Developers “profit sharing” with NHBC warranty firm

The organisation that provides warranties for most of the new homes in Britain is paying millions of pounds to the leading housebuilders every year, raising questions about its independence and credibility amid a wave of complaints about the quality of new-build properties.

NHBC, the standard-setting body and main home construction warranty provider for new builds in the UK, is paying around £10m to £15m every year to housebuilders through what is effectively a profit-share agreement. The largest firms can receive as much as £2m from the scheme, because it rewards the developers who registered the most homes with NHBC.

Campaigners said the revelation shows that NHBC is on the side of developers rather than consumers and that the lack of protection for buyers of new homes is a “scandal”.

A senior industry source said the annual payment to the housebuilders was a way to keep them “sweet” and ensure they remained NHBC customers. The source also said that the system is open to abuse, and there were at least two occasions since 2010 when a major housebuilder asked for an extra or increased payment which was approved by NHBC.

The questions about the credibility of NHBC, which claims to have an 80% share of the warranties market, will also be a headache for the government, which is poised to launch its housing white paper this week.

PM to reaffirm green belt pledge despite plans to ramp up housebuilding
There have been an increasing number of complaints about problems with new homes and the lack of protection and compensation for consumers from NHBC’s warranties. Last month it was revealed that Bovis had paid the purchasers of new homes to move in early only for the buyers to find the property unfinished.

The NHBC warranty is a form of insurance that is supposed to compensate home buyers or fix any faults in the new property if there are problems within the first 10 years.

Paula Higgins, co-founder and chief executive of the campaign group HomeOwners Alliance, said: “As we have more houses being built and the government encouraging people to buy new homes, we are seeing more and more issues with quality.

“The government is more concerned with numbers than homes for the future and there is a real danger that we are building the wrong sort of home.”

Higgins said NHBC was “too much of a monopoly” in the warranties market and described its relationship with housebuilders as “cosy”.

“I think NHBC is acting on behalf of the developers and its members. I don’t think they are acting on behalf of consumers,” said Higgins. “The quality of new homes – it is a scandal.”

The potential conflict of interest between NHBC paying compensation to consumers and returning cash to housebuilders will lead to more calls for the government to introduce an independent ombudsman to oversee complaints about new homes or for the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate NHBC’s dominance of the market.

Oliver Colvile, the Conservative MP who chair an all-party parliamentary group on new-build properties, said he had great concern about the independence of NHBC. He called for an ombudsman to be introduced and for homebuyers to be allowed to inspect their new home before they purchase it.

“I think what needs to happen is that the government needs to look at this seriously. This is a consumer rights issue,” he said. “Lets put the consumer on top of the list. I want to see action on this issue.”

NHBC has faced questions about its independence before because it is paid a membership fee by housebuilders, meaning they effectively fund it. However, this is the first time it has been revealed that NHBC pays millions back to developers.

The payment is referred to as a “premium refund” in the financial accounts of NHBC. However, it is only mentioned in the notes to the accounts and the amount paid out is not disclosed.

A letter seen by the Guardian from NHBC to a housebuilder shows the payment is based on a complex calculation that takes into account the number of homes registered by the developer 15 years ago, the cost of claims paid out on these homes and the investment return earned by the NHBC. The 15-year period allows time for the property to be built, sold and the warranty to expire. However, on top of this formula, each year the NHBC also determines the size of the total pot of cash that is available to be shared out with the housebuilders.

NHBC defended the payments but refused to confirm how much it had paid out to housebuilders or comment on the extra payments to the two housebuilders.

The NHBC said: “NHBC provides a market-leading warranty, which currently protects 1.6 million UK consumers.

“Last year we paid £90m in respect of claims in addition to providing assistance to homeowners through our resolution service, which mediates between homeowners and their builder and last year found in favour of homeowners in 70% of cases.

“As is standard practice, we do not discuss our commercial transactions or our underwriting terms.

“It is common practice in the insurance industry to recognise good claims history in a number of ways such as no-claim bonuses, and this is what our premium refund system, established in the 1990s and disclosed in our accounts, is designed to achieve.

“The system is consistently applied and is based on clear rules and processes. As this refund recognises long-term good claims history, the rules state that builders do not need to be current NHBC customers to receive it.

“The sum paid in refunds is a very small proportion of NHBC’s annual turnover.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/05/new-homes-warranty-firm-pays-millions-to-leading-homebuilders

Some building costs up 35% – another (expensive) nail in the relocation project?

And to think, some careful maintenance of Knowle and some judicious spending when the sun was shining and councillors could have been enjoying up-to-date facilities for years!

“Bricks and timber have become the latest products to be hit by sterling’s slide after Britain’s decision to leave the European Union.

An investigation by The Mail on Sunday into the effects of the referendum has identified sweeping price rises of up to 35 per cent on some building materials.

The revelation comes in the week the Government unveils its Housing White Paper aimed at easing the country’s housing shortage with a massive boost to home-building.

The building industry is also under pressure from an acute skills shortage – which trade bodies warn may be made much worse if tradesmen from countries such as Poland find it more difficult to work in the UK.

The Mail on Sunday’s analysis of figures released last week shows prices on a wide variety of materials, including loft insulation, plasterboard and chipboard, rising at their fastest rate for 25 years.

The increases will hit not only those looking to buy new-build homes, but anyone thinking of extending their house or planning a loft conversion. …”

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-4191564/Building-costs-rocket-brick-timber-prices-soaring.html

Cranbrook’s district heating system under fire – no switching allowed and developers get a cut for 80 year contract

“Energy customers who find themselves paying over the odds for their heating can simply switch to a cheaper deal. But there’s a hidden, but rapidly growing, number who estimate they’re paying up to three times more than the expected price… but don’t have the right to switch. In most cases, they are stuck with the same supplier for 25 years or more.

They are among the 220,000 households signed up to District Heating networks which power entire estates by sending hot water and steam via insulated pipes from a central generator, instead of having a boiler in each home. [This is the system used at Cranbrook].

The system, often fuelled by natural gas or biomass, is supposed to point the way to a greener future and has the enthusiastic backing of government.

However, the suppliers are unregulated and customers of only five of them have the right to turn to the energy ombudsman if things go wrong. [The system at Cranbrook is run by E.on where it appears from this article customers do not have the right to go to the Ombudsman].

On the face of it, the schemes are good news. Unlike condensing power plants, that only use around a third of the electricity generated, district networks use 90%. Waste energy can be recycled, households no longer have to maintain their own boilers, and heating bills are supposed to be cheaper.

Last year the government announced it was investing £320m in expanding the system across the UK and predicts that it will supply 8 million households by 2030. In London, where new developments are required to be zero carbon, it is being used in most large estates.

In reality, though, residents complain of enormous, opaque energy bills, frequent outages and misinformation.

A Which? investigation in 2015 found that some schemes are poorly designed and that customers are being misled about costs. It also concluded that many people are unaware of the District Heating scheme when they purchase a flat.

… Any company – including the property developer – can set itself up as a District Heating supplier without a licence, and a full list of those in operation is not yet publicly available.

They are selected by the developer who will receive a commission, or a substantial contribution towards the network infrastructure, in return for a contract to supply the development for at least 25 years. E.on has an 80-year contract to supply Cranbrook, a new town in East Devon.

Once they’ve bought into a development, residents are locked into a monopoly. They are not allowed to fit solar panels or heat source pumps and, whether or not they use their heating, remain liable for often large standing charges which include maintenance and repair of the infrastructure.

Matthew Pennycook, Labour MP for Greenwich and Woolwich, which includes eight District Heating networks, says residents tell him bills have tripled under the scheme, and there’s no transparency in consumption and billing. …

… Last year Pennycook [an MP] surveyed residents at New Capital Quay, a development in his constituency that uses e.on District Heating scheme. The responses, he says, provide “prima facie evidence of systematic problems” including inexplicably high bills and poor customer service.

Last April, the Advertising Standards Authority upheld a complaint by New Capital Quay residents that e.on’s advertised promise that its charges were comparable to those of a traditional gas boiler, was misleading. The sentence has since been removed from its website.

“E.on offers customers a market-leading energy source with long-term protections and guarantees, as well as affordable bills and a lower environmental impact,” the company claims.

There are fears that these issues will make it difficult to sell on flats. …

… Kabir Dhawan bought a one-bed flat in New Capital Quay in 2014. “I was told it was supplied by an energy-efficient scheme and was given a written promise that the costs would be no higher than for a conventional gas supply,” he says. “Instead, we are paying around £900 a year, including standing charges – the fixed cost of providing the home – of £1 a day.”

But 15 months ago the automated reading facility, which provides daily updates, stopped working.

“Some of my neighbours have the same problem, but although the standing charge is supposed to cover repairs to meters, it hasn’t been fixed,” he says.

“Instead, they’ve offered me £15 for the ‘inconvenience’.” Dhawan claims. “Because I can’t monitor my usage, I’m expecting a catch-up bill of around £500.”

Using e.on’s own estimates of consumption for a one-bed flat, he reckons that he is paying twice what he should for heat and hot water. Moreover, he says, the hot water supply is cut off for lengthy periods around once a month, most recently on New Year’s Day and that e.on often tries to duck the £30 payout due under its terms and conditions for outages of 24 hours or more.

A neighbour secured the compensation, due to all the residents after one such breakdown, but only after initiating legal proceedings.

E.on declined to comment on individual customer cases and stated it did not accept the basis of many of the allegations.

Dhawan fears that he will struggle to sell or let his flat because of the high costs and the service is a monopoly.”

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/feb/05/district-heating-fuel-bill-regulation

If you don’t like these policies, we have others …

“A major shift in Tory housing policy in favour of people who rent will be announced by ministers this week as Theresa May’s government admits that home ownership is now out of reach for millions of families.

In a departure from her predecessor David Cameron, who focused on advancing Margaret Thatcher’s ambition for a “home-owning democracy”, a white paper will aim to deliver more affordable and secure rental deals, and threaten tougher action against rogue landlords, for the millions of families unable to buy because of sky-high property prices. Ministers will say they want to change planning and other rules to ensure developers provide a proportion of new homes for “affordable rent” instead of just insisting that they provide a quota of “affordable homes for sale”.

They will also announce incentives to encourage landlords to offer “family-friendly” guaranteed three-year tenancies, new action to ban unscrupulous landlords who offer sub-standard properties, and a further consultation on banning many of the fees that are charged by letting agents.

A senior Whitehall source said: “We want to help renters get more choice, a better deal and more secure tenancies.” They added that the government did not want to scare people off from renting out homes, but offer incentives to encourage best practice and isolate the worst landlords. By emphasising the rights of renters, as well as trying to boost house building, the white paper will mark a turning point for a party that since the 1980s, and the first council house sales, has promoted home ownership as a badge of success, while neglecting the interests of renters. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/04/may-abandons-home-owning-democracy-thatcher-tories