"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 09:17:23 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Andy, you have it wrong. The government
should regulate even more.

Nonsense. There is seldom a justification
for increased regulation and legislation

and this is certainly one of them.

The
quality of the crap dished up by construction companies is dire. More
pre-checks, and bigger fines for obvious not nailing down roofs and the
likes, should be done.

The problem is where does one draw the line?

You can adopt the German method, of qualified builders, instead of any Tom ,
Dick or Harry doing it. If you do crap, and proven, then you are suspended
or stuck off and you can't work on building.

Checks for quality not just structural soundness,
should undertaken, not reactive suing, as
only parasite lawyers make money
then.

I'm not in favour of parasite lawyers
making money, but if heavy fines
and compensation were awarded
against errant construction companies
then they would take notice and control
their activities rather better.

No. They just dissolve the company and start under a different name. The
usual palaver. And the cowboys reign supreme.

The best way is to prevent the poor quality in the first place.

I don't disagree with that, but
it should be the responsibility of the
construction company.

It is now, but the cowboyism continues.

It is with every other product that the
consumer buys.

A house is quite different to a toaster.

Since a lot of problems with a house don't appear for a period of
time, then a proper guarantee covering most aspects of the house
should be required and implemented properly, not the weak NHBC thing
that we have today.

Proper guarantees should be in place, they are not. NHBC is for the
interest of the builders. They formed it.

Perhaps there should be an escrow system for the last X% of the
purchase money of a new property. In other words the purchaser pays
most of the money to the developer in the usual way but X% goes into a
separate account, not under either party's control for a period of say
a year. At the end of the year, the purchaser signs a release for
the money if all is satisfactory and the developer receives this plus
any interest. Having the money outside the direct control of either
party makes sure that it is available as long as the contract
conditions have been met.

A similar thing happens for the roads, etc. Developers pay up front to the
council in some cases, so that they can't dissolve a company and not finish
the roads and pavements stealing a wedge.

The
UK has an international reputation of being cowboys. Lat year the big
house
builders made record profits with the lowest number of homes built since
the
1920s. In the 1920s the population was only in the 40 millions too,
making
this even worse when the big picture is fully viewed.

That's a separate issue. There's nothing
wrong with making profits.

Nothing wrong at all. But when you look at the state of the quality of
design and construction it makes you weep at the money these cowboys are
making. Watch Dog exposing 60 houses of Westbury, supposed to be a better
builder, with roofs not nailed down. Westbury would not recheck all 60
homes; look at the profits they made last year and they will not recheck
roofs that are known to be faulty. That is just the tip of the iceberg too.
One poster here said roofs not being nailed down is the norm.

Then still 50% of new homes still have old fashioned tanks in the loft too,
need stupid power shower pumps so they don't have to run around the shower
to get wet.

The way you defend cowboyism and the vast profits they make, leads me to
believe you may have a cowboy streak in you too.

The real problems are threefold:

- Customers wanting things on the cheap

UK houses are "CHEAP"!!!!!! What world are you in????

- Customers not complaining when things are wrong

Many problems are underlying and are potential time bombs. The after sales
service in most cases, as the consumer TV progs show, is sparse or none
existent.

- Lack of encouragement and incentive
for young people to go into the
construction industry because the
idiot in No. 10 wants them to go to
"universities".

We need people to go to universities, as history will show that a highly
educated population always prospers. You are full of petty snobbery as you
don't want your Little Middle Englander kids being in the same uni as your
kids. Pathetic!

There is a long waiting list for plumbing and heating courses which
rubbishes your petty snob views.

Do you have anything meaningful to say on the
subject,

See above and no doubt you were astounded.

I was.

I thought so.

or are you going to continue with the same diversionary
tactics as ((jag++)++) and his cronies?

Prescott should dish out a few left hooks, that
is clear. The ST Rich list still puts parasite
landowners and large construction company owners as the
richest people in the UK.

Nothing wrong with that.

There is. The land should not be in the hands of few unproductive parasitic
few who make billions by taking rent. The land already belongs to the
people. It is called sovereignty.

Foreign billionaires using London as a sort of
base, with pet footy teams too, don't count as UK billionaires.

or that.

They can be here, but they are NOT UK billionaires as the ST Rich list say
they are. Strangely, they list the Irish rich, north and south, and do not
list those who made there money outside of Ireland yet list foreign
billionaires as being British: Reusling (sp), Abromovich, The Indian steel
billionaires, etc.

Take these people off the list and the rich list and it is spattered with
unproductive landowning parasites. Many of the landowners are worth a hell
of a lot more than what they are, the royal family comes to mind. The
problem is that it is near impossible to assess their wealth, which is not
the case in proper countries. Large landowners, and the aristocracy, have
always hid their real wealth, as Kevin Cahill revealed when they suppressed
a land census in the late 1800s, because the census reveal how much land
they actually owned.