Tag Archives: house builders

Why are house builders and their agents still deliberately mislead buyers

New homes – all sugar and spice and all things nice?   That’s what the house builders would have you believe.  Slugs and snails and snagging list tales would be closer to the truth!  

Included with last weekends Mail on Sunday was a property paper called ‘The Location’ described as – “44 pages of property inspiration.”   Within it’s covers were some of the most outrageous superlatives I have ever seen used by house builders and their selling agents to describe not only the new homes being advertised, but also the location of the developments.

 Builder ads 1

Not once were the adjectives used to describe the homes and developments backed up with any tangible statement of explanation.  Here is another translation of what the builders say and what it really means

Of the homes they were described as:

“Bespoke”  Implying that they are being built to a buyer’s own specific requirements rather than in all probability, a one-off design forced by the planning process.

“Contemporary”  This just means “of the same age; present-day” yet it is frequently used to imply state-of-the-art features, designs or specifications.

“Exclusive”  This commonly used to imply the development or properties are one of kind – hardly the case with most new homes.

“Uncompromised quality”  Really?  How is this substantiated?  So there we have it, this development does not “compromise” on quality, implying or more usefully, confirming that others do.  

Continue reading

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

Britain’s incredible shrinking new homes

The reduction in size of new homes being built in the UK has not gone unnoticed! In a recent issue of MoneyWeek, Merryn Somerset-Webb writes that the new homes currently being built are among the smallest in the world at an average of just 76 square metres, that’s 818square feet! In comparison the average UK house, excluding new builds, is 95.7sqm – 26% larger than a new build home today. How Britain’s new homes compare in size with other countries.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAMerryn thinks that the problem isn’t that the average size of British homes is too small… “it’s the way we share them out – too many older single people in the bigger homes and too many families in the smaller ones”  as she would like to see capital gains tax extended for residential property.  Merryn does however agree that Britain’s new homes are… “generally small and nasty” and stating that new homes are… “getting bigger everywhere else in Europe except here and in Sweden”

Matthew Lynn also in MoneyWeek,  acknowledges that new homes are small and getting smaller.  Stating over time, “products get better and cheaper, our TVs are a lot bigger than they used to be and mobile phones can now do more than a desktop PC could just five years ago.” whereas “housing gets more expensive and worse.  An Englishman’s home is meant to be his castle – but increasingly it is his rabbit hutch. Last month a survey by Building research & Information found half of all British houses failed to meet the minimum recommended living space requirement.”   In any other industry you care to look at, overtime prices come down and quality improves, or a bit of both.  A survey by insurer LV also shows UK new homes are shrinking down by 2sqm in the last 10 years.  

So why are new homes so small?  This is where I believe Matthew Lynn misses the point.  He claims that it is because Britain has…“a chronic shortage of new homes” because… “the government refuses to make enough land available for new homes.”   Meaning that in… “crowded city centres existing houses get divided up into smaller units, while in the suburbs as many new homes as possible get crammed into whatever land is made available.”    Matthew’s “solution” is to increase the amount of land for development as it would result in holding back price rises and… “more importantly, it will mean better quality homes as well”   More land will not result in larger new homes. It will not mean the quality of new homes gets better either.  All it will do is increase profits for house builders as development land get cheaper. This is  why house builders will never build enough new homes.  

Continue reading

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 house builders will never build enough new homes

Why we need to start building council houses again.

It is not in house builder’s interests to build the 200,000 new homes required each year.  Not only would it use up their five-year landbank supply, it would also mean new house prices would fall as would house builder’s profits.  So house builders voluntarily building more homes for motives other than increasing their profits is about as likely as a turkey looking forward to Christmas!

It is also a fact that house builders do not have sufficient skilled labour and the necessary management skills to build a combined 200,000 every year, year in, and year out.  So if, as has been the case for the last 25 years, house builders continue to drip-feed new homes on to the market what is the solution?

Council house 3

Let’s start building decent council houses for decent people.

The answer lies in a return of publicly funded council house building on a national scale. Not with Housing Associations building more social housing just for those on benefits, but by allowing councils to use their cash surpluses, currently earning little if any interest, to build council houses on their own land. It worked well in the fifties and sixties; millions of council homes were built to replace so-called slum housing. But they were not classed as ‘social’ housing – in fact they were quite the opposite. They were homes for everyone – especially for workers on middle incomes. Getting a council house was based on how long people had been on the waiting list. There was no rationing and no stigma. They were new homes on estates with genuinely mixed communities. Good, well designed quality new homes with decent sized gardens for working families. Homes where people would want to live for most of their lives. But this golden age came to an end with the advent of Right to Buy and Housing Acts in the 1980’s which prescribed who could access social housing and who could not.

So now is the time to start building council houses again

Houses built since 1950A council house building programme could be partly funded with a surcharge of say £1,000 for every new home sold by every UK house builder.  The likes of Barratt, Persimmon and Taylor Wimpey would pay in around £37 million a year between them.  They could hardly complain given that the taxpayer-funded subsidy Help To Buy has increased their profits by over 50% and more during the last twelve months. This would not increase the price of new homes as builders always price  to the maximum the market can stand anyway,  price too high and they won’t sell!

Continue reading

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

Do the NHBC give Quality Awards only to site managers building high quality new homes?

The NHBC 2014 ‘Pride in the Job’ Quality Awards have recently been announced and it is clear that most of the major house builders have not improved the quality of the homes they build.  See the house builder league tables here for awards in 2014 and previous years.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERALast year Barratt made history with 102 of their site managers winning awards for quality. This year, despite building more homes on more sites, Barratt won 13 fewer awards – 89 in total, followed by Taylor Wimpey with 70 – just two more than last year!

The remainder of the largest house builders won just a handful of quality awards, much as they did last year – Linden 5, Bellway 29, Redrow 13, Crest 12, Bovis 4 and Berkeley 12. The biggest shock was again Persimmon, the largest house builder by market value, winning a pitiful 8, even less than the meagre 13 their site managers won in 2013!   Clearly this company has problems and appears to be indifferent to the quality of the homes it builds.

It is becoming an increasing concern that the NHBC hand out awards to certain builder’s site managers regardless of their personal management ability or the quality of homes built on their site.  TWPITJ1Last year, the NHBC gave Taylor Wimpey’s Richard Crawford a Quality Award for his site at The Chariots in Andover.  Since then, many unlucky homebuyers have discovered  their homes were not only poor quality, but in some cases also potentially dangerous, with various electrical faults despite passing an “inspection” and incorrectly wired boilers.  Taylor Wimpey 9 months small sizeOne buyer (full story here) has taken over 35 days off work to allow various trades access to his home to fix and repair the defective workmanship. So far (8 months on) CEO Peter Redfern has failed to get personally involved and has not even replied to the owner’s many detailed letters.   Yet this site manager won an NHBC Award for “Quality” for this site!

Continue reading

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

Another Government gift for the housebuilders!

Chancellor George Osborne announced an “urban planning revolution” to protect the greenbelt and promote house-building on brownfield sites in his annual Mansion House speech to the Corporation of the City of London.
Money

Even more taxpayer cash used to help housebuilders!

George Osborne said that £500m had been earmarked to accelerate urban house building through the planning system. The initiative will deliver 200,000 new homes by 2020 while also protecting the greenbelt.  He said:        “We need to see a lot more homes being built in Britain. The growing demand for housing has to be met by growing supply.      We’ve got the biggest programme of new social housing in a generation; we’re regenerating the worst of our housing estates; and we’ve got the first garden city for almost a century underway in Ebbsfleet. Now we need to do more, much more.”

In an attempt to appease the heartland of Conservative voters who are not keen on development of the countryside, Osborne added:   “We have beautiful landscapes, and they too are part of the inheritance of the next generation. To preserve them, we must make other compromises. If we want to limit development on important green spaces, we have to remove all the obstacles that remain to development on brownfield sites. Today we do that with these radical steps. Councils will be required to put local development orders on over 90% of brownfield sites that are suitable for housing. This urban planning revolution will mean that in effect development on these sites will be pre-approved – local authorities will be able to specify the type of housing, not whether there is housing.  And it will mean planning permission for up to 200,000 new homes – while at the same time protecting our green spaces.”

Mr Osborne has entered into discussions with Boris Johnson Mayor of London, to work out plans for 20 new housing zones on brownfield land across London, promoting the building of thousands of new homes in the capital.  He said:    “And we’ll take the same approach in the rest of the country; with half a billion pounds of financial assistance in total set aside to make it work.”     The new housing zones on brownfield land in London will benefit from £400 million funding from the Government [taxpayers] and the Greater London Authority.  There will be £200 million of additional Government funding available for 10 zones outside of London.

He used his speech to distance himself from the overheating housing market and is giving the Bank of England powers to intervene if it fears mortgage lenders are being too cavalier.

“If the Bank of England thinks some borrowers are being offered excessive amounts of debt, they can limit the proportion of high loan to income mortgages each bank can lend, or even ban all new lending above a specific loan to income ratio. And if they really think a dangerous housing bubble is developing, they will be able to impose similar caps on loan to value ratios – as they do in places like Hong Kong”

The news of Osborne’s annoucement imposing a requirement on local authorities to put local development orders on over 90% of brownfield sites that are suitable for housing was unsurprisingly, welcomed by the house building fraternity.

Stewart Baseley, executive chairman of the Home Builders Federation, said the announcement will allow house builders to start new sites much more quickly. “Two of the biggest barriers to brownfield housing development are the costs of bringing sites into production, and the long delays, sometimes years, house builders can face obtaining an implementable planning permission.”.

The House Builders Association (HBA), a division of the National Federation of Builders said that the focus on funding for brownfield remediation across the country would support the viability of previously hard to develop sites.

So yet  another coalition Government gift for house builders  –  this time using taxpayer’s money to clean up and make viable contaminated brownfield land so house builders can profit more quickly!   When will it end Mr Osborne?

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 minister Kris Hopkins, looking after house builder’s interests regarding Help to Buy

Following our articles on New Home Blog regarding house builders profiteering from the Help to Buy equity loan scheme and the government wasting taxpayer’s money advertising it on television, this letter was received from Housing Minister, Kris Hopkins, (on behalf of George Osborne) in response to the points raised.

It was 11 weeks before Mr Hopkins even responded. His statements are misleading and do not answer the arguments in our articles.

He says: “We are advertising [Help to Buy] to make as many people as possible aware of the opportunity”    

Help To Buy jpgIn response, there cannot be a single person in the UK who has not heard of Help to Buy.  In fact anyone considering buying a new home would have the scheme rammed home by house builder’s sales advisors and mortgage brokers.  There was absolutely no need to advertise Help to Buy on television,  wasting taxpayers money at a time of so-called “austerity.”  It is actually advertsing new build homes.

As for Help to Buy being an “opportunity” this is questionable, as the market is overheating.  Those buying 80% of a new home could well find that in a few years time, they have over-stretched themselves and may even suffer negative equity, especially when the scheme has enabled house builders to increase their average selling prices by around 20%!

He says:  “The Help to Buy scheme is enabling hard working families to access finance to buy a home”

What exactly is the “hard working” family that we are hearing so much about? People who work two jobs?  People who work long hours?  People who work physically hard like scaffolders and miners?  Or are they, as is probably the case, the vast majority of people who do a days work but do not actually get paid a fair wage in return  struggling in the face of higher taxation and rising  grocery, energy and fuel bills – all caused by government policy diluting the real value of our currency.  If the government truly wanted to “help” struggling “hard working” first-time buyers, why not abolish stamp duty land tax rather than subsidise house builders and hand taxpayer’s money to their shareholders?

Surprisingly,  “hard working” new home buyers from overseas can also take advantage of the UK government’s “generosity”.   There are no explicit rules or a requirement of citizenship or residency of those benefiting from loans under Help to Buy, although the schemes cannot be used for the purchase of second homes or for buy-to-let purposes. But how would anyone find out if an overseas buyer also owned a home in their own country and using the Help to Buy scheme as a way to reduce property speculation an investment costs?

He says: it gives “Certainty to house builders”

This is the same line trotted out by various plc house builder CEOs and their lobby group the  Home Builders Federation (HBF) whenever the Help to Buy scheme is called into question.  They still believe that Help to Buy can do no wrong – we’ll see!

He says: “House building has increased 23% since last year.”

This is not unexpected, given the low base starting point after the previous, low cost, credit-fuelled property bubble.   House builders are throwing up as many new homes as they can to make the most of the subsidies while they can.  Put food in front of a pig and it will eat more!

He says: given the increase in house building “It is not surprising that house builders profits have also increased.”

But not by a corresponding percentage Mr Hopkins! Most of the plc house builders have already reported increases in profits of around 50% in their most recent annual reports.  This is not even reflected for a full year of Help to Buy.  Redrow profits are up 107%,  Barratt reported profits up 162%.  In addition, house builders are all reporting increases of 14%-17% in their average selling prices, way above increases in the general market, hence the profit.  You charge more when your customers can pay less, with the taxpayer picking up the difference!   Charging more equals more profit!

He says: “Around 1200 builders have signed up to deliver this scheme, and over 90% are small to medium-sized builders.”

Whilst this may indeed be true,   what it does not reflect is the proportion  of   Help to Buy loans taken up by the largest house builders.  These typically represent on  average, around 30% of their total sales.     Based on the latest available figures from the top five house builders by volume, around 25% -30% of their buyers have used Help to Buy.  That is around 12,000 (62%) of the total 19,394 new homes sold using Help to Buy equity share to 31 March 2014, with five of the largest plc house builders accounting for over 62% of the Help to Buy loans thus far.  This could be even higher when they report accounts with the benefit of a full year of Help to Buy.  For the top ten house builders by volume, Help to Buy accounted for around 15,330 of their sales, nearly 80% of the total Help to Buy loans to just 10 house builders!   So it is misleading in the extreme to imply that small to medium sized builders are getting the most benefit.

He says: “We do not agree that help to Buy scheme is creating a bubble”

George Osborne agrees, but has been distancing himself from possible fall-out lately, saying the BoE has all the tools to prevent a house price bubble.  Obviously Mark Carney the Governor of the Bank of England disagrees as does Christine Lagarde at the IMF who urged the UK Government to rethink Help to Buy last Friday.    But hey, what do they know?   Kris says it’s all OK!

He says:  “There is no evidence of widespread land banking of land with planning permission by the major house builders”

Try looking harder!  Taylor Wimpey CEO Peter Redfern stated in a blog on his company’s website that they hve six years’ supply of land with planning permission.  As Taylor Wimpey has a land bank of around 65,400 plots and built 11,696 homes in the year to 31 December 2013, it would imply all of Taylor Wimpey’s land bank has planning permission but not all of it is being built on!  Even allowing for the 10,000 plots with “planning conditions yet to be satisfied”   Redfern alludes to the fact that his company has 30,000 plots ready to be built right now – half Taylor Wimpey’s land bank!   It is to be suspected that a similar situations exist with the other large house builders, why else was their such a outcry of whinging from builder CEO’s over Ed Miliband’s proposed land grab earlier this year?  Despite whatever Hopkin’s data from Glenigan or opinion from estate agent Savills might suggest!

So there we have it, 11 weeks to come up with a misleading response full of government spin  defending house builders profits yet failing to answer or even acknowledge any of the real issues, much as George Osborne’s did at the Treasury Select Committee meeting on 26 March 2013.

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

Government caves in to pressure from housebuilders as Zero Carbon Homes policy is dismantled

The Government has compromised its ‘zero carbon home’ standard. Housebuilders will now be able to ‘zero carbon’ their new homes in 2016 using an offsetting scheme, rather than by installing more insulation, or renewable technologies like solar PV or solar water heating.

This must be the most housebuilder-friendly Government of all time.  Taxpayer funded subsidies – Check.   Relaxation of planning rules – Check.   Make lending cheaper and easier – Check.   Keep interest rates permanently low – Check. Making more public land available – Check.   If that was not enough, the coalition government is even watering down one of it’s own policies after caving in to pressure from housebuilders and their lobby groups.

The policy that required all new homes built after 2016 to be zero carbon has now been diluted to such an extent it is virtually pointless. You have to question why the Conservatives ever bothered to change their logo to the current ‘green tree’ if their green policies would never be implemented.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERASo as the Government announced in the recent Queen’s speech, ‘Zero carbon homes’ will now not actually have to be zero carbon after all, provided the emissions are reduced somewhere else under a carbon offsetting scheme.  No doubt the cost of the house builder’s offset contributions will be passed to all new home buyers, but they will not get any of the benefits from reduced energy bills (savings of around £300 a year) in return.  So much for the industry’s claim that new homes are more energy efficient and more environmentally friendly!

The allowable solutions regime is being set up to give housebuilders an alternative to compensate for CO2 emission reductions that are supposedly difficult to achieve through design and construction. They will now be able to choose to do this by offering payment to alternative green schemes.

Continue reading

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

Is the Consumer Code for Home Builders fit for purpose?

After close examination of the recent Adjudication Scheme case histories, we ask……..Is the Consumer Code for Home Builders worth the paper it is written on?    The clue is in the name “For Home Builders” not for homebuyers.  At best, house builders tend to view the Code as voluntary or optional despite many of the Code requirements actually being required by consumer legislation.   At worst, as is shown by the published case summaries, house builders knowingly continue to disregard the Code requirements in the full and certain knowledge that the worst that could happen would be slap on the wrists and a small award against them.  Now in it’s fifth year, the Code is frequently referred to by the industry being used as an opportunity to promote new homes.

Consumer Code coverThe Consumer Code for Home Builders was launched in April 2010 apparently as a response to the Barker Review in 2004 and Office of Fair Trading – Market Study of Home Building in the UK published in October 2008. The Consumer Code is allegedly the house building industry’s response to the issues raised in those reports relating to customer service and satisfaction. It was created by a “group of stakeholders within the industry” who “joined forces to consider the issues raised” to “produce a Code of Conduct for home builders.” It was first launched in April 2010 – over FIVE YEARS after the deadline in Barker’s report!

CodeThe Code claims to:  “provide protection and rights to purchasers of new homes, ensuring that all new home buyers are treated fairly and are fully informed.”  But the protection already exists with The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, making it a legal requirement to treat consumers fairly and The Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008 reinforces the legal requirement not to make misleading or false statements. The Consumer Code for Home Builders if strictly followed, should result in compliance with the legislation, probably the main reason it was created by the house building industry.

The Code applies to all house builders registered with the new home warranty providers such as the NHBC, LABC Warranty and Premier Guarantee.  It consists of 19 requirements and principles that house builders must adhere to in marketing, selling homes and their after-sales customer service.  Failure by a house builder to adhere to the code requirements can result in exclusion from all registers run by the warranty bodies that participate in the scheme. Has this ever happened?  Very unlikely!

But is the Consumer Code effective?  –  Do house builders strictly follow it?  –  Are punitive penalties being imposed on builders who are found to have deliberately breached the Code?   Going by the latest published Adjudication Case Summaries for 2013 it would appear not.

Continue reading

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 2014 Customer Satisfaction survey results published.

The Home Builders Federation has recently released the results of the National New Home Customer Satisfaction Survey 2014. The first page of the “results” has been used by the HBF as an opportunity for a public relations promotion of new homes.   Crikey, they must be good!   Who would have known?

“High level of Homeowner satisfaction”   “Customer satisfaction levels for new homes have consistently been extremely high”

Barratt NHBF Star ratingQuite a claim considering that the results are from just 32,137 new home owners out of a total of the 109,370 new homes completed during 2013 – that’s just 29.4%!  Only 55% of the surveys sent out were returned – or used to compile the results!

We have the old chestnuts that new homes are “fresh, bright and clean” – another surprise given that new homes are normally dark due to fewer and smaller windows and small cramped rooms.  As for clean, many new homes are handed over in a terrible state after an ineffective builder’s clean.       “Blank canvas”  “better for the environment” – it’s all there,   it’s all good,  what’s not to like?

Continue reading

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

The Help to Buy madness is being extended by four years to 2020.

George Osborne has announced that the lunacy of his Help to Buy scheme for new-build homes is to be extended for a further FOUR YEARS to 2020,  less than a year after it was first made available. 

Help To Buy jpgThose keen on the stock market can watch today as builders share prices soar still further on this latest announcement. Already share prices of Bovis, Crest and Persimmon are up around 4.5%.  Remember this is taxpayer’s that are funding the five-year interest free loans, after we at least receive 1.75% on our money! This extension t0 the scheme will cost taxpayers a further £6billion! Also let us not forget that, at the same time, George Osborne is steadfastly refusing to raise the 40% income tax thresholds, despite calls from many in his own party as well as two ex-chancellors Nigel Lawson and Norman Lamont. Just over 1.7million paid the top rate threshold twenty years ago. Today that figure is 4.4million and is predicted to rise to 5million before the next election in 2015. 

Continue reading

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