Shonky Builders

[Dustydazzler]

Homeowners to get 15 years to sue for 'shoddy' workmanship - minister

The announcement comes amid concerns leaseholders are bearing the cost of fire safety works.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Dartlec]

Homeowners to get 15 years to sue for 'shoddy' workmanship - minister

The announcement comes amid concerns leaseholders are bearing the cost of fire safety works.

www.bbc.co.uk

Of course another option would have been to have a functioning building control system and proper regulation that didn't allow shonky building to be done in the first place, but what do I know!

I imagine this might get some push back from wealthy house building companies so wouldn't be surprised if it was filtered down before it appears in law - even setting aside the fact that suing can be expensive....

Will have to see the small print - most new builds I've seen could/should be sued for non-compliant electrical installations based on what I've seen on the EICRs I've had to do this last year...

 

[snowhead]

Interesting that it's going to be retrospective, BUT it relies on the builder / developer still be in existance.

"I'm announcing today we are going to change the law retrospectively to give every homeowner 15 years in which to take action against the people who built their building if there is shoddy workmanship.

I suspect a lot over the last 15 years have folded.

Something that will defeat this though is that developers quite often set a new company just for a development, particularly building conversions, usually named after the development.
You can see this if you look at planning applications.
Presumably for accounting purposes, but all they have to do is wind the company up after completion of the development.

To try and stop problems via Building control would need qualified control persons permanently on every site, just as Government contracts used to have Clerk of the Works and thier team.

 

[Dustydazzler]

Of course another option would have been to have a functioning building control system and proper regulation that didn't allow shonky building to be done in the first place, but what do I know!

I imagine this might get some push back from wealthy house building companies so wouldn't be surprised if it was filtered down before it appears in law - even setting aside the fact that suing can be expensive....

Will have to see the small print - most new builds I've seen could/should be sued for non-compliant electrical installations based on what I've seen on the EICRs I've had to do this last year...

Brand new build electrical installations are notoriously poor and some are down right dangerous , has been this was for years. No amount of legislation will stop terrible wiring in new builds…

I have have found multiple C2s and the odd occasional C1 on brand new homes , plus a plethora of corner cutting and shoddy workmanship

 

[LukeD]

Australia has l a longer period. Thats why work there tends to be well done !

 

[GBDamo]

Can't see it making any difference, by the time the lawyers get involved the costs will be prohibitive and what bar will be used to judge the shoddiness of the work.

Nice sounding law that will deliver very little.

 

[UNG]

Interesting that it's going to be retrospective, BUT it relies on the builder / developer still be in existance.

"I'm announcing today we are going to change the law retrospectively to give every homeowner 15 years in which to take action against the people who built their building if there is shoddy workmanship.

I suspect a lot over the last 15 years have folded.

And unless the company directors are also made responsible and liable for the poor workmanship of a failed company this will be the problem that there is no one to take action against

Something that will defeat this though is that developers quite often set a new company just for a development, particularly building conversions, usually named after the development.
You can see this if you look at planning applications.
Presumably for accounting purposes, but all they have to do is wind the company up after completion of the development.

To try and stop problems via Building control would need qualified control persons permanently on every site, just as Government contracts used to have Clerk of the Works and thier team.

Reminds me a bit of the new Royal Liverpool Hospital, Carillion went bust and another contractor was brought in and they found a number of structural defects, it took about 12 months to correct the defects so they could finish the building work yet nobody at Carillion will be held to account and no doubt some of the Carillion management team involved will still be working on the project for the new contractor

 

[PEG]

Yep,the chalice-of-poop got passed to Laing o'rourke,and i noticed this years spend approval,was 108 mil....with "...24 million pounds worth of risks in programme......being assessed and managed..." whatever they are ?

There are still statements regarding it's past finances,online,from Mayor Joe Anderson,so money well spent ?

Sad to say,Liverpools financial history over the last 50 years,has fell short of their music,football and comedy prowess.