Builders urinating on the walls inside new build house

makeitstop

davidmcn wrote: »

No. You haven't suffered a loss. It's not going to make the slightest bit of difference to the completed house.

No that's true but she has suffered some distress, which is far harder to establish the effects of.

The bottom line is that it's not great practise and should be clearly stated to all on site that it isn't done.

It isn't exactly customer confidence building stuff is it.

duchy

What do you want the outcome to be ?

Money ?
A different house on the development ?
A apology ?

When complaining it's always best to be clear what your required result is.

iammumtoone

Years ago this probably did happen all the time, but I suspect the practice has been stopped, much like builders no longer whistle at women as they walk past (well not so much anyway unless they have just stopped with me as I have got older :rotfl:)

Building sites all have portable toilets these days.

makeitstop

martindow wrote: »

I can't see that there really is a problem here. Maybe if the house is going to have exposed brickwork it could be a minor concern, but if the walls are going to be plastered none of this will be exposed.

When you get into the house there will be germs there as they are around us all the time in the air and on surfaces. Wash your hands before cooking and eating as you normally would and stop worrying.

In theory this might be true yeh, but it's not really great to leave it like that for any buyer to find is it.

Houses are not small beans purchases, and people want to feel good about buying, not made to feel as though their new home is being contaminated by the people working on it. It might not be a massive problem by any means, but it's poor practise.

Failing to see that (or refusing to see it) doesn't make it ok.

I would bet those on the board of the company wouldn't be thrilled if this was done as standard in EVERY home they build, and if all buyers were aware of it.

What would it do for the reputation of these businesses.

margaretclare

Normally on a building site there is a unisex 'portaloo'.

makeitstop

Who is the builder.???....and where is the site.???

margaretclare

Faye125 wrote: »

Urine is not sterile. It is a common misconception that it is.

I wouldn't mind if they had done it 2 meters away through the opening that is for the door (that has not yet been fitted) into the garden. My issue is that they chose to do it inside the house. There was no reason at all for it

Urine is sterile while it is still within the body. Once it is outside, it begins to decompose, hence the smell of ammonia.

DUTR

Faye125 wrote: »

I have thought about the media/ social media but my priority is to try and get the problem sorted first. The builder told me that the urine wont have soaked into the breeze blocks due to it being porous... It will have "dried out"... He is just trying to say anything he can to play this down.

Snip

Thanks

If you really done your homework, then you would already know the builder is telling the truth that brick is porous.

makeitstop

DUTR wrote: »

If you really done your homework, then you would already know the builder is telling the truth that brick is porous.

Maybe yeh, but you can only get something to soak up liquid if it "is" porous, so in effect, what he said was utter tosh.

Excuses for poor practise. nowt new in new build developments.

Faye125

DUTR wrote: »

If you really done your homework, then you would already know the builder is telling the truth that brick is porous.

I am not disputing that a brick is porus! I am questioning how the urine would "dry out". Surely the water content of the urine would evaporate into the air, but the rest of it would be left on the bricks. So being reassured that there is no problem due to the bricks pourousness seems strange.