Sign The Petition For Better Quality New Homes

moneyistooshorttomention

Cakeguts wrote: »

Would I be right in thinking that people do a bit of research into an area before they buy a house there? Where I used to live there was a piece of land that was known to be unsuitable for building on. This was common knowledge. The land was soft. A developer built an estate of houses on that land and people bought them. The first thing that happened was that the sewers collapsed. I seem to remember that some houses were demolished because of structural problems. You cannot legislate against stupidity. It was common knowledge that anyone buying a house on this estate was taking a risk but people still bought them and this was in an area where there wasn't a housing shortage.

But a lot of people wouldnt have known that fact. I know that I became aware (over the years) of areas like that (ie "Can't buy there because it used to be a rubbish dump/can't buy there because it's a flood plain"). In current area I've become aware of places like that - but it does take a while before one realises just where builders shouldnt be building. It's thoroughly understandable that one does expect other people to know their job/be trustworthy/etc - and we are entitled to do so. Sadly- cynicism comes into play over the years and one realises just how many people don't know their job and/or can't be trusted....eg builders.

Personally - I do think/am quite convinced that people should be able to rely on other people knowing what's what and doing their job properly and with integrity. One shouldnt have to check EVERYONE out ALL THE TIME and should be able to take it on trust that sometimes other people know their job as well as they say they do (it's called "expecting other people to take Personal Responsibility").

I know...I know...and with age cometh cynicism...ie a steadily higher and higher proportion of the human race one makes a mental note not to trust.....:(

Davesnave

Cakeguts wrote: »

Yes they know their grade but how many people actually fail as in are not given any grade? Knowing where you come in terms of grades is not the same as actually failing and not being given any grade.

Sorry that's lost on me.

I don't believe I've ever met a child who is so stupid they feel anything below C is worth a light, except perhaps a good D, indicating a possible C in future, with more application.

There's plenty wrong with schools, however, and in the context of this thread, the lack of respect they give to more practical subjects must be one of them. We have always been a nation known for invention and free thinking, but you'd never think it when time/cash devoted to design technology is investigated!

anotheruser

NewShadow wrote: »

do the phrases pig in a poke and caveat emptor mean anything to you?

Take some responsibility for looking at what you're buying before your hand over the money!

Yep, but let's not hide behind ancient phrases or sayings...

If you're selling a house, it's easy to hide this and that and NOBODY is going to look everywhere before handing over the huge sums of money - the seller would probably back out thinking they will be problem buyers.

If we knew what we did before buying our house, we would have offered lower, easily. I would almost consider it boarding on fraud as the home owner must have known a lot of the problems, but led us to believe they didn't exist or would be solved before they moved.

There needs to be more honesty from sellers IMO.

marksoton

anotheruser wrote: »

Yep, but let's not hide behind ancient phrases or sayings...

If you're selling a house, it's easy to hide this and that and NOBODY is going to look everywhere before handing over the huge sums of money - the seller would probably back out thinking they will be problem buyers.

If we knew what we did before buying our house, we would have offered lower, easily. I would almost consider it boarding on fraud as the home owner must have known a lot of the problems, but led us to believe they didn't exist or would be solved before they moved.

There needs to be more honesty from sellers IMO.

Not going to happen. Buyer beware is apt because it's true.

Cakeguts

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

But a lot of people wouldnt have known that fact. I know that I became aware (over the years) of areas like that (ie "Can't buy there because it used to be a rubbish dump/can't buy there because it's a flood plain"). In current area I've become aware of places like that - but it does take a while before one realises just where builders shouldnt be building. It's thoroughly understandable that one does expect other people to know their job/be trustworthy/etc - and we are entitled to do so. Sadly- cynicism comes into play over the years and one realises just how many people don't know their job and/or can't be trusted....eg builders.

Personally - I do think/am quite convinced that people should be able to rely on other people knowing what's what and doing their job properly and with integrity. One shouldnt have to check EVERYONE out ALL THE TIME and should be able to take it on trust that sometimes other people know their job as well as they say they do (it's called "expecting other people to take Personal Responsibility").

I know...I know...and with age cometh cynicism...ie a steadily higher and higher proportion of the human race one makes a mental note not to trust.....:(

There is a step between builders buying unsuitable land and them building on it. It is called planning permission.

Should local planners grant planning permission for houses on old refuse tips, flood plains and bits of soft peaty land?

slowpoke_rodriguez

Davesnave wrote: »

There is no pass & fail as in the old days

Exactly.
........................................................................................

marksoton

slowpoke_rodriguez wrote: »

Exactly.
........................................................................................

RIP the clerk of works

[Deleted User]

venna wrote: »

I'd agree that houses from the 1800s and early/mid 1900s are probably better build as there still existed a more wide spread notion of community and doing things for the common good e.g. inception of the NHS.
Now there seems to exist an 'I'm alright, hard luck on you' and loss of community (see lots of posts above). Companies are praised for making as much for their shareholders as possible rather than shamed for poor practice. Why are some people proud of making themselves rich on the backs of others misery.
A Tory backbencher proposed a motion a few years back to force councils to release small parcels of land, with utility connections, to individuals and self builders. This is how a lot of houses are built on the continent. Unsurprisingly the proposal was tburied ... lobbying by big builders perhaps scared of competition?

Your petition may not be perfect OP but thank you for trying to do something for the common good. That's why I signed it.

lol you do realise that from 1832 onwards workhouses existed, along with 'Poor Law'? Along with enormous slum estates. Gradually sanitation was improved so a 'social conscience' was developing but not as far as house building was concerned. The NHS was created after the second world war.., but the medical profession were mostly against it.

After the second world war there was an enormous building programme, but quality had nothing to do with it.., it was 'build 'em quick' at its worse. They were bigger than houses are now.., but little else had changed. They had indoor bathrooms and hot water but that didn't mean the build quality was brilliant. There have always been builders cutting corners, even in the 1700's. Ask any restorer.

There have been shareholders for hundreds of years, and they've always wanted to make profit.., and will drive down costs to do so. Building techniques have changed but there have always been drives to build cheaper. We have just refined this process a bit more as the decades have dragged on, nothing to do with a decline of willingness to build good quality houses. If they could have built like they do today a hundred years ago, they would have done happily.

moneyistooshorttomention

Cakeguts wrote: »

There is a step between builders buying unsuitable land and them building on it. It is called planning permission.

Should local planners grant planning permission for houses on old refuse tips, flood plains and bits of soft peaty land?

True indeed.

It's a two step process:

- builders should be trustworthy enough to only wish to build on land that is suitable for it in the first place and then build decent standard housing

- local planners shouldn't give planning permission for building on unsuitable land.

I can readily believe that Councils in some areas would be duff enough to agree planning permission on sites they really shouldn't. Some Councils are appalling at being more concerned with personal ego massaging than doing the jobs they were elected for properly.

In fairness - many of the efficient type of Council are getting pressurised by the Government to build/build/build anywhere.

I still think the onus lies, first and foremost, with builders to ensure they do their job properly (starting with only choosing suitable sites).

Actually - at its most basic level - if builders could only build if they did so to proper standard (not bodge standard) they would have two choices. They would have to either up their game or go out of business. Bad builders going out of business could mean fewer builders and mean fewer houses built. Now that leads on to a whole new ballgame - of which I personally see the positive points (ie less building). My mind moved swiftly on from there though to the cynical take that maybe the Government would prefer many builders (including bad builders) to having only good builders...

robatwork

House build quality has been inversely proportional to the time the NHBC has been in existence.

Make of that what you will.