Shafted?
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions
With the property market in the doldrums, millions of us are wondering if our home is the secure investment it once was. But for David Robinson, there was a much more unusual reason to be worried.
When he first moved in to his new house, David had no idea that beneath his drive - and only a few meters from his front door - lay an old, disused mining shaft (which isn't surprising really because it's completely invisible to the naked eye). The company that built the house, however, knew all about it - they just didn't tell David.
David paid 100,000 pounds to Taylor Wimpey for his brand new home in County Durham in 2002. The area has a strong mining heritage, yet the mines search David carried out before buying the property revealed no mineshafts directly affecting his future home. He says that it was only during a casual conversation with the site manager - after he'd bought the house - that David first learned what lurked under his drive.
Eventually, after years of demanding answers, David was finally sent the original plans for the house by Taylor Wimpey. The mineshaft was clearly marked. So why hadn't it shown up on any searches?
Well, back when Taylor Wimpey had found the mine, they hadn't bothered registering it with the Coal Authority. Instead, all they did was cap and fill the shaft to make it safe... and then kept quiet.
David says that had he known at the time, he would never have bought the property in the first place.
Taylor Wimpey finally registered the mineshaft in 2007 - six years after it was first discovered. But it's not just the way he's been treated that David thinks is the pits - he's far more concerned about what this mineshaft is doing to the value of his home.
In 2007, David tried to sell his house. During the first viewings he didn't tell prospective buyers about the mineshaft. When he received an offer at his asking price, David felt he had a duty to let the prospective buyers know about the shaft. He never heard from them again.
And when the time came to get a new mortgage deal, as soon as he mentioned the mineshaft no one would lend him the money, leaving him with no option but to pay the original, higher rate.
David is also concerned as cracks have started to appear around the home. He had the house inspected under his warranty and was told the cracks were down to the "natural shrinkage" that can occur in new build homes. But when Watchdog asked surveyor Peter Fall to take a look, he disagreed. He believes there's something causing ground movement at the property. While the cracks could just be normal settlement, David is convinced he's stuck with a house he can't sell.
David is now worried that he will be in the property for the rest of his life, unable to ever sell and move on. He feels the actions of Taylor Wimpey have been: "nothing short of despicable". However, Taylor Wimpey maintains that it handled the situation appropriately. A spokesperson commented: "Taylor Wimpey is committed to providing our customers with the highest possible levels of customer service and a product to match. A recent survey highlights that nearly 90 per cent of customers would recommend a Taylor Wimpey home to a friend or family.
"After a full investigation of Mr Robinson's concerns, the case was referred to the National House Building Council (NHBC) and it has concluded that there is no evidence of serious structural damage, that the treatment of the vent shaft was appropriate and that the cracks found are consistent with initial shrinkage and thermal movement. The NHBC has therefore rejected the claim."
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~46~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Having seen this report, a close friend has decided not to buy a house from Taylor Wimpey. They had seen a new property over the weekend for the third time and were planning on signing the contract this week - they will now pull out. as consumers, let your feet do the walking. The response from Taylor Wimpey seems 100% away from customer service, lost sales as a result is probably an outcome.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I feel that David Robinson has a good case against Taylor Wimpey. He has made the common error of relying on the NHBC warranty on the property, instead of arranging one of his own. He was not made aware of the filled-in nature of the plot, and its general unsuitability for a discrete masonry building. The builder is guilty of neglect, even though it believed that patching the mineshaft was satisfactory in the long-term.
Where was Building Control when the infill work was being carried out, and were the foundations properly checked? Why did Mr Robinson not take action earlier when he first learned of the mineshaft?
Complain about this comment
Having had a similar issue with Bryant Homes(now part of Taylor Wimpey) and the NHBC I would recommend the following:-
1) Quantify the financial loss. Get a survey to value the house with and without the mineshaft. The difference is the financial loss which can be pursued in court.
2) Get a structural engineers report to state what the real cause of the cracking is and that it is not due to normal settlement/thermal cracking. The report should also state the work which needs to be carried out to rectify the situation. There may be nothing that can satisfactorily done so the report should just state that the house should not have been built at this location in the first place.
3) Log the structural engineers report and financial loss with the NHBC claim and invoke the NHBC complaints procedure.
Expect rejections until reaching the General Manager level within NHBC.
4) In parallel to point 3, contact a solicitor- Within 6 years of taking ownership of the property (5 years in Scotland) the owner can raise a court action to recover any financial loss caused by the negligence of the builder. There is the possibility that the 6 years could start at the point that the owner became "aware" of the problem but you would need to check this with a solicitor.
Solicitor should raise an action using info from points 1 and 2 above against both the builder (primary defendant) and the NHBC (secondary defendant). Once the action is raised, the solicitor should freeze it immediately pending settlement via the NHBC complaints procedure.
If the owner carries out the above I'm sure that the NHBC will reverse their decision (as they did in my case) and settle in full. (don't accept anything less than the full financial loss!).
In the extremely unlikely event that they don't settle, the court action can be progressed and the owner can pursue his financial loss plus damages in court.
The owner would also be able to demonstrate in court that he had been very reasonable and had given the NHBC all possible opportunities to comply by following the complaints procedure.
I hope that the owner is not beyond the 6 year time bar.
If the 6 years have elapsed, the builder may be untouchable in court but it may still be possible to take out an action against the NHBC on their own.
ie. has 6 years elapsed from the point of raising a claim with the NHBC?
Total cost of above (valuation survey, structural engineers report, solicitors fees for court action) should be no more than about £1000 in total and this can obviously be recovered as part of any settlement.
The alternative to raising a court action is the Financial Ombudsman and finally Arbritration as detailed in the NHBC complaints procedure but I believe this route would achieve a more "compromised" result instead of the direct recovery of all losses which can be achieved in court.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Believe that, in England and Wales, Building Regulations prohibit construction within 5 metres (used to be 20m) of an old mine shaft capped or not. T and W's Original Planning Subission should have identified old workings and local Planning Dept should (would?)have been aware of them anyway. Capping is likely to involve a 'plug' topped by a concrete cap, but the shaft is likely to remain in a dodgy state.
Complain about this comment
As a geo-environmental consultant i assess development sites for potential mining affects for a living. While i can appreciate the articles nature and the homeowners distress, there are several points which should be noted:
1. The Coal Authority hold all all mine abandonment plans and therefore should have known the shaft was within the site (unless the mineworkings were unrecorded/ undertaken prior to the legal requirement to map mines.
2. The Coal Authority also own all the coal measures and mine shafts in England and Wales (including the Coal Measures in Scotland).
3. The shaft appeared to have been consolidated and capped, effectively making the shaft safe. So long as Taylor Wimpey can provide a warranty for the treatment from the consolidation contractor everything should be fine.
I can appreciate the stigma associated with mineshafts, but in reality, the homeowner should be more releived that the shaft has been identified and treated rather than ignored, which could have resulted in a public safety hazard. Also, the buyers solicitor should have been the one doing the checking prior to the purchase and therefore i would expect them to share part of the blame.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I see yet another complaint about Taylor Wimpey. We bought our flat 18 months ago from Taylor Woodrow (Bryant Homes) now Taylor Wimpey. Not until we moved in did we find out there had been a 4 year legal battle regarding the sound insultaton. 2 weeks before going to High Court Taylor Woodrow decided on mediation and it was settled out of court, a cost to them of 3 million pounds. This did not show up on any serarches by our Solicitor. The couple who had our flat before us noticed very soon after moving in there was a problem (he was in the construction indusry). HSBC tested the sound levels and found it did not reach the required decibel levels. A group of flat owners got together and started legal action. A settlement was reached out of court and Taylor Woodrow paid for alternative accommodation and storage facilities for 4 months for everybody in the action group while they rebuilt the apartments. For us it was an advantage we did not know about at the time as this apartment is very well insulated, we hardly use any heating and we can't hear any neighbours. As I understand it this flat was their 'example' so it had to be right. The previous owner was given a sum of money larger than what he paid for the apartment so that he 'would just go away' This never reached the press!!! For the householder shown on your programme 'Shafted' it looks as if he is on his own unless he can find a group of householders with problems!!! Not easy to go to Court on your own.
Since living here our Managing Agent has requested the name of the Solicitor that successfully took the action as far as the High Court as they have just taken on a block built by Taylor Wimpey with defects!! Because you buy new does not mean you get a building built to the required standards. Its a long road if you find problems and how many people can take their developer to the Courts?
Complain about this comment
In answer to some comments. I started action once the shaft became a definate (ie they admitted to it) in Sept 2007. Planners admit that the house is unlawul but can not take action as it is over 4 years old. Building control have said, in writing, they knew nothing of the shaft and the foundation is not approved for the circumstances but again will not take action. They have said they will remove the completion certificate if the founds are proved inadequate in any way.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS