The New Build Con.

[DabHand]

Hmm throw about weight.... /homer drool

[enworb]

Hi Shaker

I know you are being light-hearted, but you really would be amazed at what sales people think of.

Remember the "YES" car loans people? Remember the ad with the little chirpy blonde woman dressed all in green? How TINY was she? It made the Corsa/Micra/Punto whatever next to her look like a station wagon.

It's all subliminal. It's a science. The science of making people think they are getting more than they really are.

The same as DFS. I can only assume they use petit models. They always seem to be engulfed by every sofa - yet when I visit DFS I can't find any that make me look small

I've set myself up for ridicule I'm not that fat, honest

[ʎqɐqɹǝʞɐɥs]

The same as DFS. I can only assume they use petit models. They always seem to be engulfed by every sofa - yet when I visit DFS I can't find any that make me look small

I've set myself up for ridicule I'm not that fat, honest

Yes I was thinking about this the other day. Cant remember the name of the company ScS or something and they have that tall 80s pop singer and now or was Eastenders actor waking around in the ad going on about how great the furniture is and when he sits down I thought thats bloody small.

Ah here they are. Looks like in the website they have cheaply tried to downsize him.

[tippingpoint]

Working for a New Build developer selling over priced properties in Central Lonsdon can be quite amusing. I have done this job for the last 10 years and feel it is time to air my views from the inside. Of course I a may talk myself out of a job but the few people on this site that read this will not make a toss of difference. I would love to write an 'expose' for a national newspaper but they are so tied up with the Big Budget developer spenders in their property supplements ( including my company) that they would never print what really goes on. Have you ever seen a negative article about new build in 'ES' or the Sunday Times property supplement --- of course not, far too much os a vested interest in the very lucrative advertising. They never talk about constant leaks or poor build quality on developments. I have worked on developments wher people have paid 3 or 4 million pounds for apartments that have had to vacate for weeks because os leaks that have lasted for weeks.

So why are people taken in by that crap that is printed in the advertising ? After 26 years working in the City selling very regulated instruments, what an eye opener working in this unregulated world. And that is the problem 'Unregulated' ! People seem to be under the illusion that an NHBC guarentee means something and that having a survey for a mortgage means something ... Wrong ! it means shit. A surveyor before approving a mortgage comes to site , asks the salesa team a few simple questions about sale prices of comparative properties, apartment dimensions and goes away. In the office for ten minutes and charges 150 quid. Wish I was a surveyor. What an easy job.

Investors who you think have some semblance of a brain ask me time after time ' What discount am I getting when I buy off plan?' How can people be so thick !!! You do not get any discount when you buy off plan , the developer asks as much as he can for a peoperty if some mug will pay it. It is normally the sales Director or the board that set the prices and they do a bit of market research in the area add a lump on , create a load of hype with clever marketing and sell from as much as they can get. Of course on a rising market the investor will make money ,but if it turns they will loose far more money.

So where is their brain ? --- lost in a world of hype. They never question the fact that with each new development the bedrooms get smaller and smaller , what they call a double bedroom now meeans that as long as you can put a double bed in it and it does not touch all four walls you can call it a double bedroom. Second bedrooms are usually more 0f a joke. I have sold apartments for well over a million that have a Master bedroom of 14 x 11 and bed 2 11'6 x 10'6. Why do idiot buyers accept this ? because they very rarelly even question it. Absolute proof what a gullible lot they really are.

If idiots buy -- the developers will just make the apartments smaller and smaller to squeeze every last pound out of the buyer.

These clever investors ask 'what discounts are you giving ? I respond 'None, we are selling so well we do not need to'. This is great to get someone on the hook.They nearly always fall for it. Of course the truth is that builders who give a discount mark the price up to include the discount. Funny how this savvy load of investors do not manage to notice that little point. Next the investor looks at the specification and does not realise that the wonderfull showflat kitchen they have seen probably cost the developer a few thousand and suddenly magically forget they are probably paying tens of thousands more for their apartment than nearby older properties all because of a shiny new kitchen and bathroom. In the business we call it the 'shiny kitchen syndrome'.

No more for now , lets see the response from all those gullible and often very arrogant investors.

Don't blame the developers. If the investors buy the poor products then they are to blame. No one forces them to buy them and if someone is stupid enough to not be able to see through the gloss then I have no sympathy for them and utmost respect to the developer. It is not a con at all. A con is where there is misdescriptions or misrepresentations which would be unlawful. The problem lies in the fact that the market allows this to happen because of the cheap credit flying around. The developer you refer to is only satisfying a demand.

It is simple. If there was not a demand for this because joe public or the BTL market did not stand for the quality or "con" as you put it, then the products would not sell and bingo there is a change.

And don't say that there is no choice. Utter rubbish. There is plenty of choice especially the "nearly new market" or 98% of the housing stock which is second hand.

Market forces....is the answer to this thread.

What hard evidence do you have for the fact the new homes marketing strategies affect house price inflation considering the minute amount of the market it makes up?

BTW I do agree with you that there is alot of poorly built, uninspirational new housing stock, but I am not sure what relevance that has to HPC?

[ʎqɐqɹǝʞɐɥs]

Don't blame the developers. If the investors buy the poor products then they are to blame. No one forces them to buy them and if someone is stupid enough to not be able to see through the gloss then I have no sympathy for them and utmost respect to the developer. It is not a con at all. A con is where there is misdescriptions or misrepresentations which would be unlawful. The problem lies in the fact that the market allows this to happen because of the cheap credit flying around. The developer you refer to is only satisfying a demand.

It is simple. If there was not a demand for this because joe public or the BTL market did not stand for the quality or "con" as you put it, then the products would not sell and bingo there is a change.

And don't say that there is no choice. Utter rubbish. There is plenty of choice especially the "nearly new market" or 98% of the housing stock which is second hand.

Market forces....is the answer to this thread.

What hard evidence do you have for the fact the new homes marketing strategies affect house price inflation considering the minute amount of the market it makes up?

BTW I do agree with you that there is alot of poorly built, uninspirational new housing stock, but I am not sure what relevance that has to HPC?

I would say having 3/4 sized furniture a misrepresentation.

[Pindar]

I firmly blame the lack of regulation for the products being thrown up by developers. There is actually a book (or used to be) used by architects which set out minimum sizes for rooms as well as materials to be used etc. This has long since been thrown out. It started back in the 1980's under Thatcher when there was a flurry of new build activity to keep up with perceived housing shortage.

All I can say is that we usually get the lowest common denominator when it comes to any commercial product and housing is no different. I am constantly amazed at peoples' ability to ignore little things like the fact the master bedroom is the same size as a second bedroom would have been 20 or 30 years ago. It just beggars belief. But then such is the peer pressure to own that people block out the inadequacies of new build houses when they decide to buy them.

Roll on selling of land with planning permission in small plots to individuals. Individuals can then get off the shelf house designs or even prefab homes and put them on their plot. The flat pack houses you can buy from Germany are of a very high standard.

http://www.huf-haus.de/en/index1_ds1206404365.html

Lets face it, it's the clout that developers have with local councils which ensures they get first grab at any prime land for redevelopment. If this process was changed and a non-profit organsiation appointed to carve the land up into varying size plots for sale to self-build private individuals, this whole disgusting sham of greedy developers would stop. We would also no longer have the buying habits of idiots dictating the quality of homes available to the rest of us.

[adren]

I would say having 3/4 sized furniture a misrepresentation.

Me too.

Methinks tippingpoint has a raw nerve.

Methinks tippingpoint is up to his neck in mis-sold endowments, off-plan real-estate and Enron shares.

Just kidding.

[sortofsilver]

I would say having 3/4 sized furniture a misrepresentation.

Totally agree! Next it will be midgets showing you around saying "Your a big fella aint ya"

Edited October 22, 2006 by sortofsilver

[Timster]

You see it everywhere. It's not just housing developers cutting corners to fatten their profits, companies are outsourcing their call centres, high street fashion labels are moving their manufacturing to cheaper countries, and now virtually all new developments are being built by semi-skilled Slavs. What happens when they do this? The quality suffers. You even have (I forget which one) banks advertising how wonderful they are for not outsourcing their call centres. So apparently we are now so used to poor quality that we should be grateful when a company provides the service they were giving us 10-15 years ago!

[Pindar]

So apparently we are now so used to poor quality that we should be grateful when a company provides the service they were giving us 10-15 years ago!

That's exactly what every supermarket does with its "finest" or "taste the difference" ranges. You pay more money for products which are of the same quality as regular products 20 years ago. Since this is happening very slowly (stepping stones) it is barely noticeable until one day you wake up and find that you can't buy anything quality any longer without paying through the nose for it.

[adren]

Totally agree! Next it will be midgets showing you around saying "Your a big fella aint ya"

Too right. Allow me to unnecessarily labour the point. It is, after all, a school night:

Perhaps it would be acceptable to give would-be purchasers some LSD before they have a look around, or maybe pop some 'shrooms into the open day tea urn:

"WOW Man, that is a fsck1ing amaazing house. It must have, like twenty fsck1ng rooms or something. And it's only eleventy five hundred guineas a leap-year. Where do I sign?"

To extend our fun, perhaps this is a tactics car salesmen could adopt, too. They are noted for their inventiveness and its only a matter of time until they are encouraging would-be punters to test drive the latest Micra with a head full of speed.

"Dude. This Micra fsck1ng R0X0R!"

Edited October 22, 2006 by adren

[backtoparents]

Totally agree! Next it will be midgets showing you around saying "Your a big fella aint ya"

That has placed an amusing picture in my mind. A bit Spinal Tap-esque.

Well done - one happy audience member.

btp

[tippingpoint]

I would say having 3/4 sized furniture a misrepresentation.

Can someone prove this to me and let me know where you can buy 3/4 sized furniture? I am 5'7" so it would be handy to know.

Anyway what has building poor products got to do with a house price crash? You can't seriously argue can you that new build prices affect the market when they make up a tiny percentage of the overall market.

Are you really concerned if BTL waste their money on poor products? Do you feel sorry for them now that they are putting their capital into poor products?

Again, as per my last post. If you don't like the product then don't buy it. What is the problem? Don't think developers have a social duty to provide a certain standard of product. The building methods are highly regulated; room dimensions are not. Go and talk to registered social landlords (social housing developers) if you want that king of housing. If the builders can sell it, then the consumers are stupid enough to buy it.

Has this web site become a forum for people to voice their disgust at an industry for making profit? Sounds like a bit of sour grapes to me.

[Pindar]

Can someone prove this to me and let me know where you can buy 3/4 sized furniture? I am 5'7" so it would be handy to know.

Try Japan

Anyway what has building poor products got to do with a house price crash? You can't seriously argue can you that new build prices affect the market when they make up a tiny percentage of the overall market.

I think you are missing the point. It's a discussion of the trends in society which lead to standards dropping in all areas of life including houses, furniture and food. The "tiny percentage of the market" is a tiny percentage which accumulates into a huge percentage of sub-standard housing stock over time. This is a trend not a market snapshot which you can conveniently spin to play down its importance.

Are you really concerned if BTL waste their money on poor products? Do you feel sorry for them now that they are putting their capital into poor products?

What about the people including todays children who'll be forced to live in one of these btl rabbit hutches? These might be your children if you have any. Government is there to ensure that decent standards are upheld for everybody, not just those in social housing schemes. The additional cost for commercial developers in making rooms a reasonable size has untold intangible benefits to todays and tomorrows generations. Can't you see this? The trend is a slipperly slope downwards with short term greed the major incentive.

Again, as per my last post. If you don't like the product then don't buy it.

This is a nice sentiment if there is free choice and supply can keep up with demand. But there isn't and it isn't. We would all like to live in a nice georgian terrace but that privelege is reserved for those who bought at the right time and during a time when the housing stock wasn't so chronically depleted.

What is the problem? Don't think developers have a social duty to provide a certain standard of product.

No, but it's the job of government to ensure that regulation is good enough to ensure a product (housing is a basic human need so warrants tighter regulations than say, hairdryers or washing machines) which is fit for purpose. MP's have a sufficient salary not to have to live in squalid little shoeboxes. They should bloody well make sure that others' don't have to either. We do officially have the smallest houses in europe. It's because on the continent they have a style of government which is more sympathetic to the needs of people than to greedy corporations.

The building methods are highly regulated; room dimensions are not. Go and talk to registered social landlords (social housing developers) if you want that king of housing. If the builders can sell it, then the consumers are stupid enough to buy it.

That's the whole point - todays "king of housing" was yesterdays bog standard house.

Has this web site become a forum for people to voice their disgust at an industry for making profit? Sounds like a bit of sour grapes to me.

Nobody objects to free enterprise - if that's what you can call the british system of planning and development. True free enterprise would offer true choice. This isn't happening because the developers operate a sort of cartel. The government is also to blame for regulating the wrong areas such as the mix of property types and the number of houses required to be built on a new plot. This Stalinist planning regime is an affront to human decency and will lead to the creation of the slums of the future. The government should regulate in the right areas. I suggest these areas are room size, layout and safety. Everything else is just a side issue. Unfortunately we will not get this sort of change unless people lobby their MP and are a bit more vocal like they are in France for example.

[tippingpoint]

Try Japan

I think you are missing the point. It's a discussion of the trends in society which lead to standards dropping in all areas of life including houses, furniture and food. The "tiny percentage of the market" is a tiny percentage which accumulates into a huge percentage of sub-standard housing stock over time. This is a trend not a market snapshot which you can conveniently spin to play down its importance.

What about the people including todays children who'll be forced to live in one of these btl rabbit hutches? These might be your children if you have any. Government is there to ensure that decent standards are upheld for everybody, not just those in social housing schemes. The additional cost for commercial developers in making rooms a reasonable size has untold intangible benefits to todays and tomorrows generations. Can't you see this? The trend is a slipperly slope downwards with short term greed the major incentive.

This is a nice sentiment if there is free choice and supply can keep up with demand. But there isn't and it isn't. We would all like to live in a nice georgian terrace but that privelege is reserved for those who bought at the right time and during a time when the housing stock wasn't so chronically depleted.

No, but it's the job of government to ensure that regulation is good enough to ensure a product (housing is a basic human need so warrants tighter regulations than say, hairdryers or washing machines) which is fit for purpose. MP's have a sufficient salary not to have to live in squalid little shoeboxes. They should bloody well make sure that others' don't have to either. We do officially have the smallest houses in europe. It's because on the continent they have a style of government which is more sympathetic to the needs of people than to greedy corporations.

That's the whole point - todays "king of housing" was yesterdays bog standard house.

Nobody objects to free enterprise - if that's what you can call the british system of planning and development. True free enterprise would offer true choice. This isn't happening because the developers operate a sort of cartel. The government is also to blame for regulating the wrong areas such as the mix of property types and the number of houses required to be built on a new plot. This Stalinist planning regime is an affront to human decency and will lead to the creation of the slums of the future. The government should regulate in the right areas. I suggest these areas are room size, layout and safety. Everything else is just a side issue. Unfortunately we will not get this sort of change unless people lobby their MP and are a bit more vocal like they are in France for example.

BarrellShifter - of all your comments it is the last paragraph that I agree with most (remove "Stalinist" though). The remainder of your paragraphs are true but do not forget that buildings are cyclical and eventually they will be replaced. Not all buildings can be Listed cottages! How many decades, centuries do you want the houses to last: 50 years, 300 years? Life moves on. You will see the 60s estates being replaced soon. In 50 years maybe the estates that are being built now will be replaced. Do you not think that this has positive effects too? In utopia there would be house for all and perfectly built. Unfortunately this will never happen unless capitalism is replaced and my guess is that you have problems with the capitalist system?

[Pablo-silver or lead?]

Nothing wrong with new build. If you buy high quality, at the right time/price and in the right place.

Over the last four years or so hundreds of thousands of FTB and jonny come lately 'investors'

have bought poor quality new build taking on huge debt in the wrong macro economic circumstances.

Fools and their debt will soon be learning some basic lessons.

Pablo Silver or Lead?

[BuyingBear]

I firmly blame the lack of regulation for the products being thrown up by developers. There is actually a book (or used to be) used by architects which set out minimum sizes for rooms as well as materials to be used etc. This has long since been thrown out.

Quite so, now we have the opposite, your new development cannot be any less than 30 dwellings per hectare, it should be on 'brownfield' land which is shorthand for someone's backgarden or an allotment/playing field, you cannot have more than 1.5 parking spaces per property, to hit the density targets the front garden goes out the window and the house becomes three stories with a tiny back garden. The developer must fund s.106 social housing so the private buyers fund a mini council estate in their midst. The architecture doesn't matter, it doesn't have to fit in with traditional materials or designs, it's standard across the land, as are the 7ft ceilings.

If you want a future vision of Britain then simply visit the new Thames Gateway developments. It's utterly fscking dismal, even ignoring the surrounding sewage works, the national grid pylons, the architecture, the shoddy build quality or the fact they're built on flood plains, the developments and surroundings are utterly souless and desolate. These are the new £250,000 slums that won't even see out a 25 year mortgage term.

It's all just screwed up social engineering, people fail to realise that the right to develop is still nationalised, housing is still sculptured government by mandate, it's their failed social policies and ideologies made concrete. When these buildings and shoddy PFI hospitals and schools are falling to bits within 10 years time people will look and say "that was Blairism", souless buildings for a souless country.

Edited October 22, 2006 by BuyingBear

[basildonian]

Quite so, now we have the opposite, your new development cannot be any less than 30 dwellings per hectare, it should be on 'brownfield' land which is shorthand for someone's backgarden or an allotment/playing field, you cannot have more than 1.5 parking spaces per property, to hit the density targets the front garden goes out the window and the house becomes three stories with a tiny back garden. The developer must fund s.106 social housing so the private buyers fund a mini council estate in their midst. The architecture doesn't matter, it doesn't have to fit in with traditional materials or designs, it's standard across the land, as are the 7ft ceilings.

If you want a future vision of Britain then simply visit the new Thames Gateway developments. It's utterly fscking dismal, even ignoring the surrounding sewage works, the national grid pylons, the architecture, the shoddy build quality or the fact they're built on flood plains, the developments and surroundings are utterly souless and desolate. These are the new £250,000 slums that won't even see out a 25 year mortgage term.

It's all just screwed up social engineering, people fail to realise that the right to develop is still nationalised, housing is still sculptured government by mandate, it's their failed social policies and ideologies made concrete. When these buildings and shoddy PFI hospitals and schools are falling to bits within 10 years time people will look and say "that was Blairism", souless buildings for a souless country.

Excellent post.

Very true.

[Guest Yeahbutnocrash]

Some of those investors must be mugs straight off their 'property investment / how to become a property millionaire' course they also paid loads of dosh to attend!

And these disreputable developers attempting to rip them off in large numbers will have also contributed to HPI - However they will probably be finding it tougher to sell so easily as people get wiser and the market may be turning

[grey shark]

These are the new £250,000 slums that won't even see out a 25 year mortgage term.

It's all just screwed up social engineering, people fail to realise that the right to develop is still nationalised, housing is still sculptured government by mandate, it's their failed social policies and ideologies made concrete. When these buildings and shoddy PFI hospitals and schools are falling to bits within 10 years time people will look and say "that was Blairism", souless buildings for a souless country.

Yep ,

What about all the souless concrete estates and tower blocks that were built in the 60's and 70's look what happend to them , many now pulled down , all this latest new build crud is just the latest way of doing what they were doing back then , much of this new build crud will end up as social housing thats all it will be good for .

Just imagine a block of 50 new build shoebox's each housing a drugged up scrubber and her 2/3 snotty faced kids , sad but true .

For the majority of new builds there will be no hope and no future most will be gone in about 40 years they will be replaced by the latest housing fashion of that time whatever that is .

[Kickstart]

Working for a New Build developer selling over priced properties in Central Lonsdon can be quite amusing. I have done this job for the last 10 years and feel it is time to air my views from the inside. Of course I a may talk myself out of a job but the few people on this site that read this will not make a toss of difference. I would love to write an 'expose' for a national newspaper but they are so tied up with the Big Budget developer spenders in their property supplements ( including my company) that they would never print what really goes on. Have you ever seen a negative article about new build in 'ES' or the Sunday Times property supplement --- of course not, far too much os a vested interest in the very lucrative advertising. They never talk about constant leaks or poor build quality on developments. I have worked on developments wher people have paid 3 or 4 million pounds for apartments that have had to vacate for weeks because os leaks that have lasted for weeks.

So why are people taken in by that crap that is printed in the advertising ? After 26 years working in the City selling very regulated instruments, what an eye opener working in this unregulated world. And that is the problem 'Unregulated' ! People seem to be under the illusion that an NHBC guarentee means something and that having a survey for a mortgage means something ... Wrong ! it means shit. A surveyor before approving a mortgage comes to site , asks the salesa team a few simple questions about sale prices of comparative properties, apartment dimensions and goes away. In the office for ten minutes and charges 150 quid. Wish I was a surveyor. What an easy job.

Investors who you think have some semblance of a brain ask me time after time ' What discount am I getting when I buy off plan?' How can people be so thick !!! You do not get any discount when you buy off plan , the developer asks as much as he can for a peoperty if some mug will pay it. It is normally the sales Director or the board that set the prices and they do a bit of market research in the area add a lump on , create a load of hype with clever marketing and sell from as much as they can get. Of course on a rising market the investor will make money ,but if it turns they will loose far more money.

So where is their brain ? --- lost in a world of hype. They never question the fact that with each new development the bedrooms get smaller and smaller , what they call a double bedroom now meeans that as long as you can put a double bed in it and it does not touch all four walls you can call it a double bedroom. Second bedrooms are usually more 0f a joke. I have sold apartments for well over a million that have a Master bedroom of 14 x 11 and bed 2 11'6 x 10'6. Why do idiot buyers accept this ? because they very rarelly even question it. Absolute proof what a gullible lot they really are.

If idiots buy -- the developers will just make the apartments smaller and smaller to squeeze every last pound out of the buyer.

These clever investors ask 'what discounts are you giving ? I respond 'None, we are selling so well we do not need to'. This is great to get someone on the hook.They nearly always fall for it. Of course the truth is that builders who give a discount mark the price up to include the discount. Funny how this savvy load of investors do not manage to notice that little point. Next the investor looks at the specification and does not realise that the wonderfull showflat kitchen they have seen probably cost the developer a few thousand and suddenly magically forget they are probably paying tens of thousands more for their apartment than nearby older properties all because of a shiny new kitchen and bathroom. In the business we call it the 'shiny kitchen syndrome'.

No more for now , lets see the response from all those gullible and often very arrogant investors.

To answer a few points raised :

1.The word Con is a strong one and of course it is not a Con unless the salesperson misrepresents. I certainly do not do ever misrepresent. But of course no salesperson volunteers negatives. It is of course a case of 'Caveat Emptor'.

2.I have worked on developments where small furniture is used and 3/4 size beds to make rooms look bigger. In my experience about 1 in 5 people notice it.

3. The frenetic buying craze which is set up by very clever advertising makes people temporarily loose their sanity and they will almost accept anything just to be first to buy. rarely do people notice that after a launch if they sell out the first batch of units the developer immediatly raises the prices - but why not its not them that are the mugs.

4. It is very easy to create a crowd at the door at a launch when you realise how gullible people are. You only have to say 'We have massive interest and hundreds of people on the database ' -- as long as this is not a lie it is not misrepresentation and you would be surprised how many people react to it by turning up hours early.

5. Do the clever investors do any research ? Very little in my experience , I have sold on a development a new build property at a huge premium to a resale of one completed just monthe before. Why do these clowns pay this huge mark up for the same product? ... No research!

6. Small show apartments often have the doors removed ( oldest trick in the book) under the guise it is for safety reasons due to the volume of traffic in the showflat.

7. I have often asked Mortgage valuers how they can allow such high valuations on properties when someone can buy a much larger apartment ( a couple of years old) just down the road for much less. Never been able to get a sensible answer. They are employed by the mortgage company and as long as the building complies to Govt regs and buyers are prepared to pay the inflated prices they do not care. All they want to do is clock up the next mortgage.

8. Funny how people still buy even when a railway line is 50 feet away, a bus garage is next door, a motorway is so close you can hardly hear them, the site was once used to store Oil, or a hundred and one other things people miss conveniently.

9. Doctors compose a dissproportionate number of investors , mortgage lenders love 'em. I have heard doctors tell me they have been offered up to 8 times salary by some lenders. I guess on the pretext they will never be out of a job. However,if we see a big hike in rates or a serious downturn in prices for whaever reason there will be an awful lot of bankrupt doctors.

Will continue another day , time for bed.

[Elvis-Has-Sold-The-Building]

6. Small show apartments often have the doors removed ( oldest trick in the book) under the guise it is for safety reasons due to the volume of traffic in the showflat.

Yes, I noticed this. Also not all doorways are full width, bathroom doors in particular are often narrower. Another thing they do is leave all the lights on so the poky shoebox with windows looking out onto more buildings doesn't look too gloomy. A viewer can take small revenge by turning all the lights out as they go round.

I'm renting a new build on a fairly large site. They cut costs by dispensing with the foreman checking every property. This led all the tradesmen to cut corners (the builder mostly employs independent tradesman). Result? Scaffolding still up round several properties two years down the line. Apparently the chimneys in the whole area will need to be safety checked as they may not be property supported. I'm not inclined to pass this information on to my landlord!

[Pindar]

BarrellShifter - of all your comments it is the last paragraph that I agree with most (remove "Stalinist" though). The remainder of your paragraphs are true but do not forget that buildings are cyclical and eventually they will be replaced. Not all buildings can be Listed cottages! How many decades, centuries do you want the houses to last: 50 years, 300 years? Life moves on. You will see the 60s estates being replaced soon. In 50 years maybe the estates that are being built now will be replaced. Do you not think that this has positive effects too? In utopia there would be house for all and perfectly built. Unfortunately this will never happen unless capitalism is replaced and my guess is that you have problems with the capitalist system?

Actually I don't have a problem with capitalism, at least free market capitalism. Unfortunately we live in a system which pretends to be free market capitalism but which is in fact monopoly capitalism decked out to look like free market capitalism. My point about there being no real competition is because of corruption and constant beaurocracy and regulations which ensure only very large businesses can survive to the detriment of small business. The likes of Persimmon would not survive if they were forced to compete with proper builders adhering to realistic guidelines. The crime is that the cost of building a house is actually quite small, yet because of the bargaining power of these building collectives like Persimmon, you have all the good land snapped up and then planning permission pushed through suspiciously quickly. These developers charge top whack for substandard goods simple because there is no alternative. If you want to self-build you are forced to jump through multiple hoops and negotiate with unfriendly and unsympathetic NIMBY planners working for inefficient local councils. My alternative would be to adopt true free market economics and to release land that has pre-approved planning (within reason) and to sell plots off to self-builders and small developers to create some diversity and real choice. This is not really any different to the arguments that we constantly hear about the incumbent telco (BT) restricting access to its local loop and to small competitors. They have now been forced to open up their local access to anybody who wants to buy access to it. This creates more competition and drives prices down. The same should be applied to any new plot of building land with planning permission.

Edited October 23, 2006 by BarrelShifter

[OLDFTB]

"1.The word Con is a strong one and of course it is not a Con unless the salesperson misrepresents. I certainly do not do ever misrepresent. But of course no salesperson volunteers negatives. It is of course a case of 'Caveat Emptor'."

In my opinion this magic word "Caveat Emptor" should directly translate as "Beware of the con".

[adren]

"1.The word Con is a strong one and of course it is not a Con unless the salesperson misrepresents. I certainly do not do ever misrepresent. But of course no salesperson volunteers negatives. It is of course a case of 'Caveat Emptor'."

In my opinion this magic word "Caveat Emptor" should directly translate as "Beware of the con".

Got to agree.

There is no excuse for deliberately, and with malice aforethought, installing tiny furniture and removing internal doors (potentially against fire regs?) with a view to making someone believe they are are getting something that they are not.

Taking photos on sunny days, giving away cars, not mentioning the railway line next door, OK - caveat emptor but there is one and only one reason for installing 3/4 size furniture and it is not to stimulate demand from the untapped achondroplasia market. Sorry.