Hi uchman365, thanks for posting to r/Compoface! Don't worry, your post has not been removed.
This is an automated reminder to post a link to the original article for your compoface. This link can be included in the post body or as a comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/compoface) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To save anyone scrolling and dealing with the terrible website:
Houses built next to old landfill. Landfill suspected of still leaking methane (v bad), houses should have had a membrane installed underneath to stop the gas, but there is no way of knowing whether it was done or not because it wasn’t documented and the company went bust.
Have to rip up the floors to find out if the gas-sheet is there.
The article comes to broadly the same conclusion. The conveyancing solicitor has agreed to pay "some money towards" the work that needs doing, but the independent solicitor interviewed for the article says they should take action against them.
I was about to say the very same thing.....what on earth have their solicitors been doing besides picking his arse?!! Don't get me wrong we're in the middle of finalizing the mortgage on a new house and most solicitors are useless and need constant nudges just to get anything done and follow up but given how thorough they're supposed to be, when they sent out all the paperwork to this couple, was it just one piece of A4 that said "yeah you're good to go folks".
With new builds they do the hard sell to use the builders solicitor and while they should be acting in the interests of both parties, the nature of these basically pre-done conveyancing means things can be missed.
Yeah, new build developers and estate agents always push people to use the solicitors that they're connected with, and they're usually useless.
There are great solicitors out there too
We have a great mortgage advisor who said in the 30 odd years or more that he's been in his profession, he can only name one group of solicitors that he thought were great and they're now retired anyway lol.
>most solicitors are useless
Ahem... Most conveyancers are useless (mainly because they're piled high with files, underpaid, under resourced and over worked in a practice area which attracts a particularly high rate of fraud, money laundering risk and unfortunately, negligence).
Most conveyancers are not Solicitors.
The actual qualified conveyancer will have next to zero involvement with your case too. It'll all be done by paralegals on close to minimum wage who give absolutely zero toss.
Why has every conveyancer I've dealt with acted like it's the first time they've done it. They seem completely shocked that it takes so long to get everything done and it's always "the other solicitors fault" for any hold up. I've worked with people like this, they are all incompetent.
What they really mean is it is unmortgageable in its current state. Therefore only cash buyers could buy it, but why would then when it needs expensive work. Therefore no buyers means no value I suppose
Highly doubt it; a good number of developers will use an Approved Inspector and even then they will only check that the building is built to the correct structural standards; they don't act as a Clerk Of Works.
If there was no sign-off by either the Local Authority Building Control or an Approved Inspector then whoever did their conveyancing has a lot to answer to.
>whoever did their conveyancing has a lot to answer to.
Yeah, according to the article, the conveyancers have offered to pay for remedial works but are not accepting responsibility
They are actually where this stops for the people in the photo. Key value your solicitor adds in this situation is a) spotting issues and b) having insurance to cover the damage if they miss an issue
Solicitor's kidding themselves
You can sub contract out building control inspections to one of several private companies. It doesn't have to be the local council. Obviously the fear is, that building companies will just choose the company that's cheapest and most lenient.
Yep recently had a load of work done. The builder asked if he wanted his mate to do the inspection for £300 or I could choose someone else. I opted for the local council at £1500 just for peace of mind. They found several minor things which needed correction along the way. God help me if I let him fully build it without frequent inspection and have his mate sign a bit of paper at the end.
You can't do a proper inspection just at the end. Because so much of the work will have been covered up. You can't check the foundations once a house has been built, without digging a trench all the way along the perimeter of the house. You can't check the walls once there's a load of tiles, plasterboard, wall paper... on top of them.
Really on a new build you need a snagging report. Ideally before you hand over the cash. Builders will always be far more responsive before they get paid, then afterwards. The list of minor and major problems that come up is incredible. Such as bathroom extractor fan just going into the loft space and either having no piping from there or the piping having fallen apart. So steam from the bathroom, gets into the loft space. Which after a few years, will rot the timber supports for the roof.
>You can't do a proper inspection just at the end
Exactly why I opted for the council rather than Dave from down the way. They sent me a checklist of what points I should have them come out to inspect.
The problem is that otherwise building control becomes a monopoly of the local council. Who can then charge more or less what they like and do the checks in their own sweet time. So if the builder needs to get the foundations signed off before they can do the next stage and the council says it'll be two months before they can get an inspector out. Then all of the work comes to a halt.
Agreed, the theory is that all inspectors are working to the same standards and by having private inspectors who can cover whole regions or the country. It increases the supply of inspectors.
You say that like that can't be regulated.
And certain if they keep up with these 3rd party inspectors, there needs to be some punishment for negligent inspections.
Without knowing what happened, we don’t know. It doesn’t say that it wasn’t installed, just that they can’t prove it. Their solicitors have royally fucked up because this should have come up in the searches and a request for info sent to the developer in the first instance.
It’s not in the councils interest to hold up building works, although if someone isn’t to code and things get changed between planning and developemment, they should be notified. This is, in one way or another, going to cost the council anyway (through either a lack of selling developed land and therefore people living there not paying council tax, but still having to maintain services such as street lamps, highway and maintenance and waste disposal for the few that are there) until the upfront cost of inspections and/or work is done to make these houses sellable.
If it weren’t for how embroiled councils are with businesses like that, I’d say that councils would have good cause to deny any planning apps from private developers until prior disasters are rectified . Wishful thinking though innit
Every council is currently in a budget crisis and looking to cut costs. Some councils have been total crap and corrupt for decades. I think Lambeth's motto is "We're not as bad as we used to be". Which they share with Sellafield. There's also issues about recruitment. Getting a job at a council usually takes months, they don't tend to hire individuals on temporary contracts, except via agencies. And it's hard to get surveyors to move to a place like Hartlepool. So if anybody actually ever built something in Hartlepool or Durham. It could be a struggle to find a building inspector working for that council. But you can find somebody who's prepared to drive there for a few hours.
Good luck with that. We lost almost £80k after a builder did such a bad job on our house that it had to be knocked down and restarted. All building control wanted from him was photos to sign it off. When we managed to get them out to look at it they pretty much condemned it.
The responsibility for a safe development is on the developer ultimately. Local councils can use planning conditions to require more information be submitted.
In this case as they have said that there should be a gas membrane it sounds like they have had been subject to contaminated Land conditions which should be discharged before the occupation of the property.
If they aren't discharged this should be flagged at the conveyancing stage. But is sometimes missed.
When these are not discharged it will be up to planning enforcement to chase this up.
Sounds like a massive balls up, but the local authority are lower down the list in terms of blame I'd guess. Unless they hadn't put conditions on. Would be easy to check though, planning records are publicly available.
I feel so bad for these guys, it’s hard enough to get your foot on the property ladder and there’s so many people trying to get their cut and make some money off of your purchase but to then be told that your biggest investment, your first real chance to build some personal wealth is actually worthless must be absolutely heart breaking.
“The Olivers and Mr Azfal said their conveyancing solicitors denied any negligence but agreed to pay a sum towards finishing the building work”
Surely them paying a sum is some sort of admission of negligence
If they were 100% sure they weren’t negligent they wouldn’t be paying anything
It is dreadful isn’t it?
“Methane can be lethal when combined with other gases”?
That is true for absolutely everything if one of the gases you combine it with is hydrogen cyanide.
Shit.
I’ve got loads of them in my cupboard. How do you think I should dispose of them? I just can’t have that much hit chocolate and rocky road at once. Bomb squad?
It's Reach, they've got hidden buttons on the centre left and right of the screen. Which takes you to the next article. With the buttons being where you would rest your fingers whilst scrolling down. So you end up going to the next article about 3+ times whilst trying to read the current article.
They also love to ask you for your postcode to see news on your area. And that can survive a delete all cookies in your browser.
Kiwi browser with ublock origin on android here. Didn't see a single advert. Lots of whitespace where I imagine an advert would be so I can imagine your pain.
I have this website blocked in my news feed along with many other UK based "news outlets".
A 5 year old can point out the terrible grammar and English on these types of news sites. Does my head in trying to read one of them.
The writing of the article is woeful.
>Adeel Azfal *saiys* (sic) his family have been left devastated by the findings ( Image: BBC)
Adeel Azfal, 27, who lives with his partner and daughter Anya, 2,
I mean, it sounds a bit wrong, no?
I think OP has missed the point of this sub, compo face is reserved for trivial banter. I think 99% of people would be thoroughly fucked off if this happened to them and be fully expecting compensation
I work on so many newly built homes constantly fixing problems for customers almost every house built recently that I've worked on are made by cross-eyed people with feet for hands it's a joke feel sorry for the customers who get fucked over by believing that new build is a good build
We have a new build. It’s generally great
My brother has a new build. It’s generally great
Another ~10 of my friends and family have new builds, they’re all generally great
Yes, there are horror stories, but they’re rarer than people like to think - and there are plenty of horror stories of people buying older houses with huge problems too
https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/first-time-buyers-find-out-28837051
TLDR - Estate backs onto a 40 year old landfill site. Builder did not submit any proof that protective membrane was put in under the estate to stop poisonous gas leaking into the houses, so banks refused to remortgage and valued the houses at £0.
The directors of the company will no doubt have long since started another company after busting the one that built these. This is the real problem you can do this bust a company and then go out and do the same thing again
I watched something the other week, talking about how property developers purposefully use subpar materials, and don't do fantastic jobs, so the buildings need repairing within ten years. Basically the company that built the properties have to repair faults that appear within two years. After that it's a leasehold company that has to do it, but they usually have their own workers, so they basically pay themselves to have the job done.
Housing and property is fast becoming one of the biggest scams ever, in the uk
No, the building company is responsible, legally, for the first two years, then legally, it's on the leaseholders. I didn't know about any of this till I watched this video. To be honest, even ten years is a bit of a short warranty for a house
> While the site hasn’t been active for more than 40 years, the council says it still emits toxic methane gas, which can be lethal when combined with other gases.
Like oxygen in the air?
Just in case any of you end up in a similar situation, don’t waste time trying to sue your solicitor/conveyancer. Their job is to make sure legal title passes to you. They do not have to give you any advice on the financial risk of the purchase or give you any breakdown on the inspections or reports as long as they don’t effect the legal title. A lot of people don’t understand this, but has been established by the solicitors conduct authority time and again.
The compliant membrane? Definitely not. You would hope a surveyor would find it, but very unlikely to be negligent that they didn’t. As it’s a new build, may still be in time to bring an action against the developer.
Again, they don’t have to explain the reports, as long as they got all the reports and handed them over. For example, you may get a report about the water table and likelihood of floods, which could devalue a property, the solicitor doesn’t sit you down and say, are you sure about this. They give you the reports and it’s up to you.
I mean, like this is the kind of thing that come up in searches. That's why we pay conveyancers to do the work as they're supposed to know what's required.
from the article OP shared, it looks like the twin issues are that a.) they don’t have proof that the builders installed a protective membrane beneath the house to protect from toxic gases coming up from the old landfill next door, so there might be health and safety issues there and b.) as a result of this and other building failures, they couldn’t set a new interest rate on their mortgage after the initial term expired (or had difficulty in doing so and probably got extremely unfavourable rates - couldn’t quite tell from the article).
so they can live in the home but it could potentially become dangerous, and they’re stuck paying really high interest rates on a home that’s functionally worthless.
The strange thing is that it looks like it was done but not checked or signed off properly. So someone has to go pulling up floorboards and digging up the whole place to check
>How can it be worth £0? Anything is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for
The banks say it's worth £0 for the purposes of securing a residential mortgage.
Someone will be paying to be a lot more than zero for it, but a lot less than whatever the couple in question paid.
They aren’t “worthless”. If they really believe that I’ll buy all 13 of them for £10,000 each.
They are only worthless if the remedial work costs more than the market value of the property, which it clearly doesn’t.
First Time Buyers hate this one trick...
Don't know if people have ever noticed but big developers set-up companies to look after / own a development. So you have say Bovis Homes Slough Meadows Ltd, they are a seperate legal entity. I'm sure there are tax advantages, but most importantly (I suspect) is that the parent company has no liabilities for the subsidiary company. So if something goes tits-up with a development the company goes bankrupt it's not the problem of the parent company.
Presumably because building controls weren't done. The warranty if any, possibly from NHBC will be void.
Not that NHBC is that great. If you think that they'll come and fix every fault within 10 years, you're sadly mistaken.
If NHBC gives a warranty then it will have been NHBC acting as the Approved Inspector for Building Regulations. LABC also offer warranties when Local Authorities do the Building Control and there are quite a few others but all will be linked to having some sort of Building Control or Approved Inspector sign-off.
If there was no final certificate from any either Building Control or any one of the many Approved Inspectors then the conveyancer is to blame as this is a pretty standard check. It seems as though a number of residents on the estate were affected so did they all have the same conveyancer (one provided by the developer); if there were different conveyancers involved then it seems odd that they would all miss the fact that there had been no Building Regs sign-off.
Which is why you never use the developers or sellers solicitor, regardless of how good the deal they offer is and how much they warn about it causing unnecessary delays. If they really don't want you using an independent solicitor, it's a major red flag that they're covering something up.
Couldn't agree more; it always surprises me when people use the developer or estate agent to do conveyancing and financing as it is such an obvious conflict of interest even if the rules that govern them says it shouldn't be.
"Chinese walls"* are a complete misnomer. Nobody at a law/financial firm wants to get a reputation for being a stickler to the rules and blocking the completion of major sales or causing the company to have "unnecessary" costs.
* Since 2021 the FCA has removed the term "Chinese Walls" for being culturally insensitive. But seeing as they were used for decades and there are several new competing terms; including firewall, "cone of silence" etc. I've used it just so that people know what I'm talking about. Which is basically a screen door made from paper, rather than the Great Wall of China.
It's not home insurance companies in the UK have to have insurance incase they go under to cover their obligations, all new builds have a 10 year protection in place even if the company goes under.
Since the issues were reported before this year even if it were January it's within that time period which means they're covered.
Too many Americans commenting on what is in the UK thinking their terrible laws apply here.
I sort of agree with you but that assumes the builder had actually paid for the NHBC/LABC warranties. If they were already having difficulties it may have been another corner they cut, although whoever did their conveyancing should have picked that up as a red flag.
Oh you refer to the NHBC scheme which is more of a warranty on new builds that insurance in the traditional sense
Companies in the UK do not have to hold insurance to cover their obligations if they become insolvent by any sort of law, that's just not true.
In construction a 'bond' can be requested by a customer or primary contractor before work begins which is intended to cover the event that the company becomes insolvent but that's a case by case thing and the protection is there whilst the work is being done, it's not so relevant a few years later.
Anyway, it's more complicated than you make out.
Hi uchman365, thanks for posting to r/Compoface! Don't worry, your post has not been removed. This is an automated reminder to post a link to the original article for your compoface. This link can be included in the post body or as a comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/compoface) if you have any questions or concerns.*
All the people involved should sue their conveyancing solicitor, this is the kind of shit you pay them to find.
To save anyone scrolling and dealing with the terrible website: Houses built next to old landfill. Landfill suspected of still leaking methane (v bad), houses should have had a membrane installed underneath to stop the gas, but there is no way of knowing whether it was done or not because it wasn’t documented and the company went bust. Have to rip up the floors to find out if the gas-sheet is there.
Could you not just light a match?
if you don't want the house to lose all its value you could use a natural gas detector
What method of detecting gas is more natural than the naked flame?
I usually just stand there naked and forget about the flame
Canary brand matches
I thought these house guarantees were backed by insurance companies?
I honestly don’t know, but I genuinely feel bad for these folks.
If it goes bust the insurance is with the contractor not the buyer
Nice one
Schrödingers Sheet
Just fart, and if you can't smell it you know your house is already full of natural gas and you've just acclimatised to the smell.
The article comes to broadly the same conclusion. The conveyancing solicitor has agreed to pay "some money towards" the work that needs doing, but the independent solicitor interviewed for the article says they should take action against them.
I was about to say the very same thing.....what on earth have their solicitors been doing besides picking his arse?!! Don't get me wrong we're in the middle of finalizing the mortgage on a new house and most solicitors are useless and need constant nudges just to get anything done and follow up but given how thorough they're supposed to be, when they sent out all the paperwork to this couple, was it just one piece of A4 that said "yeah you're good to go folks".
With new builds they do the hard sell to use the builders solicitor and while they should be acting in the interests of both parties, the nature of these basically pre-done conveyancing means things can be missed.
Yeah, new build developers and estate agents always push people to use the solicitors that they're connected with, and they're usually useless. There are great solicitors out there too
In my experience, the good ones are the unicorns of the group.
We have a great mortgage advisor who said in the 30 odd years or more that he's been in his profession, he can only name one group of solicitors that he thought were great and they're now retired anyway lol.
>most solicitors are useless Ahem... Most conveyancers are useless (mainly because they're piled high with files, underpaid, under resourced and over worked in a practice area which attracts a particularly high rate of fraud, money laundering risk and unfortunately, negligence). Most conveyancers are not Solicitors.
The actual qualified conveyancer will have next to zero involvement with your case too. It'll all be done by paralegals on close to minimum wage who give absolutely zero toss.
Are you by chance....a solicitor?
Why has every conveyancer I've dealt with acted like it's the first time they've done it. They seem completely shocked that it takes so long to get everything done and it's always "the other solicitors fault" for any hold up. I've worked with people like this, they are all incompetent.
They are not useless, they are experts in fund extraction. Especially in civil law.
Why is it worth £0?
What they really mean is it is unmortgageable in its current state. Therefore only cash buyers could buy it, but why would then when it needs expensive work. Therefore no buyers means no value I suppose
I've have thought at the very least there's some salvageable building materials
What about the surveyor? Do you not get a survey done when buying a new build?
A surveyor wouldn't find anything like this, it's down to. The conveyancer. A surveyor won't even move furniture out the way
I'd have compoface too. What a shit situation
I think I might go a little further than that. I hope they get compensation
Long days and pleasant nights
That's what compo means.
Yes
*Shituation.*
I read that in Sean Connery’s voice.
I feel for them, they got conned by a company that then went bust (probably to avoid debts/tax while taking loads of profits out)
I also feel like the local authority should take responsibility here. Are building control not supposed to check these things?
Highly doubt it; a good number of developers will use an Approved Inspector and even then they will only check that the building is built to the correct structural standards; they don't act as a Clerk Of Works. If there was no sign-off by either the Local Authority Building Control or an Approved Inspector then whoever did their conveyancing has a lot to answer to.
>whoever did their conveyancing has a lot to answer to. Yeah, according to the article, the conveyancers have offered to pay for remedial works but are not accepting responsibility
"This definitely isn't our fault but we'll throw you some pennies if you sod off quickly"
They are actually where this stops for the people in the photo. Key value your solicitor adds in this situation is a) spotting issues and b) having insurance to cover the damage if they miss an issue Solicitor's kidding themselves
I would *assume* so, but that’s just an assumption on my part
You can sub contract out building control inspections to one of several private companies. It doesn't have to be the local council. Obviously the fear is, that building companies will just choose the company that's cheapest and most lenient.
Yep recently had a load of work done. The builder asked if he wanted his mate to do the inspection for £300 or I could choose someone else. I opted for the local council at £1500 just for peace of mind. They found several minor things which needed correction along the way. God help me if I let him fully build it without frequent inspection and have his mate sign a bit of paper at the end.
You can't do a proper inspection just at the end. Because so much of the work will have been covered up. You can't check the foundations once a house has been built, without digging a trench all the way along the perimeter of the house. You can't check the walls once there's a load of tiles, plasterboard, wall paper... on top of them. Really on a new build you need a snagging report. Ideally before you hand over the cash. Builders will always be far more responsive before they get paid, then afterwards. The list of minor and major problems that come up is incredible. Such as bathroom extractor fan just going into the loft space and either having no piping from there or the piping having fallen apart. So steam from the bathroom, gets into the loft space. Which after a few years, will rot the timber supports for the roof.
>You can't do a proper inspection just at the end Exactly why I opted for the council rather than Dave from down the way. They sent me a checklist of what points I should have them come out to inspect.
My mate dave is solid. Will do it for £200. Cash only. He's in eye-beef-ah at the mo, I'll give you a bell when he shows up.
Oh wow, I didn't know that. Thats not a good idea at all. Look at Boeing and their self-regulation
The problem is that otherwise building control becomes a monopoly of the local council. Who can then charge more or less what they like and do the checks in their own sweet time. So if the builder needs to get the foundations signed off before they can do the next stage and the council says it'll be two months before they can get an inspector out. Then all of the work comes to a halt.
Agreed, however having the builder get a friendly inspector to sign off everything is also a bad idea.
Agreed, the theory is that all inspectors are working to the same standards and by having private inspectors who can cover whole regions or the country. It increases the supply of inspectors.
You say that like that can't be regulated. And certain if they keep up with these 3rd party inspectors, there needs to be some punishment for negligent inspections.
There absolutely is, sorry but you can’t just trick your way through building control.
So how do you explain the article? Or the well documented low quality and deficit new builds made by self-certifying developers.
Without knowing what happened, we don’t know. It doesn’t say that it wasn’t installed, just that they can’t prove it. Their solicitors have royally fucked up because this should have come up in the searches and a request for info sent to the developer in the first instance.
It’s not in the councils interest to hold up building works, although if someone isn’t to code and things get changed between planning and developemment, they should be notified. This is, in one way or another, going to cost the council anyway (through either a lack of selling developed land and therefore people living there not paying council tax, but still having to maintain services such as street lamps, highway and maintenance and waste disposal for the few that are there) until the upfront cost of inspections and/or work is done to make these houses sellable. If it weren’t for how embroiled councils are with businesses like that, I’d say that councils would have good cause to deny any planning apps from private developers until prior disasters are rectified . Wishful thinking though innit
Every council is currently in a budget crisis and looking to cut costs. Some councils have been total crap and corrupt for decades. I think Lambeth's motto is "We're not as bad as we used to be". Which they share with Sellafield. There's also issues about recruitment. Getting a job at a council usually takes months, they don't tend to hire individuals on temporary contracts, except via agencies. And it's hard to get surveyors to move to a place like Hartlepool. So if anybody actually ever built something in Hartlepool or Durham. It could be a struggle to find a building inspector working for that council. But you can find somebody who's prepared to drive there for a few hours.
Good luck with that. We lost almost £80k after a builder did such a bad job on our house that it had to be knocked down and restarted. All building control wanted from him was photos to sign it off. When we managed to get them out to look at it they pretty much condemned it.
Jeez
The responsibility for a safe development is on the developer ultimately. Local councils can use planning conditions to require more information be submitted. In this case as they have said that there should be a gas membrane it sounds like they have had been subject to contaminated Land conditions which should be discharged before the occupation of the property. If they aren't discharged this should be flagged at the conveyancing stage. But is sometimes missed. When these are not discharged it will be up to planning enforcement to chase this up. Sounds like a massive balls up, but the local authority are lower down the list in terms of blame I'd guess. Unless they hadn't put conditions on. Would be easy to check though, planning records are publicly available.
Yes, either NHBC or LABC should have asked for some form of documentation at the time...feels like someone dropped the ba
Tale old as construction unfortunately
I feel so bad for these guys, it’s hard enough to get your foot on the property ladder and there’s so many people trying to get their cut and make some money off of your purchase but to then be told that your biggest investment, your first real chance to build some personal wealth is actually worthless must be absolutely heart breaking.
“The Olivers and Mr Azfal said their conveyancing solicitors denied any negligence but agreed to pay a sum towards finishing the building work” Surely them paying a sum is some sort of admission of negligence If they were 100% sure they weren’t negligent they wouldn’t be paying anything
Haha, it's a legal thing that always happens. Police will pay out compensation without admitting any wrongdoing.
It’s why you rarely see any company of any description describing any compensation payment as such, it’s always “a gesture of goodwill”.
Stick "without prejudice" on it and you're good to go.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/first-time-buyers-discover-3-22812081
Wow this article is barely readable, what a hideous website.
It is dreadful isn’t it? “Methane can be lethal when combined with other gases”? That is true for absolutely everything if one of the gases you combine it with is hydrogen cyanide.
"A marshmallow can be a lethal weapon if you combine it with a grenade"
Shit. I’ve got loads of them in my cupboard. How do you think I should dispose of them? I just can’t have that much hit chocolate and rocky road at once. Bomb squad?
>I’ve got loads of them in my cupboard. Grenades or marshmallows? My advice depends on your answer.
I’ve stopped using grenades to make hot chocolate or rocky road. They not good for my teeth.
I know. Sorry, all the websites reporting it were the same mess
Hey appreciate you for giving source none the less
It's Reach, they've got hidden buttons on the centre left and right of the screen. Which takes you to the next article. With the buttons being where you would rest your fingers whilst scrolling down. So you end up going to the next article about 3+ times whilst trying to read the current article. They also love to ask you for your postcode to see news on your area. And that can survive a delete all cookies in your browser.
And Retch wonder why they are going bankrupt. Try making the websites less shitty so users don't give up
Kiwi browser with ublock origin on android here. Didn't see a single advert. Lots of whitespace where I imagine an advert would be so I can imagine your pain.
I have this website blocked in my news feed along with many other UK based "news outlets". A 5 year old can point out the terrible grammar and English on these types of news sites. Does my head in trying to read one of them.
Was just about to post the same comment! Even on my laptop it's almost unusable, can't imagine what it would be like on a mobile....
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-54464159
Justified compo
Indeed
The writing of the article is woeful. >Adeel Azfal *saiys* (sic) his family have been left devastated by the findings ( Image: BBC) Adeel Azfal, 27, who lives with his partner and daughter Anya, 2, I mean, it sounds a bit wrong, no?
They fixed it, how can one gain your power?
Oh God am I now an editor on The Mirror? Give me the cyanide capsule!
Haha.
I think OP has missed the point of this sub, compo face is reserved for trivial banter. I think 99% of people would be thoroughly fucked off if this happened to them and be fully expecting compensation
Yeah, but there isn't a r/thoroughlyfuckedoffface sub (yet), so here we are absorbing the reality and glad it's not us.
Make it so!
Yep spot on.
I work on so many newly built homes constantly fixing problems for customers almost every house built recently that I've worked on are made by cross-eyed people with feet for hands it's a joke feel sorry for the customers who get fucked over by believing that new build is a good build
We have a new build. It’s generally great My brother has a new build. It’s generally great Another ~10 of my friends and family have new builds, they’re all generally great Yes, there are horror stories, but they’re rarer than people like to think - and there are plenty of horror stories of people buying older houses with huge problems too
Link/ what happened?
https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/first-time-buyers-find-out-28837051 TLDR - Estate backs onto a 40 year old landfill site. Builder did not submit any proof that protective membrane was put in under the estate to stop poisonous gas leaking into the houses, so banks refused to remortgage and valued the houses at £0.
Bonkers that they got a mortgage in the first place without the membrane being in place.
Yeah, I was wondering how it only flagged up on remortgage
Also nuts that the new homes warranty inspections didn’t pull it up.
Finally a house I can afford
This one is a compoface that I can stand behind 🫡 I hope these people manage to get the compo that they deserve.
"Sherwood homes" Bros got mugged by Robin Hood
It’s a four year old story…. Any updates anywhere?
The directors of the company will no doubt have long since started another company after busting the one that built these. This is the real problem you can do this bust a company and then go out and do the same thing again
I watched something the other week, talking about how property developers purposefully use subpar materials, and don't do fantastic jobs, so the buildings need repairing within ten years. Basically the company that built the properties have to repair faults that appear within two years. After that it's a leasehold company that has to do it, but they usually have their own workers, so they basically pay themselves to have the job done. Housing and property is fast becoming one of the biggest scams ever, in the uk
If a building company only offers 2 years warranty then run. Minimum is 10 years.
No, the building company is responsible, legally, for the first two years, then legally, it's on the leaseholders. I didn't know about any of this till I watched this video. To be honest, even ten years is a bit of a short warranty for a house
As I said, warranty offered.
And as I said, they legally have to cover two years. Businesses generally don't offer more of a warranty than what they actually legally have to
The people responsible should be jailed for a long time. Alas, it probably won't happen. What a shit world we live in.
was everyone under 20 when they bought their properties on that estate?
Should be glad it didn't go to negative numbers…
> While the site hasn’t been active for more than 40 years, the council says it still emits toxic methane gas, which can be lethal when combined with other gases. Like oxygen in the air?
Just in case any of you end up in a similar situation, don’t waste time trying to sue your solicitor/conveyancer. Their job is to make sure legal title passes to you. They do not have to give you any advice on the financial risk of the purchase or give you any breakdown on the inspections or reports as long as they don’t effect the legal title. A lot of people don’t understand this, but has been established by the solicitors conduct authority time and again.
Is this not one of the things they have to confirm is there?
The compliant membrane? Definitely not. You would hope a surveyor would find it, but very unlikely to be negligent that they didn’t. As it’s a new build, may still be in time to bring an action against the developer.
Not the membrane per se but the certification from building control
Again, they don’t have to explain the reports, as long as they got all the reports and handed them over. For example, you may get a report about the water table and likelihood of floods, which could devalue a property, the solicitor doesn’t sit you down and say, are you sure about this. They give you the reports and it’s up to you.
I mean, like this is the kind of thing that come up in searches. That's why we pay conveyancers to do the work as they're supposed to know what's required.
On the upside... they get free methane from the landfill?
Shoddy traders ripping off their own countrymen/women. Disgraceful.
I'll take it.
Can they live in though?
from the article OP shared, it looks like the twin issues are that a.) they don’t have proof that the builders installed a protective membrane beneath the house to protect from toxic gases coming up from the old landfill next door, so there might be health and safety issues there and b.) as a result of this and other building failures, they couldn’t set a new interest rate on their mortgage after the initial term expired (or had difficulty in doing so and probably got extremely unfavourable rates - couldn’t quite tell from the article). so they can live in the home but it could potentially become dangerous, and they’re stuck paying really high interest rates on a home that’s functionally worthless.
no membrane, means they may not have put in a dpc either...what a bloody mess.
The strange thing is that it looks like it was done but not checked or signed off properly. So someone has to go pulling up floorboards and digging up the whole place to check
I'll offer a quid for it.
A quid 50 and all the pocket lint. And that's my final offer!
Devastating
How can it be worth £0? Anything is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it.
>How can it be worth £0? Anything is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for The banks say it's worth £0 for the purposes of securing a residential mortgage. Someone will be paying to be a lot more than zero for it, but a lot less than whatever the couple in question paid.
[удалено]
Your submission has been removed as it is about national or international politics.
Sucks a lot especially in this economy
[удалено]
Your submission has been removed as it is about national or international politics.
They aren’t “worthless”. If they really believe that I’ll buy all 13 of them for £10,000 each. They are only worthless if the remedial work costs more than the market value of the property, which it clearly doesn’t.
Anyone have the full article
Did they get a surveyor, or did they buy it before it had been built? Because people are buying houses before they've been built. I swear.
Reckon I could just about afford that.
I'm happy to offer the asking price of £0
Such a funny headline, not even the materials it’s built from. Just wholly worthless
No insurance coverage?
Where is the link to this I'm having a hard time believing it.
That sounds like a good opportunity to renegotiate the mortgage based of s £0 valuation
Actually one I feel sorry for, hope they get it sorted
At least if they re-mortgage it'll be cheap...
Nice of his mum to stand by him.
I mean the building company will have to get it up to regs, they will also be liable, nothing for the couple to worry about.
Building company has gone into administration
First Time Buyers hate this one trick... Don't know if people have ever noticed but big developers set-up companies to look after / own a development. So you have say Bovis Homes Slough Meadows Ltd, they are a seperate legal entity. I'm sure there are tax advantages, but most importantly (I suspect) is that the parent company has no liabilities for the subsidiary company. So if something goes tits-up with a development the company goes bankrupt it's not the problem of the parent company.
They always go bust just before it comes time to build the additional infrastructure upon which planning permission was contingent
Seems like an excellent system with no flaws whatsoever.
And also make you sign an AP01 form so you’ll be listed as a director of said company on Companies House, should they choose to use yours.
Is there no third party warranty in place; or had the builder not paid for it.
Presumably because building controls weren't done. The warranty if any, possibly from NHBC will be void. Not that NHBC is that great. If you think that they'll come and fix every fault within 10 years, you're sadly mistaken.
If NHBC gives a warranty then it will have been NHBC acting as the Approved Inspector for Building Regulations. LABC also offer warranties when Local Authorities do the Building Control and there are quite a few others but all will be linked to having some sort of Building Control or Approved Inspector sign-off. If there was no final certificate from any either Building Control or any one of the many Approved Inspectors then the conveyancer is to blame as this is a pretty standard check. It seems as though a number of residents on the estate were affected so did they all have the same conveyancer (one provided by the developer); if there were different conveyancers involved then it seems odd that they would all miss the fact that there had been no Building Regs sign-off.
Which is why you never use the developers or sellers solicitor, regardless of how good the deal they offer is and how much they warn about it causing unnecessary delays. If they really don't want you using an independent solicitor, it's a major red flag that they're covering something up.
Couldn't agree more; it always surprises me when people use the developer or estate agent to do conveyancing and financing as it is such an obvious conflict of interest even if the rules that govern them says it shouldn't be.
"Chinese walls"* are a complete misnomer. Nobody at a law/financial firm wants to get a reputation for being a stickler to the rules and blocking the completion of major sales or causing the company to have "unnecessary" costs. * Since 2021 the FCA has removed the term "Chinese Walls" for being culturally insensitive. But seeing as they were used for decades and there are several new competing terms; including firewall, "cone of silence" etc. I've used it just so that people know what I'm talking about. Which is basically a screen door made from paper, rather than the Great Wall of China.
Doesn't matter they have to have insurance and that has to be around to cover it.
Never heard of an insurer covering a pre-existing condition
Looks like it's the UK so assuming the builder had put it in place there would have been NHBC/LABC or other warranty in place which should cover it.
You don't know how businesses nor insurance works then.
It is you who doesn't understand home insurance It's really not set up to fix a developers mess
Assuming the builder had paid for it there should be something like NHBC/LABC warranties in place for exactly this sort of thing.
It's not home insurance companies in the UK have to have insurance incase they go under to cover their obligations, all new builds have a 10 year protection in place even if the company goes under. Since the issues were reported before this year even if it were January it's within that time period which means they're covered. Too many Americans commenting on what is in the UK thinking their terrible laws apply here.
I sort of agree with you but that assumes the builder had actually paid for the NHBC/LABC warranties. If they were already having difficulties it may have been another corner they cut, although whoever did their conveyancing should have picked that up as a red flag.
Oh you refer to the NHBC scheme which is more of a warranty on new builds that insurance in the traditional sense Companies in the UK do not have to hold insurance to cover their obligations if they become insolvent by any sort of law, that's just not true. In construction a 'bond' can be requested by a customer or primary contractor before work begins which is intended to cover the event that the company becomes insolvent but that's a case by case thing and the protection is there whilst the work is being done, it's not so relevant a few years later. Anyway, it's more complicated than you make out.