Accountability of developers in Ireland

Samuel T. Cogley

beauf wrote: »

Manholes in the garden is pot luck. Unless you've a very reasonable developer. Which is highly unlikely.

It's amazing how in Ireland when buying for most people the most expensive thing in your life, there's no consumer protection. No bond to force the builder to fix problems in a house. Buy the house or walk away seems like the only options.

Madness.

While the bond is a good idea - but may deter house building etc. so won't go anywhere while supply is like this, consumer protections isn't needed as parties are both armed with solicitors. I know I've said it already, but this is why you should not skimp on the solicitor when purchasing a hose, especially from a developer. What shouldn't be allowed is developers recommending their house cat pet solicitors to purchasers - hardly independent advice.

chickendinner

beauf wrote: »

Manholes in the garden is pot luck. Unless you've a very reasonable developer. Which is highly unlikely.

It's amazing how in Ireland when buying for most people the most expensive thing in your life, there's no consumer protection. No bond to force the builder to fix problems in a house. Buy the house or walk away seems like the only options.

Madness.

Whats amazing is when people get a house built, they 90% of the time go
for the cheapest builder, never do they consider why said builder is cheapest.
People do not buy the cheapest phone and then wonder why it is a piece of ****

beauf

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

...consumer protections isn't needed as parties are both armed with solicitors...

The cost of that route makes it uneconomical for most. Builders and Developers know this, which is why they act as they do.

You're point about pet solicitors is a good one. When I was buying my house the solicitor seemed to have the builders interests at heart, and we actually switched solicitors because of this. Which made a night and day difference.

beauf

chickendinner wrote: »

Whats amazing is when people get a house built, they 90% of the time go
for the cheapest builder, never do they consider why said builder is cheapest.
People do not buy the cheapest phone and then wonder why it is a piece of ****

Consider then the Samsung Note 7 recall ....

Even the cheapest builder should be held to certain standards. But inspections and reporting and enforcement is really non existent in this country.

Manholes and gardens are interesting. When we were buying the OT stressed about getting a garden without them. Wouldn't have bothered me as long as they were to the edge of the garden.

chickendinner

beauf wrote: »

Consider then the Samsung Note 7 recall ....

Even the cheapest builder should be held to certain standards. But inspections and reporting and enforcement is really non existent in this country.

Great example, Samsung are refunding customer etc, Now if you bought a samtung, goodluck getting a refund

Even the cheapest builder............... I have no words, Do your research when spending 200k, When I buy anything over 100euro, I spend quite a while researching said product. The cheapest "builder" is probably not a builder at all, more likely one of those brokeback fellas, leaving you in a similar position

beauf

They are obliged to refund because a 800 phone has consumer protection but a 800,000 house doesn't. Also the phone was tested and checked many more times than the house will ever be.

chickendinner

beauf wrote: »

They are obliged to refund because a 800 phone has consumer protection but a 800,000 house doesn't. Also the phone was tested and checked many more times than the house will ever be.

You are the one who brought up samsung broke phone to counter my point about buying a reputable phone instead of a cheap one, now you are doing a flip saying they are getting a refund because of reputation of said phone:pac:

Listen if you are getting an 800k house, you get the following

An architect, A solicitor, A quantity surveyor, An Engineer, An Assigner Surveyor, These are representing you, and then A Builder

• You get your builder to get a bond, ie if builder goes bust, payment received (do reseach to avoid this)
• You get a contract, which your solicitor should go over
• An Assigned certifier which will ensure your building is confirming with new strict building regulations.
• Then you get Homebond or CRL type of warranty on your property also.

Your house is built in stages and paid in stages too as per QS, Architect and Assigned Certifier Instruction, ( Sometimes is Architect also)
Final Payment is a year after house is complete to ensure any snags are adhered to.

Now as a consumer doing your research and hiring a reputable builder is the most sensible thing to do, as they are responsible for ultimately building your house, I can assure you if you hire a cheap shoddy builder, that price saving a person made will not make up for the years of mental potential legal turmoil to follow over the next ten years.

jamesthepeach

My parents had a manhole cover in their garden.
My mum spent about 15 years squiring a fantastic well kept garden with all sorts of expensive plants. There was a problem in the manhole, jcbs and all sorts of heavy equipment came in. The whole garden was ripped up and became a garden sized hole.
When they were finished they raked the soil and planted grass seed and left.
Garden gone. My mum tried to get something done about it but it seems you can't and that was that.

athtrasna

The issue here appears to be what the OP was TOLD they were getting, not being what the OP got. If it's not in the contract there's not a lot that can be done. Everything needs to be in writing.

jimmycrackcorm

I've two manholes in my garden. At the time of buying our solicitor advised us to check. However it was in the days when people queued to get houses and I wasn't going to take a chance on not getting a house and on top of that pay extra thousands if I found an alternative.

I simply planted grass on top of the manholes to make the garden consistent.In almost 20 years they haven't been a problem. Perhaps someday access might be required and of so they will have to have grass laid again after. I'm not sure if access is needed who knows about then and I'm not sure about the ownership of them.

My parents also had a manhole on their front garden, that part was converted to a tarmac drive and good luck to anyone trying to find and open that.

The slope in the middle of the garden is unacceptable though, but as mentioned it is down to the conditions in the contract.

Samuel T. Cogley

Thanks Jimmy! I need to cut some turf out to make beds - I know where some of it is going now! :pac:

beauf

chickendinner wrote: »

You are the one who brought up samsung broke phone to counter my point about buying a reputable phone instead of a cheap one, now you are doing a flip saying they are getting a refund because of reputation of said phone:pac:...

You said expensive = quality.

My point is you should have consumer protections regardless of price.

Germany

...The warranty period for goods that have been used for a building structure in accordance with their usual manner of use and that cause a defect to occur in such building structure is five years. This applies not only to new building structures but to renovation work and remodelling work on already erected building structures. The goods in such cases must be firmly fixed to the building structure....

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/mar/11/why-are-britains-new-homes-built-so-badly

Then you have the whole idea of retaining % of the purchase price which is only released to the build after a period of time, 6 months, or 5yrs if theres been no problems.

Not that this is any relevance to the OP, you'd need to have things like the garden and manholes in the agreed contract. Most people don't think if it. That information isn't always available when you have to make a purchase decision.

athtrasna

Can we get back to the OP's issues please, this thread has gone wildly off topic, a phone has nothing to do with their manhole covers or sloped garden

beauf

How do you confuse a builder. Put three shovels in a corner and tell him to take his pick.

I think the OP has to see if the issues with the manholes can be disguised, and the garden corrected. If all else is ok with the house.

TBH they put so much clay in backfilling the garden it would be worth re filling it yourself and Putting in drainage, especially if their will be issues with drainage and run off to other gardens or pooling in your own. This also happens if you put in a patio.

chickendinner

op issue is pretty simple.

The developers are happy to for you to reject house as likely will get better offer in todays market, so put up or shut up.

Sad but this is what happens when people are desperate

beauf

taxdither wrote: »

...They neither responded formally to my snag report.....

I expect many people will find getting anything on their snag list done these days an uphill battle. Its a sellers marker.

If I was buying now, I wouldn't compromise. Because if a builder isn't that interested in the minor details (part of the iceberg above the water) what confidence do you have that other stuff you can't see is done right. You could end up with years of DIY and remedial work that you are fixing for years.

If its just the garden and you are sure of that, then that is relatively minor issue in itself.

Mellor

beauf wrote: »

Then you have the whole idea of retaining % of the purchase price which is only released to the build after a period of time, 6 months, or 5yrs if theres been no problems.

That's a completely standard condition everywhere, including Ireland.
Defects liability period. Standard is 12 months. After which the retention money is released. The staged release is factored into the contract price.

But it's a condition in the construction contract. Between the developer (owner) and the contractor. Same as if you employed a builder to build a house.

A house purchase contract is (usually) between a buyer and the developer. It doesn't involve the builder. You pay them up front, then hope they'll hammer the builder on your behalf - they are earning interest on the retention so it's in their interest to have these issues to waive at the builder.
But when the developer is also the builder, it's a different situation. In that case the purchase contract better be perfect.

Not that this is any relevance to the OP, you'd need to have things like the garden and manholes in the agreed contract. Most people don't think if it. That information isn't always available when you have to make a purchase decision.

At the very least, planning documents were availible. I always advice anyone buying off the plans to be very familiar with planning permission and related conditions.

taxdither

athtrasna wrote: »

The issue here appears to be what the OP was TOLD they were getting, not being what the OP got. If it's not in the contract there's not a lot that can be done. Everything needs to be in writing.

Guys, thanks for all the responses. sorry for not responding to each of them.
Athtrasna, My issue is on getting something that negatively affects the use of the property which is not WRITTEN in the contract.

In nutshell can I conclude that the contracts are written to safeguard the developer and the buyer will not have resources to fight the small issues.

Mellor

taxdither wrote: »

Athtrasna, My issue is on getting something that negatively affects the use of the property which is not WRITTEN in the contract.

Not being expressly written in the contract doesn't mean it's not in the contract. Generally laypeople can't read full construction drawings, so they get shown pretty drawings in colour that show a rough plan.
There would have been a planning permission that included some details of drainage. The contract would probably refer to the planning somewhere, but they aren't going to go out of their way to get you to review it either.

If there sewers aren't in accordance with the plans, you could have grounds for enforcement. For example, if the council were to taking the drainage in charge, they might not accept a situation where you could deny access.

At this point its a huge job to move the sewer, that's not going to happen unless its substantially non-compliant. But I'd be trying to get them to improve the situation as much as possible. For example, accept the manhole on the condition that they finish it with a concealed cover.



Not totally invisable, but considerably better than the alternative.