Your house may never be worth as much again

Graham_Devon

RenovationMan wrote: »

A lot of them will be self-employed and so wont have TW supplied pension, sick pay or anything. They'll come in, do their job and then move onto the next building. They'll be paid by the hour for the work they do, if there is no further work, then they don't get paid.

Yup. Remember my dad saying his firm were paying bricklayers £1 a brick and £3 a block. That would have been around 2005/6. Everyone was self employed bar the managers and forman. They owned harldy any of their own assets, with all machinery hired in. Electricians etc would have to bring their own materials etc.

Major building firm, just can't remember the parent name of the firm, H something, haliford something.

Dunno if that's how all the firms operate.

Really2

House builders costs approx are

1/3 Land
1/3 Materials
1/3 Labour

A one off job would be more expensive as you lose economy's of scale.

To extend our old house would have cost £70K I dare say half or more of that was going to be labour so £12K for a house does sound low.
Sure he did not miss a £0 off the end GD.

Graham_Devon

Blacklight wrote: »

Graham, you really have no idea. Stop embarrasing yourself.

On top of basic rates including tax you have:

NI, CITB levy, insurances, accidental death, lodging, traveling time, transport and fuel, PPE, training (CSCS, plant tickets, safety: SSSTS, SMSTS, COSHH, CPCS), pension, holiday and bonus payments. All have to be factored in to labour costs to the company.

WAY out?

Again, LOL.

As already explained, most are self employed. However, looking at those on the books....

Lodging? Sorry? How many labourers do you know who get their living accomodation paid for?!

Travelling time? Sorry? How many labourers do you know who get paid to travel to the building site?!

Fuel etc is a business cost, not an employee cost.

Holidays don't even come into the equation, thats all based in the salary cost.

Pensions I had already included. NI I had already included.

Bonuse's are not mandatory, so cannot be incluided in the cost to employ someone.

You still want to tell me I have no clue and run with this nonsense? Remember, you are talking about the costs of employing someone, not the costs of running the business.

Looks like the usual suspects are here to argue this one out by whatever means neccesary

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm not going to argue it.

ok then...

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I know it happened. Whether they were lying about the costs I can't comment on, but I don't see why they would.

I've been in the house, and know it wasn't there, and then 3 months later it was and they were in it.

The person commisioning the build was able to do a lot himself afterwards, such as interior decor. They fitted their own kitchen, so no doubt that bought the costs down.

Feel free to question it. They is afterall no definitive "cost to build a house". But I don't fancy arguing over it, as it's not something I can prove, and I have no intentions of doing so.

do you really mean that you're not going to 'argue'?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Again, LOL.

As already explained, most are self employed. However, looking at those on the books....

Lodging? Sorry? How many labourers do you know who get their living accomodation paid for?!

Travelling time? Sorry? How many labourers do you know who get paid to travel to the building site?!

Fuel etc is a business cost, not an employee cost.

Holidays don't even come into the equation, thats all based in the salary cost.

Pensions I had already included. NI I had already included.

Bonuse's are not mandatory, so cannot be incluided in the cost to employ someone.

You still want to tell me I have no clue and run with this nonsense? Remember, you are talking about the costs of employing someone, not the costs of running the business.

Looks like the usual suspects are here to argue this one out by whatever means neccesary

oh... i can see that you're not going to argue...

£12k to build a house :rotfl:
that's nearly as bad as 50% off by Christmas 2009!!

RenovationMan

It's also usual for a builder to take on a fixed rate contract and then have a couple more contracts on the go at the same time which allows them to do lower quotes because they have a few on the go. They also quote fixed prices knowing that the final bill will usually be higher because of changes to the spec or extras that the client hadn't considered. If Graham_Devon's friend stuck to his original spec, then it's feasible that he got a decent price. If we exclude the wet trades and electricians, then all that is required are bricklayers and roofers, and often you find a builder skilled in both trades. If he does 3 days per week actually on site then 3 months equates to 40 days of work, so £150 per day. A keen price, but not impossible.

Graham_Devon

Surprised those who are actually enquiring about the price as if it's just not do-able and therefore I'm wrong, haven't even bothered asking what was actually built.

I've been waiting for it, as it's basically the biggest indicator of cost, but absolutely no one has asked what was actually paid for while trying to make out it's wrong.

Really2

RenovationMan wrote: »

If he does 3 days per week actually on site then 3 months equates to 40 days of work, so £150 per day.

Could one man build a house in 40 days. They seem to take a few months near me with 5 or 6 people on them.

Ps What did they build GD you put they had their house built from scratch. I just fail to see how building and materials could be less than 10% of the cost and Legal and land be 90%?

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Could one man build a house in 40 days. They seem to take a few months near me with 5 or 6 people on them.

Ps What did they build GD you put they had their house built from scratch. I just fail to see how building and materials could be less than 10% of the cost and Legal and land be 90%?

Then you need to read too.

chucknorris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Surprised those who are actually enquiring about the price as if it's just not do-able and therefore I'm wrong, haven't even bothered asking what was actually built.

I've been waiting for it, as it's basically the biggest indicator of cost, but absolutely no one has asked what was actually paid for while trying to make out it's wrong.

That is quite correct, I did start to type a reply to you, but being a chartered quantity surveyor I didn't really think it was fair. But my first comment was going to be is this a terrace infill? As I was having problems accepting the labour cost. Even with a terrace infill project I would still stuggle with that low cost though.

Blacklight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Then you need to read too.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

LOL.

The land and legal fee's made up 90% of the cost at least.

Therefore three months labour and materials = 10%