Weak Mortar In Taylor Wimpey New Homes

The great weak mix mortar scandal – Part Three

My first article highlighted the weak mortar scandal and the reasons why the industry has now widely adopted factory manufactured ‘just add water’ mortar, along with technical reasons which might explain why incidence of weak mortar in new homes is increasing. My second article I followed up on “Britain’s crumbling new homes” on the BBC2 Victoria Derbyshire programme on 6 December 2018.

So in this part three article, I will expand on last week’s BBC Victoria Derbyshire story featuring 130 homes built using an incorrect M2.5 weak mix mortar on the Taylor Wimpey ‘Kingsmeadow’ development at Kittlegairy in Peebles and the seven homeowners’ 2-year battle with Taylor Wimpey. Weak Mortar Taylor Wimpey development Peebles

In 2008, Taylor Wimpey started building houses in Kittlegairy, Peebles,  approved by Scottish Borders Council with designation (iii) prescribed mix mortar specified. That is mortar with a cement content of 14% – 17% and deemed equivalent to an M4 factory produced design mix mortar. Unbeknown and undeclared to Scottish Borders Council, Taylor Wimpey, for reasons as yet unknown, used a Tarmac silo M2.5 design mix which had a cement content 6% less than that approved and under HALF the cement content required (M6 or 1:3-4) to meet the NHBC warranty standard for areas of severe exposure, in which this development is located.

Tarmac Silo Design Mix Mortar

Sheila ChalmersPeebles homeowner Sheila Chalmers first contacted me for advice in October 2017 and featured on the programme. She told me: “In 2008, the Tarmac Mortar Specification Sheet (as supplied by Taylor Wimpey) stated that their M2.5 mix was the equivalent strength of (iii). This has changed since (I do not know when) with Tarmac’s current literature saying that their M4 is now the equivalent of (iii).” Tarmac also state on their website: The mix proportions of Tarmac dry silo mortar conform to values specified in the following table when tested by the methods prescribed in BS EN 1015 and BS 4551.

Tarmac recently confirmed to me that their PDF data sheet (April 2007)  sent to homeowners by Taylor Wimpey is genuine. Perhaps Taylor Wimpey used this data sheet when considering which design mix was required to match the specified designation (iii) equivalent mortar?
Taylor Wimpey attempts at concealing the issue

Sheila told me that around 2011/12 and unknown to the rest of the estate at that time, a house had started to show signs accredited to weak mortar, this being raised with Taylor Wimpey, the NHBC and the Scottish Borders Council. It was discovered that an undeclared change from prescribed mix mortar to design mix mortar had taken place. Sheila said “It was all kept very quiet with Scottish Borders choosing to not alert home owners that their houses may start to fail over the coming years.” Peebles site plan showing extent of homes Taylor Wimpey built using incorrect M2.5 mortarIn the years that followed, houses started to empty, with people literally disappearing overnight – Taylor Wimpey were buying back houses. Sheila indicated that “probably around 10 or 12 houses but it was still being kept hushed up. People were signing gagging orders and therefore kept quiet. Taylor Wimpey’s solution at the beginning of this, was to buy back the homes and silence the homeowners with non-disclosure agreements” Apparently some of the homeowners recently confirmed that Tradecast the repointing contractor, had been put under “severe pressure” by Taylor Wimpey and were instructed not to acknowledge any issues when challenged by homeowners. “In the early days, Taylor Wimpey were wanting Tradecast to park off-site and take taxis onto the estate in order to keep the problem quiet”

On 28 September 2016, four years after the mortar started to crumble on the first home,  Taylor Wimpey wrote to home owners admitting “some of the homes” did not meet the requirements of the NHBC. It outlined a 20-year extension warranty cover for mortar on every home on the development. Apparently then, if any homeowner was concerned, Taylor Wimpey would inspect with their engineer. Shelia told me that “as would be expected most did, with the majority being informed that there was nothing wrong with their houses, this despite owners now “scratch testing” their own mortar and seeing it crumbling away.” More owners began having their own mortar tests done with a wide variety of results, from between designation (i) 30% cement, to below (iv) less than 10% cement

Sheila said that Scottish Borders Council were coming under increasing heavy pressure from concerned homeowners and, after several families provided their structural results to the Council, it was forced to arrange its own structural assessment which carried out by Harley Haddow, on a random selection of houses within the development on 17 May 2018 . The Harley Haddon report had similar findings as the owners’ structural reports and giving a 10-year timeframe “the mortar will weather, will subsequently weaken and will undoubtedly result in failure” for the properties built with M2.5 mortar.

Harley Haddow’s report, shared with Taylor Wimpey, ultimately resulted in Taylor Wimpey letter on 19 September 2018 to all houses built with M2.5 mortar. It advised homeowners, despite Taylor Wimpey’s original rejection of repair works in many cases, that it has now finally agreed to carry out repointing works if the homeowner requested. The company still maintains that “only some houses in phase one have a durability issue and a significant number of houses where no issues have been identified.”
Weak mortar at Taylor Wimpey development in PeeblesSo despite Taylor Wimpey stating in their 2016 letter “we are fully committed to carrying out the works that are needed for the remaining affected homes as soon as possible” nevertheless, over three years later, homebuyers like Sheila have had a long battle with Taylor Wimpey to arrive at such an undertaking. Sheila says that “we felt that at that time if there was a problem, Taylor Wimpey would step up and rectify the problem no questions asked.”  The repointing Taylor Wimpey has finally agreed to “falls way short of what we should all be getting, ie, knock down and rebuild of our properties.”

“…the repointing of joints on walls where purposeful demolition and reconstruction should have happened”
Jo Churchill MP for Bury St Edmonds House of Commons debate (13 Dec 2017)

Even in statements for the BBC Victoria Derbyshire programme last week, Taylor Wimpey maintain that raking out and repointing with M6 mortar, which they have now finally agreed to carry out for Sheila during this summer, is still considered by them not to be necessary for Sheila’s home. This despite independent laboratory analysis of the mortar her home was built revealing as low as 8% cement content. It is interesting to note that Taylor Wimpey used Alastair Dick from David R Murray Consulting Engineers the same consultants that produced some of the engineering plans who have been involved in the project all along, can hardly be considered independent. When Sheila spoke to Mr Dick a couple of weeks ago, he told her “he was now relieved that Taylor Wimpey had agreed to repoint all the houses.” Sheila said, “you’ve knocked mine back several times” he told her “… there was a lot of pressure on them before the agreement was put in place.”
Independent mortar test resultsHowever, Taylor Wimpey told the BBC that the tests Sheila and her neighbours used were “not appropriate.” It said “The weaker mortar used on some of the houses is of sufficient strength to meet structural requirements… but it may present as less durable under prevailing exposure conditions”   “May”?

The good news is the internal mortar with 13% cement content just under the lower end of the 14% for M4 mix so could possibly be structurally sound. However the cement content of the remainder of the external walls falls below even M2.5. Of particular concern is the mortar used below ground which should have been a 1:3 mix as it is often saturated and subject to the actions of freeze thaw, even more likely in this area.

The 25mm deep raking out of mortar joints and repointing works will only improve durability and does not address the issue of the potentially weakened bond with the wall ties, reducing the stability and integrity of the cavity wall, which could in certain conditions, result in external walls becoming unstable and dangerous on exposed elevations. However, it is interesting to note that wall tie pull out tests, arranged by Taylor Wimpey and witnessed by Harley Haddow, found a pull out of 1KN or more, greater than the anticipated tension loads of 0.6KN and “the tensile capacity had not been demonstrably compromised by the bedding mortar’s friability. “

It is unimaginable, the extreme anxiety, worry and mental anguish that at times, must have been almost unbearable and detrimental to health, suffered by Sheila and her neighbours. This coupled with the expensive legal fees (around £350 an hour), structural survey fees and the cost of mortar testing which basically forced Sheila’s household into debts totalling £16,000, all caused by Taylor Wimpeys’ intransigence and the NHBC’s ongoing denial of what I believe, is a wholly valid warranty claim, over the last 24 months. Sheila told me “this could have all been avoided if Taylor Wimpey had admitted it instead of trying to bat this away and lie through their teeth. They knew all along when they built this bodged Estate but were quite happy to lie to us and say all is well, forcing us to spend huge sums (I am not the only one) to prove it. Legally, they don’t even have to reimburse our fees despite us proving all this.” Although Taylor Wimpey has told the BBC they will now do so.

Pete and Jill Hall have "garage built with sand"Sheila’s neighbours three doors away, Pete and Jill Hall also had a 2-year fight on their hands with Taylor Wimpey. They too had independent testing of their weak mortar, which in the worst case showed their garage had such a small cement content it could be considered to be built with virtually wet sand! After a heated meeting with Taylor Wimpey’s solicitors, Dentons UKMEA LLP, during which the Halls outlined the only options they would accept either: 1) Buy back the house, 2) Demolish it entirely and re build as it should have been or 3) Carry out works required to bring it to the standard it should be; much to their astonishment they received a letter from Taylor Wimpey’s solicitor. It said they were considering reporting the Halls under “Proceeds of crime legislation” with allegations of “clear and specific threats linked to demands of money and offering to conceal information if such money was paid and other demands met” Not quite as Taylor Wimpey claim “we always aim to do the right thing for our customers?” Now two years on, Taylor Wimpey has made an offer to the Halls. Jill told the BBC “It falls short of where we think a proper full repair should be but they [Taylor Wimpey] have basically turned round and said it’s that or nothing….I would never buy a new house again”

Notwithstanding the site-wide weak mortar, apparently this development also had other “workmanship” issues. As noted in Harley Haddow’s report: they “found examples of what we consider poor overall site quality control, over and above that of the mortar.” This including: poor restraint strapping details, homes with garden rooms where foundations are misaligned, missing wind posts in some house types and external DPCs below ground level. Shelia says “and the list goes on with regards to boilers and heating systems supplied.”

What about the NHBC? “Protecting homeowners”?

Shelia asked the NHBC reinspect her house and yet again it rejected her warranty claim saying that despite obvious gaps and holes in mortar joints there is no evidence of physical damage. At that time Sheila tells me the NHBC were made aware that M2.5 mortar had been used and not the M6 required for severe exposure areas and required in the NHBC warranty standards, but still “they would not budge”. Even the NHBC’s own inspector report concluded that the mortar class used throughout this development “indicates it may not be suitable to provide adequate durability”
NHBC Inspector's weak mortar report Peebles

“Once mortar deteriorates it will compromise the rest of the brickwork.” BDA

The final response from the NHBC:

Sheila’s home is now outside the 10-year warranty (by 5 months) and as far as the NHBC are concerned “that’s end of the matter”. The NHBC said:

“I should advise you that this is unlikely to change our view on liability. Section 3 of the Buildmark policy provides cover for actual physical damage to the home that was caused by a defect in a part of the property listed in the policy document if the cost of repair is more than the minimum claim value. Regardless of whether, or not it is identified that there is a defect with regard to the specification and/or preparation of the mortar mix this item is not covered by the policy in the absence of actual physical damage to the home.

The construction is now 10 years old and during this time the mortar can be considered to have generally performed, given that there is little sign of erosion to date to indicate any failure within the compressive strength of bedding material used and/or impair the structural integrity of the load bearing walls. As such, the criteria that is required for a valid claim under the terms of the policy has not been met.”

This, despite three separate independent Structural Engineers reports concluding: in the longer term (beyond 10 years) the mortar will weather, will subsequently weaken and will undoubtedly result in failure.”
Are NHBC worried about the high costs of remedial works?
So much for the NHBC:
“Preventing problems before they happen and being on hand when they do” Their own technical materials requirement R3 in the warranty standards states: “All materials products and building systems shall be suitable for their intended purpose”  That is having a life of at least 60 years.”

In my opinion, the NHBC are behaving abysmally regarding the issue of weak mix mortar. It is a serious issue which the NHBC have been aware of for many years. As far as I am aware there is no research being carried out to discover why it is on the increase. The NHBC has not revised its standards to prohibit the use cement substitutes such as GGBS and PFA or to require regular ongoing site testing of mortar used.

NHBC Technical Newsletter July 2000 Issue 20:

The consequences of getting it wrong are well known to NHBC. At the least it may mean raking out all joints and repointing and at worst it can be removing the outer leaf and rebuilding. The problem is that too little cement is added to the mix to ensure that the strength is achieved and, perhaps more importantly, the hardened mortar is durable.”

In addition, the NHBC’s Technical Extra Issue 11 in September 2013  (Page 22) specifically warns against using M2.5 design mix factory mortars.
NHBC have known about issues with M2.5 mortar for yearsThe NHBC spent a total of £94.6million on remedial works on warranty claims in the 12 months to 31 March 2018, around 11,000 claims a year. Around £28 million for claims made during the first two years. Superstructures (walls including render/floors/roof) accounted for around 38% of the total cost of claims in 2015/16. The NHBC has reserves of £462million and additional investment assets totalling £1,560million. This non-profit distributing organisation, can well afford to do right by those new homeowners with weak mix mortar policyholders.
Repointing works to 130 Taylor Wimpey new homes at PeeblesTaylor Wimpey is currently repointing 130 homes in the M2.5 area of the development, but not those built using M4 mortar. Taylor Wimpey said they “sincerely apologise to the homeowners affected… we are fully committed to resolving matters” They claim “this is a localised issue and falls short of the high standards we uphold. We are committed to carrying out the works that are needed to the remaining homes as soon as possible” However, Taylor Wimpey’s latest letter advises that it considers it is not under any obligation to undertake this work and it is committed to complete all repointing work within three years! Sources on site, tell me their contractor Tradecast is aiming to complete repointing works on 90 houses by the end of this year and surprisingly, some homeowners being unwilling to have the work done at all.

Sheila has raised a formal complaint against the NHBC through their complaints team.

The NHBC’s 86-year old ‘go-to’ “mortar expert” Barry Haseltine stated in his report:

“I recall that, up to 2012, Tarmac were concerned that achieving a strength of 4N/mm2 would require them to use more cement than they would have done in a prescribed mortar of the equivalent designation, (iii). I suspect that the designation (iii), M4, was used throughout; however from what I can see of the mortar quality in photographs taken by the Claims Investigator, there is nothing that I can call damage within the NHBC definition of the word. The house is structurally sound and should remain so for a normal life. There is no need for any remedial work.” 

Barry Haseltine basing the statements in his report from NHBC photographs and never visited Sheila’s home and inspected it himself.

The NHBC would appear to base their rejection of the M2.5 mortar when M6 is required purely on the basis it hasn’t (as yet) structurally failed in the last 10 years!

Taylor Wimpey Annual Report 2018 (27 February 2019)

This specifically makes reference to Sheila’s development although again, plays down just how potentially serious and expensive it could be for its shareholders.

“We acknowledge concerns raised by some of our customers in connection to mortar durability on a development in Peebles, Scotland. While a significant number of houses on the development are unaffected, a robust technical solution, supported by an appointed structural engineer and the NHBC, to fix the durability of the mortar has been identified and homes are being remediated as soon as possible”

This despite the company knowing about the weak mortar issue in 2011 and all homes built using a mortar not considered sufficiently durable for the severe exposure location of this development!

It would appear that Taylor Wimpey also have structural failings on their 2013 development ‘The Chariots’ in Andover.  As I understand it, the roofs to 75 homes are being removed, work which will take 2 months per house to complete.Taylor Wimpey extensive remedials at The Chariots Andover

Taylor Wimpey 30-year weak mortar warranty

In their letter dated 28 September 2016, Taylor Wimpey undertook to provide a total of 30-year warranty up to 31 December 2045, for “issues specifically caused by mortar quality” for EVERY home on their ‘Kingsmeadow’ development in Peebles. This does not include what it refers to as “fair wear and tear” but “defective mortar which has failed to maintain its strength and durability” It would appear the mortar warranty is only for the external mortar which can be seen. Amazingly, Taylor Wimpey also said  it “takes such concerns seriously and stand by the quality of our construction.”

No integrity. Taylor Wimpey CEO Pete Redfern should apologise to Peebels homeowners in person.Obviously in 2045 everyone will have departed this mortal coil and CEO Pete Redfern will no doubt be keeping ex-Persimmon CEO Jeff Fairburn company, stoking the fires of hell. It will be interesting to see whether the correct mortar (M6) is used on the adjacent development land. I very much doubt any works will begin until long after the current repointing works are finished.

For those wishing to take legal action against their housebuilder, the case of Halvorson v Persimmon Homes 2018 (Scotland) is case law which determined that all NHBC warranty standards form part of the contract and non-compliance of any guidance or recommendations could be judged as a breach of contract.

A sea-change of behaviour is required

It is time the tin-eared, corporate bean counters running the nation’s plc housebuilders did the right thing right away and stopped trying to minimise what are huge issues like weak mortar. First with denial, then the great cover up, using non-disclosure agreements limit their exposure. Finally, as on this Peebles development, when a weak mortar issue became widely known, threatening, intimidating and mentally torturing its own customers for two years before finally agreeing to undertake repointing works to all 130 houses. This has got to stop!

This whole industry lacks moral integrity. It says one thing, then does the opposite,  frequently exposed lying and cheating its own customers, concealing the extent of defective homes and quietly carrying on with apparent impunity from this weak government. James Brokenshire promised a new homes ombudsman but has yet to deliverIt is to be hoped that the current Housing Secretary James Brokenshire is good on his word and legislates for the statutory new homes ombudsman which in his words: “will champion home buyers, protect their interests and hold developers to account.” as a matter of urgency, a government priority, rather than as current, “when parliamentary time allows.” Make time!

Until government acts, new homeowners like Sheila and her neighbours will be left wondering,  in the words of the Pet Shop Boys,
“How I’m gonna get through  ……….what have I, what have I, what have I done to deserve this.”

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

HBF Satisfaction Survey shows number of buyers reporting defects as high as ever

HBF New Home Customer Satisfaction Survey Results 2019

So the latest 2019 new home customer satisfaction survey results have finally been published by the Home Builders Federation (HBF) – six months after the survey year ended on 30 September 2018. All HBF housebuilder members having known their current star rating and individual survey scores as they come in throughout the year via the NHBC portal.  Taylor Wimpey and Bovis even crowed about their “achievement” in their annual reports last month. Persimmon has (again) pledged to improve its five year run of 3 star ratings, by announcing its 1.5% homebuyer retention last week.

But do the general public take note of the housebuilder star ratings?

Persimmon Homes 3 star rated 5 years running!Apparently not. On the face of it 16,449 still bought a Persimmon new home in 2018 despite its continuously poor star rating, with just 8,234 of these returning the survey! Amazingly, 7,404 buyers bought their new home from Bovis despite the builder being rated an industry low of just 2 stars in both 2016 and 2017.

So why is this survey so important for the industry?

For a start it is the ONLY survey of new home buyers “satisfaction”. Even if this is an in-house survey, controlled by the industry with carefully crafted questions and sent to new homebuyers just 8-weeks after moving in, it is all there is. The HBF and its PR machine goes into overdrive, making crass overstatements with headlines such asHomeowner satisfaction with new build homes increasing” 
more people happy with their new homes than ever” “new homes are built to a higher standard than ever before”  when the reality is, this is a small increase over two years, from an all time low in 2017 (84%) and way below the all time peak of 91% in 2013 – results from the year before Help to Buy was launched!

“The improvement in satisfaction levels have been achieved as output has continued to increase.”
That is according to the HBF, who were apparently oblivious to the weak mortar issue in Britain’s crumbling new homes! HBF Steve Turner grilled on national TV about weak mortar The HBF have stated that the primary purpose of this 8-week satisfaction survey is to “provide data to rebut negativity” What other industry at the outset, designs a survey so it can rebut negativity? Surely the sole purpose of any customer survey should be to indicate unknown areas of weakness so these can be demonstrably positively addressed. Not the HBF survey, where the HBF crows: “two thirds of those polled said the number of defects was in line with their expectations” Satisfcation? New homebuyers expect defects!Actually it was 43%, with another 34% indicating more “problems” than they expected. Again, in what other industry do consumers buy a product in the full and certain knowledge and expectation that it will be faulty?

The latest government figures show “output”, despite the twice extended, government subsidy for the industry, Help to Buy and the HBF’s spun  “78% increase in housing supply in the last 5 years”, is still below the peak of March 2007 12 years ago! Actual government figures for the last survey year to 30 September 2018 (2017/18) show private sale completions at 126,970 (116,350) with a total homes completed of 155,250 (142,870) (previous year in brackets)

HBF satisfaction survey - 99% of new homes have defectsOne survey response the HBF never care to highlight, one that cannot be easily influenced, is the indisputable fact that virtually all new homes have defects, with 99% of buyers surveyed reporting defects to their builder within a few weeks of moving in, and an increase this year to 42% reporting more than 10 defects! The HBF spins it “new homes are complex bespoke products and the number of problems (snags, usually minor such as paint drips, cupboard doors out of line etc) was in line with buyer’s [low] expectations” and “58% having less than 11 issues with their new home” Cigars all round, break out the champagne!

Well not quite. The Government has announced it is proposing to get tough on housebuilders that fail to deliver good quality and service. James Brokenshire - talk but no actionBut whether James Brokenshire who spoke at the HBF Annual Conference and would do well to distance himself from this broken industry, is daft enough to use the industry’s star rating as his yardstick remains to be seen! Government need to take a much tougher stance against the industry wolves dressed in Granny’s nighties (covering up everything) and avoid being taken in like Little Red Riding Hood, by their meaningless pledges, promises and plastic PR spin.

New cars are also “complex bespoke products”, some models have around 1,000 different customer options yet they are routinely, delivered to the customer defect-free having been inspected many times, both during and after manufacture. Those collecting the keys of a new car would be horrified to discover “misaligned doors and paint drips” defects which the HBF attempts to state as “usually minor” but nevertheless, are not inspected, checked or eliminated, being left for the customer to discover by the profit-driven industry the HBF serves and promotes.

So its congratulations to Russell Armer Homes awarded a 5-star rating, this from only 20 of their customer’s survey responses! No doubt contributing to:  “This year’s further improvement is a clear demonstration that the intense focus within the industry on build quality..” so spins the HBF. It is interesting to note the percentage “sample size” of buyers returning the survey/answering Q1 for the main plc housebuilder has fallen dramatically this year to an average of around 44% of total homes built. The stated ‘sample size’ for each housebuilder totals 48,001, this despite 60,955 surveys being returned. Perhaps many of those dissatisfied buyers, badgered and threatened by housebuidler’s to complete the survey form favourably, believed they would hurt the housebuilder more by not doing so, rather than completing to survey to reflect their discontent.
Some new homebuyers do not even get the survey. SM said on the Unhappy New Homebuyers Facebook Group
“I never got a questionnaire for a survey. Wonder how they were selected. I did have great fun completing my 2nd NHBC survey about Persimmon though!” “Intense focus on build quality” HBF?
For those that do get notification codes from the NHBC, the survey can be completed online here But many new homeowners find out after they move in that broadband is painfully slow or in some cases, non-existent.

In 2016 I asked the HBF why the total number of surveys “sampled” for the Star Rating was less than the number of surveys returned?  This year it was 78% of the total. It would seem that more and more surveys are being sampled out! Why there is a need to sample at all? Surely all the surveys responses can be counted?
The HBF responded:

“The industry scores are based on every single valid response NHBC (who operate the survey) get to what is an industry-wide survey. Valid simply means completed by an owner occupier within the 20 week response window. Not one single valid survey was ‘not used’. So all the industry scores shown in the charts on the website in the results we released are based on every single (45,342) valid response we got this year.  Whilst the ‘industry survey’ covers more than HBF members, the Star Rating part of it is just for HBF members. Hence adding up the sample sizes for the Star Rated builders will not get you to the total 45,342 responses as other non-HBF members are sampled as we want to get as full a picture as possible.”

In 2011, I asked the HBF why it did not publish individual builder results for every question?
John Stewart HBF Director of Economic Affairs told me back in 2011:
“From a personal perspective, I think publishing more detailed company results would not have had any more impact on raising customer satisfaction among new home buyers. But it would most certainly have provided food for those who are prejudiced against the industry and simply seek to criticise. I see no value in this.”

No surprise there! The industry also keep the results of the NHBC 9-month survey under wraps too, no doubt for similar reasons. The NHBC told the an APPG Inquiry in 2015: “The NHBC 9-month customer satisfaction survey scores generally 5-10% LOWER than the HBF 8-week survey”   Taylor Wimpey - 3 star rated in reality?This year Taylor Wimpey indicated that its overall satisfaction star rating score at nine months was 76% – 3 star territory, 2 stars and 15% below their official 5-star rating.

The survey, and in particular the all important housebuilder star rating question, can be manipulated by housebuilders.  Often buyers tell me they were told their faults would not be fixed if they answered “No” to question 1 – “Would you recommend a friend?”

In the halcyon years of “customer satisfaction” 90% in 2012 and 91% in 2013 with the number of surveys returned were 23,778 and 29,330 respectively. The financial crisis was in 2008 and housebuilders reduced their production between 2009 and 2012. This was ramped up in 2013 when the taxpayer-funded Help to Buy gravy train was launched and plc housebuilders had pound signs in their eyes.

HBF chief Stewart Baseley who by his own admission is apparently  “a great believer in transparency” says:

“Achieving such high levels of customer satisfaction, whilst delivering the steepest increase in the rate of house building we have seen for 40 years, is a considerable achievement.”
“The survey proves conclusively that the people who buy and live in new build homes are overwhelmingly happy with their purchase. There has been a huge focus on quality and service across the industry and this is reflected by successive annual improvements across all question areas.
“The intense focus on quality and service, allied to a huge recruitment and training campaign has enabled builders to further raise standards whilst increasing output. New build buyers already have far more protection than second hand buyers with the security of a consumer code and ten year warranty.
“The vast majority of customers are already happy with the service and quality of their home, but the industry is determined to deliver even higher levels in the years to come. The industry is committed to further increases in protection and redress and is working with a range of stakeholders on how an ombudsman can be introduced.”

Quite how the likes of Mr Baseley sleep at night after saying those statements I don’t know! His HBF even have the nerve to use the creation of the statutory new homes ombudsman, (that I campaigned 5 years for) as a marketing tool “further enhance build quality and consumer protections for new home buyers.”  Build quality is at best poor and those buying a new home have no “consumer protections” at all as many thousands have discovered to their cost! This is precisely Why a statutory new homes ombudsman is being set up! The HBF must not be allowed any opportunity to weaken the new homes ombudsman powers and effectiveness.

The HBF has recently announced it is teaming up with charities to provide support and highlight mental health amongst construction workers, with 400 taking their own lives last year. A construction worker is now 10 times more likely to die through suicide than a fall from height! Many mental health issues originate from bullying and the unrealistic production demands by site managers, contracts managers and regional construction and managing directors, who in turn face similar from the main board directors in their pursuit of every increasing completion numbers and record profits for their dividend hungry shareholders. Those affected will no doubt be delighted by the Building Mental Health Framework and the £100,000 the whole housebuilding industry has donated to the charity and the 24/7 helpline! But the irony is, a great many new homebuyers suffer mental illness too, becoming drained as a result of engagement with indifferent housebuilders which for some, the mental anguish is unbearable as they try to cope with the daily frustration and dealing with plc housebuilders and their broken promises.

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

Persimmon Launches Homebuyer Retention Policy

Persimmon announce 1.5% homebuyer retention policy

Persimmon homes - giving greed a bad nameIn a blaze of positive publicity, under headlines such as Persimmon homebuyers can withhold money until faults fixed (well not exactly); the housebuilder everyone loves to hate, has launched what is claimed will be a ground breaking initiative and a first for the industry, in response to overwhelming criticism about the quality of its homes, the obscene corporate greed-fest of executive bonuses and its part in the leasehold scandal,  Persimmon homebuyer retention “allowing buyers to withhold an average of £3.600 per home until all faults are fixed”

Nils Pratley in The Guardian suggests the homebuyer retetention could have been called the ‘Jeff Fairburn memorial clause’ – an eye-catching gesture designed to combat Persimmon’s reputation for corporate greed, as embodied by Fairburn’s infamous £75m bonus.”

A few weeks ago Nils said, in another well-written article: “It’s nice that the housebuilder wants to address its substandard scores for customer service, but shouldn’t this thought have occurred when the executives, Jenkinson included, were racking up their millions?” 

Not forgetting, this is a company that has also now admitted it lobbied government in 2015 to abandon the zero carbon policy for new homes.

In the Financial Times, Persimmon’s recently-appointed CEO Dave Jenkinson said:

“Persimmon is listening hard to all of its stakeholders and we hear the message that we need to continue to raise our game in customer care.

CEO Dave Jenkinson announces Persimmon homebuyer retention

“The initiatives we have already announced, including the action taken in the new year to deliver greater accuracy of anticipated moving in dates by adopting a more targeted approach to the phasing of sales on specific sites and the improvements and investments that we have made in our customer care team, operations and technology over the last few months are beginning to take effect.

“We are now accelerating the pace of change through the introduction of a contracted retention, which will give homebuyers far greater satisfaction at the completion of the purchase.  

“Moving into a new home should be a positive experience enhanced by all the benefits of a new build that is designed for modern living.  We are determined that the experience is not overshadowed by teething problems and providing a homebuyer’s retention is an important step towards achieving this.

Chairman Roger Devlin, said:
“This is a first among the UK’s large housebuilders and I hope will lead the way in change across the sector. This move, and the urgency with which we will introduce it, is a clear and unambiguous signal of cultural and operational change at Persimmon putting customer care at the very centre of the business.”

Other “improvements” include offering maintenance appointments at weekends and out-of-hours opening of customer care departments.

In the big announcement, Persimmon said it “would implement the homebuyer’s retention, by writing into its standard sale contract that 1.5% of the property value (£3,600 on average) could be withheld by the buyer’s solicitor until any faults identified at the point of key release are resolved

The homebuyer retention policy, announced in haste, won’t be fully in place until the end of June 2019 – so much for its claim “we are now accelerating the pace of change”! But why wait until June? It’s hardly Brexit! Well, the end of June is Persimmon financial half-year, so homes could be rushed to get them included for the half-year. In addition, Persimmon will need to start building better, much better and all homes completed after the end of June, will not yet be started.

But quite frankly, this could easily be implemented at the beginning of April, fittingly perhaps on April Fool’s day as in my opinion, buyers and the government would be fools if they believe this small sticking plaster on a disgraceful housebuilder that gives greed a bad name, will make any noticeable positive difference for buyers.

Unlike the Barratt 5-year warranty, which despite its exclusions, was a corporate statement of quality: “our product is so good we are so confident we can afford to give our buyers a longer warranty”  The Persimmon homebuyer retention announcement shouts: “our product is so bad, we have decided to allow our customers to withhold part of their payment until we have sorted out defects”

This scheme is also  unlikely to cost Persimmon anything, with any costs being borne by the sub-contract companies it employs.  Retentions are deducted on all sub-contractor payments. Half is usually returned 6 months after the buyer moves in, with the balance normally after two years. The percentage retention is negotiated at the time the contract is drawn up, often used by housebuilders as a bargaining tool to force their sub-contractors to discount their rates or accept payment terms “monthly valuation on account.” Most sub-contractors tend to view any returned retention as a bonus, as it is priced into their rates.

Persimmon homebuyer retention – so what is not to like?
This is not as it first appears. For a start, this only applies to “faults” (I prefer the term defects) that excited and distracted buyers note and report at the time they are first given the keys. Why not make it for ALL DEFECTS notified to Persimmon in the first 6 or 9 months? It should not be limited to just those small, quickly dealt with, cosmetic “faults” which may, or more likely, may not be spotted by buyers on the day they first get the keys to their new home.  This will certainly not be of any help to buyers that later discover they have weak mortar, cracking render, issues with their floors or serious fire safety issues like this 

If Persimmon really are “determined that the experience is not overshadowed by teething problems” why does the company routinely refuse to allow their buyers and/or their professional snagging inspectors access to their homes to check the property before legal completion?

Persimmon "Teething" problem?The homebuyer retention monies are also to be held by the buyer’s solicitor. In most cases this is highly likely to be one that Persimmon has suggested, recommended, or in some cases, even bribed or required the buyer to use. A recent government inquiry found conveyancing solicitors are too close the house builder. There is a clear conflict of interest. The report says: “buyers’ interests ‘cannot be served where they are coerced into using developer-recommended conveyancing solicitors, who rely on repeat business from developers and may not be inclined to put their client’s interest first.”
This is also against the Law – The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, In addition, it also breaches requirement 2.5 of the “limited in its scope” Consumer Code for Homebuilders and SRA rules on conflicts of interest. Yet this has been going on for years! Furthermore, as Patrick Hosking notes in The Times, “there’s a danger the scheme will descend into countless legal disputes, with buyers’ solicitors quickly swallowing up that cash buffer in fees” indeed, as sure as night follows day.

Sebastian O’Kelly, 58, chief executive of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, told The Times: “Persimmon has an open-ended liability on the snagging issues. If they build something appalling, and so many of our plc housebuilders build houses and flats with major defects, then they have a responsibility to fix them. I don’t think consumers would be able to take much comfort from this.”

So why are Persimmon doing this?
The homebuyer retention initiative comes following statements that the company is to improve customer satisfaction levels after being dogged by complaints about poor build quality. There had been murmurings lately about a buyer’s retention. Paula Higgins from the Home Owners Alliance told The Times last month that her idea of buyer’s being able to hold a 2.5% retention for 6 months “would be a powerful incentive for builders to put problems right”   I told The Times it would be an “administrative nightmare” and that “6 months would be too short.” Unbelievably, I even found myself agreeing, for the first time, with Steve Turner of the Home Builders Federation , when he said that “introducing retentions as the rest of the construction sector is scrapping them is a crude and naïve suggestion that could reduce consumer protection and risks creating a long drawn out legal process – the new homes ombudsman is a better way to help buyers.”  Trade bodies call to scrap retention Retention in construction under review

Pressure from Government – withdrawal of Help to Buy
In February, The Guardian reported that Persimmon’s right to use Help to Buy was under the scrutiny of Housing Secretary James Brokenshire, who was considering stripping Persimmon of its right to sell properties using Help To Buy because of poor satisfaction levels and concerns on the housebuilder’s behaviour. Persimmon has benefitted immensely from the Help to Buy scheme. Nearly half its 16,449 home sales last year were made through the taxpayer-funded scheme.

A source close to the minister said:
“Leasehold, build quality, their leadership seemingly not getting they’re accountable to their customers, are all points that have been raised by the Secretary of State privately,”

Help to Buy, should never have been extended and should now be cancelled on economic grounds but, if the government wants to keep the housebuilders’ gravy train running, originally due to end in 2016 yet twice extended, first until March 2021 and more recently to March 2023, Government should at least attach a few requirements and conditions that specifically benefit new homebuyers.

Persimmon needs evidence to shoe that they are changing their behaviour under the threat of parliamentary time being found to debate this, perhaps even a select committee inquiry. The homebuyer retention scheme, weekend appointments and the changes to customer care availability hours are little more than tokenism to keep government at bay. It looks like a cheap PR job which has given the company some much needed, positive, coverage in the quality national press.

Persimmon’s premium rating by the NHBC and LABC/PREMIER GUARANTEE may have increased dramatically. The homebuyer retention scheme may be being used to reduce their warranty premiums like an insurance voluntary excess.

An attempt to improve Persimmon’s dire HBF 8-week survey 3 star rating
Persimmon rated 3 star for 5 years in a row!Persimmon Homes have been rated just 3 stars for the fifth year in a row. Jenkinson even mentions the “contracted retention, which will, give homebuyers far greater satisfaction at the completion of the purchase” –  in other words early on, just as the 8-week, HBF survey arrives in their post or inbox. Is it really an “unambiguous signal of cultural and operational change at Persimmon, putting customer care at the very centre of the business.” or a calculated measure to improve their HBF 8-week survey scores and 3-star rating? Given Persimmon claims 79% “satisfaction” which is just 1% below the 4 star rating, you would think giving a few £250 John Lewis vouchers to buyers would have been a cheaper option!

A spokesman for the Home Builders Federation told The Times: housebuilders had “delivered consistent improvements in customer satisfaction over the past two years” and he was again not keen on Persimmon’s housebuyer retention saying it “should not be seen as an option for housebuilders generally.”

No doubt with Persimmon now learning how to “play the star rating game” the heavy weighting of their current 3-star rating drag on the overall satisfaction scores over the last 5 years, the overall satisfaction score at least, is certain to improve, even if in reality, the actual new homebuyer satisfaction does not.

This industry’s reinterpretation of defect into snag has been one of the great distortions of the narrative surrounding new homes in recent years. The likes of Persimmon will be more than happy to agree a 1.5% retention – which they are likely never to have any intention of recovering, is cheap when compared to the loss of access to Help To Buy and other possible government sanctions such as a land-banking tax.

A clear indication that Persimmon has got this wrong is their statement:
“we hear the message that we need to continue to raise our game in customer care.” When actually it is the quality of construction and inspection regimes where improvements are required. It is not a case of putting out the fires quicker, but of fire prevention, getting it right first time, or at least before buyers get their keys!

As with Barratt in the eighties, it will take a generation to turn around Persimmon’s reputation, forever historically tarnished by corporate greed, poor quality homes and contempt and indifference to its own customers. Britain’s top site managers won’t want to go there and have their CVs forever tarnished. Those that do, will justifiably demand huge salaries for their sacrifice. In directing attention to the newly moved in and including quality and customer care in site managers’ bonus calculations is a step in the right direction that should improve their HBF survey star rating. It is a recipe that Barratt have adopted with success over nine, 5-star rated years. It is amazing it has taken Persimmon so long to either begin to care about it, or cotton on!

Persimmon Annual Report 2018 27 Feb 2019
Range of new customer service initiatives implemented in late 2018 showing encouraging initial results. The Group is confident these measures will improve its customer satisfaction score once they have had time to take effect”

CEO Dave Jenkinson “A wide range of projects to improve customer satisfaction commenced in late 2018 and the initial results have been encouraging, giving us confidence in our ability to make progress in this important area”

Chairman Roger Devlin: “Alongside that we are changing our pay and incentives to include greater emphasis on both quality and customer care with plans that are more rigorous than we have had in the past.

“Delivering a good quality product for our customers and providing high levels of customer service throughout the home buying process is a top priority for the business. For the year to 30 September 2018, the percentage of our customers who would recommend Persimmon to a friend under the independent Home Builders Federation (HBF) survey was 79%, in line with the prior year and just short of the four star threshold of 80%. The Group has continued to invest in its customer care systems and resources during the year and this will continue to be the case in 2019 as we remain determined to improve customer satisfaction levels.”

But talk is cheap! Persimmon have said it all before!

Persimmon Annual Report 2016 27 Feb 2017
“During 2016 we have continued to invest additional resources in new customer focused initiatives to improve our customers’ buying experience and our NHBC/HBF 3 star rating. This is yielding further improvement in performance with the majority of the Group’s operating businesses showing progress. Prior to customers moving into their new home we have improved our communication processes with them to provide greater understanding of the progress we are making in constructing their new home. We have strengthened our build management processes to facilitate delivery to expected timeframes. Additional support is being provided through reinvigorated processes to demonstrate the features of the new home to customers, assistance with identifying any small remaining issues on moving in day and providing improved systems and processes for our customer care teams to support the prompt rectification of any outstanding matters. Customer care performance is reflected in relevant employees’ remuneration to support a closer alignment to the Group’s objectives. Whilst these initiatives are delivering tangible improvements in our customer satisfaction ratings we remain determined to deliver further advancement this year.“

Persimmon  Annual report 2015 on 22 February 2016.
CEO Jeff Fairburn stated:
“The Group’s priority is to serve our customers well by providing good quality new homes and great service. All of our team are[sic] responsible for delivering high levels of customer satisfaction….Our sales teams across the business are trained to provide excellent levels of service to our customers.”

“During 2015 we invested substantial resources in new customer focused initiatives to improve our customers’ buying experience and our NHBC/HBF 3 star rating. We have introduced dedicated customer liaison managers on our larger sites, improved communication processes with our customers, introduced new processes to strengthen our build programmes and provided additional resources in our customer care teams. These initiatives are showing some early signs of improvement in our customer satisfaction ratings and we will continue to pursue this agenda to secure further progress this year.”

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

Redress? When will New Homes Ombudsman be operational?

James Brokenshire re announces the statutory New Homes Ombudsman but when will it be operational?

Whilst housing secretary James Brokenshire has announced an “overhaul of broken housing complaints system” it is evident to me that any redress will not be implemented fast enough. When I first suggested a New Homes Ombudsman to the APPG EBE Inquiry 2nd session I attended way back in November 2015, it was well received and became the number 1 “Key” recommendation in the inquiry report, published 13th July 2016.
New Home Expert at APPG Inquiry evidence sessionSadly since then and until James Brokenshire’s announcement on 1st October 2018, little if anything has been done. Indeed, it can be interpreted from the government response to the Housing Redress Consultation, which took this government 283 days to publish; it is highly likely that legislation supposedly being “brought forward at the earliest possible opportunity to require all new developers to belong to the Ombudsman” will not in fact be the statutory new homes ombudsman so badly needed. It would appear, at least for the time being, that “an interim voluntary service will be established requiring developers of new build homes to participate”  is favoured by government.

James BrokenshireMore worryingly, the government has indicated that “developers will also have to belong to the new body by 2021 if they wish to participate in the government’s Help to Buy scheme”. This suggests the non-mandatory ‘voluntary’ new homes ombudsman will still be in place in April 2021, indicating that legislation for the statutory new homes ombudsman may not be on the statute until after the next general election, currently due on 5th May 2022! Hardly “the earliest opportunity” Mr Brokenshire! Could this be a cynical ploy to delay legally mandated, effective redress for new homebuyers, so that the industry’s political party donations keep flowing in to fight the next election?

The government has said that it is to create a ‘Redress Reform Working Group’ with redress schemes, which will work with industry and consumers on developing the new service and the other options set out. Why is government even contemplating working with those responsible for the existing failures of an industry fraught with scandals and controversy? Will government be prepared to work with me, on behalf of UK new homebuyers, to ensure that the new homes ombudsman is created as the government good intention “to champion the interests of new homebuyers and hold developers to account” or is it going to facilitate ‘big housebuilding’ to mould and manipulate any new homes ombudsman to protect the interests of all those incestuously connected with this dirty industry, to limit its effectiveness, stifle justice for new homebuyers and maintain their current balance of power?

Code of Practice

The government has set out its desire to see a “single Code of Practice on complaint handling across all tenures.” Hopefully this will stipulate how complaints are to be dealt with and the timescales required. However, the nature of defects in new homes vary and no single timescale will suit rectification of complaints about poor quality, defects and breaches to building regulations and warranty standards.
Redress for newhomebuyers -New Homes OmbudsmanAs I said in my submission to the APPG EBE Inquiry in January 2018 “New Homes Ombudsman – Call for Evidence” a single, separate, stand-alone, statutory new homes ombudsman is required. I am pleased the government has listened and will be legislating for exactly this, albeit eventually, and not one hidden and delayed by a new, ‘one-size-fits-all’ Housing Ombudsman which was, at the time, preferred by government despite it being more problematic, taking longer to create. It would appear that many of the inquiry report recommendations, published in June 2018,  have been taken on by government.

The New Homes Ombudsman must not be restricted to a new single, industry Code of Practice

One recommendation in particular, poses a distinct risk to the potential effectiveness of the statutory new homes ombudsman. Government has stated its intention “in the meantime” to “work with industry, warranty providers and consumers to ensure that the distinct practices for the new build sector are addressed and that these are reflected in an agreed single consumer code of practice which would be used by a New Homes Ombudsman to adjudicate against”

There are apparently currently seven consumer codes regarding new homes! “all different but sharing a general lack of obligations placed on home builders.” The Property Ombudsman said that the Codes “are written in a way to suggest that they exist to contain complaints” which indeed they do, all being set up subsequent to the Consumer Protection Regulations 2008.

But it would appear the worst recommendation of the APPG Inquiry report, the proposal for a new “industry-wide code of practice, with government, warranty providers, housebuilders and consumer groups working together, in consultation, to draw up a code that would be used by the new homes ombudsman (NHO) to adjudicate on disputes”  has been seriously considered and in particular, the industry-led, “limited in its scope”  Consumer Code for Homebuilders (CCHB) appears, unsurprisingly, to be chomping at the bit to be front and centre for drafting the new Code – adding to the “confusion”.

Not only will this give the housebuilding industry an opportunity delay the creation of any new homes ombudsman (voluntary or statutory), it will also provide the industry with a golden opportunity to influence what the new homes ombudsman can and cannot rule on, possibly shackled by the requirements of this single, industry-approved code of practice. I cannot think of any statutory ombudsman, in any sector, that can only adjudicate within the confines of a specific industry code. Statutory ombudsman such as the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Legal Ombudsman have compulsory jurisdiction over certain regulated sectors and their decisions can be enforced by a court. The statutory new homes ombudsman should be no different.

No single code could possibly cover every eventuality for new home consumer redress. It could get even worse with the Homebuilders Federation (HBF) suggesting that “a detailed set of finishing standards for an ombudsman to apply when assessing the merits of complaints and resolving disputes” no doubt along the principles the housebuilder’s existing NHBC ‘Get out of Jail Free’ card – The “Consistent Approach to Finishes” which is used to justify atrocious workmanship standards as permissible, if deemed “within tolerance”.

New home ombudsman to only cover disputes within first two years

Government has indicated: “We will look to strengthen protection for the first two years after purchase when the majority of problems occur and minimise the variance in the levels of protection and schemes that are currently available.”  This is another let off for housebuilders. The other reason given in the APPG report is that it “mirrors the duration for the housebuilders’ liability for defects.”  However, the 2-year timescale does not bring warranty schemes under the new homes ombudsman jurisdiction, despite the APPG committee acknowledging my observation that the “The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) is not the best organisation to preside over technical disputes.” Hopefully the government will also look at redress for those who already own a defective new home and allow the New Homes Ombudsman to consider complaints retrospectively for the remaining duration of their 10-year warranty, to ensure that owners that reported issues that were never properly dealt with, can also seek redress.

Builder buy-backs (“reversing the sale”) and levy funding

Builders should be forced to buy back seriously defective new homesThere was no mention of the APPG inquiry report recommendation requiring developers and housebuilders to buy-back new homes, those with serious problems that would require occupants to move out. In addition, whilst all those concerned recognise the need for all housebuilders to contribute via a levy, to fund the new homes ombudsman, there is no detail on this in the government’s response. My suggestion remains a levy of £100 for each new home built each year by every housebuilder and a £500 “case fee” to cover the cost of investigating each claim made against them. The government has confirmed the new homes ombudsman will be “free of charge to buyers of new build homes” unlike the CCHB!

“We propose to bring forward legislation to underpin a New Homes Ombudsman in statute and we will work with industry and consumers prior to legislation so purchasers of new build homes have access to better redress now.“

So “now” by definition is “at the present time or moment” Presumably at the time the government published the response to the consultation on 24 January 2019, better redress or a new homes ombudsman was about to start work, helping beleaguered new homebuyers get justice and their homes fixed? Perhaps this would go some way to explain why the publication of the consultation feedback and government response took 283 days! “Bring forward legislation”   – When was it originally scheduled?  What “now” is the new date?

As the government stated: “it is clear from the responses that more needs to be done to strengthen consumer redress in relation to new build homes, and to drive up standards across the industry. The need for an easy, effective and independent body for consumers to go to is evident, and supported by the industry.  We consider that the fastest way to improve redress is to work with industry and consumers to implement a better redress scheme for purchasers of new build housing as soon as possible
But when exactly? How long will the process take? And note, this is not the new homes ombudsman but potential backsliding, enabling the industry to continue to short-change its own customers on both quality and service, whilst at the same time no doubt, using its in-house “customer satisfaction survey” “to provide data to rebut negativity”.

The government has stated that “as the proposed new homes ombudsman legislation includes devolved matters, we will continue to engage and consult the devolved administrations to seek agreement to introduce UK-wide legislation.” It is to be hoped that the devolved governments do not become a cause or excuse, for delaying legislation to bring in the statutory new homes ombudsman.

Oh no not another consultation!

We will consult on the detail of the proposed legislation to statutorily underpin a New Homes Ombudsman. This will include the approval mechanisms and standards that a New Homes Ombudsman must meet as well as whether a Code of Practice for developers should also be underpinned in legislation.”

Could this mean that a housebuilder that does not comply with the requirements of a Code of Practice will be prosecuted? So now we have a clear indication that a Statutory New Homes Ombudsman has the distinct potential to take years not months to create and legislate.

Redress with a ‘Voluntary’ Ombudsman?

“As we introduce statutory arrangements, we will work closely with industry and consumer groups to establish a voluntary new homes ombudsman ahead of legislation. We expect this ombudsman to be:
•  Free to the consumer and funded by industry;
•  Independent from the organisations the ombudsman will investigate;
•  Fair in dealing with disputes;
• Open and transparent and have public accountability through regular reporting;
•  And have effective powers to hold developers to account.

Not sure how this can come to be if it is “voluntary” (as is the ineffective CCHB) created in conjunction with the housebuilding industry. Indeed, it may even give the industry an opportunity to suggest that legislation is not necessary as it seeks to prove the voluntary new homes ombudsman has been effective.

Of one thing we can be certain, government cannot and must not, allow the housebuilding industry to make the same bodge job with a new homes ombudsman (whether voluntary or statutory) as they do with the defective new homes they build.

As it stands, the current new home redress proposals are just that, well-intentioned but lacking detail and clarity. Government must act and do so quickly. It must ensure the housebuilding industry,  building defective new homes up and down the country and causing untold misery for those that live in them,  is not given any opportunity to water down the potential effectiveness of the new homes ombudsman. Let’s make sure these bold proposals become bold actions. You can be sure I will be watching, commenting and will miss nothing. After five years campaigning, the new homes ombudsman is too close for me to allow the industry to manipulate and interfere, or an ineffective government to delay it.

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

Housing Redress Consultation – Government finally publish response

The wait is over the results are in, and the winner is……
the new homebuyer!

Housing redress consultation

After what has seemed an eternity and without any explanation for the nine-month delay, the Government published its response to the ‘Strengthening consumer redress in the housing market’ consultation on 24 January 2019, which had closed 283 days  earlier! As I mentioned in my last article about government dragging its heels on housing reform, uploaded 10 days before this consultation response was made public, MHCLG minister Heather Wheeler stated in a letter to my MP on 1st October 2018, “access to redress is a priority for this government.” 

Whilst the government consultation response relates to redress in all housing sectors, I will restrict my comment and subsequent observations to the government’s reiterated commitment to establishing a New Homes Ombudsman which will champion home buyers, protect their interests and hold developers to account.” as previously announced by James Brokenshire on 1st October 2018.

Disappointingly, just 1,209 responses were received for this consultation, only 355 (34%) from those having bought a new home and 385 (37%) from leaseholders. ‘Industry and organisations’ returned 172 (14%) responses. The consultation “Overcoming the barriers to longer tenancies in the private rented sector” which closed on 26 August 2018, received over 8,700 responses! Are new homebuyers uninterested in having someone fight their corner?  “holding developers to account”  Nevertheless, I would like to acknowledge and thank the few who did participate on behalf of many thousands of new homebuyers with defective new homes and thank Katie Kendrick of the National Leasehold Campaign who encouraged members of her group to also respond.

Consultation response - Redress in housing In the government housing redress consultation, just 12 people (7%) indicated that had made a complaint using the Consumer Code for Home Builders (CCHB) IDRS in the last FIVE YEARS! Some respondents said their complaints had been considered as ‘out of scope’ – a common phrase used in the CCHB Case Summaries!  A Government inquiry report in July 2016 also concluded the CCHB was “limited in its scope”.

Out of the 167 individuals who rated the service they received from a redress scheme in Q7, 40% were made by those who recently bought a new home and 35% from leaseholders. These two categories made up the majority (79%) of those who said they had received a ‘very poor’ service. In addition, 42% of purchasers of new homes said “yes, they had encountered gaps in current redress schemes.”

The majority of respondents (84%) who replied to Q20, stated that an ombudsman scheme for new homes should be statutory.

Nearly all, 91%, of the new homebuyers that responded said “that a redress scheme should publish decisions and the number of complaints relating to different providers should be made public.”

The response to Q30 regarding a single ombudsman or one for each sector was not disclosed. Nevertheless it is clear that the majority of new homebuyers want a stand-alone, independent statutory new homes ombudsman and this is what the government have pledged to create.

So what was the Government response to this Consultation as far as the New Homes Ombudsman is concerned.  I will endeavour to interpret the ambiguity in my next article:

Following the consultation, James Brokenshire announces overhaul of broken housing complaints systemJames Brokenshire“And to protect the interests of home-owners who buy new build homes, government has also reiterated its commitment to establishing a New Homes Ombudsman which will champion homebuyers, protect their interests and hold developers to account.

 

Legislation will be brought forward at the earliest possible opportunity to require all new developers to belong to the Ombudsman – giving homebuyers the confidence that when they get the keys to a new home they are getting the quality of build they expect.

Developers will also have to belong to the new body by 2021 if they wish to participate in the government’s landmark Help to Buy scheme.

First, I want to help plug the gaps in available redress services so that more people can get their housing disputes resolved without going through the courts. To that end, I am proposing a New Homes Ombudsman, underpinned by legislation following the establishment of an interim voluntary service, and requiring developers of new build homes to participate.

I want to see a single “Code of Practice” on complaint handling across all tenures.”

Consultation – Housing Complaints Resolution Service

Our aim is to provide a single point of access for all the current schemes in housing. We intend to develop this in collaboration with the redress sector, initially on a voluntary basis, but we will keep open the option of legislation to make this mandatory if necessary.

Our ambition ultimately is for the new service to cover all housing consumers including tenants and leaseholders of social and private rented housing as well as purchasers of new build homes and users of all residential property agents.

We propose to establish a Redress Reform Working Group with redress schemes, which will work with industry and consumers on developing the new service and the other options set out in this paper…”

Addressing the gaps “proposing legislation to extend mandatory membership of a redress scheme to:  c. developers of new build homes.

The government announced the proposal to create a New Homes Ombudsman service in October 2018. This response indicates how that service will sit in the wider redress landscape and the next steps of its implementation.

First, I want to help plug the gaps in available redress services so that more people can get their housing disputes resolved without going through the courts. To that end, I am proposing a New Homes Ombudsman, underpinned by legislation following the establishment of an interim voluntary service, and requiring developers of new build homes to participate. I will also bring forward legislation to require all private landlords, including private providers of purpose-built student housing, and park home site operators to belong to a redress scheme.

On 1st October 2018 we announced our commitment for a New Homes Ombudsman to protect the rights of buyers of new build homes. These commitments are part of the Government’s drive to close gaps in existing redress services and ensure that all housing consumers have access to redress when things go wrong. This consultation response provides more detail on the implementation of these measures.

We propose to bring forward legislation to underpin a New Homes Ombudsman in statute and we will work with industry and consumers prior to legislation so purchasers of new build homes have access to better redress now.

In the meantime, we will work with industry, warranty providers and consumers to ensure that the distinct practices for the new build sector are addressed and that these are reflected in an agreed single consumer code of practice which would be used by a New Homes Ombudsman to adjudicate against.

New Homes Ombudsman

99. It is clear from the responses that more needs to be done to strengthen consumer redress in relation to new build homes, and to drive up standards across the industry. The need for an easy, effective and independent body for consumers to go to is evident, and supported by the industry. A significant minority of respondents said that there is no current existing redress scheme which is best placed to deliver an ombudsman scheme for purchasers of new build homes.
100. There was very strong support in favour of purchasers of new build homes having access to an ombudsman scheme, and many respondents were in favour of such an ombudsman being statutory. We consider that the fastest way to improve redress is to work with industry and consumers to implement a better redress scheme for purchasers of new build housing as soon as possible.
101. We have announced proposals to ensure that a New Homes Ombudsman is established, working with industry and others. We will look to strengthen protection for the first two years after purchase when the majority of problems occur and minimise the variance in the levels of protection and schemes that are currently available. To ensure that consumers get the protection they deserve, we will introduce legislation to require developers of new build homes to belong to a New Homes Ombudsman, which will be underpinned in statute.
102. It is proposed that the New Homes Ombudsman would charge developers to ensure that the service is free of charge to buyers of new build homes.
103. Developers work across all nations of the UK. As the proposed legislation includes devolved matters, we will continue to engage and consult the devolved administrations to seek agreement to introduce UK-wide legislation.
104. We will consult on the detail of the proposed legislation to statutorily underpin a New Homes Ombudsman. This will include the approval mechanisms and standards that a New Homes Ombudsman must meet as well as whether a Code of Practice for developers should also be underpinned in legislation.
105. As we introduce statutory arrangements, we will work closely with industry and consumer groups to establish a voluntary New Homes Ombudsman ahead of legislation. We expect this ombudsman to be:
• Free to the consumer and funded by industry;
• Independent from the organisations the ombudsman will investigate;
• Fair in dealing with disputes;
•Open and transparent and have public accountability through regular reporting;
• And have effective powers to hold developers to account.
106. At Budget 2018, we announced that a new Help to Buy Equity Loan scheme will run for 2 years from April 2021 before closing in March 2023. We will establish the condition that housing developers must belong to a New Homes Ombudsman to participate in the new Help to Buy Scheme.
107. Although there are benefits to having competing redress providers as set out in the section on the Private Rented Sector which has an established redress system, it is clear that the number of schemes operating in the new build sector has created an unacceptable variance of standards and, as we have an opportunity to establish a new system without disruption to consumers and there is a need to reform all the existing schemes, we believe a single New Homes Ombudsman could solve these issues without unnecessary disruption. Our consultation will consider whether one or more organisations could provide a quality service to consumers under the principles above.”

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

Why is the Conservative government dragging its heels over housing reform?

Why is the Conservative Government dragging its heels over housing reform?

Amongst a great government fanfare, the then DCLG Secretary Sajid Javid published the twice delayed Housing White Paper on 7 February 2017 entitled “fixing our broken housing market” No more talking! Government must now act on new home issuesAt the time this was widely derided as “more of a consultative document than a white paper.” It contained promises to ban the sale of leasehold new houses; reform leasehold; end housebuilder landbanking and even acknowledged the existence of the APPG for Excellence in the Built Environment (2016) “More Homes, fewer complaints” – report from the Commission of Inquiry into the quality and workmanship of new housing in England, confirming it would:
“keep requirements under review, to ensure that they remain fit for purpose and meet future needs. This includes looking at further opportunities for simplification and rationalisation while maintaining standards.”

In December 2016, the then housing minister Gavin Barwell said:
“The Government will be considering the recommendations in the report in developing future policy on new home”

Whilst Javid may have claimed his housing white paper would provide “radical lasting reform” to fix the broken housing market, it would appear that very little, in fact nothing, has actually been done in the last three years.

Since then the “Consultation Party” has announced various consultations, reviews, reports and inquiries but as yet, nothing has changed. For big housebuilding it is very much Keep Calm and Carry On Regardless.

Government action required not just words!

Take leasehold new houses. This was debated as long ago as 20 December 2016 in the House of Commons. Not one MP came out and spoke in favour of selling brand new houses as leasehold. But many called for it to be banned with Sir Peter Bottomley comprehensively exposed the abuses said:
this goes beyond sleaze”
Justin Madders Labour MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston said:
“This is nothing short of a national scandal. It is the PPI of the house building industry”
The then MP and housing minister Gavin Barwell said:
“I cannot think of any good reason for houses to be built on a leasehold basis. If the industry does not put a stop to the practice and help existing homeowners, we will look to see what Government can do”
Even Theresa May stuck her prime ministerial beak into the argument saying on 1st  March 2017:
“we will consult on a range of measures to tackle unfair and unreasonable abuses of leasehold. I do not see why new homes should not be built and sold with the freehold interest at the point of sale.”

So the government consultation “tackling unfair practices in the leasehold market” was launched on 25 July 2017 to 19 September 2017 with the report on 6,075 responses published 91 days later on 21 December 2017. On 2 July 2018, 19 months after the commons debate, the government announced:
“New government funding schemes will no longer be able to use the money for unjustified new leasehold houses, in a continuing push to tackle unfair and abusive practices within the leasehold system”

Quite what would be deemed “unjustified” is unclear except it gives an opportunity for housebuilders to justify, which they could not with a blanket ban
This was first suggested by Justin Madders during the commons debate and implemented in Wales in March 2018 with developers in Wales will now no longer be able to receive Help to Buy funding for new houses sold as leasehold unless they can present a legitimate reason for retaining the freehold.

On 2nd July 2018 current Housing Secretary James Brokenshire announced “funding for leasehold new houses to end” and, in a bid to “create a fairer more transparent system for homebuyers”, the latest MHCLG Consultation “Strengthening consumer redress in housing” gave new homebuyers an opportunity to insist on a fully independent New Homes Ombudsman, closed on 16 April 2017. At the time of writing, some 274 days later, the feedback is apparently still being “analysed”!

Heather Wheeler Government Housing MinisterI wrote to my MP Gillian Keegan as long ago as 31 August 2018 to ask why the government response had not been published? She forwarded a copy of a letter from Housing Minister Heather Wheeler dated 1st October 2018 which stated that “access to redress is a priority for this government” and “we intend to publish our consultation response later this year” [2018]

Obviously that has still yet to happen. It looks like Heather Wheeler would have trouble forecasting six o’clock at half past five!

So why is everything taking so long? I can see any reason whatsoever why new laws cannot be debated, drafted and enacted to a given timetable. Brexit is not an excuse! Even simple improvements for new homebuyers could be set up with relative ease and yet they are not. Has this government a hidden agenda? Is it in league with big housebuilding? Is the “Consultation Party” relying on huge donations for the next election campaign?

Whatever the reason, and there must be one, such a dire performance in both work output and results would not be tolerated in any other form of employment.

It is clear and has been for many years, that plc housebuilders put their profits above anything else; good service to their customers, high quality new homes, value, warranties that really do give peace of mind, not scamming by selling leasehold new houses and homes with fleecehold management charges all are possible and deliverable but nothing has been done.

Make no mistake; the housebuilding industry is rotten to its very core. It will never ever change without a strong government forcing it to.
A lot of things have got to change. Real change has got to come from Parliament, from a strong leadership. Not much chance of that at the moment! It could have been so different. On 1st October 2018  James Brokenshire announced that a New Homes Ombudsman was being created “champion homebuyers, protect their interests and hold developers to account” So what, if anything, has been done to progress this in the last 107 days?

As Hugh Fearnley Whittington eloquently put it:
“if there’s one thing we know about those in the Government, it’s that anything that costs money, anything that pits government against big business, even if everyone knows it is the right thing to do, appear to make it harder and slower for them to get on and do it. There is one thing that can make a huge difference and that is YOU, US, THE PEOPLE”

So I call on everyone, let us make 2019 the year of #PeoplePower. It is time to force those government announcements into actions.

On 5th October 2016 Prime Minister Theresa May told the Conservative Party Conference that she was about:
“Righting wrongs: Challenging vested interests : Taking big decisions : Doing what we believe to be right : Getting the job done : That’s the good that Government can do and that’s what I’m in this for : Standing up for the weak, standing up to the strong.”
Perhaps she might like to tell the electorate exactly WHEN she is planning to start!

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

Disrespectful Bellway Homes Fit Signs Over Remembrance Poppies

Bellway Homes signs advertising the launch of their new development in Horwich were fitted to lampposts in front of poppies ahead of Remembrance Sunday.Bellway Homes Sign Covers Remembrance PoppyUnbelievably, plc housebuilder Bellway Homes sullied the memory of the fallen and showed complete disrespect by putting up, in all probability, illegal advertising signage over Remembrance poppies. The poppies having been tied to a number of lampposts on Chorley New Road, Horwich near Bolton, to mark the centenary of the end of the First World War.

Remembrance TommyAmazingly, Bellway’s fly-posting contractor must employed knuckle-dragging idiots, who took it upon themselves to fit Bellway’s marketing signage over the Remembrance poppies not once, but many times. In fact Bellway confirmed: “When we were made aware that the poppies had been covered by our development signage boards, we immediately sought to rectify the situation and they were removed as a matter of urgency by our own staff who worked late into the evening to take them down.”

Yes that long! Despite this, Bellway’s  “own staff” missed at least one. Steven Winward, who saw the images on social media, spotted one remaining on a lamppost near the Beehive roundabout told The Bolton News:
“I went last night about 9pm to check myself because it had really annoyed me after seeing the effort people had gone to put poppies and memorial stuff up and they’d still missed one on the Beehive roundabout. So I went to grab my ladders and snips and took it down to make a point. It’s 100 years and it was so disrespectful. I was fuming.”

Adding insult to public outrage, councillor Marie Brady criticised the public by saying she was not happy with the way the situation was dealt with and that the images should not have been posted on social media and instead, they should have been reported to the town council or the local branch of the British Legion. Cllr Brady told The Bolton News“We didn’t want people going out on ladders on a wet and windy evening to take them down.”

Did Bellway Homes obtain planning permission or permission from the local Highway Authority or Electricity North West  as these signs were placed on highway land?

Bellway CEO Jason HoneymanResponding to the criticism, Bellway CEO Jason Honeyman replied on Facebook:
“Please be assured there was no intention to insult anyone our signage contractors made a mistake, we are all deeply embarrassed and upset by the matter”

A mistake? Apparently Bellway CEO is incapable of recognising what was a deliberate, intentional, idiotic action, certainly not a mistake. The only mistake being Bellway Homes appointing these contractors to fit advertising signs to the publicly-owned street furniture in the first place!

A spokesman for Bellway Homes told The Bolton News:

“We are deeply embarrassed by the appointed contractor’s lack of respect and sincerely apologise for the offence that this caused to the local community in Horwich”

“We have the utmost respect for Armistice Day and for our military forces, and Bellway is currently supporting the Royal British Legion across the business.

“We could never have imagined that our signage contractor would cover the poppies with the marketing boards. This was a disrespectful mistake and one that we corrected as soon as possible.

“We are working with the contractor to ensure that nothing of this nature should happen again, either for us or for another of their clients.”

So amazingly Bellway Homes are still intending to use this contractor! So what sanctions if any, have Bellway imposed. Most people would have torn up any contract and not paid the contractor after the damage this has done to Bellway Homes and further sullied the image of the whole industry.

This has to be a new low for the housebuilding industry which would appear to stop at nothing if there is an inclining of saving money and greater profit involved.

There are strict rules and clear guidelines as to what temporary signage is permitted and under which circumstances.

Guide to AdvertisersThe MHCLG “Guide for Advertisers” states:
All outdoor advertisements must comply with five ‘standard conditions’. Which include: “have the permission of the owner of the site on which they are displayed (this includes the Highway Authority if the sign is to be placed on highway land”
From page 10 onwards, it lists 14 classes none of which would appear to apply to the signage Bellway erected meaning it could be classed as a deemed consent. Page 30 states:

“Any form of fly-posting (that is, displaying an advertisement without consent) is an offence which is immediately open to prosecution, or to the removal or obliteration of any fly-posting material if the district council or London borough council decide to take remedial action against fly-posting in their area. In the case of a placard or poster, if the material identifies the advertiser displaying it, the Council must give two days’ written notice of the intention to remove or obliterate it. This advance notice gives the advertiser the opportunity to contest the Council’s proposed actions, but if the advertiser is not identified a placard or poster may be immediately removed or obliterated.”

Housebuilders nationally, continue to run roughshod over signage rules, especially for permitted temporary directional signage  in particular this rule: “no sign may continue to be displayed after development of the housebuilding site is completed; or for more than two years” (see page 24)
and for flags (sites of 11-100 houses may have only 2 flags and flag poles should  be less than 4.6 metres high -see page 26).

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

Consumer Code for Homebuilders – Causing the Confusion!

So much for “Clearing the confusion” the Consumer Code for Home Builders (CCHB) appears to be creating it with its latest webpage purporting to “answer” consumer’s questions following the government announcement last month that a statutory new homes ombudsman was being created.

It would seem that the conclusions in the APPG Report published in July 2015 “More homes Fewer Complaints” appear to be lost on the Consumer Code for Home Builders as it ramps up rhetoric in a battle for its very survival now government has announced the creation of a statutory new homes ombudsman.

Under the headline “Clearing up the confusion”  the CCHB allegedly answers questions from consumers:

 

“Will the proposed New Homes Ombudsman replace the need for the Consumer Code?

Consumer Code for Home BuildersYes it would. The APPG Inquiry Report number 1 “Key recommendation” that a New Homes Ombudsman be set up saying “it would need to be completely independent and replace the dispute resolution service offered as part of the Consumer Code for Home Builders. This same Inquiry reported that the Consumer Code for Homebuilders:

  • “does not appear to give homebuyers the safeguards we think they should expect”
  • “it does not appear to us objectively to offer consumers a wholly satisfactory form of redress”
  • “is limited in its scope”

Yet the Consumer Code for Homebuilders ‘clears the confusion’ saying:

“The spotlight is on proposals for a new homes ombudsman once again, and we are actively working with government to understand how the new proposals will work in practice and what rights consumers would have under the scheme. In the meantime, however, there has been some confusion about the role of an ombudsman.

There are clear rules about what an ombudsman can and can’t do. While they can award a remedy (including money) to rectify a problem, they don’t have jurisdiction to fine organisations or apply standards. So introducing a new homes ombudsman may help with dealing with the complaints about existing problems, but it won’t prevent future problems arising.”

Wrong! An Ombudsman can award substantial justifiable compensation to consumers which would amount to a fine in all but name. All adjudication decisions would be publicly available in full with housebuilders named and shamed. By its very existence it would, as the APPG Inquiry Report alluded to, “put pressure on housebuilders to up their game in the first place and spur them on to improve workmanship and increase levels of customer service”

“We want service standards in home building to improve. Training and compliance checks are needed which is one of the areas we focus on.”
[The training being of housebuilders’ sales staff and estate agents – The CCHB specifically does not cover defects, poor quality or warranty issues]
“Furthermore, under the Consumer Code, builders can and have been held to account for not complying with an adjudicator’s decision.”
Really? Where is the evidence? James Brokenshire said the new homes ombudsman would go further and “champion homebuyers, protect their interests and hold developers to account”

This is an industry-led and industry funded Code that would never bite the hand that feeds it.

“Our Advisory Forum advises the Code on policy and action. We also have a fully independent disciplinary and sanctions panel which considers what action should be taken against those builders that breach the Code requirements. For example, one builder was suspended from building any new homes until all staff had been trained on the Code to prevent further breaches of the Code.”
But presumably not many, if any, have had their registration cancelled by the warranty providers. We don’t know because it has never been published!

Does the Consumer Code offer any more rights than existing legislation?

“Unfortunately, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 does not cover purchases of new homes.”   That’s why the protection provided by the Consumer Code is so important – the Code gives buyers of new homes protection if they change their mind or find sales literature misleading or inaccurate.”
Wrong! It does as far as ‘services’ are concerned. However, no consumer legislation at all specifically covers property. The CCHB does not give consumers any “Protection” it is merely a set of requirements that plc housebuilders appear to pay little more than lip service to at best.

“The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 offers some protection.”
Wrong again! Not “some protection” – it covers every area regarding selling property. The CCHB was set up by the industry to prevent housebuilders being reported to Trading Standards and ending up in court.

“However, it requires Trading Standards to take enforcement action or consumers to bring their own action, which can be complex and costly.”
That is specifically why the Statutory New Homes Ombudsman is being created.

“Where issues are identified under the Consumer Code, home buyers can use the Code’s Independent Dispute Resolution Scheme rather than take lengthy and costly legal action through the courts. We’re raising awareness of the Code  because we want more home buyers to make use of this scheme to seek redress where a breach of the Code has been identified.”
The CCHB has existed for over 8 years yet apparently raising awareness is still necessary? A statutory new homes ombudsman would give consumers a right to redress in any dispute with housebuilders, in the same way the Financial Ombudsman Services does with financial providers. The statutory new homes ombudsman would not and must not be, restricted and shackled by specific Code requirements drawn up in collaboration with the industry and its own vested interests.

Why doesn’t the Code deal with more cases?
Good question!
Because no housebuilder is going to promote the CCHB as it would make complaints more likely! In addition, the CCHB charges consumers an administration fee of £120 to register a complaint, and in some “successful” cases, this fee has not been refunded.
“We are continually raising awareness of the Code”
It hasn’t improved in the last 8 years! In fact I’ve done more to raise awareness of the CCHB and encourage buyers to use it after they sought my advice.
“so that we can encourage more people to access our independent dispute resolution scheme, including lawyers involved in new home purchases.”
The majority of solicitors being those that housebuilders force or coerce buyers to use even though this breaches requirement 2.5 of the CCHB!
“We are also working on removing/reducing any barriers that may exist to raising a complaint as well as investigating options to raise the maximum award limit.”
This is too little too late. Now consumers will hopefully soon be able to use the new statutory new homes ombudsman:  FREE – FAIR- FOR EVERYTHING

“Satisfaction with new homes has increased according to the Home Builders Federation which surveys new home owners.”
Wrong! Satisfaction has not increased. True it is 2% higher than in the previous years survey at 86%, but still way below the 91% in 2013!

“The latest survey response rate was 62% (57,972 responses), in which 90% said they would buy a new build again. Warranty bodies have also seen a drop in claims raised.”
Spin and PR?  An example of this industry never letting an opportunity for a bit of HBF survey spin pass by!
FACT – 99% of new homebuyers reported defects to their housebuilder within weeks of moving in.
FACT – 41% reported more than ten defects!

There is a danger that Government will bow to industry pressure and propaganda like this, placing limits on the effectiveness and powers of the statutory New Homes Ombudsman.

Bearing in mind the government said it “will work with consumers and industry to develop our proposals and publish more details in due course.”  But is this a delaying tactic? Whatever the perceived necessity for “further work”, the housebuilding industry is grasping it as an opportunity to lessen the impact that a statutory new homes ombudsman will undoubtedly have on their businesses.

Any perceived failure, collusion or delay with regard to the creation of the statutory new homes ombudsman will only serve to increase consumers (voters) existing and growing belief that  government is ‘in bed’ with the housebuilding industry, for example some have already questioned the recent extension of  help to buy to 2023, albeit restricted to first time buyers. It is time that for once government ignored the whining of this broken uncaring industry, one that has been running roughshod over new homebuyers for decades ans is ruining lives. This Hansard debate from 22 April 1998 is as relevant today as it was then Why have so many successive governments failed to act? They must do so now.

 

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

Weak mortar – Britain’s crumbling new homes

The great weak mortar scandal – Part Two

Following my first article  exposing the weak mortar scandal, many more new homebuyers have contacted me. It would appear this issue is both widespread and serious. Whatever causes their mortar to crumble, sometimes in under a year, both housebuilders and warranty providers are doing everything they can to limit their costs and keep weak mortar issues quiet, out of the public gaze.weak mortarThe NHBC provide warranty policies for around 80% of all new homes built in the UK. Defective superstructures, which include external walls, is their most common cause of claims accounting for 41% of all claims in the year to 31 March 2017, costing the NHBC £27.2million. Weak mortar cannot be considered as minor snagging, this is the rectification of serious defects often affecting the structural integrity of the home. It cannot be explained away by the industry as a few “isolated cases” either.

Are NHBC Warranty Standards “Raising Standards – Protecting homeowners”?

The NHBC Warranty Standards are in general, recommendations or guidance as a means of compliance, with just five absolute Technical Requirements (in red) these are mandatory and must be met by the builder
Regarding weak mortar, two stand out. R2 Design Requirement;
“Design and specification shall provide satisfactory performance”
and R3 Materials Requirement; “All materials products and building systems shall be suitable for their intended purpose”  That is having “a life of at least 60 years.”NHBC Technical Requirements - Chapter 2.1If Performance Standards (in black bold) are followed, the Technical Standard for that particular work will be met. The NHBC are quick to highlight to buyers that the remainder of the warranty standards are just Guidance on how the Performance Standards may be met and surprisingly, are not mandatory. The NHBC have stated that “failure to follow that guidance does not constitute a non-compliance” [with warranty standards]

With regard to mortar, the Performance Standard is 6.1.14 “Mortar shall be of the mix proportions necessary to achieve adequate strength and durability and be suitable for the type of masonry…”
The Guidance table then state various mix proportions which enable the Performance Standard to be met, using Portland or sulfate resisting cement. No mention is made of cement replacement material such as GGBS. Clearly mortar with an insufficient cement mix proportion, namely less than that stated in the NHBC Standards “guidance” table (from BS EN 1996-1-1), will not meet the “adequate” performance standard required. It is certain that mortar which is crumbling and falling out of joints is not suitable for its intended purpose neither is it of “satisfactory performance”.Mortar mix designations
So what are the NHBC responses when new homeowners who make a claim under the warranty for crumbling mortar?
“We can never guarantee that a property will be defect free”
“The mortar was tested with a flat blade screwdriver [dragged over the surface] and examined for defects”
“I am advised that the cement/lime/aggregate ratios provided in our Standards are guidance only”
“We remain of the opinion……….. to rake out to a depth of 25mm and repoint are [sic] an acceptable method of repair”
“Where issues relating to mortar are concerned, we predominantly rely upon visual assessment of the performance of the mortar to determine our opinion on whether the mortar complies with our Standards.”
“It is the problem associated with exposure and weathering which is the main factor when determining remedial works required”
“Repointing the external walls of your home will ensure our Technical Requirements are met”
“Jenkins and Potter Consulting Engineers [Barry Haseltine] were tasked with providing an independent opinion on the durability and strength of the mortar to your home and provide any necessary recommendations for repair.”
“Under our standards the builder must ensure the Technical Standards are met. Mr Haseltine remains of the opinion that repointing works recommended, if carried out using a specialist contractor, will ensure the durability of the external walls and will also meet NHBC Technical Requirement R3.“
This does not necessarily make the weak mortar behind the repointing “suitable for its intended purpose”

“I am advised that the overall strength of the brickwork comes from the compressive weight of the brickwork and mortar”
The builder is responsible for putting right anything covered by Buildmark that isn’t built to the NHBC requirements. If we don’t consider that the resolution service is appropriate, or if you don’t accept the findings in our report, we may advise you to consider another form of dispute resolution. Bear in mind that your concerns were raised during the builder warranty period (first 2 years), so any action you take will need to be against the builder and not us.”
“You have the right to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS)…. Some aspects of our Resolution service do not form part of our insurance regulated services”

Indeed they do not as the FOS have confirmed to me:
“Generally during the first few years of the policy the cover they provide isn’t an insurance product. And isn’t something we can look in to. “We can’t investigate when NHBC are acting to mediate under their resolution service. But if the resolution report isn’t complied with (deadlines for work are missed for example) the insurance element kicks in and we can then investigate.”

Mortars of Mass Degradation – Prescribed or Design mix?

A “prescribed mix” is one where the mortar is made in pre determined proportions, the properties of which are assumed from the stated proportions (recipe concept). A “design mix” is a mortar whose composition and manufacturing method is chosen by the producer in order to achieve specified properties a compressive strength (Performance concept) The M number being the expected compressive strength in 28 days so an M4 design mix mortar should attain a strength of 4n/mm2. Mortars are given a designation ranging from (i) highest cement content to (iv) lowest under BS EN 1996-1-1.

Mortar manufacturers can now infer the mix proportions of their mortar from compressive strength. BS EN 998-2 states the relationship between compressive strength and mix proportions for a limited range of strengths and mortar compositions in Table 2.

“Whichever type of mortar, in terms of its constituent materials, is chosen, its durability will be enhanced
as the cement content is increased”
BDA

NHBC “leading mortar expert” Barry Haseltine (85)

When a buyer makes a claim under the NHBC warranty eventually the NHBC normally dispatch their “leading mortar expert” Barry Haseltine (85) to the home. Having seen more than one of his reports, I was surprised by the similarity, with identical ‘cut and paste’ paragraphs, despite being at opposite ends of the country, different housebuilders, different mortar suppliers and different mix analysis results. Haseltine alludes to the fact that the mix proportions in the NHBC Standards mix are “a recommendation” and have not been revised since the use of factory produced ‘design’ mortar, covered by BS EN 998-2 in 2010, became more widespread. Haseltine also stated in letters and reports:
 “an M4 design mortar is the same as a 1 : 5-6 cement : sand mix.“

“an average batch volume proportion of 1:7.4 from which it is indicated that the mortar can be taken to agree with the designed mix and so there can be no complaint about it”

Yet in this case, of the 18 samples tested, by five different UKAS accredited testing laboratories, ranged from a best 1:7 to worst 1:9.6. In addition, the mix proportions from the manufacturer’s batch records fall well below the “guidance” mix table in NHBC Standards for M4 mortar, that would be deemed to meet Performance standard 6.1.14 and in turn, the NHBC mandatory Technical Requirements R2 and especially R3. When confronted by indisputable multiple evidence of insufficient cement.
Haseltine says:
it was very common for laboratories not to reach the same results as others. Although I am not a chemist, I believe it is not possible to find more soluble silica, the basis for cement content, than is there but it is possible not to find all that is there.”

“A cement content of 8.5% equates to a volume mix of 1: 9.3; looking at all the test results in my table… I conclude that the mortar mix can be considered to be a designation (iv) on the basis of mix proportions, one must remember that this mortar was a designed M4 mix so mix proportions are not a valid means of checking compliance”

A designation (iv) being a mix ratio of 1:7, equivalent to M2. The cement : sand ratio of 1: 9.3 is even weaker than this and in any case is not the designed M4, designation (iii) required and specified!

No samples were tested from mortar supplied to the site so there cannot be any allegation that the strength of the mortar that was supplied was incorrect. Factory Product Control (FCP) tests do not have to be related to any particular delivery of mortar”

“I would recommend M6 mortar for the repointing”

M6 is 1 : 3-4 cement : sand that is a minimum 25% cement content by volume. This for a new home constructed with mortar proven by laboratory testing, to have just 13% cement content.

Incorrect mortar specified at the design stage

Severe exposure areasThe mortar specified at the outset is often not as required by warranty standards for the level of exposure on certain developments. In geographical areas with ‘very severe’ and ‘severe’ exposure, new homes should be built using a mortar as designation (ii) – M6 which is an equivalent mix of 1:3 to 1:4 cement : sand. The Brick Development Association and Ibstock go further stating that in these areas, the cement used should be sulfate resisting cement (SRC). So mortar required to be M6 due to exposure, when M4 has been specified and used, clearly does not meet the NHBC mandatory technical requirements R2 or R3.

Insufficient cement

It is well known that the greater the cement content, the stronger the compressive strength of the mortar will be. It is relatively simple to take mortar samples from a wall and have them analysed in a laboratory. In most cases when buyers report crumbling mortar, these have proved the mortar has far less cement than is stated in NHBC warranty standards and in Table 2 found in the National Annex provided in BS EN 998-2:2010. In one case, laboratory analysis of samples found the mortar had just 36% of the cement (1:11) required in an area with severe exposure (1:4).

Testing weak mortar

There is no agreed UK or European Standard test method available for assessing the quality of questionable mortar, in-situ. However, when mortar samples have been taken and in one instance analysed by three accredited test houses they were found to contain far less cement (being in the range 1:7.5 to 1:10.5) than that required of a prescribed class (iii) mortar and has been classified as class range (iv) to (v). This casts doubt on the bond of wall ties that require a minimum of class (iv) mortar.

“Once mortar deteriorates it will compromise the
rest
of the brickwork.” BDA

Wall Ties

A weak mix mortar as opposed to say a purely durability issue due to weathering, can have serious structural implications. (The NHBC tend to use the word “erosion” specifically excluded under the Buildmark warranty) In any mortar proved by laboratory analysis to be a mix with a cement content of less than 16% (1:6 – designation (iii) M4), the bond to the wall ties should be considered as inadequate, meaning the brickwork outer wall could potentially fall away from the house in severe stormy weather.

The NHBC’s go-to “mortar expert” concludes the request for testing using a screw pull-out test which records the helical wall tie pull-out force from a 20mm to 30mm depth, 6mm diameter hole within mortar, is “unwarranted”. He says “the results would be very dubious” due to vibration, concluding: “the wall ties are entirely adequate and no work is required to justify them.” but fails to grasp it is the integrity of the actual composite cavity wall that has been compromised by weak mortar, creating an inadequate bond with the wall ties, not the strength the actual wall ties. He appears to completely overlook that it is the performance of the overall structure in adverse weather conditions, especially in severe and very severe exposure areas, that has the potential of structural collapse and in the worst case, even loss of life. Furthermore an unconnected report by Tarmac regarding weak mortar in a Persimmon home stated we are concerned about the fixity of the cavity ties into the outer leaf, which if not suitable will result in the cavity masonry wall mot acting as a composite structure when considering lateral wind loading. A 100mm thick brick single skin wall will be structurally inadequate when enduring high wind loading”

Erosion

The NHBC and their resident mortar expert make frequent use to the term “erosion” in letters to homeowners and reports. Could it be because erosion is not covered by the NHBC Buildmark warranty; “mortar erosion which does not impair the structural stability or protection from the weather” is specifically excluded. So in years 3 to 10, if the matter has not been addressed by the housebuilder, the NHBC can reject a claim and say it was caused by erosion.
Mortar Erosion not covered by NHBC Buildmark Warranty
Cement substitutes:
Ground Granulated Blast furnace Slag (GGBS) and Pulverised Fuel Ash (PFA)
GGBS is a by-product from the production of iron. PFA is a by-product of burning pulverised coal in power stations. GGBS hydration mechanism is more complex and the rate of strength development is slower than that of Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC). Graham True of GFT Materials Consultancy says in his excellent article “What is happening to masonry mortar” that National Annex NA1 guidance based on best UK practice, including limitations on the use of replacing traditional OPC with GGBS or PFA ash, is restricted to specific levels namely 6–35%. One mortar supplier has stated that the National Annex guidance in BS EN 998-2 is just that – ‘guidance’ not ‘mandatory’ – and therefore can be ignored! Graham says: ”On investigation it transpires that GGBS additions are being incorporated at levels well above the recommended limits of 35%, up to 50% and more, of the total cementitious content.”

Even Barry Haseltine, the NHBC’s go-to 85-year old “mortar expert” acknowledged in at least one of his many reports that: “For the last 20 years or so, cement has become a complicated subject compared with the relative simplicity that existed when we had Ordinary Portland Cement and a small number of specialist mixtures for example masonry cement. It is a regrettable fact that mortar has become a potential problem with regard to durability in recent years, probably linked to the use of cements that have considerable proportions of additions which reduce the active cement in the mixes.”

Graham True says: “There has been, and probably will continue to be, issues related to the performance specification of mortar since it currently differs fundamentally from past UK practice but in addition so does the incorporation of high levels of cement replacements, in particular GGBS

Sulfate attack

It is well known that where there is a high risk of saturation and in [very severe/severe] exposed areas, even with an M6 design mix, sulphate resisting cement should be used. Simply put, sulfate attack encompasses a series of chemical and physical interactions that occur between hardened cement paste and sulfates. The soluble sulfate salts within a high proportion of clay bricks react with a constituent (Tricalcium Aluminate) of the Ordinary Portland Cement within the mortar forming calcium Sulfoaluminate (Ettringite). So when sulfate present in bricks is dissolved due to driving rain and saturates brickwork in severe exposed areas, the sulphates present will cause mortar to degrade. For anyone interested in the chemistry.

Importantly for new homeowners with failing mortar, the normal 25mm rake out and repointing with M6 mortar will not have any lasting longevity if sulfates are present in the bricks. In investigations by Tarmac which supplied mortar to Persimmon site in Leeds found “sulfate levels higher than would be normally expected” believing that “the mortar has been subject to sulphate attack and cement degradation over a long period” However, it should be noted that it is in the mortar supplier’s own best interests to find alternative explanations to failing mortar other than incorrect mix proportions.

Use of Non Disclosure Agreements (NDAs)“Gagging orders”

Weak mortar is the housebuilding industry’s dirty secret and it is doing everything it can to ensure it is kept quiet. It has become almost standard operating procedure for housebuilders and warranty providers to require the homeowner to sign a legally-binding non-disclosure agreement (NDA) also referred to as a ‘gagging order’ as part of any compensation settlement, especially when buying the home in question. One buyer on a Taylor Wimpey estate in Peebles Scotland tells me: “over the course of the following few years, houses started to empty with folk just literally disappearing overnight – Taylor Wimpey were buying back houses, probably around 10-12 houses but it was still being kept hushed up.
A plc housebuilder's 'Gagging Order'People were signing gagging orders and therefore kept quiet. Taylor Wimpey sent out letters saying there were a few houses that had mortar issues and scaffolding was to be erected for repair works but not to be alarmed as they were isolated cases.”

I am also aware that the NHBC often require buyers to sign NDA’s perhaps because the last thing either housebuilders or the NHBC need is everyone on the development becoming aware of weak mortar issues in their home and making a similar claim. The Home Builders Federation chief Stewart Baseley said on BBC national radio
I’m a great believer in transparency”  yet the industry he represents, promotes and defends, is anything but transparent.

New homebuyers with weak mortar tell me:

“The NHBC Resolution Service and recommendations are unregulated and totally outside the Financial Ombudsman’s jurisdiction making it open for abuse and for the NHBC to look after their direct customer, their housebuilder registered members.  It seems all the NHBC need to do is actually offer their Resolution Service in the first two years but they then have an open book to recommend whatever they want as we all know.” (e mail)

“The NHBC Consumer Affairs Manager made claims which contradicted their own findings report and they also went on to say that my mortar tests were meaningless and that the Mortar M classification rating system is only a guidance, and that BS EN 1996-1-1 Eurocode 6 can be ignored.” (Social media)

Yet the NHBC standards clearly state that the builder must comply with “relevant standards” this includes BS EN 1996-1-1 Eurocode 6 states: 3.2.2 Specification of masonry mortar (1) Mortars should be classified by their compressive strength, expressed as the 1etter M followed by the compressive strength in N/n1m2, for example, M5. Prescribed masonry m0rtars, in addition to the M number, will be described by their prescribed constituents, e. g. 1: 1: 5 cement: lime: sand by volume. 

NHBC have known about weak mortar issues for many years

NHBC Technical Newsletter July 2000 Issue 20
The consequences of getting it wrong are well known to NHBC. At the least it may mean raking out all joints and repointing and at worst it can be removing the outer leaf and rebuilding. The problem is that too little cement is added to the mix to ensure that the strength is achieved and, perhaps more importantly, the hardened mortar is durable.”

“Take appropriate action to ensure that the right mortar mix is used. The consequences of not doing so are costly and can easily be avoided. NHBC inspection staff will be looking at mortar more closely and may take samples for analysis where they believe the mortar is not up to strength.”

NHBC- "Low strength factory mortar"

NHBC Technical Extra September 2013 Issue 11

So why have warranty standards not been revised to reduce the likelihood of failing mortar in new homes?

Why have cement replacement materials such as GGBS not been banned in masonry mortar? Especially as the reduced cement (OPC) is more vulnerable to attack from sulphates in bricks.

Why have the NHBC Standards not been revised to include BS EN 998-2 2010 for factory supplied “design mixes” and requiring testing of site mortar samples by housebuilders to ensure compliance? 

Opinion

This industry must recognise the threat to UK homes posed by failing mortar. It must not be deliberately hidden, with homeowners that do reach agreement being legally silenced by NDAs. If Toyota can issue multiple recalls to around 7.43million car owners worldwide, surely the housebuilding industry has a duty to be open about weak mortar in new homes. This issue isn’t going away. Tens of thousands of new homes could, and in all probability do, have weak mortar. Many more are currently being built. As Jo Churchill MP for Bury St Edmonds said in the House of Commons debate on poor quality new homes:“…the repointing of joints on walls where purposeful demolition and reconstruction should have happened”

Nevertheless, “repointing to a depth of 25mm” is deemed by the NHBC as the industry’s normal practise where repointing works are required”  This, even when independent laboratory tests prove the cement content of factory-made design mix mortar is well below that required to achieve the durability, weatherproofing and structural performance required and when it is highly likely not to have “a life of 60 years” a definition of compliance with NHBC mandatory Technical Requirement R3

It is in my opinion inconceivable, that the NHBC’s “leading mortar expert” is not acting for and in the NHBC’s best interests, to limit the potential cost of weak mortar claims by understating and dismissing clear factual evidence of inadequate cement content in failing, independently tested, mortar samples. His repeated opinion and reliance is on the single fact that a ‘design mix’ need not meet the listed mix proportions solely on the basis that it is not a ‘prescribed mix’ and mix proportions cannot therefore be used to judge compliance with masonry codes and has no scientific basis of suitability or performance justification whatsoever.

The NHBC themselves do not cover themselves in glory either by making assumptions and dismissive statements in their letters to homeowners whose homes in some cases, are clearly and quite literally, disintegrating. Opinions are not fact. New homeowners that have homes built with mortar with insufficient cement content that is crumbling is an undisputable fact. The best they can hope repointing, without any investigations into the mortar bond strength with wall ties, the use of cement replacement such as GGBS or possible sulphate attack.

Unfortunately, this is an industry that runs roughshod over the interests of new homebuyers, fobbing them off with questionable expert opinions and interpretations, whilst hiding behind NDAs. Perhaps James Brokenshire’s  recent announcement of statutory New Homes Ombudsman will force  change.

Conclusion

Given the cost, disruption to homeowners and potential further reputational damage in this already tainted industry, you would expect that warranty providers would be updating their standards to reflect the now widespread use of factory produced mortar and covered by BS EN 998-2. If housebuilders persist in their apparent preference for design mix factory mortar, they must be required to take mortar samples during construction for their own independent testing, rather than relying on the manufacturer’s in-house test results.

Graham True told me: “I just do not know why the house builders can’t use the correct mortar. The cost difference is minimal. They should be made to use a Prescribed Mix since the Design Mixes fail.”
I totally agree.

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

Statutory New Homes Ombudsman Announced

Government announces creation of statutory New Homes Ombudsman

Jo Leoanard's New Homes Ombudsman T ShirtMonday 1 October 2018 was a good day. It has been over 4 years since I began my campaign for Government to set up a statutory, stand-alone new homes ombudsman, providing new homebuyers with a an independent unencumbered means of redress:
FREE  *  FAIR  *  FOR EVERYTHING.
It’s been a long, hard, time-consuming and often lonely campaign.  I have, as they say, been there, done it, got the T Shirt.
See #NewHomesOmbudsman on Twitter

Over recent years, especially after the APPG EBE Inquiry into ‘Quality of New Homes in England’ published their report on 13 July 2016, the house building industry has had ample time to change its focus and priority towards their customers and improve the overall quality of homes they are building. They have failed to do so, whatever the industry’s in-house surveys “to provide data to rebut negativity” may indicate, as more and more new home buyers are forced out of their homes to enable serious, often structural remedial works to take place.James BrokenshireSo I was delighted to hear James Brokenshire’s announcement on Monday that a statutory new homes ombudsman is to be created, with legislation requiring all developers and housebuilders to belong to the new homes ombudsman. This follows the government’s consultation earlier this year on consumer redress in the housing market which closed on 16 April – the feedback report still yet to be published.

Secretary of State – James Brokenshire – 1st October 2018

Speaking at the Conservative Party conference, James Brokenshire acknowledged the need to “address quality issues in new homes” saying:

“That’s why I can announce today the creation of a New Homes Ombudsman. This new watchdog will champion homebuyers, protect their interests and hold developers to account. And give confidence that when you get the keys to a new home you get the quality build you expect and the finish you’ve paid for. “

This will help ensure consumers buying new homes will have an independent and legally backed route of redress against developers who do not deliver what they promise.

We want to protect consumers and ensure everyone has a great place to live and raise a family, currently there is no statutory process to bring redress.”

A pre conference press statement said:

“We are creating a New Homes Ombudsman to protect consumers and give them confidence that when things are not right in their new home they have a route of redress. This will also discourage developers from cutting corners and putting unfinished homes on the market.

Our plans will help to ensure that new-home owners have better rights and everyone has a great place to live and raise a family.

According the Home Builder’s Federation [HBF] and the NHBC, 99% of new homebuyers report snags or bigger defects after moving in. Developers have been found to put homes on the market which are incomplete, with issues such as wet paint, poorly fitted doors and other defects.

Whilst most developers do resolve issues there is no standard order of priority, meaning a consumer does not know if it will take one day or three months to resolve a problem, irrespective of how serious it is. Having paid a significant sum of money to buy your home it can be stressful and deeply frustrating to deal with issues which most people would assume have been resolved through the building process.

 Our solution: We are creating a new statutory ombudsman specifically for new homes to address these concerns. The role will specifically address problems of build quality in new homes.”

There has been surprising scepticism and negativity from some homebuyers on social media following the announcement. Comments such as: 

What teeth will they actually have to redress any issues at all?”
“We need to watch the terms of reference very closely indeed.”
“Sadly, it won’t help me in Scotland”
“Waste of time. It’ll just be another organisation that receives back-handers from house builders, so they turn a blind eye to any problems.”
“It seems will only cater for people in their first 2 years only.”
“Great news but devil will be in detail, and that’s not being negative.”
“A very short comment with no timescales. The leasehold ban and peppercorn ground rents. Leasehold reform was agreed on last Christmas but here we are with no timescale and no progress!”
“It’s certainly a step in the right direction as long as they get on and do it!”
“It doesn’t mean Consumers Rights have changed”
“Will this cover current new home owners?”
“Good news, if the ombudsman has the power to hold developers to account. Big question, will they deal with historic cases & if so, have far back?”
” I’ll be watching with interest. You can perhaps understand some cynicism where government are involved.”
“Too little too late.. AGAIN!”
“First job, shut down the NHBC”

But make no mistake, this is the most significant positive step change for new homebuyers in the last 53 years. The NHBC was formed in 1936, beginning its life as the Housing Improvement Association, established by a group of builders with the object of giving homeowners a fair deal at a time when “jerry building” was a national concern. Some buyers would argue nothing has changed! Later, in response to the growing concerns of the Building Societies Association, the ten-year structural warranty was introduced in 1965.

The government and the then minister Sajid Javid, had previously indicated a preference for one single ombudsman for the entire housing sector, encompassing new homes, social housing, private sales and lettings. It seems unlikely that the statutory New Homes Ombudsman would have been announced if a single Housing Ombudsman was still part of Government plans.

The New Homes Ombudsman will  support homebuyers facing problems with their newly built home, protecting the interests of new homebuyers and holding developers to account when things go wrong.

I would like to thank the many MPs and new homebuyers who have supported my campaign, who, together with the national press, have brought the issue of poor quality new homes and the need for a statutory new homes ombudsman to the forefront. I am however surprised that none of the national press have covered this announcement.

It is a great personal satisfaction to me that I have effected change for the betterment of all new homeowners. It is to be hoped that the new statutory new homes ombudsman will be 100% independent of industry interference and influence. Obviously, the ‘devil will be in the detail’. I now await the publication of the feedback response from the Government Consultation ‘Strengthening consumer redress in housing market’ which closed on 16 April 2018. 

The government confirmed it “will work with consumers and industry to develop our proposals and publish more details in due course.”  Why? There is no need, the consultation has been done, the responses are in, there has even been an APPG Inquiry into the “potential and detail” of a new homes ombudsman  would work! In the meantime, government expects industry to continue to improve the current redress arrangements and improve the consistency of quality for new build homes.

Most new homebuyers asked me when the new homes ombudsman will be operational. I think the next announcement should include a timescale which I suggest should be “by 2020” at the latest.

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter