Just seen another horror story

[Mike Mitchell]

On Channel 4,Tuesday 8:00 pm there was a programme about people's problems with houses. The first item concerned numerous defects with a new Persimmon house. Basically, the house was considered not up to standard, although one of the presenters tried to play down the owners' concerns somewhat.

I am planning to buy a new home! And I can do without horror stories like this. And this is not the first time I've watched programmes like this, where some brand new houses are shown to be of dubious quality or even structurally unsound (anyone remember that house with the massive cracks in the walls?).

How can I pick a builder with some kind of reputation to maintain and some concept of quality work? Where are all the lists of recommended builders, and the lists of builders whose products one wouldn't touch with a bargepole?

I have brochures from about a dozen builders, one of which is Persimmon. But I also have my eye on Morris Homes, Bryant, and Chestnut Homes.

Any advice to avoid a dud? This is a dream of a lifetime and while the couple portrayed on tonight's programme were angry, they were fairly resigned to the situation and just wanted out. Apparently they have negotiated some kind of confidential deal with the builder. But if this happened to me, I would be absolutely livid. Surely it must be possible to avoid jerry building in 2003/4?

MM

[L Reid]

Another possibiltiy is to speak to a surveyors (or someone suitably qualified), and ask how much it'd cost to get them to go round and check on the building at various stages of the build. I considered doing this for my property, however I had good feedback from others about our builders and so didn't bother.

[Andrew McKay]

Actually that is a very good suggestion - the surveyor doesn't need to do a lot - he can drop by the building site once a week on the way to or from the office, and as he's not going to be writing reports for each visit it's cash in the bank for him, and peace of mind for you.

Andrew

Do you need a handyman service? Check out our web site at

[Keith D]

Hi Mike, Sorry to offer no real advice but sometimes it can be the luck of the draw. Previously had a Barratt house (nightmare) and decided to move to a nice big Bryant one. Virtually everyone on the estate has had very few snags but we're having a nightmare. Ho hum. If you enjoy having a shower tray filled with effluent then you may enjoy the house buying adventure :-(

Keith

[Andrew Gabriel]

My house was done that way rather than by having an NHBC guarantee. It is backed up the surveyors insurance. My solicitor said it was generally regarded as much better than the NHBC guarantee because the time limit is much longer, and because any solicitor who's had any dealings with an NHBC guarantee will tell you just how worthless that is.

[Andrew McKay]

I wasn't aware that you could opt-out of the NHBC guarantee. How does that work then?

Andrew

Do you need a handyman service? Check out our web site at

[jerrybuilt]

Of course it is!

[Mike Mitchell]

Eh?!! How can the NHBC guarantee be worthless! This new house buying lark has got me really worried now. I'm beginning to think it's best if I stay put...

I wanted to consider a brand new property so as to avoid any chain hassles. But surely we should be able to trust any accredited building firm, like any of the big-name firms, to erect a property that reflects quality of work, and is value for money. It should NOT be up to the owner, as depicted in last night's programme, to have to consider putting the brand new property to auction (realising a 50 per cent drop in value) in order to get shot of it. The house they showed had daylight showing through the roof, for Gawd's sake! The bannisters on the landing were flimsy and probably dangerous. There were major problems with flooding, and so on. We're not talking here about a cracked tile in the bathroom or a sticking front door.

Perhaps a smaller, local builder would be a better choice than going to the mainstream builders?

MM

[Owain]

"Mike Mitchell" wrote | Surely it must be possible to avoid jerry building | in 2003/4?

Of course.

Don't use British builders.

The level of training, qualification and basic intelligence of most labourers on British building sites is abysmal. And on spec developments many labourers will be contracted to a labour hire contractor and not even working directly for the main contractor.

Get a German pre-fab and make sure it's installed by German labour.

Owain

[Frisket]

Hi Mike, didn't see the prog unfortunately but I'd like to try and reassure you a little if I can... We do a lot of new build work (as sparkies) for a lot of different builders. The majority of houses are well built and I'd be quite happy to buy one (if I could afford one!). Our company tries to resolve any snagging issues within 48 hours if possible (1st contact within 24hrs) and certainly within

1 week. The plumbers, tilers, plasterers etc. all try to work to similar timescales - in fact we all have dedicated departments these days. Obviously smaller companies will struggle to give this kind of service but that's the downside of employing 1 man and his apprentice outfits. Regards, Richard

[Andrew Gabriel]

Builder wasn't a member of NHBC, and so had no choice. It was a small local company. They have to employ a surveyor to come and inspect the build at various stages. At the end, the surveyor signs a certificate saying he checked the house was built properly. If he turns out to be wrong, you claim off his insurance. I don't have the details as they're lodged with the deeds or the local council (can't remember which). My recollection is that there is an initial 10 year period, but unlike the NHBC guarantee, you can still claim for problems which come to light after the 10 year period and were not obvious beforehand. I think you have to claim within 3 years of a problem becoming aparent though. There is no upper time limit, but the amount awarded in a claim after the first ten years would be reduced to reflect the length of satisfactory time/usage of the building before it showed up, and I think she said in practice a claim after 20 years was unlikely to award anything. I don't know how general these limits might be for such schemes, or how specific this is to my particular guarantee.

I suppose if you are buying a house before it is built, you might be able to specify this mechanism to be used instead of an NHBC guarantee, but I don't know if that would be possible.

[Andrew Gabriel]

It was a solicitor who told me solicitors regard them as pretty worthless, so I wouldn't stake too much hope on that path either.

[IMM]

A site manger will only allow an independent surveyor on site by appointment and accompanied by him or his assistant. They will sign nothing. Any problems should be sent to the BCO and copied to the site manager and the conveyancing solicitor. dealing directly with the site manager to get thing right before the next stage of build is usually futile. The BCO has power.

[IMM]

No, get a surveyor to inspect the build at crucial stages. Also he must insist snags are put right pretty well straight away before the next stage. If the they do not cooperate then put out of the deal. Better than loosing half of the house value and you will get a better built house overall. The BCO is supposed to catch all these snags. They don't. They are either too lazy, incompetent or too much on their plate.

A good BCO would not allow a build to progress unless he inspected that stage of the build. Most don't care and allow the builders to do what they like.

[IMM]

Huf Haus, but not cheap.

[IMM]

I see very liitle advantages in an old house. No insulation, damp etc.

A myth propagated by nasty Wimpey house of the 1960s. Most house in the UK are built of brick and block and are far better built, and cost a fraction to heat, than older houses.

Planning again. House should be allowed to be build on such small,plots.

[Sam Nelson]

Two-foot-thick stone walls; 200mm loft insulation (did it myself); fully damp-coursed on renovation. It costs a little more to heat than the 1950s semi we moved out of, but then the floor area is slightly more than doubled. A relative's construction-management degree-course staff advocated putting up with living in nothing built post-WW2 and ideally nothing built post-WW1.

Eh? I drive past nasty Lego developments being thrown up out of wood-frame with brick cladding every flippin' day all---and they tend to be thrown up fairly frequently on flood plain land. If you're ever in Stirling, I can show you several such.

[IMM]

Aart frpom sound insulation, I see no benefit.

How wrong they are.

Lego? Don't be silly!!

Timber frame. A far better, and more eco, method of construction. Fabulous!

Planning depts again for allowing it. Those bastards should be shot.

[Sam Nelson]

Thermal inertia.

Sigh. I meant `might as well have been built out of red and white Lego, to look at them'. All plug-ugly, critically cramped, spacewise, and built with no thought for the accessibility of any particular service from them other than by car.

How long do you supposed they'll last? On R4's PM recently, it was pointed out that with house-building going at the rate it's going at the moment, each house built now needs to last 4000 years. No-one need care about what happens after they're dead, though, eh?

I don't see responsible, reliable builders in the business for the long term turning down the opportunity. Surely a responsible builder that knows the area would decline the opportunity to build in such places.

[IMM]

Insulation is still poor.

The oldest timber framed home in the UK dates from the 11th century.

100,000s are still standing and they amount to millions of old and modern buildings. Timber frame is brill! Most of modern homes are timber anyhow. The roof, floors, doors, stairs, etc. take it awy and there is only a brick and block shell left.

4000 years? then we have to live in earth shelters.

The point is that they should not be allowed to build there in the first place.