Under pressure of demand from homebuyers, Bellway Homes allowed purchasers to move into unfinished homes in a development near Tower Bridge without securing building control approval. At a new development in Cheam, south-west London, Linden Homes has done the same. But although Bellway faces summary conviction and a fine for breaching the 1984 Building Act, Linden is almost certain to get away unpunished.
The difference between the two cases is that Bellway is under the building control supervision of Southwark council, whereas Linden is under the National House Building Council.
The rules that govern the two regimes are different. The Building Regulations 1991, which apply to the public sector, state in section 14(5) that the housebuilder is obliged to notify the council at least five days before the building is occupied. Any contravention, says section 35 of the Building Act 1984, "is liable on summary conviction to a fine".
Under the Building (Approved Inspectors) Regulations 1985, which apply to private sector inspectors, the builder has no such duty. These regulations allow the premature occupation of incomplete buildings, and put the onus of notifying the local authority on the inspector. The inspector can give the notice within an eight-week period from the date of occupation, although this can be extended.
Bellway brought to book …
If a building is to be occupied before it is finished, the council must have five days’ notice
Public Sector Control
In the case of Bellway's Florin Court development, Bob Jones, Southwark council's building control manager, discovered that the housebuilder had allowed Rachel Osborn and her partner Philip Edwards to move into their home at the beginning of August without notifying the council.
When Tom Furness, a Southwark council inspector, then visited Florin Court on 31 August he saw people going in and out of the building and told a Bellway site agent that they should not be moving in.
"He was told that they were not staying; just moving in furniture to be ready when the completion certificate is issued," said Jones. Osborn's statement, taken a few days later, contradicted this assurance. Jones is now preparing a report with a view to prosecution.
Howard Dawe, Bellway's managing director, admitted that his firm had contravened the regulations: "We got it wrong in some respects. We agreed to handover on a certain date and failed to meet those dates, but we've had trouble getting the labour. This is a problem whenever there is a boom," he said.
… but Linden let off
If a building has been prematurely occupied, the council must be notified within eight weeks
private sector control
On Sheerwater Road in the London Borough of Sutton, Linden Homes is building more than 100 homes, nine of which were occupied by early September – without NHBC approval, either for its own warranty or for building control.
As with Osborne and Edwards, the occupiers are experiencing hardship because the homes are unfinished. However, because the NHBC is the "approved inspector" on this site, there will be no prosecution.
According to an NHBC spokesperson: "In the case of nine plots at Gander Green Lane, Sheerwater, we applied for and were granted an extension until 7 October as our inspector has not yet finalised these properties." The NHBC seemed relaxed about the fact that, under its regime, people can move into properties with outstanding problems.
The spokesperson said: "Where an occupied property has outstanding problems to be resolved, we usually give six weeks within which the fault can be rectified. If a builder seems dilatory, we can and do threaten to hand the property back to the local authority. This is a real threat, as the local authority could, for example, demand to inspect the foundations, which would involve the builder in massive disruption and expense." Linden defended its choice of putting building control inspection in the hands of the private sector. Managing director Philip Davies said that the NHBC's controls were superior to local authorities' and improved the product.
