Can developers do this?!!

shelle8726

Orlaw3136 wrote: »

Not in the industry and currently attempting to negotiate the purchase of a family home (my first).

Your assertion that I'm winding people up is nonsense; my posts here speak for themselves and I'll invite any objective reader to measure their tone and the worth of their content.



It's just that I'm not held captive by my own self-interests, nor am I holding my views subject to an incorrect belief that whatever serves me best at a particular point in time must be done for the good of all.

I am also capable - unlike yourself, it seems - of forming a balanced view as to whether a particular aspect of contract law or the wider circumstances of the property market are the cause of the problems being experienced.

But yeah, Team BUYER Go Us, whatever - that's just cheerleading for the vested interest group of which you form a part at this time of your life.

Say if the contractual position was as you describe - that would expose buyers to far more ills than currently. The reason the increase-in-price-pre-contract bites so hard is because the buyer experiences a severe lack of alternative properties compounded by a rising market (in Dublin), i.e. the buyer feels that they cannot tell the vendor to go and occupy themselves quietly on their own, to put it politely.

The solution to that is to address the skewed marketplace on a fundamental level. Not to tinker around with contract law in a way which will actually adversely affect the legal interests of the buyer as much as it will do anything else.

If you'd have experienced what we just have from the property market your views and opinions might be slightly different.
Good luck with your negotiations, I hope you have a more pleasant experience than us.

Orlaw3136

whomitconcerns wrote: »

well we are talking about price changes here....nothing else....

No - you're talking about root-and-branch reform of an important and complicated area of law which wouldn't bear whatsoever on the actual problems with today's property market, but recognising that seems to be beyond the scope of this discussion so I'll leave it at that.

Just by-the-by everyone contributing to this theme has expressed the remarkable and commendable view that they would honour the sale agreed price even in a falling market. What for instance however if their financier declined to lend the agreed price when the time came to complete due to a decrease in value against the market ? We'd all be happy with the price to remain fixed at the sale agreement on price and for an enforceable agreement on price to have come into existence at that point ?

(hint : if the buyer could not complete vendor could still in those circumstances sue for damages amounting to the difference between the sale agreed price and the lower price agreed with someone else)

That's just one issue.

Equally from my previous post, you agree price on a 2nd hand house, then you survey and find it needs 20k of work on a structural level - we're all happy to stay signed up to the agreed price are we ? Or you investigate title and its going to require title to be reconstituted or some other legal work which is going to cost money. Same ?

It's a question of protecting both parties - not all vendors are unscrupulous property developers, and its not straightforward.

shelle8726

shelle8726 wrote: »

Its scary and crazy that its going back to this with estate agents & developers. There really needs to be legislation put in place to protect buyers in this country. As it stands, estate agents and developers can do what they like and with the demand that's there they are succeeding.
We were all set on buying new property & I was feeling sad this week that it looks like we're going to have to buy something 2nd hand now but its probably the safest bet to be honest. It may not be the fabulous 4 bed show house we imagined but at least there'll be a lot less stress once we've found something and signed contracts.
I hope for future buyers, legislation can eventually be put in place that can protect purchasers... as it stands estate agents and developers are destroying the property market once again...

This.

Don't buy new property.

As a class, Irish developers have demonstrated that they are untrustworthy, poor at their job, willing to sell anything to anyone, and willing to pull any trick in the book to get one over on families who simply want a roof over their head.

Please don't give me stories about 'good' developers - they mean nothing until the industry gets serious about regulation. Which it isn't.

Why anyone would consider buying anything from an irish developer is one of life's enduring mysteries.

OP, consider yourself very lucky and go find yourself a nice old house that you know hasn't been built by cowboys.

Ray Palmer

shelle8726 wrote: »

Yes I would have paid the agreed price!! I agreed it as I felt at the time is was a good deal for a 4 bed new house, and had the conversation with the estate agent when handing over my holding deposit that if they went up in value would we still pay the price we agreed and he replied saying yes of course, and if they go down in value we'd still have to pay the agreed price and we said yes of course!

Your lawyer would tell you about this. He would also advise you to reduce your offer. This is the protection you have on the other side of the same legal grounds.

I think you would be mad to spend an extra €50k for property because you paid a deposit. That is above what most people would earn in a year after tax. You would also pay interest on it.

I guess you have a moral code I find hard to believe. I doubt many really would if they had the option know they could do the same to you and actual have done it to you.

calgary bound

I wouldn't agree with this tbh, put deposit on brand new house late in August, various delays with bank re mortgage and loan offer followed, houses went up in value from our sale agreed price by €20,000 in early October and we didn't sign contracts until December, was terrified we would get shafted but thankfully not all builders are like OP's, who I feel dreadfully sorry for.

Deleted User wrote: »

This.

Don't buy new property.

As a class, Irish developers have demonstrated that they are untrustworthy, poor at their job, willing to sell anything to anyone, and willing to pull any trick in the book to get one over on families who simply want a roof over their head.

Please don't give me stories about 'good' developers - they mean nothing until the industry gets serious about regulation. Which it isn't.

Why anyone would consider buying anything from an irish developer is one of life's enduring mysteries.

OP, consider yourself very lucky and go find yourself a nice old house that you know hasn't been built by cowboys.

Ray Palmer

Deleted User wrote: »

As a class, Irish developers have demonstrated that they are untrustworthy, poor at their job, willing to sell anything to anyone, and willing to pull any trick in the book to get one over on families who simply want a roof over their head.
etc...

To write off an entire industry is at best naïve and at worst just bigotry. It is quite foolish to suggest all builders are like this. Considering many foreign building companies and workers were in the country building the houses it is also transparently silly.

I know many trustworthy developers who built fine properties and treated their customers with respect. Some didn't but also didn't have much choice as their financiers called the shots. Not uncommon to be told we won't finance your next construction unless you show a larger margin on this project.

Ray Palmer

Ray Palmer wrote: »

To write off an entire industry is at best naïve and at worst just bigotry. It is quite foolish to suggest all builders are like this. Considering many foreign building companies and workers were in the country building the houses it is also transparently silly.

I know many trustworthy developers who built fine properties and treated their customers with respect. Some didn't but also didn't have much choice as their financiers called the shots. Not uncommon to be told we won't finance your next construction unless you show a larger margin on this project.

I stand by every word.

You would be a fool to buy a new house in Ireland. It's quite clear the industry is poorly regulated and that individual developers cannot be trusted. In case it escaped your notice:

• Half the developers in the country appear to have gone bankrupt - doesn't say much for their business acumen
• Pyrite
• Priory Hall (quite possibly the tip of the iceberg)
• Ghost estates all over the country that developers have walked away from leaving taxpayers to pick up the tab

I am sure there are good developers here or there. How can they demonstrate it in an industry so riddled with untrustworthy con-men?

If you buy a second-hand house you know it is essentially sound, there is no possibility of it remaining uncompleted, or houses around it remaining uncompleted, and you know what amenties are nearby (rather than believing the promises of a developer).

Oh and if it is financiers calling the shots and insisting on greater margins that simply proves my point.

The industry is set up to sell poor housing at high prices.

Ray Palmer

Deleted User wrote: »

• Half the developers in the country appear to have gone bankrupt - doesn't say much for their business acumen
• Pyrite
• Priory Hall (quite possibly the tip of the iceberg)
• Ghost estates all over the country that developers have walked away from leaving taxpayers to pick up the tab

To observe problems that hit the industry and equating them directly to the builders seems naïve or bias. Given the venom I would say bias

Financial changes meant all credit was cancelled and housing stock was devalued suddenly. If that was to happen in any other industry with their produce they would also be bankrupt.

Pyrite was a problem due to the suppliers. If you every looked at arrogate would you spot pyrite?

Priory hall is an example of a rouge developer to say all developers did this is completely fictitious. You just "reckon" that is the case

Ghost estates are developers fault? You don't blame the country councils for overriding the planners? The lack of people purchasing? The developers are solely responsible.

Higher margins is nothing to do with selling poor housing. The housing is

The choice of the government to get rid of the building bi-law department is the biggest cause of building problems. It was said when it was done that it would cause the problems it actually has. You always have to police policy and law. The same way they let the financial rules be policed by self regulation. The developers were caught between two incredibly bad ideas of policing and regulation.

How would you do in an industry where you could be supplied with substandard materials and being intimidated by the financial partners and have no recourse?

Ray Palmer

Ray Palmer wrote: »

To observe problems that hit the industry and equating them directly to the builders seems naïve or bias. Given the venom I would say bias

Financial changes meant all credit was cancelled and housing stock was devalued suddenly. If that was to happen in any other industry with their produce they would also be bankrupt.

Pyrite was a problem due to the suppliers. If you every looked at arrogate would you spot pyrite?

Priory hall is an example of a rouge developer to say all developers did this is completely fictitious. You just "reckon" that is the case

Ghost estates are developers fault? You don't blame the country councils for overriding the planners? The lack of people purchasing? The developers are solely responsible.

Higher margins is nothing to do with selling poor housing. The housing is

The choice of the government to get rid of the building bi-law department is the biggest cause of building problems. It was said when it was done that it would cause the problems it actually has. You always have to police policy and law. The same way they let the financial rules be policed by self regulation. The developers were caught between two incredibly bad ideas of policing and regulation.

How would you do in an industry where you could be supplied with substandard materials and being intimidated by the financial partners and have no recourse?

Every word you say simply confirms that my advice: "don't buy a new house in Ireland" is correct.

Ray Palmer

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The choice of the government to get rid of the building bi-law department is the biggest cause of building problems. It was said when it was done that it would cause the problems it actually has. You always have to police policy and law.

And this is an admission that developers are dishonest.

I work in an industry that is not 'regulated'. We develop and sell software. We behave honestly and ethically because it is the right thing to do and we would be out of a job if we didn't.

We don't need a regulator to make us do the right thing.

Ray Palmer

Deleted User wrote: »

And this is an admission that developers are dishonest.

I work in an industry that is not 'regulated'. We develop and sell software. We behave honestly and ethically because it is the right thing to do and we would be out of a job if we didn't.

We don't need a regulator to make us do the right thing.

I work in software and you are wrong about why the right thing is done. It is covered by contract law and regulated by that. I have seen many companies sued for not delivering what was promised. Software development is not done honestly and ethically.
The standard ploy is to let a client under estimate what they need and charge less than development knowing they will get lots of work to address the under specification. They then charge premium rates to develop the system to work as required.

Software development for a client is about one of the most dishonest business practices there are. That isn't some small company doing it but all the big boys in the industry which also rely on using up graduates and spitting them out. The only way a company has of protecting themselves is paying for experts to protect them and investing heavily in testing. You don't have to buy a building and then test it was constructed correctly but you do with software.

Software is curtailed for it's various different dishonest practices quite regularly. Apple and Microsoft both accused of anti-competition and ripping off customer. Major fines dished out on them and they aren't the only ones.

Every industry will do what they can if they can get away with it. Suggesting it is unique to building is very naïve and inaccurate.

Ray Palmer

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I work in software and you are wrong about why the right thing is done. It is covered by contract law and regulated by that. I have seen many companies sued for not delivering what was promised. Software development is not done honestly and ethically.
The standard ploy is to let a client under estimate what they need and charge less than development knowing they will get lots of work to address the under specification. They then charge premium rates to develop the system to work as required.

Software development for a client is about one of the most dishonest business practices there are. That isn't some small company doing it but all the big boys in the industry which also rely on using up graduates and spitting them out. The only way a company has of protecting themselves is paying for experts to protect them and investing heavily in testing. You don't have to buy a building and then test it was constructed correctly but you do with software.

Software is curtailed for it's various different dishonest practices quite regularly. Apple and Microsoft both accused of anti-competition and ripping off customer. Major fines dished out on them and they aren't the only ones.

Every industry will do what they can if they can get away with it. Suggesting it is unique to building is very naïve and inaccurate.

So we've gone from "developers are honest" to "yes developers are dishonest but so is everybody else".

Really.

Look, it is quite simple. This country is covered, COVERED with ghost estates thrown up in idiotic locations on the back of backhanders, poorly built housing that the taxpayer is having to pay to repair, and of course bankrupt developers who I, as a taxpayer, am having to pick up the tab for.

Like I said, I am sure there are decent developers (can you name a couple?) but fundamentally AS AN INDUSTRY they have a terrible name, and they have given it to themselves. Do you think developers, as a group, typically behave ethically or have demonstrated their commitment to quality and service? Really?

I can only speak for myself but until I see some genuine effort from the industry to clamp down on unethical practices, get their house in order financially, improve quality and start putting the customer first, I wouldn't buy a new house in Ireland, and if asked I would recommend nobody else does.

You can moan about that being unfair if you want, but that's my take on it. And like I said, everything you have posted merely confirms that I have good reason to take that view.

Ray Palmer

Deleted User wrote: »

So we've gone from "developers are honest" to "yes developers are dishonest but so is everybody else".

No we didn't your own bias is showing. Without enforcement rules are ignored applies to everybody. I have at no point said a whole industry is dishonest as that is a ludicrous statement.

You also appear to have a problem separating the cause and effect of things and want to blame everything on developers. In my opinion that is at least silly.

The country is not covered in ghost estate and saying something like that reduces your credibility as objective or insightful.

As an outside observer on an entire industry you don't show any knowledge but plenty of bias. That does not make a valid argument as you are blaming people at random.

Fine if it all cumulates to a point you choose not to buy a new house but you are still incorrectly blaming developers. The same way if you blamed the entire overpricing of software on software developers. It would not be true as is blaming everything on developers which is massive diverse group of people.

Ray Palmer

Ray Palmer wrote: »

No we didn't your own bias is showing. Without enforcement rules are ignored applies to everybody. I have at no point said a whole industry is dishonest as that is a ludicrous statement.

You also appear to have a problem separating the cause and effect of things and want to blame everything on developers. In my opinion that is at least silly.

The country is not covered in ghost estate and saying something like that reduces your credibility as objective or insightful.

As an outside observer on an entire industry you don't show any knowledge but plenty of bias. That does not make a valid argument as you are blaming people at random.

Fine if it all cumulates to a point you choose not to buy a new house but you are still incorrectly blaming developers. The same way if you blamed the entire overpricing of software on software developers. It would not be true as is blaming everything on developers which is massive diverse group of people.

You're right Ray, Irish developers are outstanding professionals who have consistently delivered quality product, are not compromised in any way financially and should be applauded for the great service they have done for this country.

I say BUY BUY BUY to the people of Ireland!

Last point - I am honest in my business dealings. So, to the best of my knowledge, is everyone else who works with me. It speaks volumes that you don't believe this can ever be the case. It also explains almost everything that is wrong with this country. "If I can get away with it, it's OK"

over and out.

Ray Palmer

Deleted User wrote: »

You're right Ray, Irish developers are outstanding professionals who have consistently delivered quality product, are not compromised in any way financially and should be applauded for the great service they have done for this country.

I say BUY BUY BUY to the people of Ireland!

Last point - I am honest in my business dealings. So, to the best of my knowledge, is everyone else who works with me. It speaks volumes that you don't believe this can ever be the case. It also explains almost everything that is wrong with this country. "If I can get away with it, it's OK"

over and out.

I have at no point have I said you should buy and over inflate the market. The fact you take a defence of the building industry to mean that is your own issue.

To believe that this is a uniquely Irish attribute is to completely miss the point too. It is human nature and happens everywhere. You do understand the banking crisis started in the US and spread. Not an Irish thing.

The fact you take a comment on aspects of the IT industry to mean I am accusing you of being dishonest is pretty funny. You don't want to be tarred with the same brush as your industry is, now think if you were an honest developer and you heard what you have been spouting.

It is a complete hypocritical view to take. Software is as corrupt as any other industry with very dubious ethical carry on. I don't know if you create a consumer product or bespoke software either way I don't believe you are unusual in that industry and carry on as your peers. It is just a matter of what you call ethical and fair treatment of your customers. If it is acceptable or you can get away with it you will do it regardless of objective ethical view.

I personally believe people who like to believe Ireland is somehow more corrupt and special than other countries hasn't actually looked at other countries in detail. The UK used the same financial guidance system as the UK. Both countries used this corruptly so how is it uniquely Irish?

Ray Palmer

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I personally believe people who like to believe Ireland is somehow more corrupt and special than other countries hasn't actually looked at other countries in detail. The UK used the same financial guidance system as the UK. Both countries used this corruptly so how is it uniquely Irish?

We're not unique Ray.

I wouldn't buy a new house in Ireland for the same reason I wouldn't buy one in Italy anywhere south of Rome.

I am sure there are lots of wonderful developers operating in the mezzogiorno but, you know...

I'd be genuinely interested in your take on why a consumer SHOULD have confidence in new builds in Ireland. Can you outline what has changed since pyrite, Priory Hall and the many many incomplete estates in the country that should mean consumers can have confidence this or something similar won't happen to them?

runawaybishop

Are you saying that every developer is the same? With a straight face?

runawaybishop

runawaybishop wrote: »

Are you saying that every developer is the same? With a straight face?

I've repeatedly said that I am sure there are good developers out there.

However for the consumer it is very difficult to separate the good from the bad, and property developers as a group in Ireland haven't exactly been knocking the ball out of the park in recent years.

Do you think the industry has an excellent track record?

Whether you like it or not, that's how people think. That's why they buy German cars and Japanese televisions. Because those industries have built up a reputation for providing a good product at a good price.

I put it to you that Irish property development does not have that reputation.

runawaybishop

Deleted User wrote: »

I've repeatedly said that I am sure there are good developers out there.

Deleted User wrote: »

As a class, Irish developers have demonstrated that they are untrustworthy, poor at their job, willing to sell anything to anyone, and willing to pull any trick in the book to get one over on families who simply want a roof over their head.

I see.

runawaybishop

runawaybishop wrote: »

I see.

Sorry? I have repeatedly said there are probably good developers out there. It's not my fault you can't read.

The words "as a class" in the statement you quoted clearly indicate a generalisation is being made.

"As a class", German car manufacturers have consistently demonstrated a commitment to quality.

The sentence doesn't imply that EVERY German car manufacturer is committed to quality.

Anyway, name some of these awesome developers.

runawaybishop

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry? I have repeatedly said there are probably good developers out there. It's not my fault you can't read.

The words "as a class" in the statement you quoted clearly indicate a generalisation is being made.

"As a class", German car manufacturers have consistently demonstrated a commitment to quality.

The sentence doesn't imply that EVERY German car manufacturer is committed to quality.

Anyway, name some of these awesome developers.

:rolleyes: I'll leave you to it.

runawaybishop

runawaybishop wrote: »

:rolleyes: I'll leave you to it.

By which you mean "I've learned to read, now notice that you DID repeatedly say there were good developers out there, and now have nothing to say"

See ya.

beauf

I'm still amazed you can buy a product, a property, worth hundreds of thousands With almost no protection against defects, no warranty, basically zero protection.

runawaybishop

Deleted User wrote: »

By which you mean "I've learned to read, now notice that you DID repeatedly say there were good developers out there, and now have nothing to say"

See ya.

Yes, that's it. Nothing to do with your general tone. Asking people if they can read. Clever :rolleyes:

runawaybishop

runawaybishop wrote: »

Yes, that's it. Nothing to do with your general tone. Asking people if they can read. Clever :rolleyes:

I won't take lessons on 'general tone' from the man who walked into the thread with:

"Are you saying that every developer is the same? With a straight face? "

The answers to which (as I had to point out, because you can't read), are "no" and "not applicable, see previous answer".

runawaybishop

Deleted User wrote: »

I won't take lessons on 'general tone' from the man who walked into the thread with:

"Are you saying that every developer is the same? With a straight face? "

The answers to which (as I had to point out, because you can't read), are "no" and "not applicable, see previous answer".

Telling people not to buy new property because of crass generalisations is just asinine.

runawaybishop

runawaybishop wrote: »

Telling people not to buy new property because of crass generalisations is just asinine.

Well I am glad we're having a more constructive conversation and we know your opinion.

I am sincerely of the opinion that after a number of failures and the total failure of either the developers involved or the homebond scheme to help (coupled with the many issues about lack of regulation / inspection mentioned by others up thread) it is foolish to buy a new property in this country.

I think the risks are too high and the protections too few.

Would be interested in knowing why you think the reverse.

Ray Palmer

Deleted User wrote: »

We're not unique Ray.

But you have suggested Irish building and standards are some have very Irish solutions. That is suggesting we are unique. You repeatedly speak in derogative terms of Irish developers. Saying this and also saying that you believe their are good developers out there is akin to "I am not a racist but..."

Your bias and it is an apparent view. You are talking in an offensive way to a whole industry and seem to have very little knowledge on the subject. You appear to have a very strange view of your own industry which doesn't match my experience.

beauf

How likely is it that the following has improved....

An unpublished 2005 Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland report found that new homes were failing to meet minimum energy efficiency, ventilation and fire safety regulations during the boom, as Construct Ireland has revealed in today's Irish Times.

The report, obtained by Construct Ireland editor Jeff Colley, also showed worrying evidence that the trend in energy consumption levels – which had been gradually falling in homes built between 1981 and 1996 – shifted to dramatic increases in energy use for houses built from 1997 to 2002.

SEAI commissioned The Energy Performance Survey of Irish housing in 2004, which was carried out by City of Dublin Energy Management Agency, DIT and three regional energy agencies between January and May 2005.

The report analysed the energy performance of a representative sample of 150 houses and apartments to establish a profile of the national housing stock, with a smaller sample of 52 homes built between 1997 & 2002 checked for compliance with Part L, F and J - the building regulations that deal with conservation of fuel and power, ventilation, and requirements for boilers respectively. The homes were also checked for compliance with SI 260 of 1994, which sets requirements for boiler efficiency.

Of the 52 homes inspected, none complied with all three of the building regulations selected, while only one complied in full with energy efficiency standards under Part L of the building regulations.

The report found that 87% of homes were “properly” insulated, based on visual inspections. Surveyors could only check wall insulation through vents (where present) and ESB boxes. As floor insulation could not be seen, the report assumes 100% of floors complied.

20 of the 52 homes underwent infrared thermal imaging tests – the building equivalent of an X- ray. This data – which was not counted in the building regulations compliance check – found that:

70% had insulation missing from walls and roofs (55% has “some” and 15% had “extensive” missing insulation). This strongly undermines the conclusion that 87% were “properly insulated”;
“about half” are potential condensation risks;
two thirds had significant cold bridges at windows, sills and wall closures;
there was a significant difference in the purchased heat energy for the different buildings linked to amounts of missing insulation identified by thermal imaging. The six houses which had “good” levels of insulation and eleven houses which had “fair” levels purchased 17 and 13% less energy than the calculated energy rating estimate, but the 3 “poor” houses purchased 25% more than calculated.


The compliance check on the sample of 52 houses also found the following litany of issues:

93% of homes with oil boilers did not meet requirements for oil storage tanks, due to a lack of barriers to prevent fire spread and inadequate bases;
42% failed to meet general ventilation standards required to prevent condensation, damp, and threats to indoor air quality;
29% failed to meet ventilation standards for boilers, increasing the potential for carbon monoxide poisoning;
56% of boilers complied with energy efficiency requirements. Although 72% of standard gas boilers complied, just 30% of standard oil boilers complied;
92% failed to meet minimum insulation levels for water cylinders, pipes and ducts;
in some cases, no background ventilation (wall or window vents) was included;
63% failed to comply with the requirements for heating controls;
87% failed to meet prescribed air infiltration measures;

http://passivehouseplus.ie/news/government/unpublished-seai-report-showed-systemic-building-control-failure.html

Its effectively a self regulated industry.