The Highland capital is on a shortlist of the UK’s worst eyesores

Inverness has emerged as a surprise contender to be shamed as the country’s most dismal city in the inaugural UK Carbuncle awards.

The Highland capital could earn the dubious honour after a panel of UK architects and designers singled it out for its “monstrous” city centre design and “mushrooming suburban sprawl”.

The awards panel has also nominated Methil, in Fife, for the “hulking Soviet-style” power station that dominates its docks.

Until now, the awards have been open only to Scottish towns and cities, but this year a number of English locations are being suggested as possible winners, including Corby, in Northamptonshire,, Bradford, Sunderland and Salford.

Previous recipients of the unwanted gong include Glenrothes, Coatbridge and the two-time winner Cumbernauld.

As the competition now covers the UK, the title will be even less coveted.

“Inverness has been called the fastest-growing city in Europe but at what price?” said a spokesman for the Carbuncle Awards.

“It has been dubbed ‘Tulloch town’ by critics due to that developer’s dominance over an ever-mushrooming suburban sprawl.

“In addition, the historic centre has been blighted by box-like monstrosities dating back to the 1960s.”

The buildings that caused greatest offence to the panel of judges, which includes Wayne Hemingway, a fashion designer, are the twin concrete tower blocks that dominate the city’s skyline.

One of the edifices previously housed the headquarters of Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) but has now been turned into flats. The other houses the offices of the Crofters Commission.

Both structures were exposed to international derision by the American travel writer Bill Bryson in his book Notes From a Small Island.

He described them as “two sensationally ugly modern office buildings that blot the town centre beyond any hope of redemption”.

“They weren’t just ugly and large, but so ill-designed that you could actually walk round them twice without ever finding the front entrance,” he wrote.

While Alex Graham, the deputy provost of Inverness, conceded that the city’s appearance was not perfect, he said it was ridiculous to single it out as one of the ugliest in the UK.

“It is unfortunate we have inherited some particularly unsightly buildings that were put up in the 1960s near the River Ness,” he said.

“Sadly they have spoiled what should be a terrific view of the city’s skyline.

“Despite this, Inverness is an attractive city with tremendous charm and we have recently spent £7m transforming the old town.

“The population has continued to grow throughout the recession and that just wouldn’t happen if it really was a dismal place to live.”

Professor James Hunter, a former chief executive of HIE, said that urban planners were to blame for the city’s poor appearance. “Inverness has the great natural advantage of having a dramatic, fast-flowing river going right through the middle of it,” he said.

“However, planners seemed to turn their back on it and even today not enough is being done to capitalise on it.”

Hunter, who is director of the UHI’s history department, described his former workplace and its sister building as “completely horrible and repulsive”.

While the judging panel said Methil had suffered from decades of deindustrialisation, Arthur Robertson, an SNP councillor in the Fife town, said measures were being taken to arrest its decline.

“The power plant is not the most attractive of buildings, but it is planned to be removed in the very near future,” he said. “We are working hard on regenerating the seafront and I’m confident the negative headlines will be reversed in years to come.”

John Glenday, of Urban Realm, the architectural magazine that runs the Carbuncle Awards, rebutted criticism that they were too negative, insisting that they were a “force for good and a real motivator for change”.

“Our agenda is not to kick a town when it’s down, but to offer constructive help and advice,” he said. “We want to help turn cities around and for them to use the Carbuncles as a springboard for future growth.”

Glenday also denied that the awards tended to single out poor communities.

“The point is to highlight locations which have potential that local leaders are failing to exploit,” he said.

“Truly depressing places are the ones stifled by a lack of attention, creativity and ambition.”

Members of public are being invited to nominate their contenders for the award. The winner will be decided by public vote later this year.

Salford, in Greater Manchester, was nominated for its “placelessness” and grim tower blocks, Corby for its mishandled attempts at regeneration and Sunderland for failing to stop a “steady drain” of facilities and people to nearby Newcastle.

Bradford was chosen after plans for a new shopping precinct were aborted, leaving a muddy cavity in the heart of the city centre.

Last year’s winner was the Fife new town of Glenrothes, which was lambasted for its “drab and dismal” centre and “woeful” 1980s shopping centre.

Link to original article – Timesonline

Willy Roe is chairman of both HIE and consultancy firm Rocket Science

The chairman of Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) has resigned from a consultancy firm at the centre of controversy over contract awards.

William Roe chairs both HIE and Rocket Science UK, which was awarded £150,000 of contracts by the enterprise body.

An internal review into the contracts was ordered by HIE chief executive Sandy Cumming.

It found “no evidence” of wrongdoing, but Mr Roe said he would be stepping down from Rocket Science.

The review carried out by HIE’s head of internal audit found its payments to Rocket Science between 1 September 2004 and 31 March 2009 totalled £149,256 for 21 projects.

However, the consultants subsequently repaid £6,864 after it was discovered that material in one report had been copied without clear attribution from another source.

Willy Roe is a hugely imaginative and inspiring public leader who is devoting his talent to creating a better Scotland Richard Scothorne Rocket Science

The report said 12 of the projects, which totalled £117,516 of expenditure, were either awarded after a tender, or had appropriate justification for using Rocket Science recorded at the time of the decision.

It added that a further expenditure of £31,740 had no advance justification recorded, but all of these contracts were for less than £10,000 and were therefore in line with HIE’s policy for awarding negotiated contracts.

The audit found no evidence that any of HIE’s decisions to use Rocket Science had been influenced by Mr Roe’s role in either body.

In a statement released following the report’s publication, Mr Roe said he had decided to leave his post with Rocket Science in order to “completely separate my public service functions from my private business interests” and to “prevent any possible perception of a conflict of interest arising in the future”.

He added: “When I was appointed chair of HIE, I agreed with the chief executive of HIE and the managing director of Rocket Science UK Ltd that we should immediately put in place a protocol to manage potential conflicts of interest that would arise if HIE and Rocket Science were to continue to have contractual business relationships.

“Both parties agreed that such a protocol should be established, the effect of which would be that I, as chair of both bodies, would be completely excluded from any and all aspects of the business relationship between the parties. The protocol was established and has been in existence ever since.”

Internal audit

Mr Cumming said HIE would be putting in place a tough monitoring regime in the wake of the report, which would include require all negotiated contracts worth more than £10,000 to be signed off by the HIE chief executive.

He added: “This has been a detailed and rigorous investigation of a complex issue, carried out to the highest professional standards by HIE’s head of internal audit and compliance.

“HIE aspires to be an exemplar of best practice in all the things it does, and the procurement of consultancy and other contracts should be no exception.

“I am confident that the procedures which HIE is putting in place as a result of this review will address the areas of weakness in the present system and ensure greater clarity and accountability from now on.”

‘Sad news’

Rocket Science said its work with HIE had actually reduced significantly since Mr Roe took on his role as chairman of the enterprise body.

The work carried out for HIE last year accounted for less than 1% of the turnover of Rocket Science, it added.

Rocket Science managing director Richard Scothorne said: “It should be very clear from this that we have not received any kind of special treatment since Willy Roe’s appointment as chair of HIE.

“Willy Roe is a hugely imaginative and inspiring public leader who is devoting his talent to creating a better Scotland.

“His resignation is sad news for us, and we admire him for taking this lead in completely removing any scope for perceived conflict of interest by decisively separating his public responsibilities and private interests.”

Commenting after the internal audit into the role of Willy Roe and dual responsibilities as Chair of HIE and of Rocket Science, Mary Scanlon, Scottish Conservative MSP for the Highlands and Islands said:

“This report has highlighted the failure of Mr Roe to update his register of interests in HIE and his failure to include 7 of the 21 contracts awarded in the register.  The investigation has also uncovered the fact that a contract worth £42,348 was awarded to Mr Roe’s private company and not put out to tender.

Many IT companies across the Highlabnds and Islands have been excluded from tendering for HIE contracts due to the awarding of so many contracts to Rocket Science.  In the depths of a recession, even one of the contracts awarded to Rocket Science would have helped to keep a small business afloat.

This investigation has confirmed the HIE did not follow correct procurement procedures.

I am now asking the Scottish Government to ensure that these incorrect procurement procedures are not replicated in any other quangoes and to ensure that Chairmen and Board members are not given preferential treatment in the awarding of lucrative public sector contracts’.

The recommendation of ten separate courses of action by HIE, following this investigation, is confirmation of the failures inherent in their existing systems.

Finally, there is no doubt that we would not have seen any report into HIE’s procurement process had there not been pressure and serious concerns raised in the media as well as my request for Audit Scotland to intervene.     HIE were obviously content to continue their current protocols of not pursuing any best practice models of fairness, openness and accountability in the awarding of contracts’.

TROUBLED business development agency Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) must review its procedures if an internal investigation finds rules were broken when approving £100,000 of work to its chairman’s own company, according to an SNP politician.

Rob Gibson has called for a meeting with HIE bosses as soon as possible to discuss the controversy surrounding the probe into 15 contracts awarded to chairman William Roe’s Edinburgh-based firm, Rocket Science.

The results of an internal audit, overseen by Audit Scotland, are due to be delivered next month, but Mr Gibson wants MSPs to be allowed to discuss the matter with top officials now.

“The sooner the better, because we can always have another one when they publish the results,” said the Highlands and Islands MSP.

“Transparency is everything and a meeting with MSPs at an early stage would be a useful idea.

“They need to follow the rules and if they aren’t adequate to avoid conflicts of interest then it’s time to review those rules.

“The first of which is for MSPs to actually meet officials at Highlands and Islands Enterprise and discuss the rules with them because this crisis has arisen.”

Mr Gibson has also backed calls for HIE to change its policy and make board meetings public again, after halting open meetings in June 2007.

An HIE spokeswoman pledged it will publish a report on the audit findings on its website when it delivers its response to results next month.

“The audit committee will examine the report and make recommendations on any follow-up actions which members decide may be necessary,” she added.

MSP calls for talks with HIE over £100,000 controversy

Eco-towns of up to 20,000 people each are proposed

The government’s approach to delivering up to 10 eco-towns could be “unlawful”, councils have warned.

Ministers are to publish a planning policy statement to set out standards and potential locations in England.

But the Local Government Association said the proposals went against the principle of development through plans drawn up by local authorities.

This might show a wish to avoid “proper scrutiny”, it added. But the government said it “absolutely” disagreed.

‘Deeply flawed’

The eco-towns scheme aims to deliver settlements of 5,000 to 20,000 homes which are zero-carbon overall.

The government shortlisted 15 proposals for new settlements in April and has said up to 10 final approved bids will have to go through the planning process once they have been chosen later this year.

Lawyers John Steel QC and James Strachan, representing the LGA, said an existing planning policy statement covered the concept of providing housing in new settlements in an environmentally sustainable way.

‘ECO-TOWNS’ SHORTLIST Bordon, Hampshire Coltishall, Norfolk Elsenham, Essex Ford, West Sussex Hanley Grange, Cambridgeshire Imerys, nr St Austell, Cornwall Leeds city region, West Yorkshire Marston Vale and New Marston, Bedfordshire Middle Quinton, Warwickshire Pennbury, Leicestershire Rossington, South Yorkshire Rushcliffe, Nottinghamshire Weston Otmoor, Oxfordshire Source: Department of Communities and Local Government The plans: Site-by-site

There did not seem to be any justification for promoting eco-towns outside the existing rules, “other than the government’s wish to avoid the system due to the proper need for scrutiny, which takes time”, they added.

The LGA said the legal advice showed the government’s approach to eco-towns was “deeply flawed”.

Chairman Sir Simon Milton said the LGA was not opposed to the eco-towns as a way of meeting housing needs and combating climate change.

But he urged: “Ministers must talk to council leaders about adopting a new approach that will deliver development in places where councils and local people agree that eco-towns can work.

“Eco-towns must be delivered without bypassing the planning processes and ensure that new developments have good transport connections alongside the schools, health and leisure facilities which are needed to create places where people would want to live.”

Bidders for eco-towns at Manby, in Lincolnshire, and Curborough, Staffordshire, have pulled out, while part of a third bid at New Marston, in Bedfordshire, has also been withdrawn.

‘Stretching standards’

A Department for Communities and Local Government spokesman said: “We absolutely disagree with the LGA’s claims and believe this legal advice can only have been obtained on the basis of a misrepresentation of our policy.

“We have made it absolutely clear throughout that eco-towns will be different and will have higher environmental standards than a normal development and the applications will also have to be considered through the normal planning process.”

Shadow housing minister Grant Shapps said the legal advice would add weight to the argument that ministers had “effectively destroyed their own eco-town project”.

Liberal Democrat communities spokeswoman Julia Goldsworthy said: “What this government fails to understand is that centrally imposed solutions are doomed to failure.”

Much of the village of Catcliffe was left under water for several days

The human cost of last summer’s floods in South Yorkshire has been revealed in a survey of the worst-hit communities.

More than eight out of 10 of those who answered a BBC Yorkshire questionnaire said they suffered mental or physical ill health as a result of the floods.

More than a fifth (22%) were so traumatised they had taken medication.

And one in five said they were not insured for the damage caused to their property in the deluge which hit the area on 25 June 2007.

Thousands of people were forced to leave their homes as flood waters rose in towns and villages around Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield.

Last month, BBC Yorkshire carried out a survey in some of the worst-affected streets, selecting 2,000 addresses from areas known to have requested the most aid from the South Yorkshire Flood Disaster Relief Fund.

Of the 242 people who replied, 43% had been forced out of their homes for more than six months.

The average time away from their homes was nine months, but many more have yet to return to properties which are still awaiting repair.

See full survey results

Almost a third (32%) of those who replied to the survey said the strain of coping with the aftermath of the floods had had a detrimental effect on their family life and relationships.

The Downson family, of Hunt Lane in Bentley, near Doncaster, is still living in temporary rented accommodation because of delays to house repairs.

Mark Downson told the BBC his efforts to repair the property had been dogged by a catalogue of wrangles with his insurance company and builders.

He and his wife had suffered depression and the stress had taken its toll on his two sons, aged 15 and 10.

“They’re used to having their own space and we’ve lived in four different houses since the floods,” he said.

“I’ve seen their behaviour change – they’ve become more disobedient.

“If your home life’s not as it should be everything else becomes a problem, it wears you down.”

In total 84% of those who responded said their health had suffered to some degree, either mentally or physically.

Some 67% had suffered physical ill health, including chest infections, stomach upsets and skin complaints.

Meanwhile, 70% had seen a deterioration in their mental health, including 26% who said they had suffered significant problems.

Several families said their children had been left scared of heavy rain.

‘Very confused’

Mother-of-four Lyndsey Hamblett, whose family spent 10 months living in a caravan, moved back into her house in Toll Bar 11 weeks ago.

She said: “When it started raining badly again the other week, my two boys were running around with school rulers measuring the depth of the water in the garden.

“They remembered how quickly the water had risen in the floods and were saying: ‘We’ve only got two hours to get out of the house’.

“My youngest is only just three years old and when we moved back into the house she kept saying she wanted to go home to the caravan. She’s very confused because she can’t really remember living here.”

The survey also gives an insight into the financial impact of the deluge, with 20% of those who responded saying they were not insured, leaving them with hefty bills to replace damaged possessions.

The Association of British Insurers said: “The people who do not take out home contents insurance usually make that decision because they are on a tight budget.

“They are the ones who can least afford to replace stuff once it’s damaged.”

The majority who were insured have also been adversely affected as insurance companies raised premiums when they renewed their policies.

Some residents in Catcliffe said the floods brought the community together

Before the floods, Pauline Warburton, of Bickerton Road, in the Hillsborough area of Sheffield, paid £250 for a policy with flood cover, but says she has now been asked to pay up to £900 without flood cover for a new policy.

Property values in many areas also dropped immediately after the flooding.

Jon and Andrea Smith, of Wombwell near Barnsley, told the BBC survey that two neighbouring houses which had been on the market at about £180,000 before the floods were re-valued at £130,000 to £140,000 in the immediate aftermath.

Despite their problems, 48% of the survey respondents said they had received a good or very good response from their insurance companies when they submitted their claims.

Amid the trauma of the flooding, the survey reveals a significant number of people felt the emergency brought communities and even families closer together.

One third (33%) said the experiences of last June had had a positive impact.

Michael Torr, who lives in Catcliffe near Rotherham, said before the floods he had not known his next door neighbours, but now they were best friends.

Both families had been forced to live in caravans during the clear-up, and since moving back into their homes they have taken their caravans on holiday together.

Mr Torr and about 10 other neighbours set up a flood wardens scheme to alert each other to imminent flooding.

He said: “People have got more pride now in Catcliffe.

“As much as I’d like to move for fear of flooding, I wouldn’t like to because of the neighbours.”

MP demands end to ‘landbanking’

A Liberal Democrat MP is calling for the introduction of new laws to stop companies selling plots of agricultural land at inflated prices.

By Paul Lewis – BBC Radio 4′s Money Box

The land is sold on the hope that planning permission will be granted and the investors will make a big return.

Greg Mulholland has campaigned on landbanking for many years.

But Greg Mulholland wants legislation to end those schemes which are “obviously a scam”.

A government spokesman said a number of schemes had already been closed down under existing laws.

Recent action

Mr Mulholland, Liberal Democrat MP for Leeds North West, was speaking after the Financial Services Authority (FSA) declared the UK’s biggest landbanking scheme illegal.

It’s time the government woke up and took action Greg Mulholland, Liberal Democrat MP

The FSA asked the High Court to wind up the company which ran it, UK Land Investments Limited (UKLI).

Mr Mulholland told Money Box on BBC Radio 4,

“I’m delighted that the Financial Services Authority has taken this action and is now homing in on other companies who are carrying out what is clearly an illegal as well as an immoral activity”

The FSA confirmed it was aware of 70 landbanking schemes that had sprung up since 2005.

A warning

Jonathan Phelan, head of retail enforcement at the FSA, said,

“Our action against UKLI, should serve as a warning to other companies that might be breaking the law in this way.”

But Greg Mulholland called for legislation to bring about “the end of landbanking which we have seen blight so many people’s lives over the last few years.

“It’s time the government woke up and took action so that by 2009 or 2010 we can look back and say… it can’t happen again in this country.”

Companies Investigation Branch has investigated a number of these cases BERR spokesman

More than 4,500 people were persuaded by UKLI to invest £69m in small plots of land, none of which has been given planning permission.

They paid around £15,000 for each plot, some of which have been valued at a few hundred pounds.

Lee Manning, the joint administrator of UKLI and a partner with Deloitte, told the BBC,

“The company itself has very little net assets left.

“I would doubt if creditors would get more than a few pence in the pound.”

Crack down

A spokesman for the Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) said it was able to take action against such schemes under existing laws.

“Companies Investigation Branch has investigated a number of these cases and in many instances has brought proceedings to wind up the companies concerned.

“We will continue to crack down on companies which mislead the public in this way.

“Anyone approached by companies offering plots of land on the promise of future planning permission should be very wary and thoroughly question the information they are given.”

The following two BBC articles illustrate the extent of the problem:

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn has rejected claims by a committee of MPs that Britain’s flood preparations are in a “chaotic state”.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs committee said the UK is still not prepared for the sort of flooding which hit much of the country last summer.

And it warned an extra £800m pledged to improve readiness was not enough.

Mr Benn said the government was already taking action in many of the areas identified in the report.

More than 55,000 homes and businesses across central, northern and South West England were devastated by last year’s floods, which killed nine people and left an insurance bill of about £3bn.

‘Confused and chaotic’

In its report, the select committee said there had been a “total lack of awareness” about how vulnerable many parts of the country were to flooding before the downpours.

“The public will not forgive the government if it is not seen to be responding to the lessons learnt from the floods of last summer,” said Michael Jack, the committee’s chairman.

“Our report has shown how confused and chaotic was the infrastructure when it came to preventing and dealing with surface water flooding.”

The report said flood defence measures have been focused almost solely on river and coastal defences, with plans to cope with heavy rainfall in an “unclear and chaotic state”.

No organisation had responsibility for dealing with surface water at a local or national level, and when drains began to overflow it was hard to see who was responsible for the drainage system, the committee said.

Planning changes

Ministers had repeatedly suggested the £800m a year for flood management by 2010/2011 would allow the government to deal effectively with future crises, the committee said.

But the settlement for flood defences made under the Comprehensive Spending Review was “far less impressive under close analysis”, it added.

Mr Benn said he “welcomed” the committee’s report but said action was already being taken to improve readiness for another major incident.

Changes to the planning laws would make it more difficult for homeowners to “concrete over” their front gardens – which he said was one of the causes of surface water flooding.

“The truth is that if we concrete over, pave over, tarmac over ground in our towns and cities and it rains like that then the drains get overwhelmed and the select committee recognises that,” he told BBC Radio 4′s Today programme.

“And what we need to sort out – what we had already recognised – is clarity of responsibility for making sure that the bits of the surface water drainage system fit together.”

Spending ‘doubled’

The right of new developments to automatically connect to the public sewerage system was also being reviewed, he added.

And the environment agency had been given “overall responsibility” for dealing with flooding and there was now a “single chain of command”.

He denied there was a shortage of funds for flood defences.

“We’ve doubled the spending on flood defence in the last ten years.

“We’re increasing it by about another two hundred million pounds a year by 2010-11.

“Last summer, the Association of British Insurers said we should be spending about £750m a year by 2010-11 – actually we’re going to be spending £800m – and that’s going to mean the environment agency has more money to spend on more flood defence schemes to protect more peoples’ homes.”

Meanwhile, a confidential government study seen by the BBC suggests hundreds of UK power substations and water treatment plants are potentially at risk from flooding.

The report warns that “there are likely to be hundreds of sites at the highest levels of criticality” and says that “the risks posed by natural hazards are already rising and are predicted to rise further”.

It concludes that it would “be imprudent to rest on the basis that events on the lines of those which happened last summer were so infrequent as to reply on a reactive response alone”.

Link to original article

Most homeowners hit by last summer’s floods remain unprepared for a repeat, an insurance company survey suggests.

Some 83% of residents of Gloucester, Tewkesbury, Hull, Sheffield and Rotherham believe there is nothing they can do to protect their homes.

Of 1,500 people surveyed for Norwich Union, 95% had not secured their properties ahead of the threat of further flooding this summer.

A total of 29% also were unaware that their homes were at risk again.

Yorkshire, Gloucestershire and Worcestershire were worst hit by last year’s floods, which the Association of British Insurers says led to 180,000 claims totalling about £3bn.

Mary Dhonau, chief executive of the National Flood Forum, said: “Having been flooded myself, I know what an awful experience it can be.

“The findings of this report have shocked me because there is so much more people can do than using the humble, not to mention ineffective, sandbag.

“As someone who has witnessed the huge benefits of flood-resilient repairs, I’m a huge advocate of taking measures to protect your home.

“Adapting or altering your home can significantly lessen both the practical and emotional impact of flood.

“Not only can damage to your personal possessions and furnishings be reduced, you could be back in your home quicker after a flood if you have to move out at all.”

Flood defences

Simon Black, head of flood mapping at Norwich Union who produced the survey, said: “We believe that everyone has a responsibility to help reduce the risk of flood damage.

“That includes the government, with continued investment in flood defences, and the homeowner.

“While home insurance will protect people from the majority of costs caused by flooding, no insurance policy can replace those significant personal belongings with sentimental value.

“Similarly, no policy will be able to spare families the inconvenience and stress of being forced from their homes while it is being dried out and repaired.”

Flood protection for houses includes flood boards for door frames in case of flash floods, one-way valves on water outlet pipes and water-resistant sealants around doors, window frames and on bricks and mortar.

Link to original article

The fight to achieve legislation change continues and ever increasing numbers of MP’s and MSP’s are becoming worldly aware of their constituency growing problems.

Many thanks to all MP’s and MSP’s who have been working to achieve changes in consumer protection legislation.

Westminster Hall debates – Wednesday, 6 February 2008

What is Westminster Hall?

New Home Buyers

All Westminster Hall debates on 6 Feb 2008 « Previous Westminster Hall debate Next Westminster Hall debate »

4:00 pm

Mark Lazarowicz

(PPS (David Cairns, Minister of State), Scotland Office, Edinburgh North & Leith, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

I intend to raise a number of issues concerning the difficulties experienced by many people buying newly built houses or flats. Those problems are legion. They can range from houses not being built on time or not being made available to the purchaser, sometimes for years after the date on which they were meant to be; defects in the building work that are not repaired in spite of repeated requests and demands from the purchasers; problems with the estate as a whole; and problems with the property management companies associated with new build developments. Those problems often affect those buying new build homes at the time when they are most under pressure, owing to the personal and financial stress involved in buying a new home.

I am raising this matter today, because a large number of new build properties—mainly, but not exclusively flats—are being built, or have been built recently, in my constituency. Over a number of years, I have been approached by constituents who have had problems with new build housing such as those that I have described. Indeed, I first raised this issue in Parliament in April 2002, less than a year after I was first elected. I am glad to have the opportunity to raise the matter again, but the fact that I am obliged to do so illustrates that much action is still required to deal with a problem that has been raised with me on many occasions in my constituency. However, consumer organisations are also concerned and see it as a problem affecting the entire UK.

As I said, particular issues have been raised in my constituency, and I shall describe in more detail a particular case raised with me recently. However, I emphasise that the problem exists throughout the UK. Extensive research on the matter has recently been conducted by the consumer group Which?, the National Consumer Council and the Scottish Consumer Council. It shows that as many as 90 per cent. of those who buy new build homes are left with snagging problems, such as faulty wiring, badly fitting doors, leaking windows or more serious problems. More than a quarter of new build property developments are described by their purchasers as being of poor quality.

As I have said, this issue has been raised with me on a number of occasions, over a number of years. However, the particular case that led to me raising the matter today was brought to my attention by a constituent of mine who lives in a development called Corinthian Quay, undertaken by Elphinstone builders, on Lower Granton road in my constituency. I shall quote briefly from her email in which she first raised the matter with me shortly before Christmas:

"I would like to draw your attention to another matter that has been a source of constant worry and stress to me for the past 2 and half years. I bought a new apartment off plan in Feb 2005 and have had nothing but problems with the builders – they have been very uncommunicative and unhelpful… We have been lied to on numerous occasions and been told that the build would be ready again and again when it was obvious it would not. We sold our properties on the strength of what they told us and ended up at in rented accommodation for 8 months (at great expense)".

The email continues:

"when one thing is fixed we find another. Many of the other residents have experienced horrendous problems eg sewage coming up through baths and sinks onto carpets, ceilings collapsing and many other problems. The resident above us is currently experiencing his 4th water leak and water is seeping into our apartment".

I shall not read her e-mail in full, because it would take too long. However, the crux of the matter comes in her final comments:

"We feel that we have more rights buying a packet of crisps than a £285K luxury apartment. We have paid the builder and we are not getting what we paid for. We moved to a new build so we would not have any problems – we now have more problems with this build than we have had with all the older properties we bought put together!"

That highlights one constituent’s problems, but, as my research shows, the same problems—although perhaps not as bad as in that development—affect many people in many parts of the country.

My constituent’s comments about having more rights when buying a packet of crisps than when buying an new house touch on one the central problems in dealing with the issue. For many people, a new home—possibly a new build home—will be the biggest purchase of their lives. However, practical remedies are not available to them as consumers to enable them to deal with problems that can arise when buying such a property. That contrasts with the simplest and cheapest items that one might buy in a corner shop, when consumers benefit from legislation, such as the Sale of Goods Act 1979, which, of course, does not apply to new build homes. As a result, consumers have fewer legal rights than if they bought a packet of crisps in a local shop.

One problem is that the purchase of houses or flats, whether new build or older properties, is covered by property law. There are differences between Scotland and England, but the general point is still a reasonable one. Property law is governed essentially by the rule of buyer beware, which gives consumers much less protection than they would have if they enjoyed legal rights similar to those that apply under the 1979 Act.

Add your comment

 Jim Devine (Livingston, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Has he had difficulties with factoring companies as a result of such sales? We have had major difficulties with companies such as Greenbelt Group Ltd and Ross and Liddle taking constituents of mine to court. They were charging up to £400 a year for a service that they did not provide.

Add your comment

Mark Lazarowicz (PPS (David Cairns, Minister of State), Scotland Office, Edinburgh North & Leith, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Problems can arise with factoring companies or property management companies—or however they want to describe themselves. Certainly constituents of mine have raised such concerns, although the case that I just referred to did not involve that problem. However, it is certainly an indication of the kind of problems that arise for many people living in new build flats in particular. Action needs to be taken, perhaps at a devolved level in my hon. Friend’s case, or at a UK level. That problem needs to be attended to.

On the extension of consumer protection to the buyer of a new build property, the problem was recognised by the Housing Improvement Task Force set up by the Scottish Executive some years ago. In 2003—five years ago, which illustrates part of the difficulty—it reported:

"We believe that caveat emptor"—

the buyer beware principle—

"may need to be qualified in respect of new build developments, where the sale is not between two private individuals and where the builder is in a similar position to other commercial providers of goods and services who are expected to comply with consumer protection legislation".

That highlights another problem faced by those buying new build properties. In effect, they must accept the developer’s terms, or they do not get the house. They have no alternative or room to negotiate for a better deal.

The developer will normally have a standard builders missive or contract. In theory, in some circumstances, the purchaser might be able to withdraw from a contract to buy the property and get their money back, but that is not normally a realistic option in practice. It is not much use if people have had to wait for years to get their property, and then they find that their only option is to try to cancel the deal, dump all their furniture in the street and start all over again. That is not a realistic option for most people who buy new build property, or indeed any property, even though it might apply in theory in some cases.

We need changes to the law to give people who buy newly built houses or flats much greater consumer protection; and as my hon. Friend the Minister knows, it is a UK-wide problem, because consumer protection is a reserved matter for the UK Parliament. Aspects of it relate to devolved legislation, but the consumer protection aspect requires action at UK level. Although I refer to cases in Scotland and in my constituency, the problem applies UK-wide, and the consumer organisations have requested a change in the law at UK level, which I certainly support.

There must be changes in the law, such as providing people who buy new build flats or houses rights similar to those under the Sale of Goods Act 1979. However, there must also be important changes in practice, too. Many organisations have agued that the standard new build missive must be much fairer to buyers. For example, there should be a specific entry date, rather than a vague entry date that is not worth the paper that it is written on.

My colleague, Helen Eadie MSP, recently submitted a Bill to the Scottish Parliament designed to bring about precisely that change to the law to ensure that there is a specific entry date for new property. However, she has been advised—whether correctly is open to discussion—that because of the consumer protection provisions, it is a reserved matter for the UK Parliament, so she can no longer pursue it as a private Member’s Bill in the Scottish Parliament. Again, the situation indicates that we need action not only at a Scottish level, but at a UK level. We need action to ensure that, when people in Scottish constituencies are affected, the two levels of government work together to find a solution. Furthermore, there must be better self-regulation by the housing industry, as the consumer organisations have said. I do not have time to go into that issue, but it is another part of the solution.

Having made some suggestions for change, I recognise that other proposals might be introduced to deal with the situation. I first raised the issue almost six years ago, and there has certainly been a great deal of talk, but not much action. Recently, however, the Office of Fair Trading has begun an investigation into the issue—an important step that I hope will result in an improvement in the situation for people who have such problems with new build property.

The first round of consultation by the OFT has concluded, but I have been told that it would welcome the submission of evidence of such problems. I shall certainly be submitting to the OFT examples from my constituency, and if any of my constituents watching the debate decide to send me information, I shall submit that, too. However, I should ask that people in other constituencies do not send me information, because when I raised the issue previously, I received correspondence from throughout the UK. That illustrates the problem, but the evidence should nevertheless go to the individual’s MP.

The OFT is carrying out a study, so I am sure that the Minister will tell us that he wants to wait for its report before the Government come to a conclusion on the matter, which I understand. However, I ask him to assure us that, when the OFT reports, the Government will act urgently to make changes to give proper consumer protection to people who buy newly built homes and flats and who find that they have such problems. In particular, as an MP representing a Scottish constituency, I ask him to ensure that the appropriate UK Departments get together with the appropriate Scottish Departments, the relevant consumer organisations and legal and trade interests to ensure that the action that I have called for is implemented throughout the UK.

As I have indicated, apparently, this involves some complex areas of law, which may have caused the delay in taking action in Scotland in particular, but we cannot wait too much longer for action—not much longer at all, I hope. The number of new build developments is increasing in most constituencies—certainly in mine and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine) more than in others. Therefore, we cannot wait for action indefinitely. We want it soon, and I should like a commitment from the Minister that the Government recognise the seriousness of the problem and that they will take early action, including on the issues that overlap the Scottish and UK levels of government. Co-operation between the various interests should resolve that overlap, and I am sure the Minister agrees that it should not be an excuse for inactivity.

Add your comment

4:14 pm

Gareth Thomas (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for International Development) Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on obtaining the debate and on his assiduousness in pursuing the issue for the length of time that he has. It is clearly important to his constituency and to my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine) , given his intervention. 

I listened in particular when my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith read out that extract detailing the frustration of his constituent. No one who has ever bought a home could fail to be sympathetic to the frustration that his constituent has endured. My hon. Friend raised two broad areas of concern for new home buyers: snagging and the rectification of faults, and delays in completion. He made specific requests about the OFT study, and I can assure him that, once we have seen the study, we will ensure that its conclusions are discussed with officials in the Scottish Executive. I welcome my hon. Friend’s writing to the OFT directly, and I shall bring his remarks to the OFT’s attention.

Add your comment

Jim Devine (Livingston, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

Will my hon. Friend the Minister also include the role of factoring companies in his discussions with the OFT? Companies such as Greenbelt Group take over the common land and own it in perpetuity, so regardless of whether they provide a good service, people have to pay and the companies have a monopoly, which is totally unacceptable, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree.

Add your comment

Gareth Thomas (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for International Development) Link to this | Hansard source

I hear my hon. Friend’s concerns, and I am happy to draw them to the OFT’s attention. I should also be happy if my hon. Friend would like to meet separately to discuss them.

There are already some initiatives regarding the two areas of concern that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith discussed. The Council of Mortgage Lenders has introduced a revised finalling procedure, under which lenders will not release the mortgage funds on a property until a satisfactory final inspection has been completed and confirmation has been given that a full new home warranty will be in place on or before the entry date. It follows a similar initiative in England and Wales that was successful in reducing the number of failed pre-handover inspections. There have also been discussions between the Law Society of Scotland and Homes for Scotland—the umbrella organisation for the home building industry in Scotland—about standard terms for the builders missives, the conveyancing contract.

Those initiatives will be helpful in addressing the issues that my hon. Friend has raised, but he will recognise that such matters fall within the purview of the Scottish Executive. I have no doubt that the Executive will be interested in what the OFT has to say. I hope that he recognises that I am not in a position to comment at length on matters that fall within the responsibility of the Scottish Executive, but I repeat that I will ensure that the outcome of the OFT study is discussed with Executive officials.

Add your comment

Mark Lazarowicz (PPS (David Cairns, Minister of State), Scotland Office, Edinburgh North & Leith, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

I accept that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot act on matters within the purview of the Scottish Executive, but I reiterate that Helen Eadie MSP has been advised by the legal officers of the Scottish Parliament that she cannot introduce legislation on an entry date, because it falls within UK reserved competence. I hope that the Minister’s Department will consider that before it assumes that it is a Scottish Executive responsibility. I am concerned that we could end up with years of argument between the two levels of government about who is responsible, and we do not want that to happen. I hope that he will ensure that his Department notes that there is some argument about where responsibility lies.

Add your comment

Gareth Thomas (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for International Development) Link to this | Hansard source

I note my hon. Friend’s intervention, and I have heard his point about the discussions that have taken place in Scotland between Helen Eadie MSP and the Scottish Executive. I would be happy to receive direct representations on those discussions from either my hon. Friend or Ms Eadie herself.

My hon. Friend also mentioned a matter on which I do have specific and immediate responsibility for consumer protection: the Sale of Goods Act 1979, from which, as he rightly said, the purchase of homes is excluded. I hope that I can clarify why that is so, but I first wish to indicate again our welcome for the work that the OFT is currently engaging in. It is examining the home buyer’s purchasing experience and the fitness for purpose of new homes. It will consider the consumer protection and redress that is available, including the consumer legislation that currently applies, and whether changes are necessary. We expect that study to report in the autumn. My hon. Friend asked for early action, but he made an assumption that I do not wish to make. However, I assure him that we will give early consideration to the outcome of the report, particularly any recommendation that falls to my Department.

On the Sale of Goods Act, there is not an exceptional emission or exclusion for housing. There is a much broader pattern and structure of how property law, covering land and buildings, is recognised. The law relating to property is distinct, forming a separate body of legislation and jurisprudence, reflecting the importance and value of transactions in land or property. As my hon. Friend will no doubt recognise, for transactions in land, it is particularly necessary that there should be clarity about exactly when ownership passes from one person to another and what is, and is not, included in any transfer. Property law has developed distinctively to meet those needs. Consumer law in general therefore does not apply to transactions in land or buildings, albeit with one significant exception.

Although consumer law and the statutory rights attached to consumer transactions do not generally apply to the purchase of a new home, it does not follow that the consumer is lacking in rights or redress when purchasing a new home. It is true that, on occasion, the buyer of a new home is in a weaker position than the builder. My hon. Friend may be aware of cases in which the developer has had standard terms prepared for the contract and not been willing to amend them. If there is unfairness in such standard terms, it can be addressed through the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Under those regulations, a term that is found to be unfair is not binding on the consumer, and the Office of Fair Trading can take action to have standard terms altered if there is a view that they are unfairly weighted against the interests of the consumer. The purchaser of a new home therefore has rights and redress if a contract is not properly performed.

The most used remedies under the Sale of Goods Act—the rejection of unsatisfactory goods by the purchaser or replacement by the vendor—are most unlikely to be appropriate for a dispute about the construction standards of a new house or flat. The contract can be annulled in extreme cases, but it is essentially tied to the property in question, and replacement with another house or flat is probably not realistic and may be undesirable for the buyer. I suggest to my hon. Friend that it is not surprising that the Sale of Goods Act remedies are not appropriate, because they were framed for quite different situations. As I have indicated, we have an open mind about the possibility that new rights could be created for the benefit of consumers if the existing balance of rights and redress is found to be unsatisfactory.

My hon. Friend mentioned the suggestion by the Housing Improvement Task Force that it might be necessary to amend the rule of caveat emptor in relation to new build homes. Of course, any new legal provision that confers rights or imposes implied terms will, in some sense, qualify the simple rule of caveat emptor. I have no difficulty in principle with that idea but, as I hope my hon. Friend will recognise, we will want to hear what the OFT has to say on that in its report.

I say again that I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend’s concerns and particularly to the views of his constituents who have written to him about their experiences of buying new homes. I hope that he recognises that the situation that he described—that someone has more rights buying a packet of crisps than buying a new home—is not accurate, but we understand the frustration of people who have had bad experiences with rogue builders. That is one reason why the OFT is conducting its market study.

I recognise the need for us here in London, in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, with our responsibility for consumer affairs as a reserved issue, to discuss the Scottish experience of the matter with the Scottish Executive. I have also offered to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston about the issue that he raised, and I am happy to receive representations from Helen Eadie or my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith, about what Ms Eadie has discussed with the Scottish Executive.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.