wow so it's been done before. I thought surely this would have to be a first.
pauldw,
Aug 25, 12:50am
Look up the Building.govt.nz site to do with Schedule 1 exemptions from Building Consents. Their words "Work that doesn’t require a building consent is not restricted and doesn’t require an LBP."
tegretol,
Aug 25, 2:59am
Correct but there is considerable emphasis on 'like for like". What this idiot has done is not like for like (or was the original capping also over the valley?).
Seems that if he's been given the chance to put it right and has declined then the quickest way would be to get a LBP with plenty of experience plus the roofing endorsement to give you some support and DT it. The DT loves properly qualified and experienced expert witnesses who make their jobs easier. You can include the cost of such witnesses in your claim.
friendly_prawn,
Aug 25, 4:26am
Its been through court. Adjourned as it went over time. Next stage is for me to prove the issues. I got a roofer in to do a report, but the builder argued the roofer was wrong. So now I got to prove the roofer was right. I can prove some of the issues I think. I have links to the codes i still have to go through. So should be able to prove silicone should never be used as a permanent repair. I think I can also prove all the building paper he has left sticking out around the house is wrong. Leaks speak for themselves I guess. Now to prove the ridiculous capping across the valley is not supposed to be like that. I dont think there is any code on that as its not something any one in their right mind would do.
friendly_prawn,
Aug 25, 4:28am
Oh and I dont think you can include the witness in yoru claim. I have been advised that isnt something the court will award. Seems weird since it was the builder that forced me to have to pay to get some one to do the report. I would love to get another expert in but knowing now I cant claim thats out of the question.
golfdiver,
Aug 25, 5:23am
Like for like is sheet metal roofing off, sheet metal roofing on in this case. They don’t get too specific. You can even take metal tiles off and install longrun without consent provided it’s done to code. (EG correctly installed purlins) That’s lightweight to lightweight. From what Ive seen, that job is disgusting and should be replaced at no cost
friendly_prawn,
Aug 25, 5:40am
He might get away with it yet. Even if I manage to convince the judge its shoddy workmanship he's claiming it was done under his company which he has since closed. My argument is the agreement was with the person not the company. At no time did he mention a company. The quote was signed with his own name. Even the last invoice he sent out had the company name removed off it. Then when he found out it was going to court, he sent a back dated (fraudulent) invoice with his company name on the letter head. He's arguing that the money has gone in to his business account though. My argument is I have always dealt with the builder himself. Everything was signed by the builder. With the builders name. Never any company involvement at any stage. So Im keeping my fingers crossed the judge sees it my way. If she decides it was the company I was dealing with, he's away scott free. .
golfdiver,
Aug 25, 5:52am
He’s talking crap. If I shut up shop, I’d have to keep my PL insurance for another 15 years to be safe. He is liable .,
sooby,
Aug 25, 10:09pm
Prawny I suggest you download a copy of the Roofing Code Of Practice and find the correct images of what a valley to ridge intersection *should* look like, then compare that with what he's done to show exactly how the work is not acceptable.
Unfortunately not all judges are experienced in the building trade, so subtle differences are lost on them, so even if he's guity the judge may not see that and let him off the hook.
Good news is it's going to be easier for you to prove bad workmanship (with photos/video of leaks as evidence) compared to him proving the work is sufficiently up to code.
For one thing, NZBC clause E2 shows roof penetrations have to have rubber boot type "dektite" flashings, silicone around a pipe is not up to code. Don't have E2 in front of me to quote the exact paragraph & figure but think you could get that online too perhaps? If you can't find it ask a question on one of my auctions to remind me and I'll track it down for you at work.
Good luck!
friendly_prawn,
Aug 25, 10:46pm
awesome mate. So kind. I have links to what i think are all the roofing code practices. I just have to sit down and go through them all. The downloading of a ridging picture so the judge understands what she is looking at is a great idea. Thanks so much for the help. Got a month away before the next court hearing. Busy trying to get our house ready for sale so this court stuff is a right pain in the ass. But needs must. Im not going to let him get away with it if I can help it so appreciate all the help i can get. Many thanks for the info Sooby.
tegretol,
Aug 25, 11:26pm
Someone is misleading you. The Disputes Tribunal and District Court will definately aware for your reasonable costs although if you loose the case, you'll pay those yourself. But unless you get a reliable and credible experienced witness, don't waste more time or money as the court will laugh at you. I've been there more than once and am certain about the costs of witness issue.
friendly_prawn,
Aug 26, 3:30am
Many thanks for this.
sooby,
Aug 26, 5:15pm
Glad I could help! Please keep us all updated how it works out for you
sooby,
Aug 28, 5:32pm
That clause of building code for roof penetrations is: NZBC clause E2/AS1 Figure 53, page 87
Sooby, you are right, that is an acceptable solution but not neccesarily the only one. Acceptable but not compulsory.
sooby,
Aug 29, 7:08am
True, but it does show silicon is outside that and definitely not best practice!
friendly_prawn,
Aug 29, 5:32pm
Damn builder was supposed to remove the pipe. There was supposed to no pipe protruding through the roof. But yes, you're right Sooby, that does go to show how areal finish should be. Might print it for the court. cheers for that.
friendly_prawn,
Aug 30, 12:15am
Builder actually said to the court that silicone is ok as a permanent solution. My agrument is it should never be used as a permanent solution. Not on its own. Under laps etc, I assume its ok, but to permanently seal holes. Its going to break down at some stage. Im guessing there is a standard in the roofing code that states this. Just got to find it.
martin11,
Aug 30, 12:54am
Going from experience I reckon it will be leaking within 5-6 years .
golfdiver,
Aug 30, 12:59am
Why don't you retrofit a dictate in the meantime? They cut down the side and clamp up with a zipper like system.
budgel,
Aug 30, 1:09am
Get a small dektite and a screw on cap for the pipe. Undo the tap, slide the dektite on and then fit the cap instead of the tap, finish fitting the dektite.
friendly_prawn,
Aug 30, 1:52am
Im hoping the court awards me damages so I can get a proper builder to come and fix it properly. Ie: remove the pipe and and replaced the damaged / cut flashing. Apparently he cut the roofing iron under it too so that may need replacing. Anyway, I'll leave it to a professional to sort. cheers guys.
Maybe part of your problem is thinking you need a builder , when it’s a roofer you need?
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.