Panel cladding:  are the “glossies” enough?

Some comments by Alec Couchman (Claims Committee Convenor)

When specifying a ‘rainscreen’ type sheet cladding material, there are several factors to take into account:
•    Source:  Where does the panel come from?
•    Technical support/ history/ previous examples
•    Producer Statements and can they be relied on?
•    Can the supplier be expected to stand behind the product ?
•    Environmental:  orientation, weathering, wind speed, exposure zone.
•    Location:  High level or low level, exposed or sheltered
•    Panel size:  Large or small panels
•    Panel thickness and composition
•    Panel junctions especially at corners and windows or change of material.
•    Panel prep:  Required extent of pre-drilling/ painting/sealing.  
•    Ventilation strategy and air movement in general.  How does it work?
•    Finish, colour and maintenance including warranty maintenance.
•    Fixing and bracket details such as screws/ screw type/ bracket durability
•    Ability to accommodate seismic movement, e.g. inter-storey drifts
•    What are the margins for error and tolerance for poor site installation?

All this requires careful specification and detailing and THEN careful on-site observation.  

Experience suggests that ‘panel’ type products require to be installed with expressed (not countersunk/filled) fixings, over a vented cavity incorporating a secondary weathertightness layer.

Climate Change Risk

Peter Marshall (NZACS Board Chairman) presents his views.

Architects are responsible for designing buildings that in most instances are required to last 50 years, but climate change is already upon us. Every day, every week, every month we are bombarded with on-going examples of a changing climate and its consequences.

Designing for climate change is not the same as environmentally sustainable design, although there are overlaps. Environmentally sustainable design includes sustainable choices in selecting materials, efficiencies in the design of water, waste and power, consideration of recycling and deconstruction.  Designing for changes in our climate requires consideration of rising sea levels, increased rainfall and flooding, increased dry periods, higher winds, threats of fire and potential land slips.

We have a statutory obligation to design to building codes and standards, and to meet the requirements of being a registered architect.  Do we also have an obligation to take into account future changes that are clearly predictable that might not yet be captured in our codes and standards? Might shortcomings in designing for climate change create a potential liability?

Clause 49 of the NZRAB Code of Ethical Standards requires an architect to perform with skill, care and diligence. NZRAB's guide to the minimum standards for Initial Registration refers to environmental issues and sustainability.  Might shortcomings in designing for climate change or a sustainable environment be a breach of ethics?

Clients or society may expect our designs to meet more than the minimum Standards and Codes. Even if there is no certainty about what our climate is going to be like in 50 years, do we nevertheless have a duty to design for flexibility, adaptability, structures to withstand future forces, for coastal environments, for exposed environments, for a climate likely to be wetter and warmer, and one which perhaps presents a greater risk to property assets?  Or do we wait until the Standards and Codes force a change?

The trends are being made clear to us by the insurance industry. They are seeing and having to respond to:

• Extreme weather events
• Heavy rainfall and flooding
• Hurricanes
• Impacts on insurance, global supply chain, healthcare,
• Transitions on our regulatory environment,
• Emergency management
• Climate displacement.

The consequences are described in the executive summaries from a recent Aon report:

Bottom Line: Most of the world’s homes, businesses,
and infrastructure were built to meet the needs for a
20th Century climate. As the effects of climate change
accelerate, the need to prepare for the more intense
events of tomorrow becomes more urgent with each
passing day.(pg 24)

Bottom Line: Regulatory requirements mandating
climate-related disclosures are growing. European
markets have long been dominant for such filings, but
the United States and Asia are increasingly bringing
such mandates to the table. The trend is here to stay.

Bottom Line: As large-scale disasters happen with
more regularity, the downstream effects on the
commercial sector are only going to become more
noticeable. Recent years in 2021, 2020, 2017, and
2011 highlighted the types of prolonged supply
chain and economic disruptions that can occur. As
more expensive and impactful disaster events occur
in quick succession, this type of complex risk on
commercial business has the potential to become the
new normal.

In short: The design process requires thinking beyond the immediate context, and design firms need to consider their commercial and reputational risks:  both environmental design and climate change should be addressed during the evolution of a project.

Family Trusts as Clients

NZACS has seen an increase in the claims made by Family Trusts.  

Perhaps this is a result of recent changes to the trust requirements which have made it more likely that lawyers will be active as trustees.  They of course have their own liability position to protect!  Instead of (before) a minor difference being escalated to a legal issue, there is (now) the prospect that every decision or uncertainty will be put under a legal blowtorch.  

All the more reason for you to be clear in your communications, and make proper record of all and anything that has the potential to come under later review.

Why claims happen

Over the years, Communique has had several articles on this, and associated “Tales of Woe”.  Our website has  “Why Claims Happen” 1, 2, 3, 4!

Here – in no particular order - is a quick list to think about:

• Residential project
• A wealthy/entitled client (or one who has ready access to a lawyer)
• Vexatious clients, or clients unfamiliar with the NZ building/legal culture
• Budget does not match client expectations, or the designer’s aspirations
• Inadequate contingency sum or financial flexibility.
• Partial services; limited or no site observation; client acting as their own contract administrator
• Inadequate or unresolved terms of engagement;  
• Inadequate or unresolved design brief and “mission creep”
• Poor architect/client communications
• Cut fees with similarly under-cooked documentation
• A challenging/unusual site; challenging/unusual architecture
• Inadequate pre-design site information
• Design documentation: mistakes, uncertainties, inadequacies
• Failure to co-ordinate or incorporate the inputs of other consultants
• Fireplace/chimney detailing;  indoor pools
• Exotic/unusual/untried materials or design solutions
• Termination of services
• Owner’s response to outstanding fees claimed  (often a threat to make an NZRAB complaint)
• Completion certificates when site observation was not carried out.
• Value management late in the design process
• Poor contractor performance:  delay, inadequate defects remediation, inflated claims
• Defects arising after completion

Cyber Risks

An NZACS member had a cyber security breach where a fraudster got into their emails and doctored a Payment Schedule covering letter, with the result that the client paid a significant amount of money into an alternative bank account.  

NZIA has put out a Practice Alert dated 23 August 2023.  There is also guidance at https://www.cert.govt.nz/business/guides/cyber-security-risk-assessments-for-your-business/

Care is required in communicating and verifying bank account details.

It would be prudent to assume that unless you have specific measures in place, emails to and from your office may be available to persons unknown.

‍