Building Regs Committee Hearing - Scottish Parliament

[jamiehamy]

Have started reading through this - really interesting reading,  even for those in E&W. Quite topical to a lot we've discussed on this forum before in many guises. 

 

Would be interested in thoughts? 

 

http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=10927&i=99936

[MikeSharp01]

This is really interesting @jamiehamy the discussion gets a bit detailed but the tennor of it is very clear - the inspection system that everybody thinks is in place is not and never really was. Quality of build was actually a function of pride rather than QA or QC of you like. The deskilling / delayering of the workforce on the building sites, the lowest bid price culture and the risk based approach taken by the Scottish system all play their part in creating an almost perfectly disfunctional system which does not have the consumer / house buyer anywhere near the center of the mix. 

[jamiehamy]

I've had a more full read now - I'm amazed how spot on and how informed the committee was and how on point the questioning was. 

 

I know a few people who bought brand new houses and had problems - and the common theme was that the NHBC was not worth anything - and this was brought out in the questioning - they provide an impartial evaluation but the only people they warrant are the people who pay a fee to be registered with them and use their name - in effect, it's a license to print their own money really!

It matches with testimony on here and ebuild about the whole inspection regime and value of the warranty. 

 

It's quite amazing that home buyers have virtually no real, effective form of recourse for shoddy or dangerous workmanship. And that complaining to your Trading Standards is pointless as there is a conflict because they are run by the same people who run the Building Control department! Bonkers actually!

 

I'll be interested to see the output from the committee. 

 

 

[MikeSharp01]

Not sure the NHBC has no value as without it most homes are not mortgageable, so it gets you a mortgage, but that is also a ticking time bomb because it won't be the mortgage company who picks up the pieces when it all falls to bits, it will be the home owner who thought they had a guarantee.

 

 

[jamiehamy]

10 minutes ago, MikeSharp01 said:

Not sure the NHBC has no value as without it most homes are not mortgageable, so it gets you a mortgage, but that is also a ticking time bomb because it won't be the mortgage company who picks up the pieces when it all falls to bits, it will be the home owner who thought they had a guarantee.

 

 

Fair point - it's just all vested interests all over the place and when you delve into it - who is watching the watchmen? I think if the NHBC didn't have such a poor reputation and we hadn't seen to many recent issues with build quality this might not be getting discussed in parliament - if they carry on like this, they might just have opened a can of worms that can't be closed tho!

[Stones]

I've had a good read through as well.  The main thrust of the examples given by MSP's were of constituents facing hefty bills for repair work, and it seemed clear that none of the industry contributors wanted to address this issue.  The analogy of a pair of shoes, a car and house and the length of time you would expect them to be free of defect was I think a good one.  

 

The problem for policy makers is that increased building control inspection may well reduce some of the structural issues that currently emerge, but the costs of having an increased inspection scheme would I suspect, be prohibitive (if every house was thoroughly checked).  Even then, this would do little to address a lot of the cosmetic or minor defects that new homeowners discover.  The problem there is frstly the standard of finish, and then developers being uninterested in making the repairs / being too busy building the next house, and NHBC guidelines which developers hide behind to say certain things are acceptable and it's just tough luck.  Whilst the majority of people are quite happy to buy into such developments, at the build/finish quality they see at the showhouse, there is little incentive for developers to up their game in that respect.

 

One of the more useful / valuable protections offered by the NHBC is the cover provided before completion.  Up to £100K.   

[ProDave]

The main thing that jumped out at me was things like nhbc are NOT about improving standards. And those that have had problems have had great difficulty getting nhbc or others to pay to fix them.  Thankfully we don't need (or want) a mortgage, and don't intend to sell within 10 years, so have saved ourselves the cost of such a white elephant. 

[PeterW]

I got NHBC to pay by asking them how many more houses on the estate might have the same problem ....

[Stones]

I think the issue is one of expectation, if you are spending a couple of hundred thousand, it's not unreasonable to expect a good standard of workmanship, longevity and that anything the goes wrong will be put right.  The NHBC logo appears in developers marketing as if they prove what they build are gold standard homes and that they are guaranteed.  They are, but not in the way purchasers think, as they later find out.  I've no doubt NHBC does pay out on various things, but getting to that point, from all I've heard anecdotally, is not easy.  

[jamiehamy]

21 minutes ago, PeterW said:

I got NHBC to pay by asking them how many more houses on the estate might have the same problem ....

That was one of the most... interesting.... points drawn out. If on an estate of 250 houses,  14 had foundation defects reported,  NHBC would make no attempt to investigate if the issue affected any of the rest - they expect the LABC to do this. That was astonishing.