Do I have grounds to pull out

gwladys st. I think your situation is very different. Perhaps start a new thread on it. But its not unusual for schemes not to be fully finished when you take possession of your new house. The only problem arises if the builder doesn't complete the site in a resonable amount of time. This has happened a lot aswell. But its a different subject.
 
Hi GWLADYS ST. I dont envy your situation. Coincidentally aI only spoke to a girl in work yesterday who is in your exact situation. Her builder went over the 18 months(she was hoping this would happen and was even willing to forego her deposit aswell). Her solicitor told the builders solicitor that they now wanted her deposit back. She then got a call from the estate agent offering her a substantial discount, which she refused. The builders solicitor then said that they were going to force them to close. Her solicitor ran this by a barrister(at a cost of approx €1000) and he came back to say that the 18 month timescale in the contract basically means nothing as there is something called essence of time in the contract which gives the builder more time(i dont understand this at all. Why even mention 18 months in the first place). He said that she has a weak case and that worst case scenario she would have to pay all legal costs for both sides and the builder will still have grounds to make her close. I find it incredible that there seems to be so much protection for builders and the consumer is left so vulnerable. I would have thought that this was a black and white situation here, but apparently not. To an extent I blame the solicitor. It wasnt until he ran this by the barrister that he realised that this was in her contract???.So what will your next step be
 
Dub 1 Can I ask where you are buying if you dont mind. the problem is with the last 15 or so years of boom none of these mental laws favouring builders have come to light and thus the likes of you and me are being put in crazy stressful situations. Regarding my situation being different, well if they guy who said that saw the site he might think twice. You seem to have less stuatory rights buying a house than a packet of buscuits. when you buy a house it should not just be 4 walls and a roof but a living environment and place to raise a family. Its too big an expense and too important an issue for Joe public for the right and proper protections to not be in there favour as i believe they are more so in the UK. Only campaigning for and highlighting this with elected officials will get things changed.
 
Im buying in Kilmainham. The builder is small time. My friend in work that is in your situation bought in Adamstown and the builder is Castlethorn(who are huge). Its all very stressfull. It dosent help that I'm forced to rent and not knowing how long for. I agree with you completely in everything that you said. When I was down on the site last Sunday(the day that I caught them with the dehumidifier), I saw a woman come out of the property two doors up. I approached her and told her who I was. I asked had she any problems with her property. She said her daughter lived there and brought me in. Low and behold there is dampness(it looked fairly considerable to me). She said that she is finding it impossible to contact the builder. Out of 12 units that is one with dampness, 2 that have had major leaks through the balcony areas(destroying both living room floors) and yesterdays burst pipe(destroying the whole downstairs and damaging the unit below). Can these examples be used in my case . I'm guessing the answer is probably not
 
gwladys, You are in a different position it appears. Your house is complete to your satisfaction - from your post it appears that the common areas are a mess. The original OP is in a somewhat different position. The house is a complete mess/disaster.
 
My first bit of advice would be to email Minister John Gormley @ minister@environ.ie with a detailed email of your situation and the fact you feel you have no protection. i have done this and got a response from his personal secretary saying a further email will be on its way. The more of these he gets the better. Its all so screwed up right now but I guess its just a fight we have to fight, its the only way things change. So send him and email and maybe also your local TD's, both FF and otherwise, which I have also done. Buyers need protectiona nd these people can get things done but they need to know about them
 
Unfinished estates has been an issue for years. Back in the late 80's/90's it was very common for builders to go bust leaving the estate, even roads unfinished, and it too a few years for the local authority to take them in hand. But thats not what you are talking about at this point.

Moving into a new house in an unfinished estate is par for the course in fairness.
 
Dub1,

Going back the planning issue:

The plans attached to your contract are in a way less relevant than the plans on which planning permission was granted. It is a condition of your contract that the builder will have to provide you with a declaration of compliance with planning permission and building regulations on closing. This is a very important requirement, and in my opinion, inability to provide it would be a fundamental breach of the contract, sufficient to allow you to break the contract and get your money back.

If the property that was built is so very different to the one that the council gave permission for, then no engineer/architect will give a cert unless the builder goes back and gets retention permission.

I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the 200mm height difference - to me this doesn't seem to be too big a deal - it is a technical breach but doesn't seem sufficient to impact on your safe enjoyment of your property (engineers please correct me if I'm wrong!) - but the difference in plans is obviously very significant.

Call your engineer and ask his opinion. Would he give a cert of compliance for a house that is that different from the plans? If he says no, then call your solicitor and fill him in ..

And yes I do think you should stick to your current solicitor for now.
 
Mercman, one of labours official campaigns is in relation to quality of life in commuter belt and suburb towns and new developments so this actually ties in well with that and I spoke to a member of the party about my issue. When buying a house you buy from a glossy brochure giving you a sense of where you will live, now in my opinion if there are houses sitting next to yours with foundations and no more and a mud bath where 10 or more houses were supposed to go and heavy construction vehicles going by your house for the next 12 months or so, not to mention no street lighting or the kids play areas promised (a site office hut instead!!) then this is wrong and totally unacceptable and the law must protect the buyer in this regard and allow them to walk away from the contract and live there life elsewhere, if this was the law builders would sure as hell make more of an effort. It’s an utter disgrace that on such a major purchase for a average member of the public this kind of behaviour is acceptable and protected in law essentially. When they sell you a house there are in my opinion alot of implied elements and when not provided to a standard any reasonable person would accept then the purchaser should be fully protected and allowed to walk away from a contract after a certain time frame such as the 18 month period most contracts state and live their lives elsewhere
 
It might have been one of Labours official campaigns, why haven't they done anything about it ?? Is it just a case of Political Bluff ?? This kind of carry on goes on all over the country and also in the UK. Developers at the moment have not got the money to complete the sites with houses lest alone communal areas. I do not see as to you have any chance of walking away from an uncompleted site. You contracted to purchase a home not a play ground. What would happen if you bought a house and the field behind was deveoped into a factory. This is not the developer's fault.
 
I know I didnt buy a play ground and your smart comments are much obliged! Why should anyone move on a site with the house beside them barley stated and a row of house s beside that just muck, could your kids go outside while major contruction goes on, thats not a living environment which is what you buy into. By your line of thinking you could build one house in isolation on a 1000 acre plot where you were supposed to build 1000 houses and force someone to move into it and just leave the rest. My property is not on soem site where just a few bits and pieces needs doing, we are talking vast ammounts of work right next door to where i am expected to live, not 100 yards away or on another street, on my doorstep. When you pay vast ammounts of money for anything in life it must be incumbent on the seller to provide you with exactly what you are looking for and that when buying a house is the whole package not just the 4 walls and a roof, now if you think this is not the case fine but I ask you to keep the smart remarks to yourself.
 
gwladys st - why can't you start a new thread on this issue instead of derailing this one.

Did your contract specificy/cover anything other than your own boundary and everything within it?
 
Its not something I would have even looked at at the time, Im no legal expert and didnt even think to ask, you would just assume you would be proviuded with someone comfortable to live. If you saw what they expect me to move onto you would likely agree but I will post elsewhere

I am just aghast at how unprotected buyers are in these siutations, after all isnt a house likely the most important purchase of your life and the most expensive...is it wrong to expect a certain living environment?
 
They were not meant to be taken as smart remarks. These are serious pointers. I'm just looking at it from the law side. Do you really think there is a legal case ?? The judiciary are there to decide on the law, not on grievances. You contracted to purchase a house, which I assume that is satisfactory The rest is by and by. Anyway the OP has a different more important and valid point. There is little point in Hijacking other's posts to let off steam.
 
If you want to move into a finish area, you move into a finished area, not buy off the plans in estate thats not built yet. Its only logical that if something is built in phases that some properties, even them all will be finished before the whole scheme, and its enviroment are finished. Thats the way its always been done for decades. Thats just how its done. Unless of course there is a condition in the contract covering the rest of the development.

So you don't have a problem yet. You only have a problem IF the developer leaves the site unfinished in the future and doesn't complete all phases of the scheme. Unfinished estates has been a issue for many many years. . I'm guessing theres hundreds of unfinished estates around the country. As Developers run out of money, and local authorities run out money it will be a common enough problem. If you want to avoid this, buy in a scheme thats already finished and not off the plans.

But the original topic is not about any of this.
 
there is some law about what state a development should be in b4 anyone allowed to move in - in my new house - all houses built on my cul de sac finished before i was even allowed to snag. I would check where I stand legally.
 
maybe I should start a new thread myself because this one has completely gone off the subject
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top