker]

That's why my preference is for the major building outfits because the conditions in the contract is more black and white. Of course with the smaller contract builder you get more of the personal relationship which leads to like gifting and such. But as in the previous post, it's much better to never assume and always ask questions!!!

BQ

But don't you think houses built by these companies look the same? When I drive around looking at houses, I say "oh, this looks like GJ, a Jennian or a Signature etc."

One of my friends engaged GJ to build a house. The plumber forgot to connect the ensuite drainage pipe to the main drainage pipe. My friend used the ensuite on the day they shifted in, it flooded & the brand new carpet in the bedroom was soaked. Beautiful tiles had to be hacked. Last time I saw, there's a big hole underneath the bathtub. My friend wasn't pleased.

[Kiwi Mac]

But don't you think houses built by these companies look the same? When I drive around looking at houses, I say "oh, this looks like GJ, a Jennian or a Signature etc."

One of my friends engaged GJ to build a house. The plumber forgot to connect the ensuite drainage pipe to the main drainage pipe. My friend used the ensuite on the day they shifted in, it flooded & the brand new carpet in the bedroom was soaked. Beautiful tiles had to be hacked. Last time I saw, there's a big hole underneath the bathtub. My friend wasn't pleased.

Sadly typical in one way or another. A manifestation of the lack of attention to detail that is quite pervasive in my experience.

Part of the problem is that they are not commonly supervised when building here. In the UK when I have built property, I usually used either a Building Surveyor or an architect to supervise the construction.

This meant weekly site visits with defects being corrected as they arose, reinforced with stage payments on the contracts that were only made once the supervising professional was satisfied that the work for each stage had been correctly and competently completed using the specified materials.

I'm not sure what reaction you would get if you tried using that sort of methodology here. Has anyone tried?

[benandclare]

.

This meant weekly site visits with defects being corrected as they arose, reinforced with stage payments on the contracts that were only made once the supervising professional was satisfied that the work for each stage had been correctly and competently completed using the specified materials.




That's pretty much how our build went, maybe not weekly inspections but at least 12 to 15 inspections by building inspectors and then payment once passed/ work completed.

[Kiwi Mac]

The problem with building inspectors (council ones anyway) is that their remit is to ensure that the building meets the standards set by the various acts.

Sadly, the standards are not especially high. If you specify higher standards and materials specs, you need an independent arbiter (a Chartered Surveyor in the UK, or an architect) to ensure that the work that is over and above the standard is correctly carried out.

[benandclare]

The problem with building inspectors (council ones anyway) is that their remit is to ensure that the building meets the standards set by the various acts.

Sadly, the standards are not especially high. If you specify higher standards and materials specs, you need an independent arbiter (a Chartered Surveyor in the UK, or an architect) to ensure that the work that is over and above the standard is correctly carried out.

Oh I agree , there was much scratching of heads when they came up against anything that was outside of their box, like the extra insulation and water filled radiators :) > But hey they have their rules.

Have to say, although we've not built in the UK, we're more than happy with the standard of workmanship and professionalism shown by our NZ builders

[Super_BQ]

But don't you think houses built by these companies look the same? When I drive around looking at houses, I say "oh, this looks like GJ, a Jennian or a Signature etc."

I use to think that way when they built houses in Canada however, the design of the houses served many purposes. Apart from minimising potential problems, the reliability of the house is greater when designs are more or the same or simple. The other aspect of building houses that are of a specific standard is more to do with the macro level of the sub division. The tendancy to keep houses closer together yields more energy efficiency for the whole neighborhood than to have huge spaces between each neighboring lot. But then the goal of home construction in NZ is entirely different to Canada as people value their outdoor space more than the cost of home comfort.

The architects i've spoken to in NZ somehow like to boast claim of building different or eco-friendly. However, none can confidently say their works are problem free. The proof is simple, just pick up the realator book and browse through countless of houses for sale - NONE mention they were architecturally designed by some famous designer. So a question one must consider is that, is it worthwhile to build something so different in design that the house could have future potential problems? Sacrificing home comfort? Whereas when you build to a specific standard, you kinda know what you are going to get (at least when it comes to the city council minimum standards).

At the start of the house designing stage, I myself believed it was best to go with a higher standard. Then I quickly discovered I was in an environment that nobody knew how to approach and build to that standard. You spend lots of time educating contractors how you want the house built and even still, things can likely go wrong. Is it worth the risk or even so, worth the massive cost?

If you want attention and detail in your next house, you better have deep pockets. It's no different than restoring a classic car to "concours d'Elegance' standard. Very few auto restoration outfits can build to this level and if you do find one, the car you're restoring better be worth it's value at the end. If you have 2 houses side by side with the same sq. metre design. No one in their right mind is going to pay 40% more just because the house had more detail in the trimmings, impeccable tiled floors, perfect paint job on the walls, etc.

BQ

[Familyofmonkeys]

At the start of the house designing stage, I myself believed it was best to go with a higher standard. Then I quickly discovered I was in an environment that nobody knew how to approach and build to that standard. You spend lots of time educating contractors how you want the house built and even still, things can likely go wrong. Is it worth the risk or even so, worth the massive cost?

If you want attention and detail in your next house, you better have deep pockets. It's no different than restoring a classic car to "concours d'Elegance' standard. Very few auto restoration outfits can build to this level and if you do find one, the car you're restoring better be worth it's value at the end. If you have 2 houses side by side with the same sq. metre design. No one in their right mind is going to pay 40% more just because the house had more detail in the trimmings, impeccable tiled floors, perfect paint job on the walls, etc.

BQ


Better to spend your money on getting the basics right, such as decent windows, insulation and some affordable heating....it might cost a bit more, but need not cost significantly more, certainly not 40%. But you are right....if you start spending more money on the 'trimmings' like fancy bathroom suites & kitchens, italian tiles, paint (which you can do yourself for a fraction of the cost), expensive flooring or carpet etc you could easily add $1k's to the cost......and most of these things don't add any real value to the property as people buying houses often don't value those things enough to pay for them.

[Kiwi Mac]

Has anyone noticed how the phrase "architect designed" here seems to translate roughly into "Designed with a ruler and a set square"?

Ian Athfield aside, most of the "architect designed" ones are rectangular boxes with mono-pitch roofs and 80% glass area for you to keep clean (and to make sure plenty of heat gets out...)!

[Kiwi Mac]

I read a hilarious story recently about a Kiwi who wanted to import Kiwi builders to Europe because the local ones were no good.

Admittedly, that was in France, but it still made me chuckle a bit.

Top spec houses built by the best regarded builder in these parts are rumoured to be costed at around $1950 per square meter, so a decent size 300 sq metre house will be almost $600,000 plus land costs, fees and so on. And that is in good "standard Kiwi" spec.

Up it to "Minimum Euro" spec and I reckon it will add 30% at least. Build it as a brick/block insulated cavity wall home and you'll probably have to import the brickies as well!!

[petri]

No one in their right mind is going to pay 40% more just because the house had more detail in the trimmings, impeccable tiled floors, perfect paint job on the walls, etc.

One has to think about the lifespan of everything. It's not that long for a paint job and the more you add detail, the more likely they'll look oldfashioned one day. One doesn't have to make a big mistake to cut in half the lifespan of a kitchen or bathroom.

Giving up our current house to move to NZ is a big deal to us and I've been comparing this place to a few others that were built at the same time -- and consider myself a lucky one. We plan to have a clause in the agreement that when the house will be for sale the next time, we will get preference. Just in case we were back from NZ for some reason..

It's going to be interesting when we really start our house hunt in NZ.

[Duncan74]

snip...don't add any real value to the property as people buying houses often don't value those things enough to pay for them.

But htis then boils down to if you're adding them as an investment, or if you are buying them to add to your comfort and enjoyment of your home. When you buy a TV then you don't think about if the layout of the remote will increase it's resale value in 5 years time, or if the buttons on the coat you're buying will help it sell on trademe quicker. I think there's a tendancy to concentrate too much on the value to others of things in and attached to our houses, and not at the benefit that we get from them ourselves over the time we spend at home.

[Super_BQ]

I think there's a tendancy to concentrate too much on the value to others of things in and attached to our houses, and not at the benefit that we get from them ourselves over the time we spend at home.

Although that may apply to the homes over say in N. America. This is simply not the case here in NZ when the average house changes hand every 5 or 6 years (or so the maintain the profit motive). The fact is any significant improvement in home comfort requires major changes to the building design of NZ houses. To increase from the standard 90mm (2x4 wall timber framed stud) to say a (2x6 140mm size frame stud) requires a MAJOR cost to the home construction when you add up the extra insulation one would use by build to that 'R' value. At the end they're not a selling point to the new home buyer because no one will pay 40% more for such home construction.

IMO, 40% is not an exaggerated figure. When you're dealing with 140mm size timber studs, you have an uphill battle dealing with builders that have never dealt with such construction before. Coupled with the use of different windows requiring special size jamb/reveal liners to fit in the extra thick walls (don't forget PVC or fully thermal break aluminum window options). Then you also have the issue with what kind of roofing to build since the benefits by going thicker walls also have to be matched with building an air tight roof space with extra insulation (such as spray polyurethane insulation). Then in order to meet the indoor air quality under NZ building code, you have to install mechanical ventilation. If the roof and walls don't break the bank, then you would consider building the house with say 100 or 150mm thick polystyrene (styrofoam) insulation in the concrete foundation. Alternatively, one could go all the way and use Firth's "Rib Raft" concrete foundation system but then then building company would require a different engineer to oversea the use of Firth's system.

The kitchen, bathroom, living room fixtures are nothing to the cost of the house. I've been to so many high volume home builders and know that the cost they pay for those fitments are peanuts (their huge buying power). When you spec for a higher standard and these outfits are not familiar how to build that way, then expect to break the bank (and expect mistakes).

BQ

[JandM]

It looks to me as if some of you are using different meaning of 'value' here. Value in terms of personal comfort and contentment in the home need not, for some people, take account of money spent to achieve that. If someone has the resources to set themselves up as they wish in NZ, intending to stay in the resulting house for the forseeable future, the fact that people in general there move house frequently, and what their values might be, doesn't apply.

[Familyofmonkeys]

But htis then boils down to if you're adding them as an investment, or if you are buying them to add to your comfort and enjoyment of your home. When you buy a TV then you don't think about if the layout of the remote will increase it's resale value in 5 years time, or if the buttons on the coat you're buying will help it sell on trademe quicker. I think there's a tendancy to concentrate too much on the value to others of things in and attached to our houses, and not at the benefit that we get from them ourselves over the time we spend at home.

I was actually talking about financial value here, rather than non-tangible benefits. I fully agree with you that there are many things I would do to a house for my own personal enjoyment.....but I doubt very much they would increase the value much if I were ever to sell because on the whole the kiwi society tends to place value on things in a different way to Europe or North America, for example.

Housing is a tough one here in NZ. Although we love it here and fully intend to remain here, after making one international move I don't think we could ever day 'never again' if that makes any sense. When we build at some point in the next 18 months or so, I would love to think that is it for the next 20 years until the kids all have their own lives, and put my time and energy into creating a house exactly the way we would like it. But there is always the niggle at the back of my mind that questions whether any major expenses (i'm not talking cosmetic decoration here) would maintain the value we'd spent on it in case we were ever to sell.

And Super_BQ......we also considered increasing the stud frame size so we could add extra insulation....but agree it increases the cost of building so much that it is just not an option for us.

[Familyofmonkeys]

The kitchen, bathroom, living room fixtures are nothing to the cost of the house. I've been to so many high volume home builders and know that the cost they pay for those fitments are peanuts (their huge buying power). When you spec for a higher standard and these outfits are not familiar how to build that way, then expect to break the bank (and expect mistakes).

BQ

But by the time they add the fitting costs and mark-up these things can add a hell of a lot to the build costs.

[JandM]

we also considered increasing the stud frame size so we could add extra insulationWe've recently been watching reruns of the Grand Designs programmes from UK Channel 4, and have seen several places that used insulation (of various different kinds) developed from spacecraft technology, e.g. a foil-looking stuff about 4 mm thick, with the insulation properties of, if I remember correctly what was said, a double layer of normal loft insulation. No doubt such things are at an elevated cost, but it might be worth checking whether such cost would be less than larger stud frames and all the extras you mentioned that would follow from that.

Here's the website connected with the programmes, in case anyone wants to go trawling. http://www.channel4.com/4homes/diy-self-build/index.html

[Kiwi Mac]

We've recently been watching reruns of the Grand Designs programmes from UK Channel 4, and have seen several places that used insulation (of various different kinds) developed from spacecraft technology, e.g. a foil-looking stuff about 4 mm thick, with the insulation properties of, if I remember correctly what was said, a double layer of normal loft insulation. No doubt such things are at an elevated cost, but it might be worth checking whether such cost would be less than larger stud frames and all the extras you mentioned that would follow from that.

Here's the website connected with the programmes, in case anyone wants to go trawling. http://www.channel4.com/4homes/diy-self-build/index.html

When my Dad built his house (in the UK) about 20 years ago, he used in some areas of the house a type of insulation that is essentially two sheets of bubble wrap with foil backing on the outside surfaces joined in a sandwich. Flexible and light, it has both reflective insulation and trapped air in the two layers of bubbles - brilliant!

[Familyofmonkeys]

No doubt such things are at an elevated cost, but it might be worth checking whether such cost would be less than larger stud frames and all the extras you mentioned that would follow from that.




We've been looking at alternative insulation types recently. When we did our garage conversion in UK we used a product called celotex....which is thinner with a better R rating than insulation such as pink batts that are on the market in NZ, and also longer lasting....it has been featured in a couple of eco-homes on Grand designs because although not an evironmentally friendly product itself, the energy savings over the lifetime of the product meant that it was a suitable material. It would be very suitable for increasing the insualtion in the walls without increasing the stud size because a single lazer is almost double the R value of the largest pink batt available.....but there is no equivalent product here in NZ at all, although there are a few companies that import the stuff from Europe or North America at great expense. It would add an additional $12k to $16k to the price of our build in materials alone and we just don't have it. Annoyingly it is dirt cheap in Europe and my OH fitted it himself. http://www.celotex.co.uk/
And the silly thing is there are even better products than this now.....yet there appears to be no real market for them here despite the poor quality housing. If someone was to start manufacturing decent insulation products here and selling then with the same mark-up they do in the UK, they would make a killing and the consumer would have an affordable viable alternative to pink batts etc.

[Super_BQ]

The problem with fiberglass or wool insulation is the effectiveness of the R value solely depends on how well the insulation is layed between the wall studs. Some installers just cram the fiberglass in and others leave huge gaps between the wall studs that outside air can easily pass through. But I suppose it doesn't really matter since we're dealing with 'breathable' wall construction where air is meant to pass through.

Back in Canada some houses have gone the extra step in using polyurethane sprays in the the roof attic space. If you've seen how the product is applied, it's far superior than any physical lay in material. All the holes and gaps (such as holes made to feed electrical wires through the studs etc.) are filled up.

http://www.pacificurethanes.co.nz/

It's great to think that you can buy such products in NZ. However, the concept is flawed because of the NZ building code requirement. Under a 90mm size stud framing, using this spray insulation (or higher R value batts) would have marginal energy savings because no one has address the loss in energy through "thermal bridging" - Gib board that is glued/nailed on to the wall will lose heat through the studs in the walls and vanishes outside in the wall cavity. I've been told up to 30% of your energy loss is through thermal conduction through the timber frame. If you see how NZ framing is done, the contact area is quite high (use of firestop/dwangs) compared to N. America where dwangs are rarely used. It's not even comparable because the concepts are worlds apart different.

I'm convinced that if you want good home comfort, you MUST get away from the breathable wall type construction. But then no one would be interested in paying for costly mechanical ventilations installs where, if not done right, the carbon footprint will drain your bank account.

BQ

[benandclare]

I'm convinced that if you want good home comfort, you MUST get away from the breathable wall type construction. But then no one would be interested in paying for costly mechanical ventilations installs where, if not done right, the carbon footprint will drain your bank account.

BQ


Come and check ours out Brendon and see what can be done in a " breathable " house

[Kiwi Mac]

I was just wondering.

If you built a house exactly the way it would be built in the UK (brick, cavity wall, insulation etc etc) would it actually conform to the building code here?

[Super_BQ]

hi Ben

I believe in your house, the cards are different. The fact is where I am (Christchurch) the local city council (and many other major cities) will place ban next year outlawing the burning of firewood in homes as a form of heating. Of course if you live outside the city in the rural, the cheapest way of heating a house is simply burning wood (no heat pump can compete in terms of cost). It's no different overseas. Where I grew up in Canada in a small town, the city coucil has too looked at restrictions of firewood burning for heating - NO NEW home being built are allowed wood burning fireplaces. Even installs of wood pellet burning fireplaces are no longer approved. Because of such restrictions, new (and old) houses have the problem of maintaining the WHO standard of 18-26 C room temperatures. During the winter months houses get very cold here in NZ. During the hot summers, well it's just as easy to cool down by opening the doors and windows as NZ climate rarely sees over 30C for any period of time so I think the main issue is more about space heating and humidity control.

I'm not saying that a comfortable home can be achieved under NZ building code. The problem is to make that standard requires HUGE costs. There are other concepts such as using large mass barriers like concrete to 'store' the heat. But this only works if in the winter you get enough sun. Say bye bye to the carpet and say hello to large windows so the heat can be stored into the concrete wall or foundation. But I tell ya, what happens on days where there is little or not sun? COLD COLD COLD!

Kiwi Mac:

I can't comment much on UK building codes. However, the key difference with NZ houses is the lack of "vapour barriers". The difference is so great that it basically puts building construction into 2 categories (as the 2 building concepts go in different directions). In NZ's case you have to address condensation issues inside the home; they say all the cooking, showers, even breathing creates mass amounts of condensation which has to be rid through the walls. Whereas in the Canadian aspect, all forms of condensation are mechanically controlled via HRV and central heating systems. Keeping as much heat inside during the winter is paramount. In some places there are air tight requirements to be met by having new houses tested via use of large blowers forcing air inside the house to measure for leakiness. If too much leaks, then the house fails compliance. In NZ's aspect, the home MUST breath this air as a function of ridding condensation. So really the 2 concepts are not even comparable.

If you're not familiar with timber frame construction, the 2 ways are not really that much different. Both have an air cavity gap and have assorted external cladding of your choice (brick, plaster, vinyl siding, etc.) The difference is on the inside of the wall, a layer of plastic covers the entire wall before the gib board is screwed in place. In Canada, GIB board glue is not used because it can't stick to the plastic lining. Yet in NZ, both this glue and screws are used to hold the framing up - one would think the screws alone should be sufficient.

I had a discussion with an engineer working for the Chch city council. I mentioned about vapour barriers and he said it's pointless for use in NZ because what happens is the barrier is easily broken by hanging up picture frames on the walls. Home owners would nail or screw through the gib and thus through the plastic lining. I didn't want to get smart with him and just simply agreed with his point of view. In Canada, most people are smart enough to never screw on to the Gib board as 10mm gib has no strength to hold anything heavy. It MUST BE nailed or screwed ON TO THE FRAME STUD. I'm just amazed how clueless this city council engineer was that affixing the nail or screw on the frame stud doesn't breach the vapour barrier.

The other difference is on the outside of the timber frame (and roof), is completely covered with 7 - 10mm plywood or OSB. In NZ, that is only done to the corners of the house for extra bracing. Covering the whole framing of the house adds not only to strength but also insulation and limited draft proofing. Next stop is the house wrap is applied over it. House wrap like Tyvek which is also used in NZ. But the the problem with house wrap is it's not a vapour barrier. Being the only material that separates the timber framing and the air cavity for NZ timber framed houses, air can easily blow through it. Cold air can blow into the wheep holes of the outside brick cladding and through in the air gap which blows through this house wrap and pass through the insulation between the studs, and then through the electrical mains outlets in your bedrooms. I don't believe installing vapour barriers over the electrical outlets would help in stopping the wind.

http://www.lessco-airtight.com/

BQ

[Jo Jo]

I believe in your house, the cards are different. The fact is where I am (Christchurch) the local city council (and many other major cities) will place ban next year outlawing the burning of firewood in homes as a form of heating.

Are you sure that's right? According to Environment Canterbury (and I presume they should know...) :

Are you going to ban woodburners and open fires at any stage in the future? (http://www.ecan.govt.nz/quick-answers/pages/are-you-going-to-ban-woodburners-and-open-fires-at-any-stage-in-the-future.aspx)



From 1 April 2010 residents in Christchurch's Clean Air zone will not be able to use their open fires or solid fuel burners older than 15 years during the winter months. The ban extends from 1 April until 30 September each year and people who use thir fires during this time may face enforcement action from Environment Canterbury. Outside these months people are able to use their fires.

For further information please call the Clean Heat team on 03 353 9276 or toll free on 3653194.

Do I have to install a heat pump now as replacement heating if I have an open fire or old woodburner in Christchurch? (http://www.ecan.govt.nz/quick-answers/pages/do-i-have-to-install-a-heat-pump-now-as-replacement-heating-if-i-have-an-open-fire-or-old-woodburner-in-christchurch.aspx)


You can install any clean heating you like such as a heat pump, a low emission woodburner, a flued gas heater, a diesel heater or any other electric heater.

If you do not have an open fire or woodburner in the house currently you not be able install a woodburner. You can view a list of approved appliances on our website.

You are not allowed to install a high-emission burner, coal burner, multi-fuel burner or open fire within the Christchurch Clean Air Zone or other residential settlements within Canterbury.

For further assistance please contact Customer Service on 03 353 9007 or toll free on 0800 324 636. You can also visit our website www.ecan.govt.nz

More info here (http://www.ecan.govt.nz/quick-answers/pages/air-quality.aspx?subcategory=Clean%20Heat).

[Super_BQ]

Hi JoJo,

Yes I think the wording is quite clear. They're targetting houses with old wood fire burners so if you have one that is older than 15 years, then you will not be able to use it in the winter months. (when you need heat the most). Your option is to go heat pump or newly approved wood burners however, I think most people choose heat pump because there is very little savings to buying those low emmission wood pellet burners (people don't realise these units also use electricity).

Looking deeper into the links there are maps of the 'clean heat' air zone. If you can live outside on to those "lifestyle" farm like pads, you're in luck to have cheap heating.

Ideally I think the overall goal is to ban all wood burning fireplaces as not even new houses are allowed to install them. What's even more disheartening is existing houses that originally never had a fireplace will not be able to have one installed in the future.

[Kiwi Mac]

At one stage there were grants available from the Chch council for installing insulation and heat pumps - some friends of ours got one about 3 years ago.

Don't know if they are still available.

[Kiwi Mac]

I guess one solution is to build a log home.

Works just fine in Canada - I stayed in one whilst in Edmonton on business and it was minus 42 Centigrade outside - yet the wall was perfectly warm to the touch inside with no cladding whatsoever!

[CatherineP]

To increase from the standard 90mm (2x4 wall timber framed stud) to say a (2x6 140mm size frame stud) requires a MAJOR cost to the home construction when you add up the extra insulation one would use by build to that 'R' value. At the end they're not a selling point to the new home buyer because no one will pay 40% more for such home construction.

IMO, 40% is not an exaggerated figure. When you're dealing with 140mm size timber studs, you have an uphill battle dealing with builders that have never dealt with such construction before. Coupled with the use of different windows requiring special size jamb/reveal liners to fit in the extra thick walls (don't forget PVC or fully thermal break aluminum window options). Then you also have the issue with what kind of roofing to build since the benefits by going thicker walls also have to be matched with building an air tight roof space with extra insulation (such as spray polyurethane insulation). Then in order to meet the indoor air quality under NZ building code, you have to install mechanical ventilation. If the roof and walls don't break the bank, then you would consider building the house with say 100 or 150mm thick polystyrene (styrofoam) insulation in the concrete foundation. Alternatively, one could go all the way and use Firth's "Rib Raft" concrete foundation system but then then building company would require a different engineer to oversea the use of Firth's system.


BQ

I think this is very misleading as the house value or price is not incresed by 40% by constructing in the way you have described. The increase (whether it is 40% or something else) is only relative to those components that have changed ie the frame/insulation and other associated parts. There are many aspects that are either unaffected or costs reduced through having the larger timber frame.

We are about to submit for consent for our new build using a 140mm timber frame, additional insulation and the quotes we have certainly do not reflect what you have described. We are having thermally broken aluminium joinery (problem with consents for UPVC where we live so not an option!!), but could go with a basic standard window from a structural point of view if we so chose. Our roof is fundamentally no different and we neither want or need to have any mechanical ventilation. Many of our other costs do not change as a result of the 140mm frame. Our non-passive heating provision is very cost effective ie. we have very little!!!! BUT our house will be warm.(experience of others with the same set up as ours in the same location).

Not that we intend to sell our house once its built it would not require someone to 'pay 40% more' due to its construction as it wont have cost or be valued at 40% more than if the house had been built using 'standard frame/insulation etc products).

[Kiwi Mac]

I did see a house built using an amazing system in the UK.

The walls were constructed using hollow polystyrene blocks that interlock like a giant jigsaw puzzle. Then you pump liquid concrete into the cavities (which sit over rebar reinforcements).

Concrete sets and hey presto - solid walls with super-effective insulation already in situ. You then just clad the inside/outside and roof it and away you go.

The demonstration I saw, they built a 2 story home shell in less than 48 hours!

[benandclare]

hi Ben

I believe in your house, the cards are different. The fact is where I am (Christchurch) the local city council (and many other major cities) will place ban next year outlawing the burning of firewood in homes as a form of heating. Of course if you live outside the city in the rural, the cheapest way of heating a house is simply burning wood (no heat pump can compete in terms of cost). It's no different overseas. Where I grew up in Canada in a small town, the city coucil has too looked at restrictions of firewood burning for heating - NO NEW home being built are allowed wood burning fireplaces. Even installs of wood pellet burning fireplaces are no longer approved. Because of such restrictions, new (and old) houses have the problem of maintaining the WHO standard of 18-26 C room temperatures. During the winter months houses get very cold here in NZ. During the hot summers, well it's just as easy to cool down by opening the doors and windows as NZ climate rarely sees over 30C for any period of time so I think the main issue is more about space heating and humidity control.



BQ

The woodburner/Multifuel is just the heat source for the water filled rads that we've put in as our central heating. If we'd built in Christchurch we'd have done exactly what we've done here except the heat source for the central heating would be a gas boiler. Indeed in 10 years we may well retro fit one.

What I'm trying to put over is that with just upping the spec a little bit all round we've ended up with a very warm cosy house. This morning 12 degrees outside and 19 degress inside. And of course the other side of the coin is that when it was hot this week and Clare's colleagues were complaining about trying to sleep in the day in the heat, she'd no problems because the house didn't get up above 19 in our bedroom .

We dont need to open our doors when it's hot, and we are usually hotter ( and colder but still not as cold as where we lived in UK) than Christchurch out here in North Canterbury.

[Familyofmonkeys]

I was just wondering.

If you built a house exactly the way it would be built in the UK (brick, cavity wall, insulation etc etc) would it actually conform to the building code here?

I might be wrong here, but i've been told a few time that this method would not pass building code here due to earthquake regulations because the walls are to rigid and will not flex well in an shake. Also something to do with the way the weight of the roof is supported in such structures increases the risk.

[Super_BQ]

I think this is very misleading as the house value or price is not incresed by 40% by constructing in the way you have described.

As i've mentioned in the previous posts, the performance of going to a 140mm size timber frame is negated by not building under an 'air tight' home construction. I'm not convinced that building the walls thicker will add a huge benefit to the R value of the overall wall - but definitely there will be some benefit. The 40% extra cost comes to play when you have to look at improvements to the roof, type of foundation, and most of all use of mechanical ventilation. It would be foolish to double the R value of an external wall (because that what you could do with 140mm studs) without doubling the R value insulation in the roof space. Likewise it would be foolish to line all the walls of the house with 7mm plywood without doing the same to the roof (draft proofing). If one does decide to line the roof with plywood, then your roof cladding options would be limited to 'asphalt shingles' which is rarely used in NZ. Most common are the coloursteel corrugated iron roofs and the pressed steel roofing tiles (ie. Gerald). So the problem isn't about using more of the material but rather, the cost to implement different building methods (methods that contractors and city council engineers are not familiar with). Something so simple as plastic lined vapor barriers, to stop outside drafts, are not allowed to be used so why bother going to thicker walls?

I suppose after reading all this, would there be a day NZ will move towards air tight home construction? IMO not likely because the climate here is not severe enough. Even more critical is the issue of energy consumption and carbon emissions that's caught the world. There is no doubt that the carbon footprint of a Canadian home is going to be crazy more than a house here in NZ. I guess you could say people will sacrifice a bit of comfort here if it meant a savings of $1000/year on the power bill through Meridian. But back in Canada, older homes with 2x4 timer frame construction could no way compete in energy savings of the newer homes with 2x6 wall framing. The power savings between the 2 houses would well be over $1000s a year (and climbing). So in that respect when building a new house, no one questioned about using 2x6 framing, 'you just did it'.

I would be keen to see energy saving figures on NZ built houses solely on the use of the 2 different timber framing sizes. There is already well researched data on the use of heat pumps in old and new homes. Also the use of double pane (glazed) windows.


I guess one solution is to build a log home.

Would the log home in NZ be air tight or breathable? My x-gf grew up in a log home and at the time, it was considerably more $ to heat than conventional houses. Actually, you would not consider living in one without being able to burn firewood.


The walls were constructed using hollow polystyrene blocks that interlock like a giant jigsaw puzzle. Then you pump liquid concrete into the cavities (which sit over rebar reinforcements).

The problem with polystyrene use in NZ is people have this conception that it's bad for your health. They think that in the long term say 30 or 40 years, the polystyrene will give off toxic fumes in the house. (note that concrete over time can crack and air can penetrate in/out). This is the common thinking i've come across when talking to builders here. But overall, it's the slow adaption of new methods that scare kiwis. What kicks me is how quick the plaster over polystyrene cladded houses came to NZ when that system was known to rot condos in Canada (well before NZ started using that cladding). It seemed like no one in NZ heard of the uproar of rotting houses in Canada, instead, architects here went crazy over the smooth clean look houses could be.