I was just writing about issues with parking on a new build estate in Devon and how developers try to maximise the number of units on a site by minimising parking and play areas etc. If residents are lucky the local council will intervene to ensure that certain features are required to get planning consent. However, this doesn’t mean the builders actually meet the requirements set by the builders. We know the builders are not afraid of flouting the law to maximise profits and here is an example of Barratt Homes not providing a play area:

Children have no safe place to play because their parents say a housing development has been left without its promised play area. Installing a play area was part of the planning conditions for the Barratt Homes development at Lady Beam Court in Kelly Bray.
But more than two years after moving in, residents are still waiting for the facility. Sean Milne, who lives at the Lady Beam Court development with his wife and four children, said he bought a house on the back of the plans.
‘We thought there would be a play area and now all we’ve been left with is an empty, muddy field,’ he said.

Read more over at the Cornish Times.

Do you have a complaint about new build homes? Do you want the chance to win  £30? Then visit www.complaintletter.org.uk.

Complaints about alleged defects in new homes are increasing, despite a slump in the number of properties sold in the recession. Complaints to the National House Building Council (NHBC), which offers warranties on 80% of new homes, topped 64,000 in 2008/09. This is up only slightly from 63,000 in 2007/08 but comes in a year when there was a 40% drop in the number of new homes sold because of the credit crunch.

In addition to gathering evidence, we have been working hard to ensure that our study complements other reviews across government and minimises the burden on our stakeholders. In particular we have held discussions with the NAO about its announced study into part of the planning regime. The two organisations have worked together to make sure that the scopes of the two studies are complementary. In order to avoid an overlap with the NAO we have refined the scope of our homebuilding market study to omit any detailed examination of the planning regime. We will limit our work on planning to looking at the impact of features which may have a strong link to our analysis of competition.

The main focus of the study remains on the areas of: the impact on output of changing prices (the apparent weak supply response) and the homebuyer’s satisfaction with new homes.

As we explained at the launch of the study in June 2007, possible outcomes of the study include:

1. giving the market a clean bill of health
2. publishing information to help consumers
3. encouraging firms to take voluntary action
4. encouraging an industry code of practice
5. making recommendations to the Government or sector regulators
6. investigation and enforcement action against companies suspected of breaching consumer or competition law, or
7. a market investigation reference to the Competition Commission.

By way of update at this stage, we are discussing with stakeholders whether or not the evidence we have collected so far indicates that the market is broadly competitive – by this we do not mean that the sector is entirely free from problems but just that the problems that may exist may not be inconsistent with a market which is functioning on a competitive basis. If this is the case, it may suggest that the apparent weak supply response (the number of new homes built may not keep pace with rising prices) is likely to reflect land supply and the relationship between capacity and the economic cycle.

On the consumer side, we are discussing with stakeholders whether or not the evidence shows that there is room for improvement in homebuyer satisfaction levels.

The next stage of the study will review our initial work and conclude several case studies around the UK to give a real life context to the analysis. We will continue to discuss our findings and thinking with our stakeholders and to assist this process we intend to publish, in draft, elements of our commissioned research from time to time. We have published a draft version of our survey examining consumer satisfaction.

Download the draft OFT house building survey (pdf 505 kb)

While we see partnerships between local authorities and developers as key to unlocking the urban land supply that is needed to deliver housing growth, it is essential not to neglect other parts of the market. In the past, it has been the smaller and medium sized housebuilders who have delivered much of the volume growth.We must continue to support and encourage this segment of the market and provide opportunities for the small and medium sized firms to be part of the industry’s growth.We have made a variety of recommendations to achieve this, including securing a supply of smaller sites and ensuring that they are viable.

We have recommended that no general action should be taken to force the faster build-out of land banks; we are clear that this will put production at risk, not add to it. However, there is no reason why Government or other public agencies should not stipulate faster build-out rates when disposing of land for housebuilding or within partnering agreements, so long as they can justify any loss of value this may incur. We have also made some recommendations for more transparency in the use and status of land for future housebuilding.

Similarly we have not recommended that Government stipulate the use of specific methods of construction. Our view is that over time the industry itself will determine what are the most cost-effective techniques.We welcome the new higher performance standards now being required by both the Housing Corporation and English Partnerships. This is certainly the right approach to promoting innovation and quality. In the current housebuilding market, however, there are insufficient incentives for quality. The returns to housebuilders for investing in quality barely justify the effort.

In the drive for increased quality, we are recommending that within the next two years, housebuilders seeking Government grants or other public subsidy must achieve customer satisfaction standards which have been established by an independent led survey. Efforts should be made to make sure this stipulation does not inhibit small and medium size builders and developers. The existing regulatory and warranty frameworks are an inadequate substitute for market disciplines.We are therefore recommending new arrangements for design review and for construction which incentivise good quality and impose real penalties for poor quality.

One of the most challenging aspects of our Review was to consider the increase in housebuilding alongside the Government’s aspiration to be world class in the delivery of zero-carbon homes by 2016.

We conclude that with multiple technical options and long lead times in the production supply chain, the industry itself will be stretched to meet the goals in this very tight timeframe, but with the Government demonstrating strong leadership, direction and being firm in its commitment, the industry and its supply chain, including construction products manufacturers and energy suppliers, can meet our zero carbon targets. We have provided a delivery timetable which shows a number of actions that need to be set in hand now to make this happen. In particular we consider it is essential to establish a delivery body which will lead and co-ordinate the efforts of all parties towards the zero carbon target.

In conclusion, our Review shows clearly that the housebuilding industry and its supply chain have the potential to deliver 240,000 new good quality homes a year by 2016 and to achieve the zero carbon targets. However, the industry is answerable only to its investors and shareholders and not to the public interest. This is why most of our recommendations are addressed to central and local government. It is their business, not that of the industry, to deliver public goals.We are clear, however, that by following our recommendations Government will put in place a framework of incentives and opportunities which will create a strong commercial motive on the part of the sector and its shareholders to deliver the Government’s targets for 2016 and beyond.

Full Report

IT IS probably the biggest purchase in anyone’s lifetime – yet buyers of newly built homes have fewer rights than someone buying a loaf of bread.

Now the Scottish Consumer Council (SCC) is calling on the government to include new-build houses in the Sale of Goods Act in order to give more protection to purchasers amid a rising tide of complaints about getting builders to return to the house to deal with “snagging” – minor but vexing faults.

In its response to the Office of Fair Trading’s (OFT) examination of the new-build market, the SCC says people buying from builders need new rights and should be assured of much clearer standards.

Nearly two thirds of those questioned (65 per cent) agreed that Britain needs more homes, and 63 per cent think that within the next five years a shortage of housing will be a serious problem.

The survey also canvassed opinion on quality. Some 52 per cent of the public described the appearance and design of new homes built in their local area in the last two years as very good or fairly good, compared to 24 per cent who thought they were fairly poor or very poor.

Housing and Planning Minister Yvette Cooper said:

People want to know that their sons and daughters will be able to afford a home of their own. That is why many people in our communities now recognise the need to build the new homes that the next generation needs. Unless we increase house building rates less than a third of thirty year old couples will be able to afford a home of their own in twenty years time.

She added:

Our challenge though is to make sure that the homes are built in the right places, with tough environmental standards, well-designed and attractive places to live with all the services, transport links, schools and hospitals needed to create the communities we all want to live in.

She went on to say:

The Government has set out clear proposals to meet this challenge and wants to see a growing consensus on supporting the aspirations of our young people. That means public and private sectors working and investing together to strengthen our economy, protect the environment and meet the housing needs not just of some but of all.

Those choosing new-build homes, lured by the low running costs and high specifications, may believe they have chosen the safe option. But recent research shows there is a high chance they will move into a home riddled with defects, or snags, potentially costing them a fortune to put right. The problem has steadily been getting worse. The first National Customer Satisfaction Survey carried out in 2001 by the Housing Forum showed that 81% of homes had defects compared with 93% in 2006.

Homebuyers are not being given the information they need and are legally entitled to about the energy efficiency of brand new homes, according to the National Energy Services (NES) and De Montfort University.

Undercover researchers discovered that 98% of house builders’ sites fail to comply with the current Building Regulations to display SAP energy ratings. Three quarters of the builders’ sales negotiators interviewed by researchers could not explain the SAP energy rating to customers, and over half didn’t even realise that new homes now come with an energy rating at all. Read more

]]>