Persimmon house

[JP_]

We counted 20 houses that overlooked our garden in a new build we viewed.

Yeah, another reason we moved. Was not too bad, but still, neighbours could easily see into each others gardens, and we had very nosy, annoying neighbours - they took offence at everything we did.
Garden now 5 times bigger and surrounded by mostly bungalows (although quite a few have converted lofts now) so garden very private. One friend was amazed that all you see out he back is trees.

From here to ... there

 

[Mobo_14]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-46454844

Just outside Glasgow had some disasters anaw

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

In the end we went for a 30's semi with a huge garden and not overlooked. Pretty draughty, but upgrading the insulation as we renovate

Not overlooked here either, apart from the garden partially, but from either side. We never draw curtains, no need. It was very cold and draughty when I first moved in, but insulation, DG and CH have taken care of that..

A friend has a late 60's chalet style, which is poorly built, where the tiny garage takes up more space than the garden. The upstairs front and rear are particularly poorly insulated.

 

[StephenOak]

Anything less than 100 you have done well

Does severe nature of defects make up for a lower number?

Opposite where my sister & BiL live was some rough ground where he used to walk their dog. When building work started (only on part of the ground) he got to know the chaps doing security and after some while they showed him one part of the work.

It was a small block of flats, something like three stories with a pair of penthouses on top. I don't remember all the details but it was something like someone used the final internal height of the penthouse level for the starting internal height, once the floor was laid and the suspended ceiling was fitted it was just too small to be used.

The penthouses had been sold off plan but the buyers, understandably, refused to accept them. Fixing it would have not only been very expensive but would have required changes to the roof that the owners of the other flats were not happy about.

Lots of talk of lawsuits and in the end the builder bit the bullet, refunded the penthouse buyers and just left the top storey unsold.

 

[mikeey84]

Not overlooked here either, apart from the garden partially, but from either side. We never draw curtains, no need./QUOTE]

Yeah, exactly like us, we are lucky enough to have a grove of TPO'd trees at the bottom of our garden as well, so you can't even see the back of our house for most of the year from other parts of the town.

Does mean the kids can't watch the fireworks very easily though, which they were very disappointed about last night!

 

[23vc]

How the hell have they managed that effect with the brickwork? By freestyling the corners to a nice wavy line then running the line in? Can’t imagine how you could do that if you tried

 

[Leofric]

I'm not saying that all older houses are any good just that new ones are absolute rubbish, all of them.

That isn't true. I worked for a housebuilder for many years and we built good quality houses to decent or high quality specifications. Good site managers who wouldn't accept any poor workmanship helped of course. Up until a few years ago I was involved with other housebuilders who built good quality houses so your comments about all new houses being absolute rubbish is completely wrong .
There are poor houses being built but a lot depends on site supervision of the workmanship. I bought a Persimmon house and had a lot of snagging.
The person in the original article shouldn't have paid for any remedial work himself but put it back to the builder to rectify things in the defects liability period . Persimmon are NHBC registered so they could become involved but looking at the photos, if they are anything to go by ,who knows what has gone on in the rest of the house so legal action might be the only way to deal with it in the end.

 

[^woody^]

That isn't true. I worked for a housebuilder for many years and we built good quality houses to decent or high quality specifications. Good site managers who wouldn't accept any poor workmanship helped of course. Up until a few years ago I was involved with other housebuilders who built good quality houses so your comments about all new houses being absolute rubbish is completely wrong .
There are poor houses being built but a lot depends on site supervision of the workmanship. I bought a Persimmon house and had a lot of snagging.
The person in the original article shouldn't have paid for any remedial work himself but put it back to the builder to rectify things in the defects liability period . Persimmon are NHBC registered so they could become involved but looking at the photos, if they are anything to go by ,who knows what has gone on in the rest of the house so legal action might be the only way to deal with it in the end.

Well, in terms of quality of construction, some new builds might be OK.

But in terms of appearance, design, layout, room size, front and rear gardens, proximity of the neighbours, estate layout, then all new houses are absolutely shiite.

 

[pilsbury]

No idea who built the new (2008) estate my mate lives on, but their utility room obviously adjoins the next door neighbours toilet. You can hear them having an inconsiderate pi55 (wee into water)

 

[cwhaley]

I wouldn't say they're all bad -- depends what we're comparing them to. A town next to me used to have a speedway stadium which was knocked down. In its place they built new builds (in 2011) which I think look quite attractive.

The houses seem to follow the same pattern as the existing 1930s ones on the main road and the design/style is very fitting with houses in the area.

 

[IT Minion]

All of the crap builds from the 1920s have fallen down by now or been fixed up. My last house was built in the 1890s. Solid as a rock but seemingly built before the set square was developed, not a 90 degree corner in the entire place.

In most things, cars, white goods etc. It's true they don't build them like they used to. Quality control was crap in the past.

 

[cwhaley]

Quality control was crap in the past.

Quality control was often carp in the past -- it could also be incredibly meticulous depending on what was being tested and by whom. Just like today.

 

[IT Minion]

Quality control was often carp in the past -- it could also be incredibly meticulous depending on what was being tested and by whom. Just like today.

Fair point, I'd change my statement to: on average quality control was crap. There are exceptions but the overall standard was lower.

 

[bernardgreen]

Quality control was crap in the past.

My experience ( primarily electronic equipment but also building and architecture ) is that in the past the average worker often took pride in doing a really good job, inspection was carried out but not in the same way as "quality control" is asserted today. With "quality" assured by "the system" many workers no longer feel the need to ensure their work is something to be proud of. They get paid the same.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

With "quality" assured by "the system" many workers no longer feel the need to ensure their work is something to be proud of. They get paid the same.

What has also changed, is that there is no longer the depth of understanding of the jobs that there once was - that reflected in the shorter apprenticeships and fast track courses that lead to being qualified. Training is by wrote and if they meet something outside their basic training they don't have a clue.