More recently, we have seen cases regarding defects within new builds. These issues include failing floors shortly after moving into a new-build property, poor insulation or finishes, cracks and snagging. Sometimes developers may initially agree to repairs but then rescind the agreement or deny/ limit their liability.
Under the Defective Premises Act 1972[1], anyone taking on work for a dwelling owes a duty to ensure the work is done in a “workmanlike or professional manner” with proper materials, and the home must be ft for habitation when completed.
Cases such as Greaves and Co v Baynham Meikle, suggests that if a developer knows a flat is for residential use, there is an absolute warranty that the floor must be fit for that purpose. It is “not reasonable or practical” for owners to fund major repairs when the developer is aware of the defects.
Furthermore, developers are not entitled to cancel repair agreements over a minor crossclaim. According to ‘Gilbert -Ash v Modern Engineering[2]’, withholding performance as a penalty is often unenforceable and disproportionate. Therefore, developers are not allowed to do this even over minor disputes such as over carpets or décor.
It is important to note that most new builds come with a National House Building council (NHBC) Buildmark policy. This is when for the first 2 years, the builder is responsible for fixing defects that do not meet NHBC standards.
In addition, if a builder acts unfairly or tries to stop you from using your legal rights, you can report them to Trading Standards via Citizens Advice. While they will not get you a refund, they can take legal action against rogue traders.
Finally, due to the increase in legal cases in this area, it is important to note that courts and lawyers are becoming more and more specialised in this field. At Summerfield Browne Solicitors, we can provide you with the necessary advice.
[1] Defective Premises Act 1972 (1972 c 35)
[2] GILBERT-ASH (NORTHERN) LTD. APPELLANTS AND MODERN ENGINEERING (BRISTOL) LTD. RESPONDENTS [On appeal from MODERN ENGINEERING (BRISTOL) LTD. v. GILBERT-ASH (NORTHERN) LTD.] [1974] A.C. 689, [1974] A.C. 689
