False advertising? Already exchanged contracts - Any advice?

Dan-Dan

fairy_lights wrote: »

I seem to be in a minority here but I don't think it looks particularly bad. Yes it's a different shade of brown but it's not jarringly different. The wall is attached to your house, but not part of your house, so I don't think it's odd that it's a different colour.

but it is part of the propertys boundary and features , as mentioned , if the OP didnt own any of the land behind it , then fair enough.....around our way a lot of house have the link detached garage attached , would you believe it , the brickwork matches the houses!

PlutoinCapricorn

It may not look so bad in that picture, but with both houses shown it looks to me as though the red house is stretching out an arm to take in the Op's garden.

pinkteapot

PlutoinCapricorn wrote: »

It may not look so bad in that picture, but with both houses shown it looks to me as though the red house is stretching out an arm to take in the Op's garden.

Agree. It looks like that land all belongs to next door and OP's should be to the right of their house.

Worth people following the link to the whole album, and although the CAD drawing is only an artist's impression, it clearly shows a wall that matches the house. Whether OP has any rights at all based on that is a question for their solicitor and sadly the answer is probably no.

ReadingTim

emjaybeee wrote: »

PLEASE NOTE the other property is IDENTICAL to ours in spec other than the colour of the brickwork.

If the house spec is exactly the same, I'd be very surprised if the bricks used aren't the same spec, and the apparent colour differences are merely the result of slight aging and weathering - perhaps yours had been sitting outside on a pallet for a few months waiting to be used, whereas these have just come out of the kiln.

Furthermore, from a practical perspective, if the builder can't locate bricks which exactly match the colour and shade of your house, any wall is going to look slightly different.

I think you're on a hiding to nowhere with this one OP...

TBagpuss

Before I saw the pictures I assumed that one house was red brick and the other was cotswold stone, or some major difference like that.

I don't think it looks odd. If I thought about it at all, the conclusion I would draw would be that the wall might have been built later than the house, or that the builders started a new batch of bricks.

I wouldn't make any assumptions at all about who the land behind belonged to. Presumably there is a fence or wall between the two gardens, so there won't be any doubt as to what you own if you come to sell.

I think changing the colour part way along a wall would look far, far worse than having a minor colour difference between house and garden wall, I can't see builders being prepared to agree to that, both because of the added cost and because of the potential to make the estate as a whole look worse.

I'm also not convinced by your statement

It gives it a stronger presence on the estate, ultimately adding value to their property or devaluing ours

- I would say that in so far as it is likely to have any impact at all, you are more likely to find that anything which means your property looks less like a cookie-cutter part of an estate would be more likely to be a positive than a negative.

Obviously this is a subjective matter. I agree that you are likely to be on a hiding to nothing in terms of trying to get them to knock it down and start again. I think if you do raise it, you're likely to have more luck trying to negotiate some other concession to make up for your disappointment.

nidO

ReadingTim wrote: »

I'd be very surprised if the bricks used aren't the same spec, and the apparent colour differences are merely the result of slight aging and weathering - perhaps yours had been sitting outside on a pallet for a few months waiting to be used, whereas these have just come out of the kiln.

TBagpuss wrote: »

I don't think it looks odd. If I thought about it at all, the conclusion I would draw would be that the wall might have been built later than the house, or that the builders started a new batch of bricks.

Are you two looking at the same pictures as everyone else?
The different sets of bricks involved are quite obviously totally different colours, they clearly aren't just one set that's weathered a bit and one not.

ReadingTim wrote: »

If the house spec is exactly the same, I'd be very surprised if the bricks used aren't the same spec

From my experience this is perfectly common, builders routinely take exactly the same design of house then give them different coloured bricks, render, and/or roof tiles, presumably so the area doesn't look too monotonous.

Jhoney_2

It would irk a little.

Can they not do something to lighten them halfway? Like a whitewash solution- but professionally with appropriate materials for external use?

There must be something that can be done. Even painting your part of the brickwork (white?) would define and make it more normalised to the eye. Perhaps suggest that they paint it regularly as a nod to the error - and get it in writing this time, not a CAD drawing lol.

Failing that, are there other plots available?

ReadingTim

nidO wrote: »

Are you two looking at the same pictures as everyone else?
The different sets of bricks involved are quite obviously totally different colours, they clearly aren't just one set that's weathered a bit and one not.

No - totally different colours are the difference between the bottom 3 rows of bricks and the ones above it. The difference between the wall and the house is different shades of the same colour.

dodger1

Have no idea on legality but it does look awful IMO.

carefullycautious

My hubby who spent many years on building sites says that he would be well p***ed if he was expected to hand over his hard earned money for that. He thinks it looks awful.


Hope your solicitor can sort this out for you.