0 Comments | Oakland Tribune, Aug 10, 2007 | by Luke StangelSTAFF
Take a walk through any new housing subdivision and start knocking on doors. Construction defects aren’t hard to find.
One man has a crack in his foundation that the builder refuses to fix — because the crack isn’t big enough yet. Down the street, a father of seven is packing up and moving out because he says mold is taking over the family’s two-year-old house.
In a subdivision two cities away, a woman gave up trying to get her builder to replace a poorly installed granite countertop. A few doors away, another woman worries about a hollow sound under her hardwood floor.
Experts estimate that the contractors pacific palisades average new house will have three to 14 construction defects. Some builders have a reputation for standing behind their work and quickly fixing problems, whereas others drag out repairs.
No one keeps a comprehensive public record of construction defects or the building industry’s response to them, making it difficult for the average home buyer to research a builder’s track record of quality and customer service.
Arbitration clauses in many housing contracts prevent unhappy home buyers from suing in open court, further shielding builders from public scrutiny. Although consumer research groups regularly publish reports on cars, airlines, stock brokerages and toothpaste, only one — J.D. Power and Associates — studies builders.
“They always say home-buyers should do their research,” said Nancy Seats, president of the grass-roots Homeowners Against Deficient Dwellings. “But home builders have set it up so that it’s darn hard to do any research.”
Seats is part of a small group of housing advocates that pushes states to require builders to disclose more information to the public about construction defects. The loosely connected coalition of activists is also lobbying for “lemon laws” that would require builders to buy back defective homes.
Neither idea has gained much traction nationally.
Officials with the National Association of Home Builders say states are doing a good job protecting consumers from irresponsible builders. They reject calls from activists for more industry scrutiny.
In a 2004 study by Harvard University researchers, nearly 90 percent of new homeowners said they were happy with their purchase and would recommend their builder to a friend, said National Association of Home Builders spokeswoman Donna Reichele.
Researchers at J.D. Power and Associates agree.
“The vast majority of homeowners are satisfied with their home,” said Paula Sonkin, vice president of real estate and construction industries at J.D. Power and Associates. “Less than 5 percent — a lot less than 5 percent — are really unhappy overall. Most homeowners skew positively. Most homeowners are really satisfied with their home builder.”
“It’s a big investment, the biggest investment you’re going to make,” said Gene O’Neil, president of the Better Business Bureau’s Golden Gate division. “You can’t be too careful.”
Experts encourage those in the market for a new home to do five things when choosing a builder: Read the J.D. Power survey of major builders, check with state and Better Business Bureau records for open construction-defect complaints, check for any quality-control certificates the builder holds, research the builder’s history of lawsuits and ask other people how they feel about the builder.
No single tool is perfect. But experts say home buyers who use these tools together should get a fairly accurate picture of a builder’s track record.
This year’s J.D. Power and Associates survey of builders will come out Sept. 12 and cover the biggest residential builders in the country’s 34 top housing markets