House-warranty bill falls 'far short’

Press, 24 March 1977, Page 3

House-warranty bill falls ' far short’

PA Wellington Legislation providing warranties for new homes was unnecessary, the Master Builders’ Federation said yesterday.

In submissions to the Parliamentary Select Committee considering the Building Performance Guarantee Corporation Bill, the federation said the industry itself could produce at short notice a warranty scheme “which ;wou!d not only be accepted by the industry but would ! receive the support of consumer interests.”

While the general mem- ! bership of the federation s was substantially in agree- ; ment with the principle of ! warranties for new homes, it 'believed the terms of warranties should be equitable ,to both parties. I “It is emphasised that the

; responsibilities of owners i should be clearly spelt out I so that builders are not subjected to unnecessary and ’ unwarranted harassment,” (said the federation. The federation said that it i accepted that both Labour i and National were “politiically committed” to the in- | troduction of such legislai tion.

i “The federation does find i difficulty, however in 'accepting that a National which is suppoI sedly private enterprise-ori-'ented should propose a coriporation which will j effectively be a subsidiary of 'the Housing Corporation and I will be subject to the directions of the Minister of i Housing on matters of pol-

icy and which will have no real control over its own

! finances and administration.” The scheme fell far short of meeting the consumer’s needs, the Consumer Council said. The council said the bill was a step in the right

direction — but it did not go far enough. “In our judgment it will not ensure that the home owner’s house will be built to proper standards or that construction faults will be promptly rectified,” the council said. The imprecise wording and limited scope of the legislation would also create problems for the industry. The council said its experience was that about one (fifth of all new home owners i faced significant building • problems. . These problems occurred 'at every level of home i building, but the bill said I nothing about additions or (alterations to existing homes I — which at present amounted to about. 14 per I cent of total house building. i Legislation designed to [protect owners against defects in new houses should ;be widened, the New Zealand Law Society said. i The Law Society said that while the bill offered some protection to owners who had entered into a building contract, it did not protect the buyers of “spec” houses. i This was -a field where I home owners were often left 'without an effective remedy ■and consideration should be 'given to extending the pro-

tection to that field, the society said.

The legislation should also make clear that it did not extend protection to subdivisional site works —- but only to site works carried out by the builder on the owners section.

i “The (society) is aware ofj ’ many instances and there; I have been a number of cases! before the courts Where j owners have been adversely! and often seriously affected i by the acts or omissions of! the subdivider but where the! i owner has no claim. “While no doubt as a matter of policy the present bill; is restrictive in that regard,| it should be recorded that'; claims against subdividers; are not in any way covered! by the bill,” the society said, j The society also ques-i itioned the indemnity clause' jin the bill offering protec-, I tion of two years against de-; j fective materials and six I years in other cases. I The bill was welcomed by; j the National Council ofj I Women who said there was< !a “recognisable need for! jsome form of redress for] ihome owners who have received a raw deal from some ; builders and manufacturers.” I “We trust, however, that 1 • this bill is but a preliminary i to a wider and even more; i effective protective coverage.” i The council said the bill! 'should be extended to cover • small buildings sUch as jhome alterations, shops and 'halls, rather than just j homes.