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

"Andrew McKay" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 20:50:32 +0100, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

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.


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.

On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 23:47:24 +0100, "L Reid"
wrote:

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.

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 http://www.handymac.co.uk

In ,
an infinite number of Mike Mitchells, in an attempt to produce the entire
works of Shakespeare, typed:
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

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

In article ,
Andrew McKay writes:
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 23:47:24 +0100, "L Reid"
wrote:

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.

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.

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 Gabriel

On 6 Aug 2003 08:53:13 GMT, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

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.

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 http://www.handymac.co.uk

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

Of course it is!
--



__________________________________________________ ______________
Sent via the PAXemail system at paxemail.com

On 6 Aug 2003 08:53:13 GMT, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

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.

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

"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

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
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

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

In article ,
Andrew McKay writes:
On 6 Aug 2003 08:53:13 GMT, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

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.

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

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

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 21:53:35 +0100, "Owain"
wrote:

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.

Part of the problem has been Gordon Browns attack on the building
trade. You can't work on a building site these days without having
some certification or other, which basically forces the workman to pay
tax at the appropriate rate on all earnings.

I'm not advocating that people don't pay tax, that would be wrong.
However if you take away people's incentive to try harder and do
better for themselves then you end up with a dis-spirited workforce
who will never raise their game. Tax is fine if it is fairly applied,
but under the current regime every citizen is expected to maximise the
tax they pay to the chancellor - and that's not fair.

And I understand that on many if not all building sites the job rates
are pretty abyssmal. Probably always have been, I don't know. So if
the worker is being paid sh!t rates and being forced to hand over 30%
to that nice Mr Brown only the cowboy workers will take part.

Andrew

Do you need a handyman service? Check out our
web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk

In article ,
Andrew McKay writes:
Trying to claim on NHBC has, according to reports I've read elsewhere,
been notorious for ending up with no result for the householder.

Quite possibly the biggest problem people have in claiming via NHBC is
that they try to lodge the claim directly themselves. If they used a
firm of solicitors it is more than likely they would be successful,
because solicitors talking to solicitors usually ends up with a
result.

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.

--
Andrew Gabriel

"Andrew McKay" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 23:47:24 +0100, "L Reid"
wrote:

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.

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.

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.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On 6 Aug 2003 08:53:13 GMT, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

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.

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.

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.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"Owain" wrote in message
...
"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.

Huf Haus, but not cheap.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"Sam Nelson" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andrew McKay writes:

Once you have moved into a new house you never want to move into a
second hand house again.

I think I can top that. What you do is get someone to pick a ruin,
renovate
it throughout and then sell it to you for a reasonable price. That way
you
get old-house advantages

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

We've done both, and the freshness of the new
property has to be seen to be believed.

Built out of Lego in a Playmobil street,
unless you're very choosy indeed.

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.

There's a very unpleasant looking development going on not far from he
about a dozen `executive detached' going up wedged in between a petrol
station
and a railway line about to be reopened. They're `detached' in the sense
that they're each, oh, all of four feet from each other; they come with
about
ten feet of garden in between back window and railway; and the developers
want
240-310K for them in an area where 200K buys you a perfectly decent
early-C20
4-bed detached, as a rule.

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



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

N. Thornton wrote:

Part of the plan with new builds is you dont pay the last x% until 3
months after you've moved in. So if they want their money...


Will large housebuilders agree to this? When we bought this house we
part-ex'd our old one (out of necessity before anyone tells me we were
ripped off) and /they/ retained £500 of the price they gave us in case
we left it in a mess[1] and they had to get professional cleaners in.

I tried (half-heartedly admittedly) to retain part of the cost of the
new house, but they weren't having any of it.

[1] Even though it was already empty (we had re-located and were
renting) so they could have checked on it's state.

In article ,
"IMM" writes:
I see very liitle advantages in an old house. No insulation, damp etc.

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.

Built out of Lego in a Playmobil street,
unless you're very choosy indeed.

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.

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.
--
SAm.

"Sam Nelson" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"IMM" writes:
I see very liitle advantages in an old house. No insulation, damp etc.

Two-foot-thick stone walls;

Aart frpom sound insulation, I see no benefit.

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.

How wrong they are.

Built out of Lego in a Playmobil street,
unless you're very choosy indeed.

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.

Eh? I drive past nasty Lego developments

Lego? Don't be silly!!

being thrown up out of wood-frame
with brick cladding every flippin' day all

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

---and they tend to be thrown up
fairly frequently on flood plain land.

Planning depts again for allowing it. Those *******s should be shot.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

In article ,
"IMM" writes:

"Sam Nelson" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"IMM" writes:
I see very liitle advantages in an old house. No insulation, damp etc.

Two-foot-thick stone walls;

Aart frpom sound insulation, I see no benefit.

Thermal inertia.

Eh? I drive past nasty Lego developments

Lego? Don't be silly!!

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.

being thrown up out of wood-frame
with brick cladding every flippin' day all

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

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?

---and they tend to be thrown up
fairly frequently on flood plain land.

Planning depts again for allowing it. Those *******s should be shot.

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.
--
SAm.

"Sam Nelson" wrote in message
...

Two-foot-thick stone walls;

Aart frpom sound insulation, I see no benefit.

Thermal inertia.

Insulation is still poor.

Eh? I drive past nasty Lego developments

Lego? Don't be silly!!

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.

being thrown up out of wood-frame
with brick cladding every flippin' day all

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

How long do you supposed they'll last?

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.

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?

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

---and they tend to be thrown up
fairly frequently on flood plain land.

Planning depts again for allowing it. Those *******s should be shot.

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.

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


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

parish parish_AT_ntlworld.com wrote in message t...
N. Thornton wrote:

Part of the plan with new builds is you dont pay the last x% until 3
months after you've moved in. So if they want their money...

Will large housebuilders agree to this?

Hi

If a housebuilder wants you to pay everything before moving in or
_thoroughly_ inspecting the finished property, they're asking an
unreasonable/cheeky deal. We all know there are problems on new
builds, and we all know how money motivates builders and very little
else does, in most cases.

They're hoping you're in la-la land and will lie over the barrel for
them. Now if you want to go ahead with that kind of buy, thats upto
you. But I would start having reservations at that point.

To imagine you're going to find a buiding co that wont put a foot
wrong and will guarantee to solve all problems quickly is the dream we
all want, so much so that many people are willing to believe its for
real when a company tries to convince them it is. The marketing
methods are well known. Its like diets, the evidence on them is clear
enough, but people keep buying them because they want to believe, and
are willing to believe /get fooled, over and over again.

Cease dreaming. If you were buying Buckingham Palace you'd have enough
dosh to actually achieve the hassle free dream, but for the rest of us
its unaffordable to have someone oversee the project like that for us.
You may have problems, its the nature of the game, so pick a contract
thats reasonable and gives you the power to resolve them in 99.99% of
cases.

If you lie over someones barrel, you're half to blame because you put
yourself there.


Regards, NT

N. Thornton wrote:

parish parish_AT_ntlworld.com wrote in message t...
N. Thornton wrote:

Part of the plan with new builds is you dont pay the last x% until 3
months after you've moved in. So if they want their money...

Will large housebuilders agree to this?

Hi

If a housebuilder wants you to pay everything before moving in or
_thoroughly_ inspecting the finished property, they're asking an
unreasonable/cheeky deal. We all know there are problems on new
builds, and we all know how money motivates builders and very little
else does, in most cases.


Except if they are building in a sought after area, where the could sell
each house ten times over, they probably wouldn't be so accommodating.

As I said, I was somewhat half-hearted in my attempts to get that sort
of deal as there was a lot of interest in the properties and we were in
a situation where we needed to move quickly *and* have them take our old
place in part-ex (two other developers in the area weren't interested in
doing part-ex.)

They're hoping you're in la-la land and will lie over the barrel for
them. Now if you want to go ahead with that kind of buy, thats upto
you. But I would start having reservations at that point.

To imagine you're going to find a buiding co that wont put a foot
wrong and will guarantee to solve all problems quickly is the dream we
all want, so much so that many people are willing to believe its for
real when a company tries to convince them it is. The marketing
methods are well known. Its like diets, the evidence on them is clear
enough, but people keep buying them because they want to believe, and
are willing to believe /get fooled, over and over again.

Cease dreaming. If you were buying Buckingham Palace you'd have enough
dosh to actually achieve the hassle free dream, but for the rest of us
its unaffordable to have someone oversee the project like that for us.
You may have problems, its the nature of the game, so pick a contract
thats reasonable and gives you the power to resolve them in 99.99% of
cases.

If you lie over someones barrel, you're half to blame because you put
yourself there.


Regards, NT

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 17:18:30 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

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.

But you can't compare those ancient timber-framed buildings with the
modern cheapo variety! Sure, if it's a Swedish, Canadian, or
self-build home, where you can choose a design with really solid
beams, that's a different kettle of fish altogether. Without naming
names (but I sense the first letter was quite like a W or something
similar) those timber-framed houses there was so much fuss about in
the 1980s were in my opinion jerry-built rubbish.

As to the point about most modern homes consisting of timber, well,
no. Increasingly, it's MDF. I noted in one brochure that the skirting
is all MDF. Now this may well be sound enough, but it's not "timber".
Also, look at the roof trusses in an older property and compare them
with those in a new house. In the latter the timbers used are spindly
in comparison. In our village, builders recently completed a couple of
very boxy "cottages" which passers-by (me!) were able to observe from
week to week. Although the finished properties look "okay", I noted
areas during the build which I would have thought looked like a bodge.
A wavy foundation trench; uneven foundation beams; poorly fitted
fascias, and more. The road has been dug up twice to fix problems with
the wiring/plumbing/phones/drainage. Yesterday the BT van was parked
outside again. These cottages sold for £265,000 each!

I would LIKE to buy an old property! I would LOVE to buy an old
property, but everyone I know or knew who did so had tremendous
problems with (a) gazumping (b) vendor withdrawing (c) chains (d)
surveys (e) all the other problems. An old house with vacant
possession might do the trick, though. But there aren't many of them
around.

MM

On 7 Aug 2003 03:50:20 -0700, (N. Thornton) wrote:

Part of the plan with new builds is you dont pay the last x% until 3
months after you've moved in. So if they want their money...

Not according to the Terms and Agreements blurbs I've been studying!
They want a deposit to reserve a property, and then a short time later
they want the dosh, period!

MM

On 7 Aug 2003 03:50:20 -0700, (N. Thornton) wrote:

There are chain free old houses too, and cheaper. I'm thinking you
have another reason for choosing new build.

No. The only reason is to reduce hassledom by removing some of the
typical pitfalls associated with buying a property with people already
living in it.

MM

On 7 Aug 2003 03:50:20 -0700, (N. Thornton) wrote:

Obviously you shouldnt get this on new builds, but I think sometimes
people can over-react a bit. It does depend how much daylight: a lot
of old slate roofs have lots of see-through gaps in them, and work
well enough. What did it cost to fix?

"Old" slate rooves, sure! This was a new build, though. We didn't get
to find out how much it cost to fix the problems, as the builder would
not be interviewed, then later the programme presenters said that the
owners had negotiated a confidential agreement with the builder.
However, the estate agent who also appeared on the programme said at
one point that the house was unsaleable in its present condition and
the owners might be forced to put it up for auction, thus losing
roughly half the value.

In any case, this is not the ONLY new property that has "featured" on
programmes like that one. I believe it was the BBC which reviewed new
builds last year, where there were major cracks in walls in one
property, weak crumbly mortar in another, and problems which I cannot
recall now in a third.

MM

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 12:31:21 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Avoid Tay like the plague

Ah, now we're getting down to the nitty-gritty! Any others? But to at
least try to wave the old flag for British workmanship, what about
ones where you could say: "Recommended!"

MM

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 21:53:35 +0100, "Owain"
wrote:

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

You know, I had thought EXACTLY the same myself! Having lived in
Germany for many years and observed the self-builds that go on over
there as a matter of course I was always struck by the very high
quality of the finished properties. My late sister's property, like
most modern German houses, has a basement almost the full size of the
ground floor. The house has cast concrete subfloors, copper guttering,
*timber*-framed windows instead of horrid PVC ones, underfloor
heating, a huge plot, and so on. The gas boiler looks like something
out of Starship Enterprise - freestanding and massive.

If only I knew *how* to go about getting a German pre-fab built over
here! Maybe I should start investigating...

Thanks for your tip, Owain!

MM

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 22:24:25 +0100, "Frisket"
wrote:

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

Thanks for that! Whereabouts do you do new build work? Just the
county(ies) would do. I won't tell 'em you sent me!

MM

In article ,
Mike Mitchell writes:
In any case, this is not the ONLY new property that has "featured" on
programmes like that one. I believe it was the BBC which reviewed new
builds last year, where there were major cracks in walls in one
property, weak crumbly mortar in another, and problems which I cannot
recall now in a third.

....plumbing installed so wrongly that the houses had hot water
continuously pouring out of their loft tank overflows.

--
Andrew Gabriel

"Andrew McKay" wrote
| "Owain" wrote:
| 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.
| Part of the problem has been Gordon Browns attack on the building
| trade. You can't work on a building site these days without having
| some certification or other, which basically forces the workman to pay
| tax at the appropriate rate on all earnings.

This may sound rather reactionary, but I blame the totally inadequate
investment in vocational training 16+ combined with the fad for all and
sundry to go to university for four years getting their BA Sociology With
Macrame before working as a Human Resources Manager in a call centre.

In "the good old days" (which I don't remember) those who failed the 11+
were sent to a secondary modern and taught Useful Things before being put
into apprenticeships. Now, nobody wants to do anything which sounds like
hard work.

Owain

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 17:18:30 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

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.

But you can't compare those ancient timber-framed buildings with the
modern cheapo variety! Sure, if it's a Swedish, Canadian, or
self-build home, where you can choose a design with really solid
beams, that's a different kettle of fish altogether. Without naming
names (but I sense the first letter was quite like a W or something
similar) those timber-framed houses there was so much fuss about in
the 1980s were in my opinion jerry-built rubbish.

The early 1980s world in action programme killed them off, but they are
coming back big time. World in Action took some poorly built house and
passed them off as the norm. They omitted the poorly built brick and block
houses which suffer from all sorts of ills, like concrete and brick cancer.

The only difference between a brick and block house and timber fame one is
that the inner frame, that holds up the house is timber (which creates a
void which is filled with insulation) rather than block work. Otherwise the
house are the same.

As to the point about most modern homes
consisting of timber, well, no. Increasingly,
it's MDF. I noted in one brochure that the skirting
is all MDF. Now this may well be sound enough,
but it's not "timber".

It's a derivative of timber, that is for sure.

Also, look at the roof trusses in an older
property and compare them
with those in a new house. In the latter the
timbers used are spindly in comparison.

The uprights need not be too thick to hold up a house. With a timber framed
house the rooms are exact in that if it supposed to 4 x 5 metres it is.
They are also square.

In our village, builders recently completed a couple of
very boxy "cottages" which passers-by (me!)
were able to observe from week to week.
Although the finished properties look "okay", I noted
areas during the build which I would have
thought looked like a bodge. A wavy foundation
trench; uneven foundation beams; poorly fitted
fascias, and more. The road has been dug
up twice to fix problems with
the wiring/plumbing/phones/drainage. Yesterday
the BT van was parked outside again. These
cottages sold for £265,000 each!

I would LIKE to buy an old property! I would LOVE to buy an old
property, but everyone I know or knew who did so had tremendous
problems with (a) gazumping (b) vendor withdrawing (c) chains (d)
surveys (e) all the other problems. An old house with vacant
possession might do the trick, though. But there aren't many of them
around.

Build a new one, with state of the eco features, that looks old. Our
Natural snotty uni man did this, or attempted to.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 12:31:21 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Avoid Tay like the plague

Ah, now we're getting down to the nitty-gritty! Any others? But to at
least try to wave the old flag for British workmanship, what about
ones where you could say: "Recommended!"

None are good, it is the best of a bad bunch.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

In article , Imm wrote:
The uprights need not be too thick to hold up a house. With
a timber framed house the rooms are exact in that if it
supposed to 4 x 5 metres it is. They are also square.

Whilst unfortunately the walls under sometimes aren't. In my BCO
days we had more than one case of having to insist on work
stopping until the substructure walls had been rebuilt in the
right place.

One of the big problems with timber frame is that it is far more
liable to problems if the bricklayers (and others) do not do a
good job. It may or may not be better now, but then things like
accuracy in setting out, not dropping mortar down cavities and
proper firestopping were often not there.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 22:24:25 +0100, "Frisket"
wrote:


Thanks for that! Whereabouts do you do new build work? Just the
county(ies) would do. I won't tell 'em you sent me!

MM
West & North Yorkshire mainly - especially York & Leeds (big bucks areas -
for oop north at least)

Richard

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 12:22:42 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



Out of your list Bryant are the best, although after being taken over by
Taylor Woodrow their quality dropped. Bryant give a 2 yr guarantee on the
house and fitments inc, heating and boiler, and the next 8 years is by NHBC
or Zurich insuring the structure.

AIUI this is the norm for the NHBC 10 yr cover - builder repairs for
first 2 years and NHBC thereafter. This is why it's important to get
all the faults fixed in the first 2 years - thereafter you're claiming
against an insurance policy and we all know what ins cos are like for
avoiding a pay-out.

As it happens, if a fault doesn't show up until after the 2 years have
expired you should still approach the builder first because it will
probably be deemed a latent fault which is, once again, the builder's
responsibility again. How likely you are to get actually get it fixed
probably depends on whether the builder is still on site...

On 7 Aug 2003 12:44:32 -0700, (Martin
Angove) wrote:

Apologies for any dodgy spelling/grammar. As an experiment I'm writing
this from Google using Netscape 6 on an oldish PowerMac. It's so slow
that if I type too quickli isses letters and things!

No worries about spelling! I'm grateful for the feedback I'm getting.
Another nail in the coffin for new build. The builders should all be
****ing ashamed of themselves.

MM

(Sam Nelson) wrote in message ...
...They're `detached' in the sense
that they're each, oh, all of four feet from each other;

Clever. It's the width needed for two passing (overtaking?) wheelie
bins, without grazing your knuckles on the wire-cut bricks.