Moisture Detection

INVASIVE TESTING HELPS HOUSE BUYER AVERT A DISASTER.

It's natural to want to keep expenses to a minimum when shopping for a house and some buyers grow weary of paying for inspections on house after house.

A recent client came to us after a recommendation from their pre-purchase inspector who had found slightly high moisture indications in the dining room of a plaster-clad house.

She was concerned about the cost of a higher level of weathertightness inspections but even more worried about the risk of buying a leaky home.

We carried out four invasive tests using Mdu Moisture Probes in the dining room and the garage and found very high levels of moisture and advanced decay in three locations. See the photos of the timber samples - locations 1,2 and 4 are decayed.

At this point, we asked the client whether she wanted us to test any other areas but she decided to pull the pin on this house and keep looking.

We can't stress enough that the tools used by pre-purchase inspectors doing visual-only inspections are not technically capable of measuring moisture or finding decayed timber. They can identify some areas for further investigation but are not accurate or reliable.

If you buy a monolithic plaster-clad house built between 1992 and 2004 without invasive weathertightness testing, you are at a high risk of buying someone else's problems.

Moisture Detection Company provide invasive testing for decay, moisture and timber treatment without cutting out wall linings or cladding. Vendors accept our process because we don't damage the house.

Contact Moisture Detection Company for further information.
[email protected]
(09) 271 0522.

https://www.moisturedetection.co.nz/

https://www.moisturedetection.co.nz/services/timber-treatment-testing/

https://www.moisturedetection.co.nz/services/pre-purchase-inspections-for-weathertightness/

THE MOST EXPENSIVE MISTAKE DRIVING HOME SELLERS TO DESPAIR.

The euphoric hype of 2021 has faded and sellers of monolithic-clad homes are faced with the grim reality of evaporating buyers and rock bottom offers. It doesn’t matter how good you think your house is, it’s what buyers, inspectors, banks and real estate agents think that counts.

This is what’s really happening;
• Your house goes on the market with high expectations – after all you know that it is basically sound and dry,
• A buyer is interested and makes an offer subject to inspection and finance,
• Their inspector picks up on a couple of areas which could have high moisture or water damage,
• The buyer’s bank won’t lend, the buyer walks, and the real estate now has knowledge of an adverse building report, which must be declared to future potential buyers,
• From now on, offers are low-ball, even below land value as everyone factors in that the house probably requires a reclad, if not a full rebuild.
• You ask yourself "What the hell just happened?"

We see this pattern repeated time and time again, so how can you head this off and help ensure that your house sells for fair value?

The alternative process;
• House owner has a moisture probe monitoring system installed in their house, which provides accurate, indisputable data on the house condition – moisture levels, decay and timber treatment levels.
• If repairs are required, the house owner either completes these prior to listing or makes full disclosure to potential buyers.
• Buyer makes their first offer based on seller’s disclosures, and buyer’s inspectors are unlikely to find any further issues that would stop the sale.
• House sells at a value that is fair to buyer and seller, and the moisture monitoring system stays as a chattel of the house, to assist the new owner with future maintenance.

A real estate agent contacted us recently and their client’s house which should have been worth over a million is struggling to get offers over $400,000. That’s what’s happening in the real world.

Sellers – take the initiative and put the alternative process into play before listing.

Contact us at Moisture Detection Company for more information on how we can help.

Ticking Time Bomb Warning for Flood-Damaged Home-Owners

The recent floods have hit thousands of homeowners hard. Their houses and personal possessions have been damaged or destroyed by muddy, contaminated waters.

If you or someone you know is affected, then look out. Once the insurance companies have finished their ‘remedial works’, many of these houses will be left as ticking timebombs costing their owners' plenty in the future, unless they act quickly.

The big clean-up is underway and naturally, people want their houses back – back to how they were and as soon as possible. The pressure is on. The insurance company inspectors and loss adjustors are frantically running around instructing contractors on what needs to be done. The contractors are making hay, stripping off gib and setting up fans.

The insurance companies want to get every home signed off at the lowest possible cost.

However, it’s time to just put the handbrake on and take a good look at what really happened and what this means.

Your house framing has just been absolutely saturated with water contaminated with all manner of bacteria and fungal spores. If you don’t take the correct action, decay can set in very quickly. Research by SCION showed that Untreated and H1 timber can decay within six weeks of exposure to moisture.

We had a customer who had been flooded out come to visit us yesterday. He told us that contractors had dried the house out, sprayed a disinfectant on the timber and told him that he could re-gib.

We have been in this game long enough to know that this is physically impossible. The timber cannot be dry, and the treatment they use will not protect it. This is utter madness and bordering on criminal (in my humble opinion) – the next leaky home saga may be around the corner.

BRANZ Bulletin 666 “Restoring a Home after Flood Damage” makes it clear that putting the gib on before the timber is dry may result in mould growth and timber decay. That timber should be checked by a registered building surveyor and retreated if necessary. That it may take several months to dry to an acceptable level and there should be a pre-lining inspection by the council before replacing linings.

How well is this being done or is expediency over-ruling the need to do it right?

The surface scanning equipment used to ‘measure moisture’ cannot give an accurate measurement, especially where it is most important, at the base of the framing, where all of the moisture from the studs runs down to, and where it is hardest to dry out.

If your house was built between 1992 and 2002, there is a high chance that the framing timber is either completely untreated or lightly treated H1. This timber needs to be kept dry to keep it rot and borer resistant. Now that it has been saturated with contaminated water, it is particularly vulnerable.

If your house is plaster clad, direct fixed to the studs then you are more vulnerable as the timber will really struggle to dry out once the gib is on.

Do not, under any circumstance let your insurance company off with a half job that leaves you with future decay, mould and resale problems.

It is possible to get your insurance company to pay up to fix it properly, but only if you are armed with the right knowledge.

Moisture Detection Company designed moisture probes to accurately measure and monitor moisture, and RotStop to treat vulnerable timber and kill off the full range of white, brown and soft rots. This is what we do, and have been doing for nearly 20 years.

We will be writing a full explanation about this and what it means shortly. Send us a message if you would like a copy, or want to talk about your house.

https://www.moisturedetection.co.nz/services/treat-timber-and-stop-decay-with-rotstop/

, , , , , , ,

Another blow to the long suffering owners of houses clad with Harditex.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/leaky-homes-another-major-lawsuit-ends-with-finding-james-hardie-cladding-not-to-blame/P3ZBSN3JDYFPMUGI6NUQAZ3RGM/

The High Court in Wellington have ruled that the homeowners have not proven that Harditex caused the weathertightness issues, it had been adequately tested and it was conceptually a sound product.

Try telling that to the owners of thousands of Harditex clad houses, most of which are leaking, and have lost much of their value due to the plaster-clad home stigma.

When you read the judgement, it is clear that the legal team for the homeowners, in the judges opinion, just didn't do a good job. Their experts weren't good enough or prepared properly, their research wasn't up to scratch and they were steamrollered by a well prepared, professional James Hardie's legal team.

You can download the judgement from our Leakyhomesexposed.co.nz website from the link below.

https://www.leakyhomesexposed.co.nz/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=rHoYUEEDjWA%3d&portalid=6

So what can you do if you have a house with monolithic cladding that you want to either make safe and dry, or sell at a reasonable price? The options for suing James Hardies, the council or the builders are long gone.

Head over to our new website at www.moisturedetection.co.nz and have a look at how we have been helping owners of plaster clad houses since 2005.

There is a massive industry of building surveyors, 'experts' and construction companies pushing re-cladding as the only way to have a safe dry house and get rid of the plaster home stigma. While that may sometimes be necessary, mostly this can be avoided for a fraction of the cost.

Give us a call on 09 271 5222 to find out how.

Moisture Detection Finding and Fixing Leaks in Your Plaster Clad Home Fast.

The news came out yesterday that the James Hardy Class Action Court Case is over. The plaintiffs have pulled out and their litigation funder has agreed to pay James Hardie $1.25 million.

So what does this mean?

Does it mean that James Hardie was correct? That their flagship monolithic cladding was fit for purpose and any leaks in Harditex houses were the result of bad workmanship?

No. It just means that Habour Litigation got cold feet, lost confidence in the legal team and the process, so decided to pull the pin rather than risk more money.

Who wins out of this outcome?

No.1 is the lawyers on both sides - they always win, financially at least. Although Adina Thorn's reputation has surely suffered a major hit. Did she and her team run a competent case? Did they use all of the resources available to them and did they present the best evidence available? Should they have joined the BIA, BRANZ, NZ Standards and the other parties who contributed to the problem into the action rather than focussing just on James Hardie?

It seemed from the outside that James Hardie was clearly at fault. Their system clearly failed and caused loss. Their installation instructions (not using a cavity or well treated timber) contravened the NZ Standards in force at the time. Their system did not allow for the inevitable water intrusion that was always going to happen - and there were legal precedents showing that cladding manufacturers were at fault for this They knew there were problems for many years but didn't withdraw the product, warn the public or make substantive changes to the product or the installation instructions. But somehow, Adina's side managed failed to make a compelling enough case.

James Hardie has certainly won and even get back a small portion of their legal costs. They have had to settle other cases against them (Department of Education), but squeaked out of this one somehow. James Hardie will be saying that this vindicates them, but it doesn't. No one has said that the case lacked merit, it just appears that Habour Litigation bailed out leaving the homeowners high and dry. Visit www.leakyhomesexposed.co.nz for some more insights into why James Hardie (and others) were to blame for the leaky homes scandal.

Who has really lost?

The real losers are obviously the Harditex homeowners who were hoping for some money to compensate for their leaky, rotting homes. Now, they are truly on their own, and now, due to the time this case has taken, their houses are likely more damaged.

What can these homeowners do?

Now that the legal doors for claims against James Hardie, builders, councils etc are slammed shut, it's time for some decisions. They are going to feel deeply hurt, angry, disappointed, despondent, and probably helpless. It will doubtless take some time before they can think logically about their future.

Then, they can do what everyone with a leaky house has to do. Start making decisions.

Decide to just do nothing, sell and take the loss, repair, re-clad, or re-build. All are major decisions and all with their own set of costs and ramifications.

Everyone who owns a house with monolithic cladding, whether it appears to be leaking or not, has to make these same decisions.

No major decision should ever be made without gathering the best information first. Only when you know how your house is actually performing and the options available to you, can you make decisions on its future.

Visual only inspections, thermal imaging, and surface moisture scanning are simply not accurate and must not be relied upon. They miss many defects, report other defects that aren't actually there, and tell you nothing about the condition of your timber.

Invasive cutouts are very destructive, expensive and limited in what they can tell you about your overall house condition. Once you start cutting out your cladding, you almost guarantee that you then need a re-clad because these can't be repaired invisibly.

The only way to gather the accurate evidence that you need before making a major decision is by using Mdu moisture probes. These are cheap, non-destructive, giving actual moisture readings and the timber condition at dozens of locations.

In many cases, targeted repairs, local timber retreatment and on-going moisture probe monitoring are all that is required to maintain a plaster clad house.

https://www.leakyhomesexposed.co.nz/

Call us for more information on 09 271 0522 or visit us at www.moisturedetection.co.nz.

Leaky Homes Exposed - court case file of NZ leaky homes scandal Learn who's to blame for the disturbing and scarcely believable negligence and coverups that led to the Leaky Homes Scandal.

Have you heard of the Leaky Homes Scandal?

Maybe you know someone who had a plasterclad home, maybe you had or have one yourself.

Did you ever wonder how it all came about?

If you want to know who's to blame, check out this website: Leaky Homes Exposed.

Read how poor our government watchdogs were and how it's cost millions of dollars to the average NZ homeowner.

Then join in the conversation and share your experiences.

Leaky Homes Exposed - court case file of NZ leaky homes scandal Learn who's to blame for the disturbing and scarcely believable negligence and coverups that led to the Leaky Homes Scandal.