This should already be included in the build cost already. just things need to done properly

Totally agree - new homes with missing insulation are all too common. It should be possible to assess re- building regs of the time, and get the builder to rectify or pay for.

I half-know* somebody in a nearby village with oil heating, 20MWh/year for a 5 year old 3 bed semi. Which to my mind is obscene. The top floor sloping ceiling is apparantly cold to touch - how is that acceptable this day and age?

* Half know because they because they became disinterested in my offer of help, it's just not on their list of priorities - they're happier buying the oil than discussing fixing it with me! Mrs RobL says I am in danger of being an insulation nag

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Peter_in_Hungary</cite>IMO the only way to get new build improved is for the owners to complain under guarantee - and to spread the work amongst other new owners. Also if a few 'ambulance chasing' lawyers saw a bit of business bringing claims on a no win on fee basis then this could help.

In the end it will need the cost of doing shoddy work to be more expensive than to do the job right in the first time.</blockquote>

The problem there is that the builders will then insist that it becomes an official dispute, this then makes the properties very hard to sell as well as devaluing them, its why they get away with individual deals with complainants who accept repairs etc under a non disclosure agreement. Plus if the disputes were bought into the public domain it’d cast a shadow over whole developments, mortgage providers would soon be compiling data on problem estates and be demanding additional checks as a part of surveys. Where such checks would be intrusive it’d be unlikely the vendor would want it done by the purchaser as who is liable for making good, so you’d end up with vendors having to commission comprehensive surveys or builders having to do so for entire developments that have a question mark over them. Opens such a can of worms that it really is very unlikely to ever happen.

Jonti - economies of scale or not are you really suggesting that a build can be monitored properly, recorded, verified and certificated for about 8 hours work? Plus you have to add on the extra costs of inssiting the various trades do everything properly which will take more time. Getting the builders to do it is just asking for issues and any external independant body is going to need to insure themselves. I really can’t see it being done for less than 5k ( properly) as a minimum and the fee being a percentage of sale price in more valuable parts of the country.

Posted By: JontiAs for mortgage lenders I believe you will at some point start to see them requiring structural surveys on houses built after 2000 as the shoddy standards start to create more and more problems.

I dont think mortgage lenders are/will be in the least bit bothered about about a house leaking a few hundred £ of energy a year. Builders are more than capable of building structurally and aesthetically adequate houses and those are the things that affect resale value which is alll mortgage lenders are interested in.

Jonti, the current fiasco revolves around Grenfell a building built and managed by the public sector until it burnt. Have a read of the long list of failings in Dr. Barbara Lanes report, the cladding is just the highlighted failing in what is a massive list of failures over the years that resulted in the disaster and huge loss of life.
The public sector has shown endlessly that it is incapable , just look at the state of much of the countries council housing stock and the appalling standards of workmanship it procures.
If this picture appears its an overflow pipe fitted to comply with legionella regs on a council block near me , rather than exit through the wall the contractor cut a corner out of the door. So eventually the door will need rapairing and job doing properly. Council say they are unaware until i let them know. I only found it after there was water ingress through the now damaged door in a storm.(picture too big to post)

Jonti, you mentioned that you felt building regs /control should be a function of council / goverment and that I was wedded to the idea of the private sector.

My point is that failures of building regulation and control have been very much highlighted by what happened at grenfell, where it was decades of failure by public bodies that eventually resulted in the disaster, many of those years where they had full control.

As such I don’t feel that handing it all back lock stock and barrel to the public sector is appropriate. I’m merely giving substance and context to my opinion, or is that not allowed if the thread does’nt contain direct references to my references?

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Jonti</cite>Artiglio,

yes I am saying it is possible for that sort of money but it needs to be done on a national scale which means it has to be the government/council. I may have it wrong but you seem wedded to the idea of it being private companies and if this is the case I would agree with you that it is impossible for the private sector to deliver at such a price but then the private sector is not always the best way to to something as the present situation shows.

I think where we differ the most is I believe it is the government's responsibility to look after the interests of the public in this situation where as you seem to give the impression that the builders are the only consideration. As for mortgage lenders I believe you will at some point start to see them requiring structural surveys on houses built after 2000 as the shoddy standards start to create more and more problems. This is one of the next big scandals waiting to come out.</blockquote>

Jonti- second line .

Local authority building control decided to effectively remove themselves from the market when they decided they didn’t want to offer insurance backed guarantees ( ie accept liability for their service).
Everything is possible but councils decided it wasn’t for them. My local council works on an officers time costing around £70 and hour, the last time i asked for a quote for them to do the bc on a small 3m x 3m extension it was over £500 pounds. Local authorites are incredibly inefficient.

Artiglio,

so we agree then.

Peter i H,

Agree on the old methods. As to Grenfell it seems to me that more people involved in that project failed to do their job properly than actually did a good job. In the end it comes down to shoddy to none existent checks on the quality of the build and companies putting profit before all else.

Artiglio,

I think I understand now why we are struggling to understand each other. I am writing about what I believe should be happening and you about what you believe is happening. I think we both agree on what is happening. Where we differ is I have put forward what I believe is a workable idea where as you have offered no suggestions on what might be a way to bring about a change for the better.

My experience of conducting productive discussions on such sites as this is to try and find some basis of consensus to build from hence my comment about us agreeing. I do believe we both want BC to work properly. However, it is difficult to know what you believe to be the solution as you haven't given one as far as I can fathom. On top of that your reasons as to why my idea does not work appears to be that it isn't happening at the moment. I have read and re-read your comments but still cannot find anything else.

it seems your last comment is more 'slash and burn then run' than constructive discussion. I am sorry that you think I have been trolling you which is certainly not my intention.