Snagging.org

Bland Designs! Ridiculous structural fails including a balcony with no FLOOR and taps above plug sockets that surely got the builders sacked

Divine — Wed, 07 Jun 2017 20:56:31 +0000

Avant-garde architecture is always to be applauded, but sometimes innovation can go a little too far.

Bored Panda has compiled an album full of architectural design fails and though they might be funny, they look pretty dangerous too.

From taps above electricity sockets to a wall painted with a convincing tunnel that led to a car crash when someone tried to drive into it, these images are a testament to the fact that it’s sometimes best not to get too creative.

Would you want to walk down these stairs? The carpet design makes it difficult to see when one step ends and another begins

Another accident waiting to happen involves an incredibly narrow bike track running next to a canal.

Yet another badly conceived cycle path is blocked by a bollard, which has bizarrely been built at a design school.

Even more ironically, there is a sign which tells drivers to give cyclists more space while taking up the majority of the bike lane.

Another image features mind-bending carpet that’s bound to make the simple act of ascending the stairs bring on motion sickness.

Can you manage it? This bike path seems a little on the small side and it just so happens to be next to a canal

Notice anything wrong? What’s most worrying about this picture is that it was taken at a design school

These traffic lights might not be much help considering they’ve been blocked by a building

Not only does this tap not have a sink for the water to go to, it is also directly above an electricity socket

How any wheelchair user is meant to get up this concrete ramp with steps at the end remains a mystery

These stairs look as though they have been designed to play a cruel test on whoever chooses to run down them

This sign tells drivers to give cyclists more space while inadvertently taking up the majority of the bike lane

It’s a 50/50 risk: There’s absolutely no way of knowing which toilet you’re about to walk into from these signs

This painted-on tunnel might look fake to a lot of people, but it still managed to catch a driver out at night

Somebody decided to let cacti grow wildly out of the middle of these seats and now nobody can sit down

Who thought this was a sensible idea? No parent wants their child to go to a playground with a high risk of death attached

There might not be a fire escape staircase but there is a door in a high-rise building should you need to make a speedy escape

If you’re any taller than a toddler then this playground attraction might just be off limits to you

What’s better than relaxing on your own individual balcony? It’s just a shame these ones don’t happen to have floors

Home buyers remain in the dark over new build warranties

Divine — Wed, 07 Jun 2017 20:47:46 +0000

Home buyers opting for new build properties are being left exposed by warranties that fall short of their needs and expectations.

New homes are often marketed by developers with the promise of lengthy warranties offering peace of mind. Many consumers aren’t aware that outside of an initial two-year period, it is primarily structural issues that are covered. 58% of people who have bought these types of home (in the last 10 years) think that the warranty was an advantage over an older property.

The 2017 Homeowner Survey conducted by YouGov for HomeOwners Alliance and BLP Insurance demonstrates that there is a clear mismatch between consumer expectation and reality. Nearly half of new build property buyers in the last 10 years (46%) expect the full 10-year warranty to cover minor snagging issues on their new build home when, in actual fact, standard warranties cover issues that relate to or affect the structure of the home.

The survey findings further reinforce conclusions from the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) report ‘More homes, fewer complaints’, which stated that consumers think a warranty is a hallmark of absolute quality.

Often warranties cover far less than consumers assume, in responding to the 2017 Homeowner Survey, comments such as “Covered so little it was virtually worthless” and “The cover was minimal and far below expectations” were typical responses to the survey.

Amongst consumers who have bought new build properties in the past ten years, the most common misperceptions around the types of faults which aren’t covered by the full 10 year warranty are electrical and wiring faults (71%), plumbing faults (63%), insulation and draft faults (58%).

Nor do many consumers appreciate that for the first two years after completion, it is down to the builder to sort out defects and after that the warranties cover matters that affect the structure of the home.

Again, comments such as, “NHBC said everything I asked about wasn’t their problem” and “Builder very reluctant to snag and nothing seemed to be covered by NHBC warranty” were typical. Consumers also complain that where a problem was covered by the warranty, the provider was reticent to step in and help resolve disputes with the builder.

Paula Higgins, Chief Executive of the HomeOwners Alliance, said: “The house building industry needs to do a better job at helping buyers to understand the warranty system for new build homes, how it works and how warranties are structured. Where things do go wrong in the initial two-year period, they should be resolved swiftly. If problems aren’t fixed, the warranty provider needs to have the clout to compel developers to act. Consumers expect and deserve a warranty system that provides no fuss cover when problems arise as well as speedy payments for more complex issues.”

The main providers of new build warranties include NHBC, LABC and PremierGuarantee. The NHBC which provides warranties for approximately 80% of new homes in the UK, has asked the Competition & Markets Authority (CMA) to reconsider some of the rules that bind it (imposed in 1995) now that there is more competition from other providers and more choice for housebuilders. In addition, the housebuilding industry has come under mounting pressure to raise quality standards from the aforementioned APPG report into the quality and workmanship of new housing in England.

Consumers who have bought new build properties in the past ten years have three clear areas of importance. They want the warranty provider to take the lead on resolving issues (22%), claims to be paid without fuss (18%) and full cover to the rebuild value of their home (13%). The problems caused by high expectations around warranties are unlikely to help new build homes become more popular. This is a real issue, with twice as many UK consumers saying that they would prefer an older home (i.e. more than 10 years old) (47%) to a new build home (i.e. less than 10 years old) (21%).

‘Don’t waste your money on ‘shoddy’ new builds’: Kirstie Allsopp warns buyers not to be fooled by ‘misleading’ claims about the ‘hidden costs’ of old houses

Divine — Mon, 05 Jun 2017 20:37:58 +0000

A row has erupted over the quality of new build homes after TV presenter Kirstie Allsopp told today’s buyers to avoid wasting their money on ‘shoddy’ properties.

The Location, Location, Location presenter claimed some houses built from the late 1980s are poor quality, more prone to flooding and built for the short term.

The 45-year-old spoke out after ‘misleading’ claims by a new build organisation that those in older properties were likely to spend more than £51,000 on repairs.

+12

TV presenter Kirstie Allsopp, pictured in her home in West London, has claimed some houses built from the late 1980s are poor quality, more prone to flooding and built for the short term

But the Home Builders Federation has hit back, saying buyers of new build homes ‘enjoy a huge number of benefits over those purchasing a second hand home’.

The disagreement began when the New Homes site, which the HBF developed, tweeted a diagram of an old house with annotations of the cost of repairs.

Its graphic suggested homeowners would need to spend about £6,000 on the central heating, £5,000 on windows and doors and £4,000 on external rendering.

Other costs included around £5,000 on plastering, £4,000 on the bathroom, £9,000 on wiring, £4,000 on roofing, £2,500 on decorating and £800 on insulation.

Its tweet read: ‘Avoid the money pit and buy new, or you could find yourself spending up to £51,643 on upgrading an older property to the same standard.’

But Allsopp was enraged by the claim, saying: ‘I intend to complain to @ASA_UK (the Advertising Standards Authority). This is totally misleading and untrue.’

The disagreement began when the New Homes site, which the Home Builders Federation developed, tweeted a diagram of an old house with annotations of the cost of repairs

Allsopp, who presents the Channel 4 show with Phil Spencer, said the prices were both inflated and unrealistic because nobody would fix their whole home at once.

She told The Times property assistant editor David Byers: ‘I have seen some really shoddy new builds. Something being new is no guarantee it’s any good.

‘I think it is misleading and irresponsible. I go up and down the country and I am seeing a lot of older properties that have been standing for 150 years or more.

‘I do not know the last time I saw a new build that I thought would stand for 150 years. I don’t think I have.’

In March it was claimed 298 families a week are having to move into shoddy new build homes that have not been finished as builders cut corners to meet targets.

Buyers are arriving at new homes to find leaks, mould, water-logged gardens, missing windows, badly fitted doors, broken toilets and gaps in the guttering.

Allsopp claimed the prices were both inflated and unrealistic because nobody would fix their whole home at once. She tweeted that she would report the post to advertising regulators

In some cases, new build buyers are discovering more than 170 faults in their homes and having to wait months for a builder to fix them.

Allsopp, 45, told today’s buyers to avoid wasting their money on ‘shoddy’ properties

But HBF executive chairman Stewart Baseley said: ‘Buyers of new-build homes enjoy a huge number of benefits over those purchasing a second-hand home.

‘During the buying process customers will receive a high level of service and support from trained sales staff.

‘Upon moving into a property that is designed for modern living there are all the advantages of living in a home with brand new fixtures and fittings and the latest energy efficiency technologies.

‘This report helps to highlight the hidden savings that buyers of new-build homes make. While most people have a budget put aside to get the little jobs done, costs soon add up when you need to replace a bathroom or a kitchen.

‘£50,000 is a lot of money by anyone’s standards and this new research emphasises just how much new build homebuyers really get for their money.’

The graphic formed part of an HBF report that claimed the cost of upgrading an older property to the same standard as a new build home could be up to £50,000.

And an HBF spokesman told MailOnline: ‘The overwhelming majority of people living in homes built in the last 30 years are very happy with their home. Surveys show that more than 90 per cent of people would buy new again.

Some other social media users also said how they were unimpressed by the New Homes tweet

‘The report simply highlights the various costs of installing new features, fixtures and fittings that come as standard in new builds and are valued by households.

‘Not everybody wants to move into a Victorian home and undertake expensive and time-consuming upgrade work.’

‘New builds today are built to extremely high standards and designed not only to stand the test of time like their Victorian counterparts, but also save households hundreds of pounds a year on their energy bills.

‘Of course, some people with large budgets and plenty of time may prefer to rebuild or renovate an older property but demand for new homes demonstrates that buyers value the benefits – and savings – that come from buying new.’

And on Allsopp’s claims that new build homes are more at risk of flooding, he added: ‘Very few new homes are built in areas at risk of flooding, but those that are have considerable mitigation measures put in place to ensure they are protected in the event of a flood.

‘Any suggestion that new homes are more at risk from flooding that second hand homes is thus simply wrong.’

An ASA spokesman told MailOnline today: ‘We haven’t received the complaint as yet. We’ll be on the lookout for it and will assess it once it comes in to establish whether there are grounds for further investigation.’

But seven months later in March, work to correct a ‘snagging list’ running to 12 pages had still not been finished.

Steve Antonio and Andrea Fisher waited seven months for their brand new £390,000 home in Bishops Itchington, Warwickshire, to be repaired

The couple said their £390,000 house in Bishops Itchington, Warwickshire, was rushed to the point that much of the interior needed replacing, including plasterwork and all the internal doors.

There were problems with the lead guttering, causing water to pool on the roof, and a pipe could not be accessed.

Although completion was supposed to be last May or June, Miss Fisher, 41, and Mr Antonio, 38, were unable to move in until August.

Problems in the house included lead guttering that caused water to pool (left) as well as poor insulation and pipe work (right)

Miss Fisher said last March: ‘We’ve been left to live in a house that isn’t fit for purpose and should not have been sold to us in the state it is in.’

Cala Homes said at the time that it had apologised to Miss Fisher and her partner and was working to put right the defects.

‘We expected it to be our dream first home’: Couple tell how their washing machine ‘danced across the kitchen’ and builders left mouldy coffee cups behind

Chris Lyon, 29, and Emma Hayward, 27

Chris Lyon, 29, and his partner Emma Hayward, 27, bought a Barratt Homes new build on the Ridgeway estate in Dunstable, Bedfordshire for £325,000 and expected it to be their ‘dream’ first home.

But the dream soon turned to a nightmare as the property was riddled with a catalogue of problems.

Mr Lyon told MailOnline: ‘On our tour of our home on completion day the house was full of dust, builders tools and mouldy coffee cups. Our front door glass panel was cracked.

‘Our washing machines transit bolts hadn’t been removed and upon using this on our first night we were awoken to the sound of horrendous banging, where the machine had literally danced around the kitchen, smashing the cupboards, kick boards, and plates that were on the sink side.

The couple were awoken to their washing machine ‘dancing around the kitchen’ on the first night in their new home – smashing cupboards, kick boards, and plates

‘Our garden patio was stained with builders’ paint and plaster.

‘Our electric shower hadn’t been sealed in where the electric power cables connect to it and the Virgin Media cables were hanging out of the front of the house as the builders had smashed the box off the wall.

‘The ducting that comes off the bathroom extractor fan is damaged and therefore just leaking moisture into our loft space.’

+12

They bought a Barratt Homes new build on the Ridgeway estate in Dunstable, Bedfordshire, for £325,000 and expected it to be their ‘dream’ first home

The couple were faced with dozens of other issues including an uncapped pipe in the loft which left the house smelling of faeces, a window ledge cracked in half, and paint all over the fittings and radiators.

Mr Lyon added: ‘We had Barratts staff using our toilets when they came to rectify snags, leaving lights on, spilling paint on the new carpets, plaster on the sofa and carpets, and actually breaking our sofa.

The couple were faced with dozens of other issues including an uncapped pipe in the loft which left the house smelling of faeces and unfinished fixtures and fittings

‘The tiles in the house were not the tiles we originally chose when we purchased the property and the tiling in the en suite bathroom was horrendous.

‘I am a believer in getting people’s stories heard so people in the future do not have to go through this sheer hell.’

A spokesman Barratt Homes said in March: ‘We are aware of the issues raised, our MD Ian Sadler has already met with the customers, and we currently have workmen in the property resolving any outstanding issues’.

New homes are great. There’s just one snag …

Divine — Wed, 31 May 2017 21:04:05 +0000

Snagging – the very name is enough to put you off. No one likes having to deal with problems or hitches. But for anyone who buys a newly built or converted property, the S-word can be crucial. Do it right and you could save yourself thousands of pounds. Do it wrong and you could end up with a problem property.

Ask Derek Charlton. He and his wife Susie had exchanged contracts on a new four-bedroom house in Peebles, near Edinburgh, and were waiting to move in. ‘The house was part of a small luxury estate and, as we needed a bigger place with a garden for us and our growing family, it was just what we were looking for,’ says Charlton. Just before they completed on the £240,000 home, the couple’s solicitor advised them to ‘snag’ the property.

‘Snagging? I’d never heard of the word and so I asked our solicitor to explain,’ says Charlton, a clothing store manager. Snagging, as he was to find out, means checking over a property for defects and poor finishing. This can be anything from poor paintwork to badly hung doors, broken window-catches and faulty sockets.

This wise move was rapidly followed by another. The couple contacted a professional snagging company and paid just under £350 for an inspector to help with their survey. Snagging day arrived and the little team found 90 defects in the Scottish new-build.

‘As the average for a house or flat is five snags per room, it was unusually high. Most snags are cosmetic, ranging from poor plastering and paintwork to scratched tiles and screws with no plastic caps,’ says Catriona Bright, managing director of the snagging company New Build Inspections (NBI).

Big snags are another prospect altogether, as the Charltons were about to discover. ‘When we went into the kitchen, Susie and I threw up our hands in horror,’ says Derek. ‘It was in two distinct colours. It was meant to have a cedar finish, but the kitchen company ran out of cedar units and completed the job with teak finish.’

There was more to come. The patio doors leading to the back garden would not budge. ‘Luckily our inspector knew about such things and noted that the glass panels were slightly bigger than the door frames and had been bodged in by the builders. It meant they were totally immovable,’ says Derek.

Suddenly the family’s enthusiasm for their dream home started to pall. ‘Because we had paid a 10 per cent unreturnable deposit, there was no going back and we simply had to continue with the transaction,’ says Charlton, who proceeded to wise move number three.

He and his wife sent a report of their findings to the Edinburgh-based developer – backed by an even more detailed report from the snagging company. Then came wise move number four. The couple talked to their solicitor, who advised them to insert a ‘retention clause’ in their completion contract. This is a sum – in this case £10,000 – that is held back until all the snags in a property are put right. ‘It puts a real stranglehold on the developer,’ says Bright.

Not surprisingly, the Charltons’ kitchen and patio doors were replaced in a week. Property investor Jonathan Cartwright was not so lucky. After buying two bijou apartments in a Liverpool new-build, he decided to inspect them before letting them out. ‘When I checked over the apartments, I found poorly fitted tiles in both bathrooms, several kitchen units that needed replacing and a glass door with a hole in it – plus 80 or so other defects,’ says Cartwright.

The young investor then approached his developers and asked them to sort out the defects. Six weeks later he is still waiting. Unlike the Charltons, Cartwright snagged his property after completion, not before. ‘It was only when I heard about it from a friend that I knew anything about it,’ he says. ‘Now I’m on the phone every day trying to get the developers to do the work.’

NBI’s Bright says: ‘All properties should have ‘try before you buy’ and 14-day cooling-off periods. We advise the homebuyers who come to us to make regular checks during the building phase of their new-build or conversion property and to snag it five days before completion so they have time to manoeuvre and negotiate with the developers.’

David Erica of Surrey-based chartered surveyors Roy Ilott and Associates says: ‘UK developers are mainly profit-driven. If they make a sizable margin on a new-build development or conversion, they’ll usually be happy to send in a team of six or eight within a couple of weeks to put right any snagging problems. If their profits are tight, they’re far less likely to do so.’

The other snag, it seems, is ignorance. ‘Most home-buyers haven’t heard of snagging,’ says Bright. ‘Developers are invariably reluctant to mention it, and the only way most people find out is through a friend or neighbour or their conveyancing solicitor. It’s time it was on the checklist of every independent financial adviser and mortgage broker.’

Competition watchdog to examine warranties for new homes

Divine — Sun, 30 Apr 2017 06:37:45 +0000

CMA’s review of NHBC comes amid concerns over lack of protection for homebuyers

The Competition and Markets Authority is examining payments between housebuilders and the providers of warranties for new homes as part of a review of NHBC, the largest warranty provider.

The CMA announced last month it was reviewing undertakings made by NHBC, the standard-setting body for new-build properties in the UK and the main warranty provider. These 22-year-old undertakings were designed to improve competition in the warranty market.

The review was announced amid concerns that NHBC is compromising its independence by paying millions of pounds to developers every year. However, the CMA said it was launching the review following a request from NHBC and that it would not consider the “wider issues” relating to the organisation.

Nonetheless, the CMA has sent a substantial list of questions about warranties to leading figures in the sector as part of its review. The questions, which have been seen by the Guardian, include asking warranty providers whether they have loyalty or low-claim schemes that compensate builders with a low claim rate and how these payments are calculated.

The Guardian revealed this year that NHBC is paying around £10m to £15m every year to housebuilders through what is effectively a profit-share agreement. Campaigners said these payments called into question NHBC’s independence from housebuilders. In response, NHBC said the payments were a “very small” proportion of its annual turnover and that it was common practice in the insurance industry to recognise good claims history. NHBC said the payments, which it describes as premium refunds, totalled £4.5m last year.

NHBC, which claims to have an 80% share of the new-build market, sets quality standards for new homes and provides 10-year warranties to buyers. The warranty is a form of insurance that is supposed to compensate the consumer or fix faults in the new property if there are problems within the first 10 years.

However, there has been growing criticism of the quality of new homes in Britain and the lack of protection for consumers. Bovis, one of the UK’s largest housebuilders, was forced to pay out £7m to compensate customers who bought poorly built new homes, while Clarion Housing Group, the country’s largest housing association, has agreed to buy back properties in a London development.

A survey published by the House Builders Federation revealed that 98% of customers have reported snags or defects with their home since moving in a year ago, up from 93% last year.

Philip Waller, a retired construction manager who runs the campaign website brand-newhomes.co.uk, said: “The NHBC ‘premium rebates’ to plc housebuilders and the minimum claim value [for new home buyers], which is currently £1,550, are two areas I believe that require examination and investigation.

“I also feel that the historic claims data collected by the NHBC relating to specific individual housebuilders should be made publicly available enabling consumers to make a better-informed buying decision.”

The undertakings made by NHBC were that it allowed housebuilders on its register to use other warranty providers and that it did not make changes to its rules that could hurt competition without approval from competition authorities. These are now being reviewed.

The CMA declined to comment about the questions sent as part of the review.

The NHBC said: “There have been significant changes in the new home structural warranty market over the last 20 years and NHBC’s view is that its undertakings are now obsolete. So, when approached by the CMA, we welcomed the opportunity to work with them and we asked for the undertakings to be reviewed and released. This reflects our commitment to maintaining an open and competitive market for new home structural warranties.

“The CMA’s review will look at how the market for new home structural warranties currently operates to protect homebuyers in order to see if there has been a change in circumstances which would justify the removal or variation of the undertakings. The CMA has expressly stated that it will not be considering wider issues relating to NHBC as part of this review.”

• This article was amended on 12 April 2017. The word “investigation” was changed to “review” in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph and an additional sentence was added to the end of the fifth paragraph.

Housing associations face storm of complaints over new-build homes

Divine — Wed, 26 Apr 2017 08:59:17 +0000

Housing associations responsible for more than 175,000 homes are facing allegations of serial neglect of their residents and properties, focused on an array of new-build developments in London that have received more than £60m in public money.

The issues uncovered by a Guardian investigation include damp, mould, nonexistent security, outages in heating and hot water, inadequate repairs, and infestation by rats and mice. There are also many complaints about poor and often misleading customer service.

The investigation found issues with five housing associations: Catalyst, Sanctuary, Notting Hill Housing, Wandle, and the One Housing Group. Residents raised problems including:

Failing lifts that rendered a wheelchair user housebound for a week and a half.
Security failures that meant premises were open to intruders over a period of months.
Families repeatedly left without heating or hot water.

The cases involve both tenants, and some among the rising numbers of people in London who live in shared-ownership properties in which housing associations retain a stake. Some of them also highlight alleged failings by big building firms.

Housing associations are not-for-profit organisations that have come to play a dominant role in social and so-called affordable housing. Critics say the findings raise concerns about standards in the new-build housing market, linked to the government’s ongoing drive to deregulate housing in the capital and the decision of many associations to concentrate on commercial property development.

The latest developments follow revelations in the Guardian about Orchard Village, a new estate in east London owned and run by Clarion Housing, the UK’s largest housing association, and funded by £30m of public money. Over the past three years, residents there have complained about a huge range of problems, many apparently related to poor building standards. Last month, after Clarion agreed to buy back some of the affected properties, the association’s chairman resigned.

In response to inquiries from the Guardian, a spokesperson for Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, said that in all the cases concerned, grants had been awarded by the previous mayor, Boris Johnson.

Steve Hilditch, a housing expert who has worked as the head of policy for Shelter and a housing adviser to the last Labour government, said the cases highlighted two linked trends. “There’s clearly something going wrong in the new-build housing market to do with standards, and it needs to be tackled,” he said.

He also saw a problem in the changing culture of many big housing associations. “The big housing associations have become massive developers. They’re expanding very quickly. To my mind, some of them have lost their focus on housing need, and managing their existing homes,” he said.

Catalyst Housing oversees more than 21,000 homes across London and the south-east. At its Caulfield Park development in south Acton, west London, which was completed in 2011 and assisted by £19.5m in grants from the Greater London Authority (GLA), residents say they have complained for five years about repeatedly broken lifts, infestation by rats and mice, and faulty plumbing.

Chris Babet, a Catalyst tenant who has multiple sclerosis and uses a wheelchair, lives in a fifth-floor flat with his family. He says in early 2016 both lifts in his block broke down simultaneously and he was left housebound for a week and a half. He also says he requested electronic door-opening equipment from the housing association, which he needed to avoid his wheelchair being damaged by opening and closing doors, but that it only arrived after the intervention of his MP, 18 months after his initial request.

He says hot water in his family’s flat is often intermittent, at best. Though Willmott Dixon, the builders which constructed Caulfield Park, say “there are no openings left within walls and ceilings of individual properties following our work”, other residents say mice and rats get into their properties through such cavities, and that their presence results in a smell traceable to the animals’ urine and excrement, and noise they can hear in their flats. “In the evenings, you can hear them going through the ceilings and in the walls – just running around,” said Zakirya Mohammed, who has lived in his flat since 2012. “We’ve complained to Catalyst several times about this, and got nothing.”

Catalyst says it has come up with a “thorough action plan” for the development. A spokesperson told the Guardian: “On behalf of Catalyst, I’d like to apologise to the residents of Caulfield Park for any discomfort or inconvenience that they have experienced.”

Sanctuary is among the UK’s biggest housing organisations, with a portfolio that contains around 100,000 homes. At its Artizan Court development in Wood Green, north London, completed in 2014 and assisted by a Greater London Authority (GLA) grant of £1.9m, residents say that security issues, shabby building work and issues around leaks, damp and mould have been compounded by Sanctuary’s slow and sometimes misleading responses to their complaints.

Between December 2016 and February this year, after problems in a shared-ownership block with the main gate and front door, both failed, which left the development completely open. As well as intruders, some of whom were homeless people who took up temporary residence, residents say there were reports of people’s doors being tried in the small hours.

Sanctuary claimed that issues with security were a result of vandalism, which residents say does not answer their questions about why repairs have taken so long. “It took three months for the door to be fixed – it was vandalised once,” said one Artizan Court resident. Beyond an assurance that “if we haven’t met expectations, we will put things right ”, Sanctuary offered no direct answers to accounts of bad customer service, or poor building and plumbing standards.

In January, Sanctuary was confirmed as the single biggest recipient of government money under the new shared ownership and affordable homes programme, and is set to receive £90m of public funds between now and 2021. Last year, its chief executive, David Bennett, was paid £340,000.

Housing associations’ new commercial tilt is exemplified by Notting Hill Housing, which was founded in 1964, and now owns and runs about 32,000 homes. Like many housing associations, it now partly funds its operations via commercial property development. In 2007, it announced the completion of Carillon Court, a 51-flat development in Aldgate, east London. The Sunday Times claimed it had succeeded in “making small look sexy”.

Now, Carillon Court is the focus of a dispute involving residents, the housing association, and Bugler, the construction firm who built it. Residents began to complain about leaks and damp in 2009, when one resident claimed that “the property that I bought in good faith and paid a large sum of money for is now, I, believe uninhabitable … My health is suffering, not only due to the stress but also because of the damp.”

Among the other people affected are a family of seven living in a flat in which damp and mould are present in all but one room, who have serious concerns about resulting ill-health. Bugler construction say s it has not been notified of any problems since 2010. Notting Hill told the Guardian it was aware of “both latent defects and maintenance and repairs issues” and was working to remedy them.

One recent case involving a new-build development highlights many of the same issues. Solomon’s Passage, in Peckham, south London, was completed in 2010 and owned and run by Wandle, who oversee 7,000 homes across nine London boroughs. Last year, it was announced that two blocks containing 48 homes were to be demolished, because of issues including water damage and faulty roofs and balconies. The entire development attracted £9.4m of public money.

Wandle said it was working with its lawyers to ascertain who was legally responsible for what ha d happened. It said there remain ed “a huge amount of work to do” to bring the rest of the development up to a good standard . The GLA sa id that once the blocks ha d been demolished, it “will be able to recover” the relevant amount of public money.

As demand rises, the reputation of new-build homes is crumbling

Divine — Sun, 02 Apr 2017 08:33:43 +0000

Harron Homes promises that its newly built houses will “surpass all expectations”. The £324,995 home that James Uttley bought was certainly beyond his imaginings.

There was a large hole where the bathroom window should be, he says. No carpets had been laid and there was no sign of a fitted wardrobe for which he had paid an extra £1,000. Holes gaped in the brickwork, yellow foam from the roof spattered the windows and a fence had shaved two meters off a garden which had been advertised as being flat, but which had developed a significant tilt. Harron did install the missing window, but 10 months on Uttley is still waiting for the other problems to be rectified.

His neighbours on the Hazelmoor Fold development in Blackley, West Yorkshire – where there are 82 homes – have similar accounts, including floods and leaks. In 2015 a boundary wall collapsed, damaging three cars. Rather than resolve the problems Harron has written to residents banning them from calling customer services to complain. “Emails and phone calls have gone unanswered,” says Uttley, who moved his young family into the four-bed house in April last year. “Over the winter we discovered that there is no cavity wall insulation, the landing is severely sloping and the stairs uneven.”

Uttley’s ordeal highlights slipping standards as developers race to meet rising demand for new homes. A survey released this week by the National House Building Council (NHBC) shows that 98% of new-home buyers who responded reported defects and a quarter of those had identified more than 16. One of the UK’s largest developers, Bovis, recently set aside a £7m fund to repair substandard homes and announced it would scale back its projects after claims it paid purchasers to move into unfinished homes to meet completion targets.

“Standards are falling all the time as demand from shareholders takes priority over quality,” says Phil Waller, a retired construction manager who runs advice and campaigning website brand-newhomes.co.uk. “It used to be unheard of for people to have to move out of their home while it’s repaired, but now it happens far too often.”

Peter Lloyd (not his real name) says he faces leaving his house in Worcestershire because the developer, Bellway, used substandard mortar. Roof tiles were also wrongly fitted and there are gaps around inadequately measured windows. He has spent £1,800 in surveys since moving in in March 2015. “We’ve previously asked Bellway to put in writing to confirm they’ll do all the outstanding work and exactly how they plan to do it,” he says. “They have so far refused.”

The NHBC says it has appointed a specialist engineer to assess his house and will require Bellway to carry out its recommendations. Bellway has failed to respond to requests for a comment.

Lloyd’s and Uttley’s ordeals highlight a gap in the law that leaves purchasers of six-figure new homes with less protection than supermarket shoppers. The Consumer Rights Directive, which enshrines the rights of customers, does not cover property. When things go wrong, residents on newly completed developments have to rely on a 10-year warranty insured by the NHBC or another approved warranty provider.

The 10-year promise could be misleading – developers only have to rectify problems that arise in the first two years following completion. After that, purchasers have to claim on the warranty provider’s insurance which only covers serious structural issues. As a last resort, new homeowners can appeal to the Consumer Code for Home Builders adjudication scheme introduced by the industry in 2010 as part of a voluntary bid to shake up standards.

However, it costs £120 to lodge a complaint via the scheme, whose findings are not legally binding, and it only applies to developments registered with the three main warranty providers, NHBC, LABC Warranty and Premier Guarantee. A parliamentary inquiry last July found that the scheme does not offer adequate redress and called for the establishment of a new homes ombudsman to address serious failings in the building sector.

Most of the big-name developers have attracted criticism for quality failures, but Leeds-based Harron Homes appears to have particular problems. In 2015 Kirklees Council ordered it to stop work on a development in Huddersfield while it sorted the drainage after residents reported flooding and sink holes.

In Wrexham, Clwyd, Harron Homes stopped work on a half-finished estate in 2007 and are yet to return. Householders living next to it complain of open sewers and rats blighting the community. Last month their MP Susan Elan Jones presented a petition to parliament asking for the government to enforce the completion of unfinished estates, or the gifting of the land to local authorities or housing associations.

Readers who have contacted The Observer – 23 people – have reported collapsing ceilings, ill-fitted bathrooms and unconnected drain pipes in estates elsewhere across the north.

Heather Clarke (not her real name) says she and her family arrived with their removal van to find their house at Oak Dean Mount in Rotherham unfinished. “The garden was a lake, there were massive holes at the side of the garage doors, the top windows weren’t filled on the outside, brickwork and tiles were chipped and the render falling off,” she says. “The place needed replastering and repainting, a leak had damaged the kitchen, bathrooms had vinyl instead of tiles and there were chips and dents.”

Two days later, in a rain storm, water poured down the sloping drive into the garage, ruining £1,600-worth of belongings the family had stored there.

Residents at Harron’s Edenbrook Vale scheme in Pontefract recently held a protest outside the sales office after enduring months of leaks, malfunctioning heating and flooded gardens. Others have yet to get as far as moving in. One reader exchanged contracts for a Harron house in Meadow View, Barnsley, last April. A year on she’s no closer to completion. “We’re being told the neighbouring house must be rebuilt after a fire and we can’t move in until that’s done,” she says. “We’ve asked Harron if we can transfer our deposit to another property but we’ve not been given any answers except that because we have exchanged contracts there is nothing we can do.”

Harron Homes was established in 1995 by brothers Paul and Stephen Harrison, and as the company’s standards apparently slip its profits are soaring. Last year turnover was £93.6m, up 24% from 2015, allowing the brothers take-home pay of more than £1.5m.

A spokesperson for the company tells me: “We are working with our customers to undertake the general snagging work, which is commonplace with new- build homes. We do everything within our power to finish work in the shortest possible time frame. However, contractually we are unable to offer customers fixed completion dates until a property has been signed off by the NHBC or Local Authority Building Control.”

Both the NHBC and LABC say that every home registered with their warranty scheme is inspected at various stages of construction, but these are visual checks to assess that they are a standard insurance risk rather than quality control.

“It is the builder’s responsibility for ensuring that homes conform to the building regulations and NHBC standards,” says a spokesperson.

Read.

Families living in new homes slash fuel bills by half

Divine — Thu, 23 Mar 2017 12:39:53 +0000

A new home built to the latest building regulations can cost half as much to heat as a Victorian house of the same size, according to a new report by the NHBC Foundation.

The advantages of new homes is based on a survey of 2,000 people who had recently moved into a new home and were asked what they considered the advantages of new homes to be.

Many pointed to the energy efficiency benefits of new homes – the better standards of insulation enhanced draught-proofing and improved ‘airtightness’ that help to lower household annual energy bills, and improve levels of comfort.

The report shows that energy bills are expected to be around £440 lower in a modern one-bedroom ground floor flat, compared to its Victorian equivalent. And for a new build four-bedroom detached house, bills are estimated at £1,050 – saving £1,400 compared to those of a 19th century house.

Homeowners of newer properties were also drawn to the idea of buying a ‘blank-canvas’ ready to be personalised, free from the nasty surprises of previous owners’ DIY. They also commented positively on the contemporary, flexible layouts and modern facilities of new homes such as new kitchens, bathrooms and appliances, covered by manufacturers’ warranties.

The report outlines the safety advantages of new homes raised by some respondents – such as mains-powered smoke alarms, interlinked throughout the home, which are standard, and the benefits of safety glazing, safer stairs and the additional security features. But the advantages of new homes extend beyond the front door and many of the new homeowners surveyed considered that moving to a new development of like-minded people was also an attraction, allowing the opportunity to make new friends and neighbours in a new community.

Neil Smith, Head of Research & Innovation at NHBC, said: “It is pleasing that homeowners are able to identify the many benefits of new homes, ranging from the obvious advantages of a ‘blank canvas’ with everything being new, through to the much-improved energy efficiency standards, which lead to greatly-reduced fuel bills, compared with those of older homes.

“Maybe less obvious are the more solid foundations on which new homes are built, which are designed to suit local ground conditions, as well as the safety advantages of modern wiring and mains-powered smoke alarms, interlinked throughout the home.

“This report is a useful reminder of the benefits of buying a new home, designed and built in accordance with up-to-date standards. What’s more, an important advantage frequently raised in the survey is the peace of mind provided by NHBC’s warranty and insurance protection under Buildmark, from exchange of contracts through to a maximum of 10 years after completion.”

Reality Check: What is affordable housing?

Divine — Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:25:51 +0000

Chancellor Phillip Hammond is expected to announce policies in the Autumn Statement aimed at tackling the problem.

In January, then Prime Minister David Cameron said government would step in and directly commission thousands of new affordable homes.

He pledged £1.2bn over the next five years to build affordable starter homes.

But what do we mean by affordable?

The government’s definition when it comes to renting is that affordable homes should cost no more than 80% of the average local market rent.

When it comes to home ownership, it is a little less clear-cut.

The government definition of affordable housing states it must be provided at a level at which the mortgage payments on the property should be more than would be paid in rent on council housing, but below market levels.

That is clearly a very broad range.

It must also be able to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households.

The starter homes announced earlier in the year will be sold with at least a 20% discount on market value, but these are reserved for first-time buyers under the age of 40.

£60,000 homes

It is not the first time a politician has targeted this group.

In 2004, then Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott announced plans to build homes for just £60,000.

Eight of the 10 planned developments were completed, but the houses were sold for far more than promised – an average of £231,000 in one development.

Others have attempted to come up with a definition of affordability for people at any age and in any living situation.

Housing charity Shelter says affordable housing should cost no more than 35% of your household income after tax and benefits.

The charity acknowledges, however, that 35% of your income will be more difficult for people on very low incomes to pay than for those who earn more.

House price calculator

Shelter, like most organisations attempting to come up with a definition of affordability, has looked broadly at the relationship between household income and spending on housing.

But that does not give you the whole picture in terms of what larger or less well off households can afford to pay.

A single person living in a flat and taking home £1,500 a month, for example, can pay £525 in rent, leaving them with just under £1,000 to live on.

But clearly this £1,000 would not stretch as far for a single-income, two-parent family with three children.

A room in a flat share at about £500 a month may be affordable and appropriate for that single person.

It is also technically affordable for the family of five, but it does not constitute appropriate accommodation.

Equally, a family of four paying 35% of a household income of £6,500 a month still has £4,225 left to pay for food, utilities, leisure and so on.

The same-sized family earning a total of £1,500 a month has £975 left.

The government in 2007 used 25% of gross income as the figure for what was affordable.

Westminster v Burnley

According to figures from building society Nationwide, in 2016 the average UK mortgage payment was 34.5% of take-home pay.

This figure has remained fairly consistent since 2009.

How affordable home ownership is to you also depends heavily on where you live.

Average house prices range across the country between £129,750 in north-east England and £484,716 in London, while average weekly earnings range from £483 in the East Midlands to £671 in London.

The Office for National Statistics looks at the ratio between average annual salaries and house prices when considering affordability.

The London Borough of Westminster was the least affordable place to buy a house in 2015, with prices 23 times greater than the median gross annual salary.

Burnley was the most affordable place to buy a house in 2015, with prices at less than four times the average salary.

Harron Homes left us hanging for months over our half-built house

Divine — Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:00:12 +0000

We agreed to purchase a new £240,000 house from Harron Homes in December 2015. We paid a deposit in January 2016 and were told the house would be ready towards the end of May. Unfortunately, May came and went, as did June, July, August, September, October and November. Over that time we were constantly given the impression that we would be moving in soon. What actually happened was the house was left half-built and roofless for about three months while the development was built around it.

The neighbouring properties were completed – as were several other homes on the development – while ours was left untouched. We had to move in with my parents, a four-hour commute from my new job in Sheffield, while the months ticked by. I lived away from the family so I could get to work, and, after we were supposed to have moved in, my wife gave birth to our second child, who has had to spend her first six months in a Moses basket. Because we were continually promised the house would be ready imminently, we were unable to find somewhere to rent, put our goods in storage or book a holiday. The entire family has suffered stress due to sharing a cramped home in an unfamiliar area.

Harron Homes has made no effort to address our concerns. My requests to speak to someone in senior management have been rebuffed.

We were finally told we could complete on 16 December. Then, after I had booked carpet fitters, hired a van, ordered a sofa, and arranged for a floor fitter for the kitchen and bathrooms, and friends to help with the move, we were told this had been pushed back to 21 December. We had virtually no time to set up before Christmas. SB, Aberdeen

It’s been a bad couple of years for Harron Homes. In September it was criticised by Kirklees council for leaving purchasers on a different development homeless for eight months when work overran. In December 2015 a wall on another of its estates collapsed, crushing three cars whose owners were told they must claim on their own insurance. And, in April 2015, residents on a new estate in Huddersfield went to the press over their “homes from hell” after 11 months of flooding and damp.

Harron Homes declines to comment on your complaint, but it did ensure that you exchanged successfully on 21 December, seven months after you had hoped to move in.

Builders must give reliable information about when the home will be finished, but most are careful to provide estimated dates in contracts so they are not legally bound to observe them. If an unreasonable delay occurs, you have the right to back out and get a full refund of your reservation fee. Obviously that’s an unattractive proposition, as you would have to start house-hunting again from scratch.