Resolution of defects
Resolution of defects: an actual example
Subdivision NZ aims to enable everyday Kiwis build a better New Zealand. To help this happen we need to share our knowledge.
Personally, I am passionate about the sharing of knowledge for better building. The way to do this is to lever off each other and grow our expertise collectively.
Defects and disputes seem to be a topic that we don’t readily share – maybe we are scared (but I am not). I think that the industry in general is adversarial and this is detrimental to everyone.
When I began experiencing difficulties, I did try to work things out but discovered that emotions would run BEFORE people had read, talked, listened and discussed. In general, most of my issues have resolved well, sometimes have had to pay up as the clear answer was presented to me by my Engineer to the Contract (important in NZS3910 contracts). However, post practical completion, I was more on my own.
Recently, I completed a variety of papers through the Open Polytechnic on Construction Management. I am so thankful that I did this as it has really empowered me and has given me ways to approach resolutions. It is important for me to understand contracts and the law that I was operating within and under.
In one development I have had some interesting ‘defects’ arise.
Please note that defects are quite normal, the key is their quick and effective resolution.
I think I am ‘improving’ my approach, this means they are less ‘emotional’ and resolve faster. My first disputes were challenging because it took a long-time to fine out the basic facts and then line them up to see the complete story. I now know that I need to do this first and then present it so others can see and constructively enquire. Interestingly, two were not challenged at all but working out how to fix them has been hard.
In this post I am featuring one defect to show how I am currently dealing with it. My purpose is to show that we don’t necessarily have to be adversarial (even though I feel like arguing at times). Of course, there are many avenues to take (small claims, builders board, building disputes tribunal, professional bodies) but the best is working it out between the affected parties.
Unequivocal evidence with a clear timeline of events is now my ‘go-to’. Here, I am featuring my current ‘issue’ which is a paint system.
I have taken the stand that it is ‘not fit for purpose’. My evidence is four poles using the system in question failing versus no failure with the pole that does not have that system. There are two sets of stairs and both have the same problems.
FAILURE of a SPECIFIED SYSTEM
Intumescent fire paint specified by XXXX and consented within the Building Consent. The system has been used on two sets of steel fire escape stairs in a residential setting where four of five posts have had their lower halves painted with an intumescent paint. Note the 5th pole fortuitously forms a ‘control’).
The photos here outline the story as I have found it. Out of courtesy I have blanked out personal names and brands as the people are all doing their best. This shows my process and where I am up to right now. Please excuse my typos in the screenshots of the emails.
Hopefully we will get a rapid resolution and the stairs will be ’splendiferous’ again.
