Jump to content


BankFodder BankFodder


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About gretschfishing

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. I would say that after 11 years of no one complaining directly to you then custom and practice would take precedence. if there is nothing in the lease then there is nothing to enforce. I do not believe these people can make arbitrary decisions and then they become legal and binding, they can only deal with issues in the lease and even then they are extremely difficult to enforce through the courts as the homeowner needs to take you to court and prove that the issue is adversely impacting their enjoyment/value of their home.
  2. After 6 years of fighting the NHBC they are now trying to force us to accept their decision to implement a ludicrous repair, even though we have proven the following: 1. crib wall not built in accordance with British Standard 2. crib wall structural loading is outwith the maximum allowable as specified in design calculations. 3. crib wall has suffered multiple failures 4. the wall was damaged by the builder and repaired by the builder (who does not have a BBA certificate). 5. the original design and installation company have stated that the crib wall failures are due to bad workmanship. 6. crib wall built using different cross section of headers. 7. numerous areas where there is no overlaps of stretchers. 8. that the investigative work as specified by the NHBC was never completed. the independent consultant used by the NHBC engaged the original design and installation company tp develop repairs despite the NHBC terms and conditions specifically stating that this cannot happen. the proposed repairs are 1. to attach replacement bits of wood to the existing failed components using screws (despite NHBC specifying design calculations should be supplied for repairs, non have been produced). 2. to locally remove the fill and hammer the headers along the stretcher until they cover the incorrect joints (physical impossibility as the soil at the rear of the wall will prevent movement). They will not address the incorrect barter of the wall (maximum is 1:4 according to the british standard we have 1:6.5, ie the wall is near vertical in places). They will not address the design issues of loadings which exceed the maximum allowable. they will not address soil migration. they will not address the fact that the wall currently does not have a BBA certificate due to unauthorised repairs. they say we should now address the issue with the builder despite the NHBC taking over the work and dealing with the builder under the NHBC disciplinary procedure as the builder would not agree to investigate or repair the wall. We contacted the FOS and they have said this is not covered despite actually reviewing this issue between 2012 and 2014 when they put the issue on hold as the NHBC were addressing the issues. can anyone advise what we can do without having to spend significant amounts of money taking the builder to court?
  • Create New...