On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 21:22:57 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

Jerry built now means shoddy. Jerry Bros did just that, built a flash
facade, sold it, and the rear was less so.

What gets me, in these kinds of arguments between "old" and "new"
build, is that there is no place on the web (or anywhere else) that
one can go to get a *definitive* list of approved builders/companies.
My pile of new house development literature is steadily growing, but I
still don't have much of an idea which companies to avoid like the
plague and which ones are the best. It seems a very hit and miss
affair. For example, the other day I read an article in some magazine
somewhere about the enormous number of snags in new builds (average
was around 106 snags). While these may well be minor, why are they
present at all? I would say, a dozen max could be put down to human
failing, but over a hundred? That smacks of someone not doing their
job properly, of the company skimping, and it's not like new
properties are cheap. It's not like buying a new stereo or even a new
cars. Properties cost a heck of a lot of money and it shouldn't be the
buyer's job to have to keep niggling the builder for two or three
years after occupation to get outstanding errors fixed. The errors
shouldn't be there in the first place if the company takes pride in
the quality of its product.

I still aim to buy new though, because I will be moving to a different
part of the country and searching for secondhand properties with all
the problems of chains, gazumping and so on over a couple of hundred
miles between me and the proposed area doesn't seem like my idea of
fun. Therefore, I shall move into the area into a new build, then get
my bearings and spend a year or two getting to know the area and spot
the real house of my dreams. Even a new build that's pretty crappy is
not likely to lose in value (unless Gordon Brown hasn't done his sums
right), so if one looks at a new build purely as a temporary measure,
I hope there won't be a problem.

MM