Suggestions

Suggestions for Improving RCPG

Changing numbering convention from *.* to *.*.*. So, instead of Section 2.1, we'd have 2.1.1. Create subcategories within sections.
Should 2.6 be titled "Subfloor Squeaks" since we're referring to floor framing and not the finished layer?
7.7 is in incorrect location
7.8 is Finishing, not Electrical
7.9 should be moved to Section 8?
10.4 contains two completely separate issues.
3.17 appears out of place. Maybe should fall under Exterior Finishing instead of Wall Framing?
3.18 appears out of place. Maybe should fall under Exterior Finishing instead of Wall Framing?
Update A8 infographic to Brent's revision
Create "Amendments" page for transparency for any changes or new items added.
Create tolerances for items without specifics. Don't leave any room for supposition.
Add section about caulking not required, but if applied by builder, becomes warrantable
Add section about caulking separating or deteriorating at water saturation points. Should not be covered due to exposure to water, chemicals, abrasion from cleaning, etc.
Add section about baseboard covering floor edging. Specify what makes this warrantable, such as visibility of cut edge of flooring or excessive height.
Should sections 12.16 and 12.17 be merged? They pertain to resilient flooring discolouration.
Create "When is this a defect" and "When is this not a defect" for each item to help temper homeowner expectations and provide understanding to builder about when to arrange repairs.
We should maybe have a section specifically addressing dirt and other concerns not deemed defects. As an example, 3.8 Window(s) Is Dirty specifically addresses dirt on the windows, but it would be good to have a reference to dirt in general, where we specify that, unless it affects the acceptable performance of an item (dirt in track restricts window operation) or it creates a health or safety issue or is in contravention to the BCBC, then it's not covered.
Under Terminology, add "Uninhabitable." In light of the fact that there is nothing significant online to define this when it comes to new homes, it should be be outlined in the RCPG.
Rather than individual maintenance tips, a link or pop-up should be created to provide all relevant tips for that specific component (ie. Siding).
Is 4.17 redundant? See 3.5, 4.26 and 4.37
What's the difference between 4.13 and 4.22? And is 4.23 redundant?
For 4.34, I took out the normal viewing position under Acceptable Performance/Conditions. Exposed wood on a safety component should never be subject to the normal viewing position rule. If the wood is painted or stained and the wood becomes exposed due to premature failure of the finish, it should be warrantable. The key will be determining whether or not the finish failed due to poor application or weathering/wear.
For 4.35, the title does not include algae and other forms or organisms that might grow on the surface of paint. Perhaps changing the title to Biological Growth Is Visible on Painted Surface.
For 4.35, what is the common spelling on "mould" in relation to biological organism? Should it be "mold" and reserve "mould" for items that are formed or fabricated?
Rather than referencing BCBC for roofing issues, should we not be referencing the RCABC?
Should we create a FAQ page to help answer questions homeowners may have about their home? Even include short instructional videos on how things work. For example, why it takes so long for hot water to reach a tap when it hasn't been used for hours.
Added caveat to 5.17, regarding installation of eavestroughs by design. Although they aren't a requirement, coverage extends to any component installed by design. In this instance, in a multi-family building, if it's obvious that the builder missed installing the eavestrough, would this be considered a defect or contractual?
6.3 Title Change. Original is unclear on purpose of section: Did the pipe freeze or did it rupture?
6.5: There are instances where condensation on pipes within walls causes damage due to improper insulation around pipes. Should this not be the exception? This occurred at Shift (Aragon) and was a huge systemic issue.
7.1, 7.2 changed from BC Electrical Code to Canadian Electrical Code
Section for AFCI needed or change GFCI to Circuit Interruptors (GFCI, AFCI)
Changed 10.11 title to "Gaps Between HVAC Registers/Grills and Adjacent Wall Surface" to reduce length of title.
7.7 is misplaced. It is an HVAC issue that has nothing to do with electrical.
7.9 is misplaced. It is an HVAC issue that has nothing to do with electrical.
8.8 and 8.9 state a variance in temp of 3 degrees between living spaces on the same floor is acceptable, but doesn't address what happens if it exceeds this guideline. Also, there's nothing that addresses temp differences between floors, particularly with single-zone HVAC systems.
8.10 and 8.11 could be combined, just making sure the stipulation is that oil-canning is warrantable while other noises are not.
8.12 does not address noise caused by debris (ie. leaving construction debris inside the vent that causes flapping or whistling sounds).
8.14 should be changed to odours through vents in general, not just off-site. Some homeowners have complained that kitchen smells have made their way into top floor bedrooms. They don't seem to understand the concept of recirculating air and that the closer the air return is to the source of the odour, the stronger it is likely to be as it's distributed throughout the house.
Further to 8.14, there is no reference in the RCPG to sewer gases and drain traps. This is a maintenance issue and not warrantable. Add to plumbing. There is also a BCBC reference for manual refilling of traps.
8.16 states that condensation is not warrantable, however, I would argue that, if the insulation around the pipes is not complete or properly attached, it can lead to condensation/frost that may lead to dripping that then leads to damage, especially when the pipes are located inside wall cavities and attic spaces.
8.17 addresses blocked condensate lines, but the RCPG does not address improper installation of condensate lines. Aragon's Shift was a prime example of a bad installations, where many condensate lines were installed so that the drain lines rose above the drain pan, causing water in the drain pan to overflow. At the very least, the condensate lines should be installed so that the water can be drain through gravity. At the most, condensate pumps should be installed.
9.6 title could be reduced to "Drywall Surface Blemishes" and a bullet points of the actual issues included in the Acceptable Performance/Condition section.
10.4 A door rubbing on the door jamb and a door not latching are two completely separate issues. Although a door rubbing on the frame may keep a door from closing, a door latch not aligned with the strike because the frame racked from settlement or poor installation can happen without rubbing on frame. The latter issue should have its own section.
Remove unnecessary plurals (ie. "gap" instead of "gaps")
Removed the word or variations of the word "Exist" as it's unnecessary
Should we change words like "trim" and "baseboard" to "millwork?"
Although the intention of 10.18 is to stop builders from leaving dents in trim during construction, it isn't possible to prove when those dents were created. Homeowners have been known to pound nails into trim themselves, causing damage and then blaming it on builders. PDI should be references here.
Using 10.19 as an example, what exactly is considered "excessive" in any scenario? How can this be quantified?
Question: How do we draw the line between a component having a warrantable defect and simply maintenance? Example, cabinet doors falling out of alignment. We need some basis to be able to say, "This is clearly a maintenance issue and doesn't qualify for warranty coverage."
12.1 states that height difference is acceptable provided transition is suitably eased, but does not provide details on what is considered "suitable" for such a transition. Also, this section should make not of raised edges that could be hazardous and not just tripping hazards. Too many flooring installers are being lazy and installing T-mouldings where a step-down is required. We should make a requirement that any transition over 1/4" should require a suitable step-down.
12.6 Consider adding PDI statement as some homeowners try to claim stains or fading caused during their move-in were pre-existing.
12.8 definition may be incorrect. Staining of carpeting is a result of increased air flow along the perimeter and at vents. Along perimeter, it's air being pulled through the space between the wall and the subfloor. At the vents, it's dirty air either being pushed out through the vent or sucked in through the ducting. This effect would be more appropriately named "filtration soiling."
12.9 Carpet underpad is also commonly not installed between tack strip and wall perimeters.
This may have already been previously mentioned, but a section for carpet tack strips should be created. Until such a time as a new technology comes along to replace this foot-torture device, it's all we have and homeowners need to exercise caution with their foot-falls.
12.10 omits that fibre loss and strings can be expected at seams and along perimeters as the carpet backing matrix has been disrupted. This is normal and unavoidable, not a defect. Loose fibres and strings can be expected for months or years after installation and is normal. Aggressive carpet cleaning equipment or practices can cause fibre loss.
12.2 and 12.22 are similar. In fact, 12.22 may be redundant if 12.2 covers unevenness in all flooring types.
12.34 makes no mention that swelling is the result of water penetration into the laminate flooring layers. I think more needs to be said for this to define what's warrantable and what isn't. Also, the Maintenance Tip could include not saturating the flooring or allowing water to sit along laminate flooring joints and edges.
12.35 Regardless of whether the gap is on a laminate floor or hardwood, the response should be the same, and yet there is no section for hardwood flooring. This should encompass all flooring, including resilient.
12.38 makes no mention of warranty associated with safety hazard from sharp edge.
13.4 The only situation where this would be warrantable is if it violated building code and created an unsafe condition. The 2 year coverage applies, but are there any circumstances where it would only be covered for 12/15 months? If not, those options should be removed.
13.5 and 13.7 appear to cover the same topic and have the same warranty coverage and claim response. They should be combined into one section.
Rather than calling the RCPG a "guideline," what if it were to be called "Residential Construction Performance Standards?" Make claim responses more of a requirement than a suggestion and give the RCPG more teeth.
What constitutes "evaporation" is not well defined. Evaporation occurs all the time, but significant evaporation, and the kind required for many instances in the RCPG, may only occur when there is no rainfall for 48 hours and the temperatures are sustained above a certain degree. What that degree is needs to be determined and clearly indicated in the RCPG. (Section 14.15, 14.16)
14.28 tells readers to refer to other sections of the RCPG for in-home electrical and lighting issues. Should we not link the reader to those pages under References?
15.2 There have been circumstances where the noise from the garage door indicated a potential malfunction. If the noise is not normal and an indication of something binding, should this not be considered for warranty coverage?
15.11 references BC Building Code, but would it not be more appropriate to reference BC Fire Code?
Appendix A1 may be out of date.