Just incase you would like to see more of the photos I have taken in the first 3 months of living in my brand new Tulloch Homes house, here is a link to my yahoo photo album, Enjoy.
http://photos.yahoo.com/highlandpark@btinternet.com
Tuesday, 8 May 2007
Saturday, 5 May 2007
What fun you can have with a Tullochs new build.
In this post you will find the letters that we have sent to Tulloch Homes and the responses they have returned.
Dear Claire,
Please find enclosed a selection of photographs to illustrate the problems we have encountered over the three months that we have been living on your building site. We are writing to you to detail our specific concerns and reasons why we feel it was unacceptable for Tulloch’s to move a family into plot 63 on the 15th of December 2006. We look forward to hearing your responses to the following issues.
Incomplete fencing.
When we were rushed around the house during the hand over, it was commented on that our back fence was not properly finished. We do not understand why it is still unfinished? This has created problems for three different reasons.
1) Workmen have used our driveway and back garden as a means to access the site. On two separate occasions we have been driving and noticed that one of the wing mirrors has been pushed in to allow easier access by your workers.
2) On the weekends when the site is empty members of the public happily use our garden to gain entry to the site as it is easier than climbing the security fence.
3) During the Christmas period people were using a skip on the building site, and walking down the side of our house to get to it.
Lack of turf, Garden drainage and incomplete retaining wall.
In September 2006 we paid for the extras that we had requested. Part of this was £510 for turf to be laid in the back garden. The point of this was to give us a lawn in the back garden upon moving in, but when we moved in there was no turf. When we asked about it we were informed on several occasions that it is the wrong time of the year for turf to be laid. Therefore why does the housing at Greenwood Court have turf laid when we entered our property before them?
We were not warned at any point that the turf may not be laid for our entry. I also cannot understand why payment was taken for an extra that could not be delivered, as our money could have been gaining us interest rather than you.
After speaking to one of the landscapers from Sleigh Landscaping, they are not keen to lay turf whilst the garden is so wet. Any attempts by ourselves to improve drainage would result in further standing water in my neighbours garden. If left to dry out in the sun, the turf may be laid eventually, but I am concerned that each time it rains my back garden will once again turn into a bog and the turf will die.
We are also confused as to why, if our garden needed a retaining wall, it was not continued to the end of our property. Completion of this wall would also reduce the run-off from our garden into our neighbours’ water logged garden.
All of this results in the fact that on beautiful days, like the weekend of the 24th of March, we cannot allow our daughter to go outside and play or even enjoy a family barbeque. As all we have is a large amount of water logged soil and a path. Even a patio would have made at least part of the garden useable.
Lack of driveway and road and pavement surface.
We do not understand why the driveways were not completed before people moved in. The late completion of the driveway resulted in access issues to my property with very short notice. The driveway, like the pavements are treacherous due to the number of trip hazards. Once again we cannot fail to notice that Greenwood Court had the pavements, drives and road surfaces finished completely before they were moved in.
Manhole cover
There was a manhole cover on the pavement at the end of our driveway. Since moving in the builders have required access to this a number of times. Permission to block access to our property was only sought on one occasion and with only 20 minutes notice. When we approached one of your staff to enquire why they were digging up the access to our property again, they informed us that the manhole cover had been incorrectly sighted in the first place. The manhole cover has since been moved which adds credence to his statement and concerns me regarding the competence of Tulloch’s.
Road outside used as car park.
As your site entrance has been directly outside our property since we moved in, the small section of road between the cul-de-sac and your security fence has been used as a car park. When workmen are on site vans, lorries, diggers and cars are parked directly in front of our property. Several times a week we will have to wait to enter or leave our property until the driver of a particular vehicle can be found to move it. We are confused as to why the street is being used as access to the building site. Surely site traffic could come in from the top of the site instead of having to drive up and down a residential street? This would allow the road surfaces to be completed and hence reduce the ware and tear on our car.
Despite assurances from your customer care manager that this would be addressed, nothing has changed. In fact, immediately, after gaining these assurances the access to my property was blocked whilst they, again, accessed the manhole cover.
On the weekends when the site traffic is absent the access issues are still present due to people parking in front of my driveway before going onto the building site to look at their house being built. This usually happens two or three times a day during the weekend. We realise this is not within your control to stop, but feel it is an unfair position to force someone into, when they have to constantly shout for or find people wandering around on your site. Should there not be some sort of site security or CCTV to monitor the site entrance which is not properly secure and therefore all the more tempting for people to trespass?
Site fencing.
This problem occurs at nights and weekends when the fencing is put across the site entrance. When placed too close to our driveway it is impossible to get out of the drive without having to reverse down the street, turn into the cul-de-sac and finally drive off in the right direction. On occasions it has been possible to inform whoever has been securing the fence and ask them to move it further onto the site, but on many occasions we have had to spend the weekend performing this needless reversing manoeuvre. We have also had to move the site fence on more than one occasion, when it has been swung open in front of our drive and left.
Surrounded by building site.
It was not until the hand over that we realised that our plot was surrounded by your building site. The house in front was unfinished and covered in scaffolding, the house beside us was unfinished and covered in scaffolding and on the other side of the unfinished back fence was an access road for heavy vehicles. After spending the previous five months living on a UBC building site in Culloden, we had thought we were used to living beside a building site, but this had not prepared us for living on a building site. We have had to put up with items falling from scaffolding on more than one occasion. During the Christmas break a scaffolding pole fell into our garden. On a second occasion a roll of black material fell from the scaffolding onto a guests’ car that was on our driveway. This is an unacceptable risk to personal safety and property and further demonstrates the we are actually part of the building site. We contacted Tullochs at the time but other than being told our complaint was being dealt with there has been no response to our e-mails and telephone calls.
Turning off the water.
On three occasions our water has been turned off, and on only one occasion were we given any warning at all. This was done to flush out the water system for newer houses. If further work to the water system was required, effecting our supply, then we should not have been moved in until it was completed. As a stay at home parent with a small child, repeated interruptions in the water supply are completely unacceptable.
Refuse Collection
On many occasions the council have failed to collect our rubbish. When we spoke to a council worker they stated that it was too dangerous to collect refuse from our property as one of their workers had been hurt whilst trying to collect on a previous week. The refuse collectors considered our house to still be part of the building site. We cannot understand why Tulloch’s do not share this opinion.
Speed of completing snagging.
As already stated we have been in the property since the 15th December and our initial snagging has not yet been completed. We do not understand why this is taking so long and consider this to be an unacceptable delay. The “Pre-Occupational Inspection Form” details an “agreed date for completion of the above items”, but a date was never entered. We shall shortly be submitting an updated snagging list and can only hope that this will be dealt with in a more timely manner.
Many of the issues detailed in this letter have been resolved. The manhole has been moved, heavy vehicles are no longer driving past our incomplete back fence and the site entrance is starting to move a little further away. You were informed of many of these issues at the time, but failed to respond or take action. Therefore this letter is a complete catalogue of issues experienced by us, on a regular basis, over the last three months.
In conclusion we are wholly disappointed with the level of customer service demonstrated by Tullochs. Worst still by purchasing a Tulloch’s home we feel that the safety and standard of life of my family has been disregarded. If only your customer service after payment was to the same high standard as your sales staff. We would be a far happier Tullochs home owner. We realise from our neighbours that the extent of our complaint is uncommon. However we would like you to fully understand that the conditions which you have forced us to endure since our entry would be considered unacceptable by anyone.
We look forward to your response and hope that it is of a higher standard than the previous contact we have had from you.
This was the response.
Dear Mr & Mrs Hunter,
I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated the 21 March 2007 regarding your concerns since taking occupation of your property. With regard to the issues you raise, I offer the following response.
Incomplete fencing: Site has confirmed that this section of fencing was completed last week.
Lack of Turf: The turf to your property - and neighbouring properties - had not been laid, as ground conditions were not suitable. As the weather and ground conditions have improved in the past fortnight, our turfing subcontractor is now in the process of laying turf to all properties. The turfing you refer to at Greenwood Court is for a housing association and was laid on their instruction and risk of any consequential latent defects.
Retaining wall: Your retaining wall has been built in accordance with our Engineers drawings and has been stubbed short of rear boundary fence as the adjoining levels tie-in with levels to your garden.
Driveways/Pavements: It is normal practise to finish footpaths/roads in phases in order to avoid damage to surface during the construction process. We are currently in discussion with our surfacing contractor to agree a date for finishing roads and pavements up to your property.
Car Parking: We apologise for the inconvenience you have experienced due to vehicles parking outside your property. In terms of traffic management we have now moved our boundary to the construction area up to plot 61. In addition to this I have asked our Site Manager to remind all subcontractors that parking on occupied roads is strictly forbidden.
Turning off the water: The system had to be shut off to allow the water main to be extended to the top of the site. The fact that you were only contacted once to give prior notice is not acceptable and I will raise this with the offending subcontractor.
Refuse collection: This should no longer be an issue as our site boundary is now at the top of the site.
Snagging: With reference to your shagging letter dated 26th March 2007 and following discussion with our Site Manager I offer the following response.
Loft hatch - this item was not reported to Tulloch Homes.
Air vent - Site Manager trying to source alternative product.
Garden - Ground conditions are now dry and turf will therefore take root when laid.
Fence - work completed last week.
Roads - Covered above.
Patio door - Site Manager will call to inspect this item. (Not reported previously)
Patio step - Site Manager will call as above.
Outside tap - Subcontractor has been informed.
Oven - as per item 6.
Bathroom floor - Site Manager has since inspected this item and will respond under separate cover.
Railings - painting is organised for this week.
Railings to steps - As height difference between ground and step is less than 600mm a rail is not required under the Building Regulations.
Once again, apologies for any inconvenience you have experienced since moving into your property. I trust the above clarifies your concerns.
Yours sincerely
Robert MacLean
Building Manager
So we sent another letter.
Dear Mr MacLean,
I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 5 April 2007 in response to our complaint letter. With regard to the responses you have given I offer the following response.
Firstly I would like to state that I do not feel your response was to a higher standard than any of the previous contact I have had from your company, as I had hoped it might be. Your response does not explain or rectify any of the concerns I have brought up regarding Tullochs. It does not answer the question of why Tullochs thought it was acceptable to have someone living for several months in an area considered by many as being part of the building site. The least I would have hoped for was a more sincere letter of apology and some form of explanation as to why my family were moved into a property and forced to live with these conditions, rather than the set of very obvious observations you have made.
What your response letter has done is given yet more cause to feel that your company has one goal, and one alone. To make the maximum amount of profit , in as short a time as possible. Tullochs seems happy to throw houses up as fast as they can, giving the bare minimum needed to meet regulations and then completely ignoring the fact that once they have received the payment, someone will have to live in them and turn them into a home. After speaking to many of the neighbours it is apparent that we are not the only plot suffering from this problem and having to work out what can be done to improve the bare minimum we have all bought.
Incomplete Fencing.
Thank you for pointing out that the fencing is now complete, I had managed to notice that myself. What I was looking for was an explanation as to why it was incomplete when we moved in and why you left it until the completion of the next house, despite my comment upon entry. I would have thought that the Health and Safety regulations for a construction site would require you to secure the perimeter to prevent unauthorised access. I believe that our incomplete fencing encouraged people to use our back garden to gain entry onto your site. I would rather not have had complete strangers on my property.
Your response was not only a statement of the obvious, but did nothing to address the problem or compensate my family for this inconvenience.
Lack of Turf.
I am well aware that the ground conditions in my garden are not suitable for any real gardening use. The high degree of compaction and poor layer of topsoil that is our garden will never be an ideal garden. Why did Tullochs not do something to improve the ground conditions so that the turf, I had paid for back in September, could have been laid sooner? The weather has been surprisingly good this Spring and my family have been unable to use our garden at all.
Your response does nothing to address the problem or compensate my family for still not having a useable garden. I have been verbally informed that I may receive turf the week beginning the 30th of April, but even if it arrives during this week, I have still not been compensated for 4 months without a useable garden.
Retaining Wall.
Could you please give me your definition of “tie-in”? I agree that my garden does indeed join together with the neighbours, and as such am not disputing the fact that the gardens “tie-in”. I do not however regard the current slopes as a tying in of levels.
Upon the siting of fence posts by Just Fencing I was informed that the drainage pipe at the end of the retaining wall had no mesh covering and therefore the holes in it were blocked by soil. I believe the correct working order of this pipe would have improved the drainage in my garden and may have allowed my turf to have been laid sooner. This and many other issues gives the feel that my property was rushed for completion and jobs were not given due care and attention.
Car Parking.
Thank you for your apology, we are aware that this situation has now improved. However this does not explain why we spent several months with site traffic parked around and regularly blocking our property. It would appear that the “strictly forbidden” rule is either unknown or completely ignored by your staff and subcontractors. I am glad to see that since the fence has been moved further away from my property, you have stopped using it as a site entrance. This must make life more bearable for those living near it. It does leave me wondering that perhaps if I had bought a more expensive property, Tullochs would have shown me the same consideration.
When it comes to deliveries, can you explain where you thought they were going to park whilst unloading? The site entrance was level with my driveway and the road surface on site was unsuitable for most vehicles. They were forced to stop outside my property and as unloading is often a lengthy process it comes as no surprise that this led to access issues. I am concerned that you feel any restriction to access of a new property is acceptable when the issues have nothing to do with that property.
Turning off the water.
If this happened during the extending of the water main, will this happen each time the Tulloch site is extended? I am glad you recognise that not being informed is unacceptable, but please do not be too harsh on the offending subcontractors in this situation. As on several other occasions Tullochs and other subcontractors were more than happy to begin work on the pavement and road in front of my driveway without informing me that access would be restricted. At times this has happened whilst my car sat in plain view on the driveway. This happened not only due to the resiting of the manhole cover, an issue which you chose to ignore in your response, but during the continuation of the pavement and the traffic calming system. I do have more photographic evidence of this, if you would like proof of this.
Refuse Collection.
I am fully aware that this is no longer an issue as my bins are now being collected. What I would have liked to know is why it was allowed to be an issue for several months and once again your response fails to acknowledge this or respond appropriately.
Here are some of the points from my original letter that you have failed to cover at all. Please feel free to refer to our original letter for more detail.
Manhole access.
Your response fails to address, that due to an error, our driveway was completely blocked once again. If turning my water off, with little of no warning, is unacceptable. Then why is blocking my driveway with 20 minutes notice acceptable? Despite no compensation being offered for this, an apology would have been a start.
Site Fencing.
This hassle and inconvenience was completely ignored in your response. This is extremely annoying as Tullochs is more than happy to forget site fencing in other locations.
Surrounded by building site.
Out of all the issues that I brought to Tullochs attention surely objects falling off your scaffolding onto my property is by far the most dangerous and unacceptable. I am however not surprised that you chose to ignore it, as the e-mail I sent before the complaint letter was also completely ignored. Is this occurrence so common that you consider it normal and part of the new build buying experience, and therefore not worth commenting on? Yet again I would request a response as to why you think this is acceptable for any family?
Snagging.
1. The loft hatch was not reported as I did not realise it was an issue until the joiner was laying the loft flooring. By that time it was too late to allow Tullochs to finish the job. I assume it was missed due to the property being rushed for completion.
2. Air Vent. I informed one of the site managers, last week, where a suitable product can be found.
6. Patio Doors. These were looked at and adjusted on the 23rd of April, but feel that the draft is still unacceptable.
7. Patio step. The site manager has called and informed me of the amount of work required to now fix this problem. I would ask why it was not repaired when it was chipped during construction, as this work will now be an inconvenience to me. Therefore can we discuss appropriate compensation instead of repair?
8. Outside tap. This has not been looked at and as such my wife is unable to turn the tap.
As I am sure you are by now aware, I do not consider your response letter satisfactory. To make myself perfectly clear what I expect from Tullochs is;
A full written apology.
An explanation as to why you felt it was acceptable to force my family to live on a building site.
Appropriate compensation for the stress and inconvenience that my family has experienced over the past months.
I once again look forward to your response and hope that it is of a higher standard than the previous contact we have had from you.
Yours sincerely
Allan Hunter
And the response to this letter is below.
Dear Mr & Mrs Hunter
I refer to your letter of 24 April 2007
You purchased a new house on a fast moving private development and for a short while there will always be building work in close proximity and outstanding works to roads and services.
Your property was passed for occupation by both Building Control and NHBC. Due to the ongoing building works there will be inconveniences to residents however we do endeavour to keep these to a minimum and I do apologise for any inconvenience that may have been caused.
The items for which you claim compensation please forward me details of your financial loss.
I have passed to our Customer Care Department your outstanding snagging items and contact will be made shortly to arrange rectification.
Yours sincerely
Robert MacLean.
So that would seem to be the end of that. As his letter states, all the issues I have brought up are normal and part and parcel when you purchase a new build property from Tulloch Homes. I would have thought how we lived for 3 months was far from normal, but that last letter makes me realise that it is just normal for Tullochs.
Dear Claire,
Please find enclosed a selection of photographs to illustrate the problems we have encountered over the three months that we have been living on your building site. We are writing to you to detail our specific concerns and reasons why we feel it was unacceptable for Tulloch’s to move a family into plot 63 on the 15th of December 2006. We look forward to hearing your responses to the following issues.
Incomplete fencing.
When we were rushed around the house during the hand over, it was commented on that our back fence was not properly finished. We do not understand why it is still unfinished? This has created problems for three different reasons.
1) Workmen have used our driveway and back garden as a means to access the site. On two separate occasions we have been driving and noticed that one of the wing mirrors has been pushed in to allow easier access by your workers.
2) On the weekends when the site is empty members of the public happily use our garden to gain entry to the site as it is easier than climbing the security fence.
3) During the Christmas period people were using a skip on the building site, and walking down the side of our house to get to it.
Lack of turf, Garden drainage and incomplete retaining wall.
In September 2006 we paid for the extras that we had requested. Part of this was £510 for turf to be laid in the back garden. The point of this was to give us a lawn in the back garden upon moving in, but when we moved in there was no turf. When we asked about it we were informed on several occasions that it is the wrong time of the year for turf to be laid. Therefore why does the housing at Greenwood Court have turf laid when we entered our property before them?
We were not warned at any point that the turf may not be laid for our entry. I also cannot understand why payment was taken for an extra that could not be delivered, as our money could have been gaining us interest rather than you.
After speaking to one of the landscapers from Sleigh Landscaping, they are not keen to lay turf whilst the garden is so wet. Any attempts by ourselves to improve drainage would result in further standing water in my neighbours garden. If left to dry out in the sun, the turf may be laid eventually, but I am concerned that each time it rains my back garden will once again turn into a bog and the turf will die.
We are also confused as to why, if our garden needed a retaining wall, it was not continued to the end of our property. Completion of this wall would also reduce the run-off from our garden into our neighbours’ water logged garden.
All of this results in the fact that on beautiful days, like the weekend of the 24th of March, we cannot allow our daughter to go outside and play or even enjoy a family barbeque. As all we have is a large amount of water logged soil and a path. Even a patio would have made at least part of the garden useable.
Lack of driveway and road and pavement surface.
We do not understand why the driveways were not completed before people moved in. The late completion of the driveway resulted in access issues to my property with very short notice. The driveway, like the pavements are treacherous due to the number of trip hazards. Once again we cannot fail to notice that Greenwood Court had the pavements, drives and road surfaces finished completely before they were moved in.
Manhole cover
There was a manhole cover on the pavement at the end of our driveway. Since moving in the builders have required access to this a number of times. Permission to block access to our property was only sought on one occasion and with only 20 minutes notice. When we approached one of your staff to enquire why they were digging up the access to our property again, they informed us that the manhole cover had been incorrectly sighted in the first place. The manhole cover has since been moved which adds credence to his statement and concerns me regarding the competence of Tulloch’s.
Road outside used as car park.
As your site entrance has been directly outside our property since we moved in, the small section of road between the cul-de-sac and your security fence has been used as a car park. When workmen are on site vans, lorries, diggers and cars are parked directly in front of our property. Several times a week we will have to wait to enter or leave our property until the driver of a particular vehicle can be found to move it. We are confused as to why the street is being used as access to the building site. Surely site traffic could come in from the top of the site instead of having to drive up and down a residential street? This would allow the road surfaces to be completed and hence reduce the ware and tear on our car.
Despite assurances from your customer care manager that this would be addressed, nothing has changed. In fact, immediately, after gaining these assurances the access to my property was blocked whilst they, again, accessed the manhole cover.
On the weekends when the site traffic is absent the access issues are still present due to people parking in front of my driveway before going onto the building site to look at their house being built. This usually happens two or three times a day during the weekend. We realise this is not within your control to stop, but feel it is an unfair position to force someone into, when they have to constantly shout for or find people wandering around on your site. Should there not be some sort of site security or CCTV to monitor the site entrance which is not properly secure and therefore all the more tempting for people to trespass?
Site fencing.
This problem occurs at nights and weekends when the fencing is put across the site entrance. When placed too close to our driveway it is impossible to get out of the drive without having to reverse down the street, turn into the cul-de-sac and finally drive off in the right direction. On occasions it has been possible to inform whoever has been securing the fence and ask them to move it further onto the site, but on many occasions we have had to spend the weekend performing this needless reversing manoeuvre. We have also had to move the site fence on more than one occasion, when it has been swung open in front of our drive and left.
Surrounded by building site.
It was not until the hand over that we realised that our plot was surrounded by your building site. The house in front was unfinished and covered in scaffolding, the house beside us was unfinished and covered in scaffolding and on the other side of the unfinished back fence was an access road for heavy vehicles. After spending the previous five months living on a UBC building site in Culloden, we had thought we were used to living beside a building site, but this had not prepared us for living on a building site. We have had to put up with items falling from scaffolding on more than one occasion. During the Christmas break a scaffolding pole fell into our garden. On a second occasion a roll of black material fell from the scaffolding onto a guests’ car that was on our driveway. This is an unacceptable risk to personal safety and property and further demonstrates the we are actually part of the building site. We contacted Tullochs at the time but other than being told our complaint was being dealt with there has been no response to our e-mails and telephone calls.
Turning off the water.
On three occasions our water has been turned off, and on only one occasion were we given any warning at all. This was done to flush out the water system for newer houses. If further work to the water system was required, effecting our supply, then we should not have been moved in until it was completed. As a stay at home parent with a small child, repeated interruptions in the water supply are completely unacceptable.
Refuse Collection
On many occasions the council have failed to collect our rubbish. When we spoke to a council worker they stated that it was too dangerous to collect refuse from our property as one of their workers had been hurt whilst trying to collect on a previous week. The refuse collectors considered our house to still be part of the building site. We cannot understand why Tulloch’s do not share this opinion.
Speed of completing snagging.
As already stated we have been in the property since the 15th December and our initial snagging has not yet been completed. We do not understand why this is taking so long and consider this to be an unacceptable delay. The “Pre-Occupational Inspection Form” details an “agreed date for completion of the above items”, but a date was never entered. We shall shortly be submitting an updated snagging list and can only hope that this will be dealt with in a more timely manner.
Many of the issues detailed in this letter have been resolved. The manhole has been moved, heavy vehicles are no longer driving past our incomplete back fence and the site entrance is starting to move a little further away. You were informed of many of these issues at the time, but failed to respond or take action. Therefore this letter is a complete catalogue of issues experienced by us, on a regular basis, over the last three months.
In conclusion we are wholly disappointed with the level of customer service demonstrated by Tullochs. Worst still by purchasing a Tulloch’s home we feel that the safety and standard of life of my family has been disregarded. If only your customer service after payment was to the same high standard as your sales staff. We would be a far happier Tullochs home owner. We realise from our neighbours that the extent of our complaint is uncommon. However we would like you to fully understand that the conditions which you have forced us to endure since our entry would be considered unacceptable by anyone.
We look forward to your response and hope that it is of a higher standard than the previous contact we have had from you.
This was the response.
Dear Mr & Mrs Hunter,
I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated the 21 March 2007 regarding your concerns since taking occupation of your property. With regard to the issues you raise, I offer the following response.
Incomplete fencing: Site has confirmed that this section of fencing was completed last week.
Lack of Turf: The turf to your property - and neighbouring properties - had not been laid, as ground conditions were not suitable. As the weather and ground conditions have improved in the past fortnight, our turfing subcontractor is now in the process of laying turf to all properties. The turfing you refer to at Greenwood Court is for a housing association and was laid on their instruction and risk of any consequential latent defects.
Retaining wall: Your retaining wall has been built in accordance with our Engineers drawings and has been stubbed short of rear boundary fence as the adjoining levels tie-in with levels to your garden.
Driveways/Pavements: It is normal practise to finish footpaths/roads in phases in order to avoid damage to surface during the construction process. We are currently in discussion with our surfacing contractor to agree a date for finishing roads and pavements up to your property.
Car Parking: We apologise for the inconvenience you have experienced due to vehicles parking outside your property. In terms of traffic management we have now moved our boundary to the construction area up to plot 61. In addition to this I have asked our Site Manager to remind all subcontractors that parking on occupied roads is strictly forbidden.
Turning off the water: The system had to be shut off to allow the water main to be extended to the top of the site. The fact that you were only contacted once to give prior notice is not acceptable and I will raise this with the offending subcontractor.
Refuse collection: This should no longer be an issue as our site boundary is now at the top of the site.
Snagging: With reference to your shagging letter dated 26th March 2007 and following discussion with our Site Manager I offer the following response.
Loft hatch - this item was not reported to Tulloch Homes.
Air vent - Site Manager trying to source alternative product.
Garden - Ground conditions are now dry and turf will therefore take root when laid.
Fence - work completed last week.
Roads - Covered above.
Patio door - Site Manager will call to inspect this item. (Not reported previously)
Patio step - Site Manager will call as above.
Outside tap - Subcontractor has been informed.
Oven - as per item 6.
Bathroom floor - Site Manager has since inspected this item and will respond under separate cover.
Railings - painting is organised for this week.
Railings to steps - As height difference between ground and step is less than 600mm a rail is not required under the Building Regulations.
Once again, apologies for any inconvenience you have experienced since moving into your property. I trust the above clarifies your concerns.
Yours sincerely
Robert MacLean
Building Manager
So we sent another letter.
Dear Mr MacLean,
I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 5 April 2007 in response to our complaint letter. With regard to the responses you have given I offer the following response.
Firstly I would like to state that I do not feel your response was to a higher standard than any of the previous contact I have had from your company, as I had hoped it might be. Your response does not explain or rectify any of the concerns I have brought up regarding Tullochs. It does not answer the question of why Tullochs thought it was acceptable to have someone living for several months in an area considered by many as being part of the building site. The least I would have hoped for was a more sincere letter of apology and some form of explanation as to why my family were moved into a property and forced to live with these conditions, rather than the set of very obvious observations you have made.
What your response letter has done is given yet more cause to feel that your company has one goal, and one alone. To make the maximum amount of profit , in as short a time as possible. Tullochs seems happy to throw houses up as fast as they can, giving the bare minimum needed to meet regulations and then completely ignoring the fact that once they have received the payment, someone will have to live in them and turn them into a home. After speaking to many of the neighbours it is apparent that we are not the only plot suffering from this problem and having to work out what can be done to improve the bare minimum we have all bought.
Incomplete Fencing.
Thank you for pointing out that the fencing is now complete, I had managed to notice that myself. What I was looking for was an explanation as to why it was incomplete when we moved in and why you left it until the completion of the next house, despite my comment upon entry. I would have thought that the Health and Safety regulations for a construction site would require you to secure the perimeter to prevent unauthorised access. I believe that our incomplete fencing encouraged people to use our back garden to gain entry onto your site. I would rather not have had complete strangers on my property.
Your response was not only a statement of the obvious, but did nothing to address the problem or compensate my family for this inconvenience.
Lack of Turf.
I am well aware that the ground conditions in my garden are not suitable for any real gardening use. The high degree of compaction and poor layer of topsoil that is our garden will never be an ideal garden. Why did Tullochs not do something to improve the ground conditions so that the turf, I had paid for back in September, could have been laid sooner? The weather has been surprisingly good this Spring and my family have been unable to use our garden at all.
Your response does nothing to address the problem or compensate my family for still not having a useable garden. I have been verbally informed that I may receive turf the week beginning the 30th of April, but even if it arrives during this week, I have still not been compensated for 4 months without a useable garden.
Retaining Wall.
Could you please give me your definition of “tie-in”? I agree that my garden does indeed join together with the neighbours, and as such am not disputing the fact that the gardens “tie-in”. I do not however regard the current slopes as a tying in of levels.
Upon the siting of fence posts by Just Fencing I was informed that the drainage pipe at the end of the retaining wall had no mesh covering and therefore the holes in it were blocked by soil. I believe the correct working order of this pipe would have improved the drainage in my garden and may have allowed my turf to have been laid sooner. This and many other issues gives the feel that my property was rushed for completion and jobs were not given due care and attention.
Car Parking.
Thank you for your apology, we are aware that this situation has now improved. However this does not explain why we spent several months with site traffic parked around and regularly blocking our property. It would appear that the “strictly forbidden” rule is either unknown or completely ignored by your staff and subcontractors. I am glad to see that since the fence has been moved further away from my property, you have stopped using it as a site entrance. This must make life more bearable for those living near it. It does leave me wondering that perhaps if I had bought a more expensive property, Tullochs would have shown me the same consideration.
When it comes to deliveries, can you explain where you thought they were going to park whilst unloading? The site entrance was level with my driveway and the road surface on site was unsuitable for most vehicles. They were forced to stop outside my property and as unloading is often a lengthy process it comes as no surprise that this led to access issues. I am concerned that you feel any restriction to access of a new property is acceptable when the issues have nothing to do with that property.
Turning off the water.
If this happened during the extending of the water main, will this happen each time the Tulloch site is extended? I am glad you recognise that not being informed is unacceptable, but please do not be too harsh on the offending subcontractors in this situation. As on several other occasions Tullochs and other subcontractors were more than happy to begin work on the pavement and road in front of my driveway without informing me that access would be restricted. At times this has happened whilst my car sat in plain view on the driveway. This happened not only due to the resiting of the manhole cover, an issue which you chose to ignore in your response, but during the continuation of the pavement and the traffic calming system. I do have more photographic evidence of this, if you would like proof of this.
Refuse Collection.
I am fully aware that this is no longer an issue as my bins are now being collected. What I would have liked to know is why it was allowed to be an issue for several months and once again your response fails to acknowledge this or respond appropriately.
Here are some of the points from my original letter that you have failed to cover at all. Please feel free to refer to our original letter for more detail.
Manhole access.
Your response fails to address, that due to an error, our driveway was completely blocked once again. If turning my water off, with little of no warning, is unacceptable. Then why is blocking my driveway with 20 minutes notice acceptable? Despite no compensation being offered for this, an apology would have been a start.
Site Fencing.
This hassle and inconvenience was completely ignored in your response. This is extremely annoying as Tullochs is more than happy to forget site fencing in other locations.
Surrounded by building site.
Out of all the issues that I brought to Tullochs attention surely objects falling off your scaffolding onto my property is by far the most dangerous and unacceptable. I am however not surprised that you chose to ignore it, as the e-mail I sent before the complaint letter was also completely ignored. Is this occurrence so common that you consider it normal and part of the new build buying experience, and therefore not worth commenting on? Yet again I would request a response as to why you think this is acceptable for any family?
Snagging.
1. The loft hatch was not reported as I did not realise it was an issue until the joiner was laying the loft flooring. By that time it was too late to allow Tullochs to finish the job. I assume it was missed due to the property being rushed for completion.
2. Air Vent. I informed one of the site managers, last week, where a suitable product can be found.
6. Patio Doors. These were looked at and adjusted on the 23rd of April, but feel that the draft is still unacceptable.
7. Patio step. The site manager has called and informed me of the amount of work required to now fix this problem. I would ask why it was not repaired when it was chipped during construction, as this work will now be an inconvenience to me. Therefore can we discuss appropriate compensation instead of repair?
8. Outside tap. This has not been looked at and as such my wife is unable to turn the tap.
As I am sure you are by now aware, I do not consider your response letter satisfactory. To make myself perfectly clear what I expect from Tullochs is;
A full written apology.
An explanation as to why you felt it was acceptable to force my family to live on a building site.
Appropriate compensation for the stress and inconvenience that my family has experienced over the past months.
I once again look forward to your response and hope that it is of a higher standard than the previous contact we have had from you.
Yours sincerely
Allan Hunter
And the response to this letter is below.
Dear Mr & Mrs Hunter
I refer to your letter of 24 April 2007
You purchased a new house on a fast moving private development and for a short while there will always be building work in close proximity and outstanding works to roads and services.
Your property was passed for occupation by both Building Control and NHBC. Due to the ongoing building works there will be inconveniences to residents however we do endeavour to keep these to a minimum and I do apologise for any inconvenience that may have been caused.
The items for which you claim compensation please forward me details of your financial loss.
I have passed to our Customer Care Department your outstanding snagging items and contact will be made shortly to arrange rectification.
Yours sincerely
Robert MacLean.
So that would seem to be the end of that. As his letter states, all the issues I have brought up are normal and part and parcel when you purchase a new build property from Tulloch Homes. I would have thought how we lived for 3 months was far from normal, but that last letter makes me realise that it is just normal for Tullochs.
Monday, 19 March 2007
When did it all begin?
So this is the first posting on here, I thought I would describe how I ended up living on a building site.
Let us go back in time, not too far back, say last year around about May.
We were living in Livingston in a little 2 bedroom mid-terraced house. It was ok, not very large, but it did have a nice garden and was in an ok area. I am a house husband as I have the extreme good fortune to have a wife who wanted to go back to work. This is lucky for 2 reasons. 1) I hated going to work and have always wanted to be a house husband. 2) She is more talented and motivated than I am, so bound to make more money and go further than I ever would have. This explains why I am the house husband.
Her job was alright, but she wasn't really ever going to go anywhere with the company she was working for, so she started job searching and eventually found a job in Inverness. Now you know how we ended up in Inverness.
Once she got the job offer done and dusted we had to move onto the important issues, such as where do we live. So we drove up to Inverness for a look round and to see what it had to offer. After driving around for a few days, looking at different areas and lots of estate agents windows, we stumbled across the Culduthel Farm Tullochs site. The houses were nice, but way over the budget we had set for ourselves, so we ignored it and continued looking.
Once home I started searching on the internet and found out the Milton of Leys site was slightly cheaper, but still a lot more than we could afford. Not one to give up we ended up calling Direct Line to see just what we could get for our new mortgage. Over the phone, twice, they told us they deal with affordability and not percentage of income, so the amount we needed to borrow for a Tullochs home was fine. This got me thinking, if we are going to move, why not go all out and make the next step up to a 3 bed semi-detached. This would give us the room we wanted and without sounding really sad, be as close to our dream house as money would allow right now. (Don't get me wrong, my dream house is in fact a castle on a shooting and fishing estate in the highlands, but I am still waiting to win the lottery.) With Direct Line saying yes to the amount we needed, we thought we would go for it. Money would be tight for a few years but at least we would be happy.
So now you know why I am at home looking after my little girl, why we ended up in Inverness and how we ended up reserving a Tullochs home.
This seems like a pretty good description of how it started. From now on I'll try and fill you in as to what the hell went so wrong. Living on the building site isn't the only fun we've had since moving, there is so much more to it. I hope once you have read a little more it does, in some way, explain why I can seem a little angry at times.
Let us go back in time, not too far back, say last year around about May.
We were living in Livingston in a little 2 bedroom mid-terraced house. It was ok, not very large, but it did have a nice garden and was in an ok area. I am a house husband as I have the extreme good fortune to have a wife who wanted to go back to work. This is lucky for 2 reasons. 1) I hated going to work and have always wanted to be a house husband. 2) She is more talented and motivated than I am, so bound to make more money and go further than I ever would have. This explains why I am the house husband.
Her job was alright, but she wasn't really ever going to go anywhere with the company she was working for, so she started job searching and eventually found a job in Inverness. Now you know how we ended up in Inverness.
Once she got the job offer done and dusted we had to move onto the important issues, such as where do we live. So we drove up to Inverness for a look round and to see what it had to offer. After driving around for a few days, looking at different areas and lots of estate agents windows, we stumbled across the Culduthel Farm Tullochs site. The houses were nice, but way over the budget we had set for ourselves, so we ignored it and continued looking.
Once home I started searching on the internet and found out the Milton of Leys site was slightly cheaper, but still a lot more than we could afford. Not one to give up we ended up calling Direct Line to see just what we could get for our new mortgage. Over the phone, twice, they told us they deal with affordability and not percentage of income, so the amount we needed to borrow for a Tullochs home was fine. This got me thinking, if we are going to move, why not go all out and make the next step up to a 3 bed semi-detached. This would give us the room we wanted and without sounding really sad, be as close to our dream house as money would allow right now. (Don't get me wrong, my dream house is in fact a castle on a shooting and fishing estate in the highlands, but I am still waiting to win the lottery.) With Direct Line saying yes to the amount we needed, we thought we would go for it. Money would be tight for a few years but at least we would be happy.
So now you know why I am at home looking after my little girl, why we ended up in Inverness and how we ended up reserving a Tullochs home.
This seems like a pretty good description of how it started. From now on I'll try and fill you in as to what the hell went so wrong. Living on the building site isn't the only fun we've had since moving, there is so much more to it. I hope once you have read a little more it does, in some way, explain why I can seem a little angry at times.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)