Should I get a survey done on brand-new house?

MM

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:12:36 +0100, MM wrote:

Should I get a survey done on brand-new house?

MM

Yes, but specify what you want.

A lot of people buying with a mortgage just rely on the lender's
survey (for which they pay of course) and nothing more.

You shouldn't need a full structural survey, but it would be wise to
have electrics, gas, plumbing checked at least.

Ultimately you have the NHBC guarantee, but this is only applicable to
quite dire faults.


Other than that, you have to rely on the builder to do the snagging
work. If it's a development, then the site agent is motivated to
complete houses for sale not to fix problems with existing ones.
Having a good relationship is important, but sometimes it is necessary
to use sledgehammer techniques to get attention.

If you are buying a new house as a cash buyer, have a look at what
deals the builder is offering to first time buyers, exchanges etc.
Your timing is good if the houses are not moving fast, so don't lose
the opportunity to ask for something. It might not be anything from
the price, but you could ask for things in kind like garden work that
don't cost them much but may be a lot of effort for you (just an
example).




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"MM" wrote
| Should I get a survey done on brand-new house?

What sort of survey, and what do you expect it to tell you you couldn't see
for yourself?

IMHO the only survey worth getting is a proper structural survey on an older
house (or a modern one if mucked about with). Pretty much everything else is
common sense, lifting carpets and looking in the loft, and poking at
anything suspicious with a penknife to see if it's rotting.

Owain

MM wrote in message . ..
Should I get a survey done on brand-new house?

MM

This came up as a topic on a recent Radio 5 phone in. The concensus
was yes you should. Can't remember why, although the slating that new
build houses took in general would suggest that it's to avoid buying
one that will fall down minutes after the keys are handed over.

HTH

If its a big reputable builder I dont really see the point. You get up
to 2 years to have any faults rectified and 10 years NHBC cover to
pick up any structural problems.
Cheers Chris

"MM" wrote in message
...
Should I get a survey done on brand-new house?

MM

================
Quite apart from the structure of the house you should also find out if
there are any legal technicalities such as covenants, shared access, rights
of way etc. Things like this can cause big problems if you don't know about
them until somebody parks their car in your front garden!

Cic.

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 15:22:54 GMT, "Cicero"
wrote:


"MM" wrote in message
.. .
Should I get a survey done on brand-new house?

MM

================
Quite apart from the structure of the house you should also find out if
there are any legal technicalities such as covenants, shared access, rights
of way etc. Things like this can cause big problems if you don't know about
them until somebody parks their car in your front garden!

Cic.



True, but AIUI, that is part and parcel of the solicitor's search
work....


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 15:22:54 GMT, "Cicero"
wrote:


"MM" wrote in message
.. .
Should I get a survey done on brand-new house?

MM

================
Quite apart from the structure of the house you should also find out if
there are any legal technicalities such as covenants, shared access,
rights
of way etc. Things like this can cause big problems if you don't know
about
them until somebody parks their car in your front garden!

Cic.



True, but AIUI, that is part and parcel of the solicitor's search
work....


.andy

==============
Yes, I agree, but a solicitor might see such things as so routine that he
might not bring them to the attention of the buyer. It's worth asking to be
on the safe side.

Cic.

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 15:45:33 GMT, "Cicero"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 15:22:54 GMT, "Cicero"
wrote:


"MM" wrote in message
.. .
Should I get a survey done on brand-new house?

MM

================
Quite apart from the structure of the house you should also find out if
there are any legal technicalities such as covenants, shared access,
rights
of way etc. Things like this can cause big problems if you don't know
about
them until somebody parks their car in your front garden!

Cic.



True, but AIUI, that is part and parcel of the solicitor's search
work....


.andy

==============
Yes, I agree, but a solicitor might see such things as so routine that he
might not bring them to the attention of the buyer. It's worth asking to be
on the safe side.

Cic.

Of course, but I wonder whether a surveyor would be reasonably
expected to know about or investigate such things - I didn't think it
was their area....


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 15:45:33 GMT, "Cicero"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 15:22:54 GMT, "Cicero"
wrote:


"MM" wrote in message
.. .
Should I get a survey done on brand-new house?

MM

================
Quite apart from the structure of the house you should also find out if
there are any legal technicalities such as covenants, shared access,
rights
of way etc. Things like this can cause big problems if you don't know
about
them until somebody parks their car in your front garden!

Cic.



True, but AIUI, that is part and parcel of the solicitor's search
work....


.andy

==============
Yes, I agree, but a solicitor might see such things as so routine that he
might not bring them to the attention of the buyer. It's worth asking to
be
on the safe side.

Cic.

Of course, but I wonder whether a surveyor would be reasonably
expected to know about or investigate such things - I didn't think it
was their area....

I'm pretty sure its not - and I would be really ****ed off with a solicitor
who, having paid them the rather large amount of money they charge for
conveyancing and searches and the likes, decided not to tell me important
things that were thrown up by the searches.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:12:36 +0100, MM wrote:

Should I get a survey done on brand-new house?

MM

Yes, but specify what you want.

A lot of people buying with a mortgage just rely on the lender's
survey (for which they pay of course) and nothing more.

You shouldn't need a full structural survey, but it would be wise to
have electrics, gas, plumbing checked at least.

Would the electrics not have an NIC certificate? I have not worked for a
builder (on new builds) who has not asked for one. Surely this would be show
the electrical installation to be sound.

Adam

In article , Chris V
writes

You get up
to 2 years to have any faults rectified and 10 years NHBC cover

which is not worth the paper it's written on, if reports are anything to
go by.

--
..sigmonster on vacation

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:27:03 GMT, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:12:36 +0100, MM wrote:

Should I get a survey done on brand-new house?

MM

Yes, but specify what you want.

A lot of people buying with a mortgage just rely on the lender's
survey (for which they pay of course) and nothing more.

You shouldn't need a full structural survey, but it would be wise to
have electrics, gas, plumbing checked at least.

Would the electrics not have an NIC certificate? I have not worked for a
builder (on new builds) who has not asked for one. Surely this would be show
the electrical installation to be sound.

Adam



I'm sure they would.

Speaking personally, I would be unlikely to use an electrician to have
wiring work done in the house - come next year I would go for a
building notice as appropriate and do the work myself.

Apart from the absurdity of Building Regulations Part P, I suspect
that gradually electricians will join one of the self certifying
organisations and gradually home owners will have more work done in
this way.

However, when it comes to buying a house, I would go for an electrical
survey from a contractor who I knew had not been involved in the
construction, simply as a matter of principle. Not because I don't
think that NIC members aren't as competent and honest as the day is
long, but because there is a potential conflict of interest. For
the sake of a few tens of pounds for a survey, I have an independent
view.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Ric" wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 15:45:33 GMT, "Cicero"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 15:22:54 GMT, "Cicero"
wrote:


"MM" wrote in message
.. .
Should I get a survey done on brand-new house?

MM

================
Quite apart from the structure of the house you should also find out
if
there are any legal technicalities such as covenants, shared access,
rights
of way etc. Things like this can cause big problems if you don't know
about
them until somebody parks their car in your front garden!

Cic.



True, but AIUI, that is part and parcel of the solicitor's search
work....


.andy

==============
Yes, I agree, but a solicitor might see such things as so routine that
he
might not bring them to the attention of the buyer. It's worth asking to
be
on the safe side.

Cic.

Of course, but I wonder whether a surveyor would be reasonably
expected to know about or investigate such things - I didn't think it
was their area....

I'm pretty sure its not - and I would be really ****ed off with a
solicitor
who, having paid them the rather large amount of money they charge for
conveyancing and searches and the likes, decided not to tell me important
things that were thrown up by the searches.



==============
My suggestion was prompted by one very bad personal experience. I bought a
new house several years ago and because it was new (with no searchable
history) the searches showed none of the items I cited. When the Deeds were
prepared by the vendor a covenant was inserted which permitted several other
properties access through my property. This wasn't a problem at first but
some of the other owners assumed that 'access through' gave them a right to
park on my property. Legal action was necessary to confirm my right to
prevent people parking on my property and of course this resulted in very
bad relations with several neighbours. When I sold the property (as quickly
as I could!) the purchaser's surveyor did indeed ask me personally about the
situation and actually measured all the boundaries to confirm their
location. The purchaser was made fully aware of the situation and had the
result of my legal action to prevent any repetition of the original problem.
My solicitor was not very helpful and only acted under pressure from myself.
He had either missed the covenant at the time of purchase or hadn't
considered it worth his time to explain it to me. Although my experience may
be rare I think it is worth asking both solicitor and surveyor about such
things. If it doesn't concern the surveyor he will surely not be upset about
being asked and may actually know about such things despite being outside
his terms of reference.

Cic.

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:47:27 +0100, "Owain"
wrote:

"MM" wrote
| Should I get a survey done on brand-new house?

What sort of survey, and what do you expect it to tell you you couldn't see
for yourself?

I dunno! I'm only asking! As far as I could tell, the house was
amazingly well built, and some neighbours who have already moved there
volunteered their very positive opinions. (This is a local builder,
not one of the big chain builders.)

MM

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:34:54 +0100, MM wrote:

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:47:27 +0100, "Owain"
wrote:

"MM" wrote
| Should I get a survey done on brand-new house?

What sort of survey, and what do you expect it to tell you you couldn't see
for yourself?

I dunno! I'm only asking! As far as I could tell, the house was
amazingly well built, and some neighbours who have already moved there
volunteered their very positive opinions. (This is a local builder,
not one of the big chain builders.)

MM


In that case it's a different game and asking the neighbours is
valuable data.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:27:03 GMT, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:12:36 +0100, MM wrote:

Should I get a survey done on brand-new house?

MM

Yes, but specify what you want.

A lot of people buying with a mortgage just rely on the lender's
survey (for which they pay of course) and nothing more.

You shouldn't need a full structural survey, but it would be wise to
have electrics, gas, plumbing checked at least.

Would the electrics not have an NIC certificate? I have not worked for a
builder (on new builds) who has not asked for one. Surely this would be
show
the electrical installation to be sound.

Adam



I'm sure they would.

Speaking personally, I would be unlikely to use an electrician to have
wiring work done in the house - come next year I would go for a
building notice as appropriate and do the work myself.

Apart from the absurdity of Building Regulations Part P, I suspect
that gradually electricians will join one of the self certifying
organisations and gradually home owners will have more work done in
this way.

However, when it comes to buying a house, I would go for an electrical
survey from a contractor who I knew had not been involved in the
construction, simply as a matter of principle. Not because I don't
think that NIC members aren't as competent and honest as the day is
long, but because there is a potential conflict of interest. For
the sake of a few tens of pounds for a survey, I have an independent
view.



.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:12:55 GMT, "Cicero"
wrote:



==============
My suggestion was prompted by one very bad personal experience. I bought a
new house several years ago and because it was new (with no searchable
history) the searches showed none of the items I cited. When the Deeds were
prepared by the vendor a covenant was inserted which permitted several other
properties access through my property. This wasn't a problem at first but
some of the other owners assumed that 'access through' gave them a right to
park on my property. Legal action was necessary to confirm my right to
prevent people parking on my property and of course this resulted in very
bad relations with several neighbours. When I sold the property (as quickly
as I could!) the purchaser's surveyor did indeed ask me personally about the
situation and actually measured all the boundaries to confirm their
location. The purchaser was made fully aware of the situation and had the
result of my legal action to prevent any repetition of the original problem.
My solicitor was not very helpful and only acted under pressure from myself.
He had either missed the covenant at the time of purchase or hadn't
considered it worth his time to explain it to me. Although my experience may
be rare I think it is worth asking both solicitor and surveyor about such
things. If it doesn't concern the surveyor he will surely not be upset about
being asked and may actually know about such things despite being outside
his terms of reference.

Cic.



Now I know where you are coming from and I see the point.

I purchased a new property some years ago, built on some farmland and
there had been a public footpath which would have gone through several
of the properties. Because the area around had been developed
anyway, there had become no purpose for the footpath anyway it was not
that important, but an insured indemnity had had to be put in place by
the builder to cover it. This all came out in the searches as well
as being volunteered by the builder.

It seems though, that in your case, the solicitor didn't do his job
properly.

The original point was whether surveyors have a part to play and I
didn't see that they did in terms of titles, covenants and the like.
How would the surveyor know unless you ask him to do a Land Registry
search as well? it's another opinion, but you can equally get the
entry from the Land Registry yourself for nominal cost.





..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:12:55 GMT, "Cicero"
wrote:



==============
My suggestion was prompted by one very bad personal experience. I bought
a
new house several years ago and because it was new (with no searchable
history) the searches showed none of the items I cited. When the Deeds
were
prepared by the vendor a covenant was inserted which permitted several
other
properties access through my property. This wasn't a problem at first but
some of the other owners assumed that 'access through' gave them a right
to
park on my property. Legal action was necessary to confirm my right to
prevent people parking on my property and of course this resulted in very
bad relations with several neighbours. When I sold the property (as
quickly
as I could!) the purchaser's surveyor did indeed ask me personally about
the
situation and actually measured all the boundaries to confirm their
location. The purchaser was made fully aware of the situation and had the
result of my legal action to prevent any repetition of the original
problem.
My solicitor was not very helpful and only acted under pressure from
myself.
He had either missed the covenant at the time of purchase or hadn't
considered it worth his time to explain it to me. Although my experience
may
be rare I think it is worth asking both solicitor and surveyor about such
things. If it doesn't concern the surveyor he will surely not be upset
about
being asked and may actually know about such things despite being outside
his terms of reference.

Cic.



Now I know where you are coming from and I see the point.

I purchased a new property some years ago, built on some farmland and
there had been a public footpath which would have gone through several
of the properties. Because the area around had been developed
anyway, there had become no purpose for the footpath anyway it was not
that important, but an insured indemnity had had to be put in place by
the builder to cover it. This all came out in the searches as well
as being volunteered by the builder.

It seems though, that in your case, the solicitor didn't do his job
properly.

The original point was whether surveyors have a part to play and I
didn't see that they did in terms of titles, covenants and the like.
How would the surveyor know unless you ask him to do a Land Registry
search as well? it's another opinion, but you can equally get the
entry from the Land Registry yourself for nominal cost.





.andy

==================
My solicitor was highly recommended but proved to be really quite
inadequate. We learn by bitter experience! In fact I would have asked the
questions myself if I'd known which questions to ask and from whom. That's
why I suggested that the OP should ask his surveyor for any relevant
information - the worst that can happen is that he will say that he doesn't
know anything. The more questions we ask the less likely we are to meet
unpleasant surprises such as I the one I got. I'd never heard of a covenant
in this context and certainly wouldn't have been able to ask any questions
about them. As you say, the Land Registry, is a useful source of information
but in my case there was no registry information because the house was a
new build. We put a lot of trust in our solicitors and when things go wrong
it's usually because we trusted the wrong one. That's life!

Cic.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

Speaking personally, I would be unlikely to use an electrician to have
wiring work done in the house - come next year I would go for a
building notice as appropriate and do the work myself.


For small jobs (which do not count as minor works under part P), will the
building control costs be higher than employing an electrician?

James


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.777 / Virus Database: 524 - Release Date: 18/10/2004

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 21:18:52 +0100, "James"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Speaking personally, I would be unlikely to use an electrician to have
wiring work done in the house - come next year I would go for a
building notice as appropriate and do the work myself.


For small jobs (which do not count as minor works under part P), will the
building control costs be higher than employing an electrician?

James


Could be.

I am not sure that they have been set yet.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

(Chris V) wrote in message . com...
If its a big reputable builder I dont really see the point. You get up
to 2 years to have any faults rectified and 10 years NHBC cover to
pick up any structural problems.
Cheers Chris

Some major problems/design flaws won't be picked up by a survey.
eg will your car fit in the garage with room to open the doors, and
will your furniture fit up the stairs, or has any disabled access been
designed to run water towards and into your front door?

"Cicero" wrote:
My solicitor was not very helpful and only acted under pressure from
myself.
He had either missed the covenant at the time of purchase or hadn't
considered it worth his time to explain it to me. Although my experience
may
be rare I think it is worth asking both solicitor and surveyor about such
things. If it doesn't concern the surveyor he will surely not be upset
about
being asked and may actually know about such things despite being outside
his terms of reference.

Certainly the surveyor may know some detail of "standard" local covenants,
where properties are part of old estates, but I wouldn't expect them to know
much about covenants etc. over an individual property.

In your case, I take it that your conveyancing solicitor paid for all the
costs
involved in the subsequent legal work? It doesn't matter whether he "missed
the covenant at the time of purchase or hadn't considered it worth his time
to
explain it to (you)" because his actions resulted in a material loss on your
part.
If he didn't pay for the costs then you should certainly pursue him for them
(unless it was too long ago or you don't want the stress).

Unusually for this group, I don't have anything against solicitors (I am
related
to one), but bad solicitors like this give good solicitors a bad name.

Al

"Cicero" wrote:
I'd never heard of a covenant in this context and certainly
wouldn't have been able to ask any questions about them.
As you say, the Land Registry, is a useful source of information
but in my case there was no registry information because the
house was a new build.

This is a big problem with new builds. Because the house will be
being registered for the first time, the purchaser will often be a long
way down the line before they get to see any restrictive covenants
in the deeds. They will already have paid reservation fees etc. and
will be far less likely to pull out. The *only* advantage is that if the
land has not yet been registered, then there can be some discussion/
negotiation with the builder/vendor about what goes in the covenants.
If I was buying another new house (which I probably won't), I would
ask to see a copy of the proposed deeds including restrictive covenants
at the same time as paying the reservation fee.

Al

"Al Reynolds" wrote in message
...

"Cicero" wrote:
My solicitor was not very helpful and only acted under pressure from
myself.
He had either missed the covenant at the time of purchase or hadn't
considered it worth his time to explain it to me. Although my experience
may
be rare I think it is worth asking both solicitor and surveyor about
such
things. If it doesn't concern the surveyor he will surely not be upset
about
being asked and may actually know about such things despite being
outside
his terms of reference.

Certainly the surveyor may know some detail of "standard" local covenants,
where properties are part of old estates, but I wouldn't expect them to
know
much about covenants etc. over an individual property.

In your case, I take it that your conveyancing solicitor paid for all the
costs
involved in the subsequent legal work? It doesn't matter whether he
"missed
the covenant at the time of purchase or hadn't considered it worth his
time
to
explain it to (you)" because his actions resulted in a material loss on
your
part.
If he didn't pay for the costs then you should certainly pursue him for
them
(unless it was too long ago or you don't want the stress).

Unusually for this group, I don't have anything against solicitors (I am
related
to one), but bad solicitors like this give good solicitors a bad name.

Al

=========================
My solicitor charged me a nominal fee (£100-00 + VAT) for the necessary
remedial legal work. I assume that this was some kind of face-saving device
because he didn't want to admit that he was in the wrong. I could have
argued with him but it wasn't worth the trouble because he was also handling
the subsequent sale and it gave him a very compelling reason to get things
done properly and to ensure that the purchaser was fully satisfied with the
situation with regard to the covenant. I wanted to make sure that there
could be no come-back from the purchaser claiming that he had been deceived
on the subject of the covenant or the dispute with the neighbours. The
neighbours were in the wrong and complied with the conditions of the
covenant very reluctantly. They were very hostile towards me for simply
defending my right to protect my property from illegal parking.

I certainly wouldn't use this solicitor again or recommend him to anyone
else. It's my belief that he was acting beyond his competance by grabbing
part of the property action in the boom years before the price crash of the
early 90s.

Cic.

"Cicero" wrote:
"Al Reynolds" wrote:
In your case, I take it that your conveyancing solicitor paid
for all the costs involved in the subsequent legal work? It
doesn't matter whether he "missed the covenant at the time
of purchase or hadn't considered it worth his time to explain
it to (you)" because his actions resulted in a material loss on
your part.

[snip]

My solicitor charged me a nominal fee (£100-00 + VAT) for the necessary
remedial legal work. I assume that this was some kind of face-saving
device
because he didn't want to admit that he was in the wrong. I could have
argued with him but it wasn't worth the trouble because he was also
handling
the subsequent sale and it gave him a very compelling reason to get things
done properly and to ensure that the purchaser was fully satisfied with
the
situation with regard to the covenant. I wanted to make sure that there
could be no come-back from the purchaser claiming that he had been
deceived
on the subject of the covenant or the dispute with the neighbours. The
neighbours were in the wrong and complied with the conditions of the
covenant very reluctantly. They were very hostile towards me for simply
defending my right to protect my property from illegal parking.

Sounds like you looked at the whole thing pragmatically,
which almost always makes the most sense. Good idea
getting him to do the conveyancing as well as he would
have been only too aware of the issues.

Al

"Al Reynolds" wrote in message
...
"Cicero" wrote:
"Al Reynolds" wrote:
In your case, I take it that your conveyancing solicitor paid
for all the costs involved in the subsequent legal work? It
doesn't matter whether he "missed the covenant at the time
of purchase or hadn't considered it worth his time to explain
it to (you)" because his actions resulted in a material loss on
your part.

[snip]

My solicitor charged me a nominal fee (£100-00 + VAT) for the necessary
remedial legal work. I assume that this was some kind of face-saving
device
because he didn't want to admit that he was in the wrong. I could have
argued with him but it wasn't worth the trouble because he was also
handling
the subsequent sale and it gave him a very compelling reason to get
things
done properly and to ensure that the purchaser was fully satisfied with
the
situation with regard to the covenant. I wanted to make sure that there
could be no come-back from the purchaser claiming that he had been
deceived
on the subject of the covenant or the dispute with the neighbours. The
neighbours were in the wrong and complied with the conditions of the
covenant very reluctantly. They were very hostile towards me for simply
defending my right to protect my property from illegal parking.

Sounds like you looked at the whole thing pragmatically,
which almost always makes the most sense. Good idea
getting him to do the conveyancing as well as he would
have been only too aware of the issues.

Al



=======================
I didn't have any real choice in the matter. If I'd made an official
complaint I could have become embroiled in months or possibly years of
investigations with no real satisfaction at the end of the process. As you
say, I took the quick way out for a quick sale and a quiet life. It's not
always the best way but it worked for me and the solicitor involved might
have learned a lesson as well. I wonder if solicitors learn from their
mistakes or do they somehow bury them like doctors?

Cic.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:38:13 GMT, "Cicero"
wrote:



=======================
I didn't have any real choice in the matter. If I'd made an official
complaint I could have become embroiled in months or possibly years of
investigations with no real satisfaction at the end of the process. As you
say, I took the quick way out for a quick sale and a quiet life. It's not
always the best way but it worked for me and the solicitor involved might
have learned a lesson as well. I wonder if solicitors learn from their
mistakes or do they somehow bury them like doctors?

Cic.


I think you answered that one, Cic.

The same applies to any of the so-called traditional professions.
They obfuscate information from their clients and if need be close
ranks to cover themselves.

It's obvious that your £100 arrangement to fix a problem was an
admission of guilt without an admission of guilt.

I've had similar issues with various of these paid advisors and have
ended up going for solutions such as you have described in order to
close the issue and move on in the most convenient way. The
principle annoys me intensely though.

Nowadays I tend to read up a bit on a subject first before giving the
job and have a conversation along the lines that I will be looking
closely, so if they are charging for solicitor time, they had better
not be using the office junior.

I do the same with doctors, bank managers and all the rest and don't
allow myself to be fobbed off by any of them. Generally if they know
early on in the arrangement that this is the situation, the attempts
at obfuscation stop and they pay proper attention,


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:34:54 +0100, a particular chimpanzee named MM
randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

I dunno! I'm only asking! As far as I could tell, the house was
amazingly well built, and some neighbours who have already moved there
volunteered their very positive opinions. (This is a local builder,
not one of the big chain builders.)

Check who carried out the Building Control (if it was the NHBC, their
inspection regime tends to be less frequent than the Local
Authorities). Check that the Building Control body did all the stage
inspections (foundations, dpc, drains, etc). Check that the work has
had a final Building Control inspection and been completed. You may
have to ask via the builder, as this kind of information is not
available to third parties. If he's not happy to release this
information or allow you to ask yourself, then you can make an
inference from that.
--
Hugo Nebula
'What you have to ask yourself is, "if no-one on the internet wants
a piece of this, just how far from the pack have you strayed?"'

On 25 Oct 2004 07:47:58 -0700, a particular chimpanzee named
(Chris V) randomly hit the keyboard and
produced:

... and 10 years NHBC cover to
pick up any structural problems.

....Any _major_ structural problems.
--
Hugo Nebula
'What you have to ask yourself is, "if no-one on the internet wants
a piece of this, just how far from the pack have you strayed?"'

"Hugo Nebula" abuse@localhost wrote in message
...
On 25 Oct 2004 07:47:58 -0700, a particular chimpanzee named
(Chris V) randomly hit the keyboard and
produced:

... and 10 years NHBC cover to
pick up any structural problems.

...Any _major_ structural problems.

Actually it only covers thing which didn't comply with building regs.

There is this semantic difference between the NHBC
Requirements and the NHBC Standards. The "NHBC
Standards" are lovely and detailed, and any house built
to these standards would be superb. The NHBC
warranty only warrants that the house has been built to
NHBC Requirements - these are that it meets current
building control regulations.

An example - in the "standards" it suggests that ridge tiles
on rooves in exposed areas be fixed using a coarse mortar
and/or with additional mechanical fixing for the end tiles.
We lived in a close where this had not been done, and when
every house in the close lost one or more ridge tiles in a day
of high winds, the builder told us all to claim on our home
insurance policies. On enquiring to the NHBC about the
NHBC warranty covering the cost, it eventually became clear
that since this wasn't mentioned in the "NHBC Requirements"
then it wasn't covered by the warranty.

As it happens, the builder still had another ongoing
development nearby and when several people in the close
suggested to the builder that the press might be interested in
their lack of sympathy for our situation. Mysteriously, we all
arrived home from work the next day to find the rooves
repaired and damage rectified...

Ironically, you actually get more cover in the NHBC warranty
if NHBC did the building control (see www.nhbc.co.uk). I'd
still prefer the local authority to do the building control though.

Al

"Hugo Nebula" abuse@localhost wrote in message
...

Check who carried out the Building Control (if it was the NHBC, their
inspection regime tends to be less frequent than the Local
Authorities).

It seems that it very unsatisfactory if the "private building controllers"
(NHBC) in practice have different standards from the Local Authorities.

I seem to remember a recent case in the paper where some houses were build
with inadequate staircases, and the builders and the NHBC building control
each said it was the others responsibility to avoid to such errors.

James




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.777 / Virus Database: 524 - Release Date: 16/10/2004