Brickwork mortar 1:11 cement to sand mix?

[noseall]

This advice was given by a member of the building trade.

The house builders have offered to resolve the issue via a re-point. I personally believe it would be a slog to continue to escalate the (legal) situation.
If Woody says go for it, I might be tempted, but only if it was my forever house and was convinced that remedial work would not solve the issue.

There is a lot to think about, especially for folk starting a family or some such. It can take a lot of effort to fight litigation and you have to be on the ball. Procrastinating is not an option.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

I think you've got a good case. But they'll throw every obstacle in your way - they'll ignore you, deny everything and lie. All because the cost of fixing it could be huge, especially if others on your street have similar issues waiting to be discovered. If they fix yours then they'll be legally obliged to fix the rest. I doubt you'll get any offers until it actually gets to court.

Given that we all only have however many years of life on this planet, I'd actually be thinking about just quietly selling up and moving. Make it someone else's problem. Totally selfish but you are not the cause of this problem.

 

[stuart45]

The issue with selling a new build soon after moving in is that you have paid a premium for the house, and will take a hit on the sale.

 

[stuart45]

This advice was given by a member of the building trade.

Most builders are not legal experts, so our job is to create the problems, not help people take their case to the High court.

 

[^woody^]

The house clearly has a defect and does not conform to the standards it should have been built to. That's not debatable.

Whether it may or may not be OK, is debatable. But no qualified professional person is going to certify that and support any assertion that the mortar is acceptable now or won't deteriorate in the very near future (when the Buildmark warranty expires). So there's a massive risk.

The OP is in a corner with limited options.

If he is minded, he could put the house back on the market, come up with some plausible reason for needing to sell, pretend no knowledge of the condition and take a hit on the sale costs and be free of the problem. But if things come to light at some future time, then there is that risk of being sued, and the OP will have to shoulder that risk for six years.

Otherwise, the other option is to accept the repointing offer and hope that is successful. The offer would likely be full and final, with no chance of further claims if unsuccessful. Again, a massive risk, and I wonder if any independent person would certify that. There still comes the risk at sale time and a clued up buyer's surveyor could cause problems for the OP - no sale or significant price reduction.

So that leaves legal action. This would almost certainly be successful and most likely settled before court so would not be protracted. There may be initial costs and stress, but costs would be recovered and stress compensated. And there is a certificate declaring that the house is satisfactory and not defective, so at sale time there is no problem.
Linked to this is whether the OP wants to live in a house with the level of work required having been done, or would rather have the house bought back by the builder and costs paid, then find another house somewhere else.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Are there visible symptoms that the average buyer or surveyor would see? You say it's crumbly, but is it actually falling out?

If so then you can't just play daft and sell, as nobody would buy it, so you'll have to plough ahead with some kind of claim.

If it is readily visible then it would be worth taking an evening stroll around the estate and see if others have the same issue, perhaps collaborate with your neighbours to solve the problem.

 

[noseall]

So that leaves legal action. This would almost certainly be successful and most likely settled before court so would not be protracted. There may be initial costs and stress, but costs would be recovered and stress compensated. And there is a certificate declaring that the house is satisfactory and not defective, so at sale time there is no problem.
Linked to this is whether the OP wants to live in a house with the level of work required having been done, or would rather have the house bought back by the builder and costs paid, then find another house somewhere else.

What level of work is involved? Complete outer skin take down and re-build?

 

[mrrusty]

If so then you can't just play daft and sell,

No you cant - that doesn't work. If the next buyer makes the same discovery, approaches the same parties, it is likely they will be told that this has come up before, then they know you knowingly withheld relevant information. It's one thing to declare "don't know" on the house information, but to declare this when there is possible proof that you do know is risky. The case of the recent moth-infested house springs to mind. https://www.solegal.co.uk/insights/moth-infested-mansion-highlights-risks-misrepresentation

 

[^woody^]

No you cant - that doesn't work. If the next buyer makes the same discovery, approaches the same parties, it is likely they will be told that this has come up before, then they know you knowingly withheld relevant information. It's one thing to declare "don't know" on the house information, but to declare this when there is possible proof that you do know is risky. The case of the recent moth-infested house springs to mind. https://www.solegal.co.uk/insights/moth-infested-mansion-highlights-risks-misrepresentation

From a Chartered Surveyor too! Whether he was acting dumb or if it was not really an act is open for debate

 

[^woody^]

What level of work is involved? Complete outer skin take down and re-build?

There are are chemical injection products that can strengthen and stabilise masonry and mortar. These are typically used for conservation of old walls and friable stone. I understand it is different to crack repair resin, and more like damp proof injection.

But whether this is possible in this case, or even viable compared to a rebuild of the external leaf would need to be determined.

I'm not sure about the inner leaf and whether that could be left or chemically treated.

 

[stuart45]

You can refuse to give any information about a house. It's not even law to fill out the TA6. You can't answer 'I don't know' when asked if you know the answer, but you can refuse to answer any questions.
However, this won't inspire a lot of confidence in the buyers.

 

[mrrusty]

A recent High Court ruling is a timely reminder that sellers must disclose known issues or risk legal and financial consequences

TA6 or not, this quote from the page I linked to suggests TA6 is irrelevant to the duty to disclose.

 

[stuart45]

You can refuse to answer any questions. If you read the bit about misrepresentation you can't claim you don't know or physically hide an issue, but can refuse to give any answers.

Additional Enquiries by Conveyancers: The Importance of Honesty

2 min readWhether you are thinking about selling your property or in the midst of a property transaction, the prospect as a whole can be quite daunting. Particularly when the administrative side of the sale gets underway – the complexity of which never fails to take first-time sellers by...

aristonesolicitors.co.uk

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

If you were asking me for directions I'd say don't set off from here.

Surely the lesson to be learned from this debacle, whatever the solution, is to never buy mass-market newbuild ever again. I decided this before I bought our first house thankfully. Anyone with any practical skills should be able to see that they're built to last about as long as the warranty and are difficult or impossible to repair or improve.

 

[^woody^]

Nothing wrong with new build. I got a bargain with a great view - just waiting for the skip to go and the daffodils to come up next March