Editorial: Leaky home action on right track

Finally, it seems, the Government's attempt to tackle the leaky building crisis is pointed the right way. Measures announced yesterday, in concert with those released in May and others still to come, suggest relief is on the horizon for at least some of those unfortunate enough to own a leaky home. Flaws in previous remedies have been identified and reasonable solutions proposed. Yet victims have every right to feel aggrieved that it has taken so long to reach this point, and that they will have to wait until well into next year for an improved disputes process to become law.

As long as three years ago, only months after the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service was established, it became obvious it would not provide the promised "speedy, flexible and cost-effective" assessment and claims resolution. Homeowners, innocent victims of light-handed regulation, found themselves battling lawyers representing co-respondents including local bodies, builders, architects and other professionals.

Complaints of delays, inadequate assessments and owners being bullied in mediation became commonplace. A process rushed to the table and with a superficial but unsustainable gloss became a nightmare for those most in distress. Only now is the Government, which initially accused this newspaper of "banging on" about very little, taking steps to construct a fair and feasible solution.

The key policy planks announced yesterday include time limits on mediation to reduce delaying tactics, and handing more powers to adjudicators. They will be able to impose fines if people fail to show up for hearings or intentionally disrupt proceedings. It will also become easier for owners of apartment block units to take a class action against a builder or developer, and a new tribunal run by the Justice Ministry will adjudicate on disputes where mediation has failed.

These measures, taken with the $7.1 million pilot loan scheme and an overhaul of the resolution service, have the makings of a considered response. That does not mean, however, that the Government has addressed all the problems related to the weathertightness crisis. It has still, for example, to tackle difficulties raised by the private certification industry's collapse.

Then there is the question of the 10-year limitation on claims. It is arguable that the Government has a moral obligation to extend that period or, indeed, make it possible to claim on a leaky house of any vintage. A previous Government was, after all, responsible for the light-handed regime that prompted the crisis. Any change, however, would open a financial can of worms. It is a path the Government will not want to tread until it has a good idea of the scope of the problem. Its present estimate of the number of leaky buildings is 15,000; industry calculations are up to 40,000.

What we do know is that no end to the claims process is in sight. Indeed, how could it be when leaky homes are still being built. Change is excruciatingly slow, with a new builder-licensing scheme still in the works and the announced changes to the resolution process still the best part of a year away.

The Government will have disappointed some who expected greater largesse. But it has targeted the right areas in seeking to remove hurdles in the resolution process and hand financial help to those who need it most. The speed with which these remedies have been introduced bears no relation to the distress of homeowners, however. For their sake, greater urgency must become part of the equation.