Editorial: Customer confidence is leaking

Given the ongoing repercussions of the leaky houses crisis, the last thing that homeowners need is fresh queries about the practices of the home-building industry. That, however, is what they have got. Claims that framing timber used in the construction of thousands of houses over the past 15 months has not been effectively treated raise inevitable fears of another crop of rotting homes.

It should be noted that the claims remain just that. While scientists debate the long-term consequences, there is no evidence that timber treated with a spray-on borer preservative (known as T1.2) is, if used appropriately, more prone to premature decay than that treated by soaking. Equally, however, there are valid questions about whether that appropriateness is always observed. And whether the interests of homeowners have been accorded sufficient priority.

Following the woes associated with untreated timber, it is reasonable to assume that most homeowners would want their house built according to practice that has stood the test of time - that is, with boron-soaked timber (known as H1.2). As much was recognised in a law change 15 months ago that reintroduced treatment to H1.2 grading as a requirement for framing timber.

Boron-soaked timber was not, however, necessarily the choice of companies in the supply industry. Large-scale reintroduction would have required some timber mills to spend significant sums on equipment. To them, the halfway house of spray-on preservative has an obvious appeal.

Clearly, this option does not meet the new law's requirement of "complete sapwood penetration". Somewhat bizarrely, the Building Issues Minister, Chris Carter, suggests this is irrelevant. In his eyes, innovative building products should not be measured by existing standards. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to assume that, given the leaky homes crisis, the Building Industry Authority would have been very thorough in its evaluation. Approval of T1.2 timber as an "alternative solution" under the Building Code - meaning that it can be used in the same situation as H1.2 graded timber - would not have been granted lightly.

Most consumers would, nevertheless, take the common-sense view that timber treated by soaking is more likely to withstand persistently damp conditions than a spray-treated product. And they would be dismayed if, as seems the case, the sprayed product was being widely sold by timber merchants as equivalent to soaked timber, sometimes perhaps without instructions on keeping the wood dry.

This, and the fact that the two are similarly identified products, has been a recipe for confusion. The chief executive of the Certified Builders Association confirms as much when he says that builders are receiving spray-treated timber even when they specify soaked product. Merchants, for their part, can point to the BIA approval and argue there is no reason to differentiate.

Whatever the durability of the spray-on product, this is totally unfair to homeowners. If they specify the use of boron-soaked timber in their house, they should know that is what they will get. Additionally, timber supplied by merchants should be clearly marked, and contain suitable instructions about its use and care.

Anything less makes a mockery of the anguish suffered by people already ensnared by the leaky buildings scandal. It is as though their stress and suffering has counted for nought. For too many people throughout the home-building industry, consumers remain too much of an afterthought.