Settlement between James Hardie And the Ministry of Education

See the following link for some background idea about this case:

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/court-settlement-reached-over-leaky-schools-5785690

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/231748/leaky-building-case-surprises-lawyer

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/9548848/Deal-struck-over-leaky-school-buildings

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11177479

Also see my previous blog in Chinses when this case just popped out:

http://houseinspection.blogspot.co.nz/2013_04_01_archive.html

It is the most disappointing case so far I have heard for the following reasons:

1. We yet to see a milestone case, when a product manufacture is liable for a leak building lawsuit. We can see the Ministry of Education has proofed that. But why keep it confidential?

2. Almost all councils, specially councils within the great Auckland region, have paid massive amount of money to leaky building owners, simply because it always has been the "last party standing". In most cases James Hardies products were involved. We all know that, councils money is our money, the ratepayers money.

3. This case could well be the milestone, when almost all precedent cases could be overturned. At least, from technical point of view, we need to proof that scientifically and make it public available: How "texture coated fibre cement" as a cladding system, can fail, when other variables (workmanship, design complicity, location, maintenance and etc) are constant. This technical topic is vital for both building surveying and building inspection fields.

For the sake of New Zealand Public, all findings behind this case are to be revealed.

List of "questionable" recommendations to property buyers given by some legal advisers

Some legal advisers are taking a lot of care for their clients who are in the process of buying houses and keen to give some professional advises to assist buyers in their decision making, here are some examples:

• Go and find a building inspector, who charges $1000 or more, because you get what you pay for. 
• You need to get a report, which shows moisture % for every room inspected.
• Get a report, which shows blue and red colored pictures, the blue spots show you where leaks are.
• Do thermal report (infrared report) rather than standard inspection report.
• Apart from building inspection report, go and get structure and geotech engineering reports.
• Do not buy house with asbestos, as it is toxic.
• Do not buy plaster house.

Introduction for Moisture Testing in Property Inspection

Timber moisture testing in building surveying can be divided into the following three categories:

• Destructive testing
• Invasive testing
• Non-invasive testing

Destructive testing

Destructive investigation, such as illustrated: 

and followed by laboratory testing is the only way to reveal the timber frame condition of the subject building, but rarely used for a pre-purchase visual inspection if ever can be used at all due to its obvious physical damages to wall cladding. 

Invasive testing

According to the AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE OF REAL ESTATE – Ninth Edition 2012, “The building inspector may not carry out any invasive testing in the course of inspection without the vendor's prior written consent”. 

It is unlikely that any property owner will give permission to a potential buyer to do any probing invasive testing, such as using Trotec T500K, as damages to wall cladding still be substantial. 

In the event of owner’s approval, pin point moisture meters such as Protimeter Mini or Trotec T500

may be used to interior surface such like on skirting boards, on particle floor boards, ceiling plaster board lining and etc. Readings from this type of invasive moisture meters only indicate the moisture content of the incipient surface, which normally be timber skirting board, plaster board, cork, wall paper or combination of some of them, which are not necessarily be a representative of moisture percentage of the underlying timber frame.

Unless otherwise stated and under a written approval of the vendor, invasive testing using pin point moisture meters will only be carried out to timber foundation structure or some parts of exterior wall cladding if necessary.

Non-invasive testing

None of currently available non-invasive moisture meters, such as Trotec T650 or Protimeter Aquant

can produce moisture content percentage of the material tested. The fact that, significant amount of pre-purchase or pre-sell inspection reports are giving moisture percentage readings for different areas or parts of buildings inspected, does not mean any revolutionary technology advancement. (also refer: http://bc.org.nz/moisture.html for further comments made by William Hursthouse regarding abused moisture testing within pre-purchase inspection industry ).

Moisture contents obtained from wall lining surface using any type of non-invasive moisture meters do not equal to moisture content of underlying timber frame.

Depends on detection depth, which normally be within 20 – 40mm, moisture readings obtained with non-invasive type of moisture meters at best are indications of moisture contents of combination of all building materials directly behind the point being tested, which may include skirting board, wall paper, plaster board, insulation material, framing (timber or steel) member and etc. The relationship between non-invasive meter readings and timber moisture contents can only be interpreted by the building inspector based on his/her relevant building knowledge. When high readings can often indicate high moisture contents within underlying timber frame, there are many significant common deviations:

• High meter reading does not necessarily indicate high moisture content

Surface wetness within wet area can result high readings even when underlying framing structure is dry.

Non-invasive moisture meters can be interrupted by underlying wiring, pipes, metal, foil and produce False Positive Readings.

• Low meter reading does not necessarily indicate low moisture content

Meter reading depth (normally be 20-40mm) is very limited comparing with wall thickness (can be 120mm or more). External moisture ingress often limited within outer part of timber frame, which is well beyond reading depth of most non-invasive moisture meters;

• High moisture content may not indicate any issues

It is not uncommon to see some inspectors pointing moisture meters to tiled floor surface around shower waste and concluding shower leaks. But as long as showers are regularly being used, there must be some water siting between underside of tiles and waterproof membrane. That is absolutely normal and that is why we need waterproofing membrane for. In that case high moisture readings may not indicate any issue at all.

• Low moisture content does not directly indicate soundness of timber frame

As long as dry, rotten timber will not result any high moisture readings. In reality due to weather conditions, repair works in the past, loss of clamping points due to timber dimension change as result of decay, rotten framing can be very dry and therefore may give some False Negative Readings. 

有关对James Hardie的诉讼

周二的这条新闻好像澳洲的反应要比新西兰的反应强烈，也可能是新西兰人目光这几天集中在同性恋婚姻合法化这一焦点，无暇顾及其他东西。参考以下新闻链接：
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/133036/ministry-sues-building-companies-over-leaky-schools
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/education-ministry-launches-lawsuit-against-james-hardie-over-leaky-schools-wb-138802
http://www.afr.com/p/business/companies/james_hardie_poised_for_legal_battle_q9kiFoaNih0Op7TBXeQTCJ

即使是专业媒体也没有充分认识到这一新闻的重要性：
1. 如果教育部可以打赢这场官司，这将是一个划时代的case law。James Hardie作为Harditex 的生产商将面临建筑行业历史上的最大一笔赔付。相信它无力承担；
2. 如果这一案例能够证明是产品问题，而非设计和施工问题，这一案例将推翻之前所有几千个案子的评判结果。到今天位置，James Hardie被告无数次，但没有一次成功，不过这一次他遇到了强劲对手；
3. 如果产品问题一旦被证明，相关认证机构，如BRANZ是否会被拖下水；
4. 如果产品问题一旦被证明属实，以前的“冤假错案”如何收拾？James Hardie所面临的岂止是教育部的15个亿纽币；
5. 这一问题实际上至少10年前就很清楚，为何教育部今天才决定采取如此的举措，莫非是他们掌握了一定的有份量的证据？
6. 我个人的一贯认为是，7.5mm厚的墙板在没有通风层的情况下无法有效处理墙体中由于温度迅速变化导致的水凝结。这一问题是在施工质量完全符合厂家规定的情况下也会出现的。拭目以待看看从技术层面上讲，教育部是否能够得到有力的证据；
7. 早在2年前就已经有过案例证明在施工和设计完全符合要求的情况下，外墙出现渗漏而导致整体外墙更换，也可能那时候教育部就已经开始酝酿了。既然教育部决定打这场战争，就一定是有备而来，因为业内人士都知道James Hardie是一个从没有人能够啃动的骨头。耐心等待，就像Grimshaw说的，估计结果需要n年以后。

就Skykiwi置顶帖中的客人投诉所做答复之一

原帖如下：

这里的托真不少啊,之前也曾被忽悠找他家做房检,可是都是做一些表面功夫,重要的如上房顶和钻地下看结构的活一概忽悠,当时我曾要求看房低下看看有没有结构的问题,谁知道他家男的以没买保险为由拒绝进去看,难道这也成理由吗?

具体回复：

不管怎样，我认为您的意见是绝对真实的，因为我记得当时的情形，这也是第二次有客人要求我依照其要求进入某个区域，但被我拒绝，这一次的原因是部分地基空间狭小。当然最后Lisa还是进到更深的地方看了看，因为她的体积小得多，而且也灵活得多，也不像我这样的倔脾气。虽然遗憾，但您有权利对我们的服务不满意。您可以给我们打个电话，或者发个email，如果我们没有其他办法最终令您满意，我们会考虑退还您所付的检测费。下面是我们的解释，其实现场已经解释过了，您可以不同意，而且也会有其他人不同意，不过检测，尤其是购房检测，本身就是一个有争议的职业：

这里涉及到两个问题：    

1. 是否有托在这里故意说我们的好话：

我不妨在这里正式的对发帖子感谢我们或者夸奖我们的客人表示由衷的谢意。为尽量避免产生这样的嫌疑，我在最近的三年内没有在帖子里说过任何感谢的话，有时为了表达谢意，在知道是哪一位客人的情况下，我会通过email的方式表示感谢。

我有权利，有资源，有能力，有办法让更多的客人在这里说我的好话，不过没觉得有这个必要。这个帖子的主要目的已经不是“广告”，而是让需要找到我们的客人很容易的找到我们。有时候我自己都在想，会不会有人怀疑这里的帖子是假的。这也是我不回复正面的帖子，但一定回复负面的帖子的原因。

开个玩笑，您的帖子会叫我的置顶帖看起来更真实。如果想找托，还不如找些说坏话的，然后通过聪明的解释或者揭露破绽来起到异曲同工的效果，没准开起来更真实。

2. 我们是否只是做“表面功夫”

这个总结实际上很对，这差不多是对“non-invasive visual inspection”的最完美的翻译。通过购房检测，对所检测的房屋在有限的时间内，不动一草一木的前提下，对重大原则问题得出判断，这种“表面功夫”实际没那么简单，这也是购房检测之所以被视为超高风险行业的主要原因。不要认为测湿仪或红外线就会改变这个“表面功夫”的性质，在购房检测阶段，检测漏水房最关键的还是目测和分析。我的身上装满了各种检测工具，但目前发现的所有问题，都是通过“表面功夫”看出来的。

3. 什么地方我们必须要进入，什么地方我们不必要或者不允许进入：

有客人经常问我们是否可以进入棚顶或地基空间。在我们认为对自己和房屋都安全的情况下，我们会的。有时客人认为安全，但我们不这样认为，这个分歧很难彻底消除。如果这是我们每天面临的问题，如果一旦出事故会影响我的一生，如果我不这样做并没有违反相关的规定，我有权做自己的选择。

有些客人认为我们看不到就会错漏重大隐患，这是理念上的误区。对于任何一个我们检查过的房子，都有很多我们看不到，没看到，没来得及看，疏漏掉或主观不看的部位，但这些都不会影响我们的最终评价。两个人在一到两个小时之内能够看到的一定是有限的，但这正是购房检测的特点：在有限的时间内作出重要的判断：是不是漏水房，基地，房顶，外墙，结构，卫生间，走水等等是否有重大隐患或问题。客人需要得到的是我们的观点，而不是我们的四肢。我们不是出租自己的身体，体力，不是出租自己的检测工具。

我有权利决定以何种方式，用何种工具，花多长时间来做检测。我充分理解会有客人不同意我的观点，这也是我们在检测前要求客人阅读并同意我们的限制条款的原因。我还记得，在没有看到所有地基部位的情况下，我说过这个房子的地基没有重大问题。这是我的保险所覆盖的方面，就是说，如果您现在发现我的结论和事实不符，也就是您的房子的地基有重大问题，我是要负责的。我要对很多看不到或看不全的东西做判断，很典型的是结构的完整性，关键衔接点的挡雨处理，屋顶和屋顶空间的状况，地下走水，防水膜的状况等。这是我风险，我有足够的经验和保险对我所做的评判负责任。但如果我超出规范冒险工作导致我从房顶摔下来，在地基内部扎到钉子，受电击，没有人对我的后半生负责。

再一次强调：我尽量通过我的3.8米长的梯子查看能够看到的房顶部位；我尽量爬到我认为我能够爬到的安全的地基空间；我尽量查看有合理观察口的房顶空间，或者Lisa会协助查看观察口很狭窄，但她还可以看到的房顶空间，但我们经常会有观察不到的部位。我们常常看到有客人会主动协助拿出堵住棚顶观察口的衣柜里的杂物，协助清理堵在地基观察口的垃圾和储物，帮助在危险位置扶梯子，这些举动都会促使我们更加努力的达到我们可触及的极限，但我们的原则是：我有权利决定如何检测，客人需要的应该是结果，而不是过程。

Inspector's risk - 1

Inspectors had not been the real target in the past when most leakers are within the "10 year frame". But what happens when leakers are expired, i.e. exceeded the "10 year statutory limitation"? In that situation Councils no longer be the last standing party with full pocket. Who can pay you to fix your leaky house if not Council? The answer looks like - the Pre-purchase Inspector.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/8376033/Win-for-leaky-home-owners

One reader wondering why Council does not pay. Here is the answer:

http://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/wht/wht-decisions/2010-decisions/2010-eligibility-decisions/DBH06247Hepburn.pdf/view

The house was eligible and therefore if FAP is selected, 50% of the repair cost would covered by the government and the council. As there is no further WHRS related case, I assume that the owner went for FAP.

Plus the 50% cost recovery from the inspector, the owner's repair cost is fully recovered.

I reckon the inspector in this case is pretty lucky. If this case is outside the 10-year-frame, then the owner would be fighting for 100% cost recovery from the inspector.

Here is the summary of the Case:

Case CIV-2011-485-1308 Hepburn vs. Cunningham

A house built at 2000 with texture coated fibre cement is bought at 2007 by the plaintiff based on a positive "quick check" builder's report issued by the respondent. Although built with wide eaves, apparent cladding defects, such as lack of cladding/ground clearance, omitted by the inspector which is introduced by the agent. No Terms & Conditions form was signed by the plaintiff. 

3 years after the purchase, the house was marketed again and was inspected by RealSure on behalf of a purchaser with a report showing various weathertightness issues. 

The plaintiff subsequently applied through WHRS, which expert recommended partial repair costing 100k. 

The plaintiff gone further through High Court and sought more than 500k for damages with final decision in favor of plaintiff for 360k award with half to be paid by the inspector. 

Issues to be discussed:

Quick check vs. Rolls Royce service

Roles of Terms and Conditions

Significant issues, if not rocket science, to be reported

Duty to give clear advise rather than a report only

What do You need to do to have a good inspection

Before inspection

Go through terms and conditions of a standard inspection (pre-purchase, pre-sale & maintenance inspections). Inspection will never look right if your expectation is too high. Understanding what we can not do is more important than only knowing what can we do.

Workout the differences between different inspections:

• Standard building inspection, 
• Invasive building defects investigations,
• Specialist inspections, including plumbing, electrical, drainage, engineering, geotechnical and etc
• Weathertightness investigations
• Weathertgihtness assessment inspection
• Moisture testing
• Thermal imaging
• Timber decay diagnoses

You will be able to find the suitable inspector only when you know how different they are. If you have employed the wrong type of inspector, then you will unlikely get the result you really wanted, if not resulted with a disaster.

Also see my other post regarding this topic.

During inspection

Do not follow me and ask me questions when I'm in the middle of inspection. I can be easily disturbed and lose my focus.

Do present during inspection and ask me as much questions as possible onsite, rather than on the phone.

Having your whole family talking to me may not be a good idea. You are likely equipped with a smart phone. Record when I presenting on site.

Also see my other post regarding this topic.

After inspection

If more questions to be asked post an inspection, try email us with the questions rather than calling me when I'm standing on my ladder in the middle of an inspection. You may think I know everything anytime for a house I've inspected, but I'm not. I often remember nothing, unless if I get any chance to go though the report over again.

Also see my other post regarding this topic.