To address this issue and add value, Step Up Group companies have partnered with Specifiers, Homeowners and all other stakeholders to provide a full-service building weathertigtness risk management program that provides for enduring and managed buildings now and into the future.

This document aide you to understand your obligations and provide stronger evidence for the need of including proper weathertightness management in your specifications for the benefit of all.

For complete risk management for professionals, this process of weathertightess risk management needs to start right from construction – and this has been supported by many Architects. Many have said due to the assumed lack of statutory requirements for moisture management, there has been a lack of desire from owners and council to include this in their plans due to cost. However the following documentation lays out the statutory obligation for specifiers, and when read together shows an obligation for the use of moisture monitoring of structural timber to ensure structural elements meet their statutory 50 years minimum lifespan.

The key is monitoring the moisture levels of buildings using the Mdu Probe System. This system is now used in over 1500 homes and given protection and peace of mind to many owners and professionals, with over 1 million data collected to date. Owner-friendly services have been created to make moisture monitoring easy and rewarding for the owners. Our database shows that while things are getting better, there are still major problems that get caused – either at construction or by owners that architects are being found liable for.

Construction Stakeholders are currently, and successfully being sued for residential building weathertightness problems inside the liability longstops

When leaks develop and timber rots within a building, if the age of the building works ‘responsible’ for these leaks and damage are within 10 years old, the combination of joint and several proceedings and current legal interpretations put high levels of responsibility squarely on the shoulders of all stakeholders involved. It is known that there have been many building failures recently in which the professionals involved have been found liable in many cases. The introduction of professional licensing will also make this liability more difficult to evade in the future.

While it is known that many changes to the Building Act and surrounding standards and Compliance documents attempted to improve buildings and reduce failures, there will always be some failures in buildings, and investigations into new buildings have shown that leaks and rot still occur in new designs with all the new design aspects including treated timber and cavity cladding construction (source: Mdu Probe System data of new homes).

Construction stakeholders are found liable for problems that they currently believe they can prevent

The riddle below highlights the problem faced by BCAs and Professionals in regard to carrying out their statutory obligations and responsibilities within the statutory framework with the liability that carrying out these responsibilities can create in the eyes of the legal system.

The riddle of 2 houses

Two identical buildings (A & B) are built by the same builder and assessed by the same council in the same way. Joe Average moves into Building A and does no maintenance to the building. Handy Andy moves into Building B and does regular maintenance. 9 years later both owners get their houses assessed for timber moisture levels, condition, treatment and strength using the Mdu Probe System. Joe’s house (Building A) is rotten and leaky. He successfully sues the Council and all other stakeholders involved in the construction for the cost of a full reclad. Handy Andy’s house (Building B) is in good condition and he sells the house with no problems.

The problem with the above situation is that the liability faced by the stakeholders appeared to be entirely dependent not on their actions (during building consent and inspections), but on the actions of someone else (Joe Average not performing maintenance). This seems hardly fair for them.

Construction stakeholders need to be able to better protect themselves from problems ‘beyond their control’ while still operating within their mandated powers
Professionals and Councils can only control what is within their statutory framework, not what owners or others do. Therefore how could they have prevented the above situation? – And how can they prevent it happening in other buildings?

The riddle – revisited

Taking the same riddle above, identical buildings are built, and this time when analysing the building consent application, the Council assessed the Building Maintenance Plan that was submitted by the Architect as part of their methodology to meet B2/AS1, and realised there was no mention of how the structural timber was to be regularly inspected for its moisture levels (in order to ensure the timber stays within the maximum permissible in-service moisture levels as given in NZS3602:2003 Table 1, to prevent the timber rotting and not meeting its minimum expected lifespan of 50 years). After having this omission pointed out to them, the architect decides to specify ongoing 6-monthly moisture level checks to be performed using one of the commercially available moisture systems: the Mdu Probe System – that is to be installed into the key locations as marked on the plan drawings into the bottom plates of the framing. The Council analyses this testing approach, testing locations and testing frequency and decides that it accepts the approach will assist meeting B2/AS1. The Architect cleverly includes 2 years of moisture monitoring into the costs of the construction contract. The Mdu Probe Systems are installed, and after works are complete, the Mdu Probes are read and pick up a couple of problems in each building. Both owners get the builder to fix these up. Future moisture readings show these problems have been fixed, and that the buildings are weathertight and performing for the 2 years after construction. Handy Andy continues to monitor the probes, and he continued to maintain his building and enjoy dry moisture results, and sells after 9 years. Joe Average did not bother to continue reading the probes, but when the building was 9 years old, Joe decides to finally read the probes again and found out (like last time) that the house was rotten and leaky. He sues the council and all stakeholders for a full reclad.

Joe Average has a much weaker argument for suing the council in this second situation – as it is his lack of maintenance (no moisture readings of structural timber) that has allowed the timber to decay. He didn’t follow even the simplest parts of the Maintenance Plan. Secondly, there are two years of results showing that the building was weathertight up to 2 years after the building was built when normal maintenance was being applied to the building as stipulated inside the Maintenance Plan.

Councils have the legal right to ask for regular structural timber moisture content inspections

The solution is within the grasp of the Council and the advising professionals and they have the authority to act accordingly – endorsed by none other than the Department of Building and Housing itself. John Gardiner, Determinations Manager at the Department of Building and Housing (DBH) has stated in numerous Determinations:

“As the external wall framing of this house is not treated to a level that will resist the onset of decay if it gets wet, periodic checking of its moisture content should also be carried out as part of normal maintenance”

(refer DBH Determinations 2007-65, 2007-49, 2007-42, 2006-120)

“I reiterate the Authority’s previous recommendation that effective maintenance of monolithic claddings is important to ensure ongoing compliance with clauses E2 and B2 of the building code. I also endorse the expert’s opinion that continual moisture monitoring of the building must be conducted in order to confirm the ongoing effectiveness of the maintenance programme carried out.”

John Gardiner – DBH Determinations 2005-70

This shows that the request for knowing moisture content levels regularly in a building is not an unreasonable request. We also see the same “rider” in many pre purchase reports which discuss maintenance to be done and which recommend regular moisture checks take place every six months. This is particularly evident in such reports dating from 2004 onwards when moisture monitoring systems became commercially available so therefore were reasonable to consider.

Specifiers have a duty as part of their building consent application to produce a consolidated Maintenance Plan to support B2 compliance

The Building Act, Building Code and NZS3602:2003 provide all that is necessary for the Council and Professionals to require the question of timber moisture testing is satisfactorily answered

Following are important excerpts from the statutory building framework that Architects and Designers work within. It highlights the rationale and authority for Specifiers and Councils to address how the moisture content levels in structural timber will be inspected:

• All building works must meet all relevant clauses of the Building Code (Building Act 2008 s17)
• It is the responsibility of the person specifying the building element (usually the Architect) to determine normal maintenance requirements. These may be based on the manufacturer’s recommendations and may also include periodic inspections of elements not readily observable without a specific effort (e.g. access to roof or subfloor spaces). (B2/AS1 s2.1.2)

Normal maintenance is not defined. However this can be considered to include, regular inspections, repair of faults that may have developed, or the replacement of items that have come to the end of their life  (John Gardiner, DBH Determinations Manager: Determination 2010/079 s7.5.5)

• It is the specifier’s responsibility to produce a consolidated maintenance plan as part of the building consent documentation

I do not accept the authority’s position (refer paragraph 6.2.3) that a maintenance schedule cannot be submitted as part of an application for building consent, and therefore form part of an approved consent. I accept that future maintenance of any building is an owners’s responsibility and does not fall to the authority  (John Gardiner, DBH Determinations Manager: Determination 2010/079 s7.6.2)

• Building elements, including materials, components and systems, complying with a publication referenced in the Compliance Documents, satisfy B2 requirements only when the conditions of use stated in the publication and Compliance Documents prevail (B2/AS1 s1.1.1)

Therefore the Architect must provide a Building Maintenance Plan as part of their method to prove compliance to B2/AS1.

Failure to do this will be grounds for future liability.

As part of their Maintenance Plan, Specifiers have a duty to show HOW hidden structural timber in a building will be monitored for its moisture ongoing, and Councils similarly have the DUTY to ensure that it is addressed in the Maintenance Plan.

While it may be known that a Maintenance Plan is needed, it may not be so obvious that a moisture monitoring system is actually required for inside the governing framework. Similarly it could be shown that the Specifier did not fulfil their statutory requirements if their maintenance plan lacks allowance for the moisture monitoring of hidden structural framing. Below is the framework behind this need, added to the framework above:

• Structural timber must meet clause B2 (Durability) of the building code (Building Code – clause B2 Durability)
• As part of B2, hidden structural elements must meet a 50 year minimum lifespan, subject to normal maintenance – (Building Code – clause B2 Durability)
• While not desirable, it is known that buildings can leak in the future (DBH, BRANZ and other publications)
• Timber that is treated to H1.2 levels can still rot if the moisture content levels get too high (SCION, DBH Determinations and other treatment reports).
• During in service conditions, structural timber that is treated to H1.2 levels are intended to stay below 20% moisture content levels (NZS3602:2003 Table 1)
• It is the responsibility of the person specifying the building element (usually the Architect) to determine normal maintenance requirements. These may be based on the manufacturer’s recommendations and may also include periodic inspections of elements not readily observable without a specific effort (e.g. access to roof or subfloor spaces). (B2/AS1 s2.1.2)

Normal maintenance is not defined. However this can be considered to include, regular inspections, repair of faults that may have developed, or the replacement of items that have come to the end of their life (John Gardiner, DBH Determinations Manager: Determination 2010/079 s7.5.5)

• It is the specifier’s responsibility to produce a consolidated maintenance plan as part of the building consent documentation

I do not accept the authority’s position (refer paragraph 6.2.3) that a maintenance schedule cannot be submitted as part of an application for building consent, and therefore form part of an approved consent. I accept that future maintenance of any building is an owners’s responsibility and does not fall to the authority (John Gardiner, DBH Determinations Manager: Determination 2010/079 s7.6.2)

• Building elements, including materials, components and systems, complying with a publication referenced in the Compliance Documents, satisfy B2 requirements only when the conditions of use stated in the publication and Compliance Documents prevail (B2/AS1 s1.1.1)
• Structural timber is often hidden from view when in service – especially in structural external walls. This can be seen in the Acceptable Solutions drawings. Accordingly structural timber is not readily observable without a specific effort.

Therefore The Building Maintenance Plan must include not just the manufacturer’s instructions on the care of individual components, but also how the SYSTEM is to be cared for (as they are the designer of it) and that inspections are to be carried out on the elements that require specific effort.

It would be reasonable for the BCA to ask the submitter HOW they expect elements that are hidden to be inspected for their critical information – especially for checking the moisture contents of the hidden structural timber inside the building walls. It is up to the submitter to provide the BCA with how they intend to do this.

The Specifier’s Maintenance Plan should be satisfactorily answer the questions posed by Council relating to regular structural timber moisture testing

Below is a hypothetical situation between Council and the Building Consent Applicant relating to the needs for building consents to include

COUNCIL:
“As part of this building’s maintenance plan, how does the building consent applicant intend to regularly inspect the hidden structural timber? “

APPLICANT:
“The most important aspect to maintenance of the structural timber is to regularly check the moisture levels. Of secondary importance is the need to check the degree of structural degradation but this is a function of moisture content levels so the regular analysis of moisture contents are sufficient in most instances unless extreme moisture levels are recorded ongoing or moisture readings have not been taken for a significant time period.

In regard to checking the moisture levels of the timber, it is pointless to check every single timber in the building – it is close to impossible, unreasonable and cost prohibitive.

However, because of the known moisture movement pathways inside building frames, it is known that checking certain key locations around the building will allow an understanding of the moisture content levels generally around the building. This is because moisture will preferentially accumulate in these particular parts of the building.

Therefore these key moisture accumulation locations are the ideal places at which to check moisture levels of the entire framing, and they need to be monitored regularly for their moisture levels to give an indication of the moisture levels in the other parts of the building.

These key locations are marked in the plans as shown, and will be measured via a monitoring system periodically – including winter readings or times of heavy downpours.

Intermediary moisture content readings, between readings, are of no consequence, because treatment levels of the timber will minimise fungal activity and the owners are able to carry out normal maintenance to continue the building’s durability and lifespan as normal. If this intended coverage or frequency of readings does not satisfactorily address the risk posed in this design, we can increase the number of points tested or the frequency of testing to suit the particular aspects of this building works

By periodic monitoring a representation of the entire wall framings is obtained in those areas. Therefore those areas will be deemed to be of known moisture contents, and this will be the specific effort required to inspect the hidden structural timber elements on an ongoing basis.

I have specified in the Maintenance Plan as well as the plans and specifications that this inspection will be done via the following method: ___(eg the Moisture Detection System or other system)____ and all Manufacturer / Service Provider’s specifications are provided. If readings are out of the ordinary, the owner is instructed to seek professional help immediately. I also refer you to John Gardiner’s position on this regarding the prescribed system.”

COUNCIL
“Thank you for that, we will assess the inspection method prescribed and the coverage described in the plans to decide whether this is sufficient to satisfy this question on reasonable grounds.”

The prescribed system should be effective in assessing structural timber moisture levels and understanding E2 performance

Step Up Group Research Summary shows the science behind building moisture monitoring in key locations is sound and well known. An excerpt from the Research Summary booklet (available on www.stepupgroup.co.nz) states:

1. Further research into principle 3 of the Wall Moisture Management Principles (the distribution of moisture in buildings) unlocked the understanding and scientific platform necessary to develop the Mdu Probe System. These Research Highlights are:
2. Moisture is everywhere in a building – Moisture will always be in building walls – the issue is how much? and where?
3. Moisture will accumulate at the bottom plate – The bottom plate is an ideal “control” point to determine the net effect of a wall loading
4. Leaks create a higher than equilibrium reading in the bottom plate – Careful analysis of the bottom plate moisture levels over time gives indication of the wall’s moisture loading above it.
5. A moisture gradient exists across the bottom plate – The wet section of wall is the bottom external corner of the bottom plate section facing the cladding

The Research Highlights were presented at the 2005 UoA Leaky Buildings Symposium which presented the scientific principles behind the Mdu Probe System. These scientific principles were established from timber moisture profile testing during 2003 UoA An Investigation of Water Transport from Building Walls and reported on, and later also in the published peer reviewed SCENZ conference paper 2008 Timber Moisture Contents in 800 New Zealand houses.

John Gardiner, DBH Determinations Manager, has also voiced his support of the Moisture Detection System providing an effective means of demonstrating a “building continues to comply with Clause E2”

I accept that ongoing monitoring of a building’s cladding by a system such as that offered by the moisture detection system can be an effective means of demonstrating that that maintenance is effective and a building continues to comply with Clause E2 (John Gardiner, DBH Determinations Manager: Determination 2010/079 s7.5.5)

For other statements of efficacy from independent 3rd parties of the Moisture Detection System (Mdu Probe System) please contact us

This wired Mdu System is perfect for new homes where minimalist visuals are a must. Sensor points are installed during construction and wired back to a central patch point.

Patch panels are located in easily-accessible areas such as the garage or external shed and are read with a standard moisture meter. Reading records are entered into the BNet database for reading interpretation.

In regards to achieving this objective, our core recommendation to bodies corporate is to prove the condition and performance of the building through the installation of the Mdu System into the complex. This involves a thorough non-destructive framing inspection, the installation of a weathertightness monitoring system into the complex and the ability to carry out regular moisture readings as part of the long term management plan.

The Mdu System will assist in protecting the asset value of the individual properties by providing certainty to the owners and purchasers that the buildings are weathertight and robust. Other benefits to using the Mdu Probe System include:

• Providing certainty of performance and condition
• Assistance with long term management planning
• The ability to target specific areas of preventative maintenance needed and clarification of what level or scope of works are needed in what areas around the complex.
• The ability to prove any corrective building works carried out is successful
• Providing proof to future owners that the body corporate is proactive with maintenance
• An in-built online property management and building information and management systems available to assist body corporate with property record keeping and building analysis

Owners that follow our recommendations enjoy greater certainty of their property value and gain back control of their building and investment providing peace of mind. We also have many success stories – many where buildings have retained and enhanced their CV.

Should any matters arise, the Step Up Group has a wide network that will be able to satisfy any need the body corporate may have practically or professionally – so you know you’re in safe hands.

Contact us here or drop us a line to get started

However even more worrying, is that the message of “recladding is the only way” of fixing problem houses is wiping BILLIONS off the value of the remaining built infrastructure of our country through “leaky building stigma” – and this dwarfs the issue of the Christchurch rebuild. Unless this path and message is recorrected, then ordinary NZers will continue to lose their built wealth, retirement fund and nest eggs. Cumulatively this will mean NZ will be over $15 billion dollars out of pocket.

Put in perspective, this cost dwarfs the income generated by the planned SOE sell-down (estimated $5 – $7 billion – www.interest.co.nz ). Why would a country sell off its public assets for $5 – $7 billion at the same time as letting the remaining private residential assets be devalued by over $15 billion? It doesn’t make sense.

While there are many technical issues surrounding this debate, the reality is simple: not all plaster clad buildings have major issues requiring reclads. There has been a dramatic over-estimation of the number of buildings with this scale and szie of problem which is fanning the flames of fear and condemning perfectly good homes. It has been proven factually time and time again that most buildings do not have major problems and can be easily looked after with relatively little cost or expense. Also, there are reliable ways to discern problem houses from good ones with certainty and without damage (www.moisturedetection.co.nz) – giving home purchasers certainty that they can buy in confidence.

However this is not the message the constituency is getting fed, and with devastating effects. Along with the Christchurch earthquake rebuild, the biggest economic issue facing the country is not in how problem buildings are being expensively remediated – it is the “reclad them all” rhetoric that is condemning and DEVALUING ALL of the tens if not hundreds of thousands of plaster-clad NZ homes that in fact do not need extensive remediation. The mums and dads investors of these houses are now victimised and faced with the impossible situation of having $200,000+ wiped off the value of their sound buildings – yet there is no major physical damage or problems.

Many of you or someone you know will own a plaster-clad home in what is defined as the “at risk” time period - from 1992 to 2004. “Official estimates” are arguing that 90% of these plaster-clad buildings need to be completely reclad – irrespective of how well they’re performing. But a much lower percentage actually have this level of problems – and the rest are being unfarily tarnished with the same brush.

This issue touches many many people across New Zealand and goes straight to the back-pocket. This is not specifically a “building” problem, and its not specifically a “housing” problem, what this issue revolves around is more of a “property” and “investment” problem – and the erasing of hard-earned value in our built infrastructure that NZers are being duped into devaluing and rebuilding. These homes are also typically the major asset in a family so their wealth evaporates. This must stop.

While this is contrary to the “official position”, this argument has the backing of a huge number of professionals in the building industry right across the board that can speak from personal experience and expertise of being involved with all aspects including investigation, maintenance, targeted repairs, partial-reclads and full-reclads. The facts also speak for themselves with the results of many thousands of detailed and ongoing structural and weathertightness examination results of thousands of plaster homes (of both problem houses as well as not – and the many in-between) proving that the official estimates are wildly overblown.

The rights of the hundreds of thousands of property owners and the protection the generated wealth of the nation from is at stake. This has been and will remain an issue of national significance for many years for plaster home owners. Over $15 billion will be wiped from New Zealand’s bottom line and remove any benefit state asset sales will have to New Zealand’s financial position. This is an issue that the government needs be taking very seriously as it starts to sell down its prime assets to make ends meet – unless the leaky home stigma problem is not addressed quickly more and more NZers will continue to lose their life savings for no good reason.

They decided to install the Mdu Probe System to non-destructively check the building to see if there were any problems before the 10 year mark ticked over so if there was problems they could claim compensation.

The Step Up Group presented the Mdu Probe results to the owners onsite and the results showed that there was significant problems:

• Timber damage was present
• The timber appeared untreated
• There were signs of moisture ingress

This showed that there was a need to consider applying for compensation by lodging a claim with the WHRS or another route. The next question was how long they had to claim before they became “ineligible”. The owners had bought their Council file and a review of the files showed that exactly TOMORROW was their final opportunity to lodge with the WHRS and be eligible for a claim.

That night the Step Up Group helped the owners sort out their WHRS Application form, and ensured that their claim would be adequately processed within time to ensure that the claim remained eligible.

It has been a very big decision, but the owners have now successfully lodged with the WHRS and are now eligible for compensation. Their challenge now is to gain the right level of compensation for the lowest cost to them. Again Step Up Group have been able to assist here and guide the owners in the right direction, and will be able to assist in taking them through the process.

That night, the owners alerted the other 3 neighbours, and they will be arranging for their properties to be installed with the Mdu Probe System to check their properties. Unfortunately they chose not to apply to the WHRS but will at least be able to identify the scope of their issues and minimise the cost and impact of remediation to be completed.

h#

• 2006-2008: The original owner installs the Mdu Probes into the building and continued to monitor the house and carry out maintenance where required.
• 2008: the owner sells – with the moisture results assisting them to show the new owners about the good performance of the building
• 2008-2011: new owners continue to monitor the building’s moisture levels annually and carry out isolated maintenance as needed.

Both the sellers and the buyers have been continuing to monitor for years. Noting much out of the ordinary but for some isolated issues identified that get addressed by maintenance and monitoring afterwards to ensure that maintenance has been effective.

When the current owners come to sell the building, they will be able to prove the weathertightness of the building to prospective new purchasers with the results from the moisture readings over the years, and the new owners can continue with this basic monitoring. This ensures that everyone is protected and safe in the knowledge that the building is being monitored.

h#774

Internal access to the bottom of the external walls is needed by the Mdu Probe Installers. To aid the installers we ask that any furniture be removed from the external walls near corners, under windows or beside doors and other risk points (such as pipe penetrations etc) to allow installers’ access for at least 1m (especially if it is fragile, difficult-to-move or heavy). This includes hard-to-reach areas like under window seats and garages. The installers can guide you to what areas need clear access on the day of the installation. The installer may charge at its discretion for movement of furniture at $50/hr per person and takes no responsibility for loss or damage done due to the moving of furniture.

Hidden Details in Walls

It is the owner’s (or agent’s) responsibility to show installers exactly where any hidden piping, electronics or any other services are located in the walls and how to avoid them. While the installer takes all care they take no responsibility for the action and the consequences of affecting any hidden services that are not specifically pointed out or immediately obvious internally. It is also the owner’s responsibility to show the installers where the bottom plate is located in the walls where the investigation is occurring if it is not immediately obvious internally.

Simply put – the WHRS Investigation leaves a building highly stigmatised and damaged and many times prevents the building from being able to be adequately remediated with a targeted repair solution.

While this amount of damage is not important if an area is to be reclad anyway – but if this destructive process finds that the area investigated is acceptable and performing well, how is the owner to rectify this area permanently without full recladding in the area? There is no mention of this and the WHRS to this day still refuses to give owners a specific answer to this.

There are ways to reduce and minimise this issue – homeowners who put the Mdu Probe System into their homes BEFORE the WHRS Intrusive Investigations or DURING the investigation (as part of the WHRS Assessors’ budgeted works) are able to minimise damage as much as possible while still allowing Assessors to collect the information they need.  There are also ways to reduce the damage of a building so that repairs costs are minimised should no problem be found.

Also, an independent comparative analysis report between the efficacy between WHRS and the Mdu Probe System was commissioned in 2009 by the DBH showing that the Probes were highly effective in assessing the condition of a building compared to the standard process, and that when combined together as assessment methods (where the destructive WHRS investigations are directed by the information collected by the Mdu Probe System) the process was highly effective in achieving a very robust analysis of a building without unnecessary damage.

Last week in the High Court, Justice Faire reversed an award against a respondent and made some telling comments which must register with home owners, respondents, the Department of Building and Housing (DBH), experts and lawyers.

This case began in the Weathertight Tribunal and was heard under appeal in the High Court. Mr Browne was the government appointed assessor charged with providing a robust and accurate report on the condition of a home. As many of you know we advise our clients to carry out an analysis of the Assessor’s report. Despite it being from the government, it is, more often than not, flawed in some way and their investigation is often not as broad as clients would expect.

His Honour made the following comments:
“The adjudicator relies on the evidence of Mr Browne for her conclusion that the lack of clearance between tiles and cladding is a cause of leaking and damage. Mr Browne was contracted by the Chief Executive of the Department of Building and Housing to provide a report.
Mr Browne describes the investigation process that he followed in completing his report. He describes the invasive testing that he undertook, which involved drilling holes through the cladding and inserting proprietary probes into the concealed structure to record moisture content readings.Locations were selected by him from areas that he regarded as high risk and then non-invasive surface readings were obtained. Once the testing was carried out the holes were then filled with sealant.
In his report, it is noticeable that Mr Browne refers to the potential to enable damage in relation to the cladding taken down to the deck level only.The moisture readings to which I have made reference do not indicate that actual damage has occurred because of the fact that the cladding was taken down to the deck level.” (Emphasis added)

His honour then referred back to evidence given in the Tribunal;
“ADJUDICATOR: So is there evidence in this property that that’s happening?
MR BROWNE: It’s really a generalisation of what I’ve found previously rather than specifically on that.
ADJUDICATOR: So you can’t point to anything specific on this but you believe that’s what happening.

Justice Faire then summarised Mr Smith’s evidence on this point (expert appointed by the home owners) “Questioned further, Mr Smith acknowledged that he was making an assumption and had no factual foundation to suggest that there was any damage caused at the tile to cladding junction.”
His Honour therefore concluded that there was “no proper foundation for the proposition that the tile to cladding clearance was a cause of water penetration and damage.”
In conclusion, at least two experts (the first appointed by the Government and the second by the home owner) proceeded on this point against one of the Respondents on a combination of assumption, potential and generalisation.The produced no proof for their claims of damage. Once challenged, they crumbled on this point.
This decision supports the on-going efforts of the Moisture Detection Company and Origins Group Limited, working under the auspices of the Step Up Group, to ensure parties obtain thorough and robust analysis of homes intending entry into the Tribunal or High Court process. These companies have been urging the Department of Building and Housing (which appoints Assessors), building experts, lawyers and homeowners’ to install permanent probes and allow the collection of the four types of evidence thereby available. The Government reports are simply not robust, accurate or thorough enough to withstand challenge by any one of the various respondents to a claim.
The Tribunal is subservient to the High Court and accordingly this decision stands as a precedent for those entering the Tribunal. Our clients are protected to a greater extent than most homeowners (and the one above) because we urge our clients to carry out more extensive and scientific testing of homes and not to assume the Government Assessor has been thorough or correct.  We use unique technology, methods and computer programmes to enable a comparison of data collected to ascertain areas where damage is claimed but not yet proven. We then undertake further sampling at an independent laboratory to ensure that as much of the damage is proven as possible without removing every piece of cladding. We also limit damage to buildings.
Sadly, those building experts (and lawyers) who have chosen to ignore this technology, and who will continue to do so, will have only one option; to do even more destructive testing on the exterior of properties. The danger for their clients, is that should they remove swathes of cladding, and find no damage, they will have irreparably damaged the house. Who then, pays to repair this damage done in bad faith? Surely not the respondents or claimants?
There was a quantum leap in 2004 in the method of investigation of building condition. Claimants who rely on those who refuse to embrace this leap will be holding a candle to see the truth while those against them will be using a spotlight.
If you have any queries about this or other matters relating to the condition and maintenance of your home please do not hesitate to contact us.