|
Support HOBB |
 |
|
Who's Online |
|
We have 6 guests and 2 members online |
|
| Register Your Builder Complaint |
Please let us know what has happened to you, and let us know if you would like to help us make buying new houses safer.
Tell us your story.
click here
Dennis Hartmann
 |
posted 14 March 2007 08:01 CET
On August 11th 2006, my wife and I purchased a home from O’donnell & Sons Inc in Wappingers Falls, NY tax map (Hopewell Junction address).
The hot water heater did not work in the house, but I turned the hot water heater on one week prior to moving in. One day after moving in (September 6th), there was a small leak in the garage. Since our personal affects were in the garage, we immediately contacted O’Donnell & Sons Inc. that morning. Although the phone call was not responded to, we left a second message later that afternoon. The leak persisted and eventually ruptured while we were out of the house picking up our kids from day care. We came home to massive flooding in our garage, destroying personal mementos.
The leak was in a bathroom above the garage ceiling. The leak was so fierce that water flooded down the interior walls of the garage into the house warping the hardwood floors in our dining room and hallway. The integrity of the drywall and insulation was compromised, but O’Donnell’s solution was to let the water dry out, then they would spackle, tape, and paint. The painting still has not been completed, but the solution is inadequate and could eventually lead to mold. The builder came to inspect the damage the next day.
One day later, there was a new flood in the downstairs bedroom coming from the master bedroom bathroom. Another plumbing fitting had failed.
One week later (early September 2006), there was considerable flooding in the basement coming in from the back door. Although the house was on the market for over one year, the builder claimed this had never happened. The builder came over and experienced the flooding with a home inspector he had brought along. We were repeatedly told that this would be fixed, but six month’s later, it has not been addressed in any way. The basement has since flooded on four separate occasions, from both walkout basement doors.
Wappingers Falls town documentation states that the land in the backyard should be pitched downhill towards the holding pond. The land in the back yard has a hump in it where the septic tank is visible in the middle of the back yard. Proper grading of the back yard could incur significant costs associated with the septic tank system.
Pursuant to the home inspector’s comments, the closing punch list contains a comment that the gutters must provide a way for runoff water to get away from the house. The builder signed the punch list and subsequently stated that the gutters were not his responsibility. The flooding of the basement associated with water pooling up against the house is definitely their warranty responsibility though.
After living in the house for 7 months, none of the closing punch list items are complete. Our basement floods any time there is a heavy rainfall because the property was not properly excavated. The builder has been notified repeatedly by phone and in person, and subsequently by mail and certified mail from my lawyer.
Sincerely,
Dennis J. Hartmann |
Chris Jankowitz
|
posted 12 March 2007 08:46 CET
Gregory Construction is completely non-responsive to our warranty list. We are only two weeks away from the end of our warranty period, and now they don't even return phone calls or emails. We have a list of items they have not addressed, and they appear to have no intention to do so. We have no way to contact them as they do not return messages. |
Sean Regan
|
posted 10 March 2007 19:26 CET
I own a home in Norfolk, Virginia that has been riddled with problems...Unfortunately, the local building official has taken the position that the structure is okay the way it is because the builders engineer "rationalized" the structure (an engineer whom was hired by the bulder after the fact and never involved in the intial design and construction of the home). Anyways, we have noted serious problems and hired an Architect and Structural Engineer...here is what they had to say...any advice on possible code violations and what to do when the building official takes such a stance when you have multiple trade professionals saying that serious problems exist and that the structure is not sound?
Report from the Architect:
Date: February 26, 2007
On December 27th 2006, I was asked to visit the home at 9501 14th Bay Street
in Norfolk, Virginia 23518. During that visit I was shown the entire house, from the
basement up into and including the attic. I visited the home again on 01/10/2007 and
01/18/2007 and again this afternoon to observe some recent problems that have occurred
since my initial visit.
Executive Summary:
Although there have been several attempts to patch up structure by the Builder, this work
appears to be primarily cosmetic in nature and does not correct the real problems, which are
the actual workmanship and capacity of the construction.
I noticed numerous deficiencies in my walk-through, and while none of them appeared to be
capable of creating a sudden catastrophic collapse under “normal” conditions, there is no
doubt that the sum result of these problems taken together will continue to systematically
degrade the house over time, leading to the eventual failure of the building envelope.
Also, while the structure seems to be stable at the moment, it is only currently under a
gravity load and a significant snow load or high enough winds applied to the structure could
cause a sudden catastrophic collapse, or at least result in serious secondary damage.
Following is a list of noted deficiencies, starting from the ground up as I was lead through
the house:
Basement/Garage Level:
The header over the garage (approximately 16 feet in width) had supplementary structure
applied recently to correct sagging. A great deal of load from the roof and two floors above
is resting over this beam, and it is not clear whether this fix is adequate.
According to the Owner, the lower level basement/garage is constructed in a Flood Plain, but
numerous erroneous material choices have been made for such construction, including the
use of conventional lumber instead of pressure-treated.
Some of the masonry work is substandard and needs to be repointed/relaid to slope for
drainage at brick piers and CMU masonry base. The joints are irregular and will suffer from
freeze-thaw action when water enters through gaps.
There is also inadequate difference between basement/garage floor level and adjacent grade
for the construction detail of the exterior walls, making it far too likely for water intrusion.
This could be remedied by use of a foundation drain. Water damage is evident throughout
the basement/garage level and will no doubt continue if not corrected.
Siding is not installed correctly on exterior walls and numerous workmanship errors create
opportunities for water intrusion at crucial areas, such as the perimeter of window openings
and vertical and horizontal termination details. It is not known if a building membrane,
such as “Tyvek” or other material has been properly installed behind the siding. Also, some
leaks indicate the absence of proper flashing.
Second Level:
The siding that abuts the second level deck is not correctly flashed and/or waterproofed, but
has been “caulked” excessively. This will not prevent water from getting in, but may very
well prevent it from being able to get out readily. Caulk is not a substitute for proper
flashing, and more leaks may develop later when the caulking sealant begins to break down
in a year or two.
A small balcony deck on the outside is entirely supported by 45-degree angled brackets that
transfer their loads directly into the wall. It is reported that additional 2x4 studs have been
buried into the wall to pick up this load, but it is doubtful that this will do more than pick up
the gravity [dead] load on the empty balcony structure. Several people standing on the
balcony could generate a significant point load to the two bearing points, perhaps enough to
“punch” through the wall.
It should be remembered that this angled bracket arrangement creates different and more
complicated forces than a typical compression model bearing on columns straight down to
footings in the ground; and in my opinion places too much importance on the connectors
used and the condition of the wood where they are installed, (i.e., too much depends on “toenail”
strength at the very ends of the boards, where over-nailing can splinter the wood to the
point that the nails will pull out.)
This is all in addition to the fact that this creates a significant horizontal force component that
would not exist in the other approach. The construction appears to be stable at the moment,
but it would be unwise to test its limits by allowing large numbers of people to stand on it.
Water stains were evident in the drywall adjacent to the deck, due to the improper
installation of siding/trim around the overhead balcony brackets.
Third Level:
One of the strange features of the structural system is that some of the roof loads coming
down from above are transferred to a short unfixed wooden post that rests on the plywood
ceiling of the Master closet; almost directly in the center of the ceiling, far away from any
walls. Aside from a small block of 2x wood and the plywood over the closet, the point load
is not distributed to solid framing and while it is evidently adequate to support the gravity
load, it is uncertain whether a sudden windload applied at this point might be enough to
“punch” through the ceiling. This is certainly not an orthodox approach in any event and as
of today, the post has separated from the ceiling, indicating further movement of the system.
Also of concern is the relative proximity of window openings from both sides to the corner of
the Master bedroom. Without significant internal bracing, this corner might not develop
adequate “diaphragm” support because of its narrow dimension. This condition occurs in
six locations throughout the house, and unless a “Simpson” type composite shearwall
system has been installed within the framing, cracks will continue to spread in the walls and
in the structure supporting the roof system. The drawings do not indicate any special
accommodations for this issue, so it is assumed that nothing has been done to deal with it.
Other locations that allow for a full sheet of plywood or OSB sheathing from a corner should
develop adequate resistance to shear, but this should be examined by a Structural Engineer.
On an aesthetic note, I have never seen the long oval windows installed on their sides, but
almost always in a vertical orientation. It is not necessarily a problem, but someone may
want to investigate this with the window manufacturer to ensure that there are no water
management problems in using the window this way. From observing these from outside,
any water that got onto the window surface would have little trouble getting through the
failing caulk joints.
According to the Home Owner, the doors have been “shaved down” by the Builder on
several occasions to relieve them from binding with the frame, but continue to bind and rack,
further indicating that the structural “skeleton” of the House is still in flux.
No “collar ties” were evident in the “Cathedral” ceiling over the Master Bedroom, which
would allow the rafters to “thrust” outwards, pulling the tops of the walls with them. As
stated further down, this is exacerbated by the relative problems associated with the roof.
Additional water intrusion was noted in the Master Bedroom just below the “Pigeon Stoop”
on the exterior of the building. This is not doubt due to failure of the flashing system where
the roofing meets the vertical wall surface. The fascia material above this is also missing,
which will allow water intrusion at the attic level as well.
Attic Level:
The problematic ridge and valley framing have been well-documented by the two Structural
Engineers that have examined this condition. I will leave the calculations (which I have seen) to
them, but it is clear with merely casual observation that the workmanship usually evident in conventional residential roof framing is lacking.
Framing has been done “piecemeal,” resulting in structurally-deficient conditions. Not only
is wind-bracing missing at the gable ends of the roof structure, but studs are mixed between
2x4’s and 2x6’s in the endwall, creating a situation where buckling could occur.
One extremely disturbing example was the presence of several rafters with large notches cut
out for “bird’s mouths” at the wrong location along the board, but used anyway without
even sistering/repairing the rafter. Since the bottom portion of each rafter member is in
tension, this has the net effect of reducing these rafters to the least dimension at this notch,
and also introduces a “rupture point” to the rafter. In other words, this is where the rafter
will start to split when its load capacity is exceeded. Consequently, instead of having 2x8
rafters, for example, we really cannot consider them to be more than 2x6’s because of the
large amount of material cut out from the area in tension.
Nominal 2x8 rafters would be considered the minimum size to use for this area for wind,
dead. live loads and span involved. Using IRC table R802.5.1(1) and IBC 2003 Table
2308.10.3(3), as well as other relevant span tables, we would expect 2x8’s to span anywhere
from 14 feet to 15 feet, but this is the minimum for the loads involved. It is more advisable to
go up to 2x10’s or provide rafter bracing or other means to improve this situation.
In the location where the “temporary emergency repair” has been made at the convergence
of several peaks and valleys, structural settling is continuing. Again, in addition to the
improper resolution of dynamic forces, too much depends on “toe-nail” strength at the very
ends of the boards, where over-nailing can splinter the wood to the point that the nails may
eventually pull out. Several cracks were observed in various roof rafters.
As was pointed out, the attic floor rafters are not installed correctly to withstand the outward
thrust of the roof rafters, and the floor (which should create diaphragm action in conjunction
with the attic floor/third floor ceiling) is interrupted, preventing this from taking place.
There is really nothing to be done about the direction of the ceiling joists below at this point,
but the floor of the attic could be corrected with 2x8 “lookout” boards attached to the joists
and strapping or additional plywood applied to provide continuity in the diaphragm.
Again, this should be addressed by a structural engineer.
Conclusion:
Without proper remedial work, this house will continue to degrade over time, and no
guarantees can be made as to the safety of the structure during a weather event. While many
repairs have been made already, there are still several issues that need to be resolved in
order to create a level of safety, security and confidence to the residents that live there. No
doubt many of the aesthetic issues might also be resolved in the process, such as the hairline
cracks that are appearing throughout the house.
Report from the Structural Engineer:
Subject: Residence Located at 9501 14th Bay Street, Norfolk, VA – Review
of Current Condition
References:
(a) Engineering Letter, Dated July 15, 2006, Subject
Residence at 9501 14th Bay Street, Norfolk, VA – Structural Evaluation and
Recommendations.
Attention: Mr. Sean Regan and Ms Lara Kain
Scope of Work Summary:
Evaluate the status of the as-built condition since issuing Reference (a).
Background:
A through evaluation of the as-built condition of the subject structure was issued on July
15, 2006. Reference (a) identified several areas of concern that did not meet the
building code requirements and identified the root cause of the structural issues. The
home owner requested a review of the current condition of the house structure be
conducted.
Observations:
On February 4, 2007 a site check was conducted to review the condition of the
structure. The following was observed:
• There has been an attempt to fix the structure by the contractor. However, a
significant amount of that work was cosmetic in nature and did not address the
root causes of the cracks.
• The structure elements, which were previously identified in Reference (a),
continue to show signs of overloading. Cracks identified in the original report
continue to propagate. These are both visible in the walls and in the structural
elements supporting the roof system.
• The owner reports that doors planed and sanded by an agent of the contractor to
relieve sticking, are now sticking. This is another indication that the structure
continues to move.
February 4, 2007
• New cracks were observed in the roof rafters in areas were the original analysis,
Reference (a), predicted overstressed areas.
Conclusion:
Generally, the structure show signs of continued movement. This due to an overloading
condition identified in the first report in the roof system.
The main issue continues to be attic floor system, which is installed parallel with the roof
ridge instead of perpendicular to the ridge as is required by the building code. This
exerts an outward thrust load on the walls and over loads the roof ridges that is not
resolved elsewhere in the structure. The floor decking can not act as a membrane to
relieve the roof thrust loads because it is not connected to the exterior walls. Note that
these structural conditions manifest themselves under the static (self) weight of the
house. No significant snow loads have been exerted on this roof to date. Until the roof
system is stabilized, the roof support structure will continue to degrade. A significant
snow or wind load on this roof system could be the cause a catastrophic event.
[ 02-27-2007, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: shared insight ] Posts: 2 | From: Norfolk, Virginia | Registered: Feb 2007 | IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FredK
Frequent Contributor
- posted 02-27-2007 01:11 PM Profile for FredK Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post I have not a clue as to what say. Your profile doesn't tell me if your a friend, home inspector or engineer for this guy's house.
Would suggest you visit the local jurisdiction and ask to see if there is a permit and inspections for the house. That would be starting point one.
--------------------
Since 2006 I-codes started Nov 1 st for us, my answers may vary from yours.
Posts: 299 | From: Apache Junction, AZ, USA | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noebodi
Contributor
- posted 02-27-2007 02:00 PM Profile for Noebodi Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Sounds like most new houses built today. So, what is your question? Posts: 18 | From: Local | Registered: Feb 2007 | IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tsmith
Frequent Contributor
- posted 02-27-2007 02:17 PM Profile for tsmith Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Ditto Fred. I'd add that the profiles are pretty much worthless if they don't state a profession. I don't really care what anyone's hobbies are, but their line of business tells me something about their basic point of reference.
I'd also add that whoever wrote that report is a very poor technical writer. Posts: 726 | From: South Carolina | Registered: Jul 2002 | IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
shared insight
Junior Contributor
Rate Member - posted 02-27-2007 03:05 PM Profile for shared insight Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post I am the homeowner...the problem is that the local building official has said the house is okay the way it is despite the findings of numerous problems from the Architect and Structural Engineer we hired. Here is a recent report from the structural engineer to supplement the report from the Architect I provided....
Subject: Residence Located at 9501 14th Bay Street, Norfolk, VA – Review
of Current Condition
References:
(a) Engineering Letter, Dated July 15, 2006, Subject
Residence at 9501 14th Bay Street, Norfolk, VA – Structural Evaluation and
Recommendations.
Attention:
Scope of Work Summary:
Evaluate the status of the as-built condition since issuing Reference (a).
Background:
A through evaluation of the as-built condition of the subject structure was issued on July
15, 2006. Reference (a) identified several areas of concern that did not meet the
building code requirements and identified the root cause of the structural issues. The
home owner requested a review of the current condition of the house structure be
conducted.
Observations:
On February 4, 2007 a site check was conducted to review the condition of the
structure. The following was observed:
• There has been an attempt to fix the structure by the contractor. However, a
significant amount of that work was cosmetic in nature and did not address the
root causes of the cracks.
• The structure elements, which were previously identified in Reference (a),
continue to show signs of overloading. Cracks identified in the original report
continue to propagate. These are both visible in the walls and in the structural
elements supporting the roof system.
• The owner reports that doors planed and sanded by an agent of the contractor to
relieve sticking, are now sticking. This is another indication that the structure
continues to move.
February 4, 2007
• New cracks were observed in the roof rafters in areas were the original analysis,
Reference (a), predicted overstressed areas.
Conclusion:
Generally, the structure show signs of continued movement. This due to an overloading
condition identified in the first report in the roof system.
The main issue continues to be attic floor system, which is installed parallel with the roof
ridge instead of perpendicular to the ridge as is required by the building code. This
exerts an outward thrust load on the walls and over loads the roof ridges that is not
resolved elsewhere in the structure. The floor decking can not act as a membrane to
relieve the roof thrust loads because it is not connected to the exterior walls. Note that
these structural conditions manifest themselves under the static (self) weight of the
house. No significant snow loads have been exerted on this roof to date. Until the roof
system is stabilized, the roof support structure will continue to degrade. A significant
snow or wind load on this roof system could be the cause a catastrophic event.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
web site |
Bowisc
|
posted 26 February 2007 09:06 CET
D.R. Horton:
We have moved into our new D.R. Horton home, but boy, was it a nightmare during the construction process. Between unskilled sub-contractors and superintendents that are very good at deception and scare-tactics, this made things stressful. Having my own inspector did help a lot, but still this is not what people should have to go through.
I have tons of photos showing the shady workmanship (if it even qualifies as such), and what is worse is that the superintendents are incompetent and don't care. It's no wonder because their bosses are just the same. You go and complain to them and the customer is always wrong.
Everytime I drive by the sales office and see people going in, I feel very sorry for them. They have no idea that once they sign their contract, they will get nothing but broken promises and slick marketing phrases to keep them at a distance from the truth. |
Craig Winsor
|
posted 24 February 2007 21:14 CET
We have removed our message from our window to avoid any fines, as the HOA had not responded to our letter.
http://flickr.com/photos/cwinsor/387626435/
Since we removed our message we added a banner, which starches across our “living” space.
http://flickr.com/photos/cwinsor/393509424/
It can be scene pretty clear when you drive by our building and I don’t see how we could not be in compliance with the HOA.
http://flickr.com/photos/cwinsor/393509420/
In the last few weeks our site, http://www.warehamsux.com, appears to be moving to the top of Google when you search Wareham Development. So if you are in the mood to link please feel free. Thanks! |
Greg Bowden
|
posted 21 February 2007 17:42 CET
Pulte Homes-Corruption
http://corruptionatpultehomes.blogspot.com/ |
MELISSA B. LOPRETTO
|
posted 19 February 2007 10:17 CET
I have been a victim of mortgage fraud by KB Home. I have also been a victim of construction defects and deceptive lending practices. KB sold the house to me for more than it was worth as they had a 7 month trainee appraise the house. I need help to get out of this! |
Ivy Herrera
|
posted 14 February 2007 21:18 CET
My family and I moved from California due to a job relocation. We were so excited to purchase a home until we have now realized that it has been a complete homeowner's nightmare. Ever since we have moved into our KB HOME, we have had problems from the day we had moved in. Some of the serious problems was the first week, the main water pipe of has busted because a nail protruded through it. We wondered why it was so hot in our home..it was because there was no insulation in the attic then later finding out there were other locations that did not have it as well. There are numerous ceiling separations on the 2nd floor. We are unable to use our 2nd floor shower because there is a major water leak in the tub and now almost the entire floor has water damage. LET ME REMIND YOU THAT MY HOME IS ONLY 6 MONTHS OLD. My Master shower..which is the only shower I have for the family of 5 to shower in is leaking as well and has to be sopped up after each shower. WHY SHOULD I GO THROUGH THIS WITH A NEW HOUSE? The main water pipe pipe was supposed to be placed in the living room ceiling when it was supposed to be in the garage.
We have no access to this main water pipe of the house in case of a leak in the future. I have no curb in the entire length of my home, so everyone's water when rains...drains into my lawn.
These listed here are just the most important issues which has brought us to a boiling point of wanting KB to just buy this lemon home back from us. We have a 3 page list from the day we moved in.
The time that was supposed to be exciting with buying a new home has been a complete nightmare and very draining experience for my family. If my house is doing this now, what is it going to do in 1 year or even 5 years? It's scary and I don't want to be here to find out!  |
Craig Winsor
|
posted 9 February 2007 20:32 CET
Help! We were sent a letter to remove our message in our window -- http://flickr.com/photos/cwinsor/380006376/. We responded, but the HOA just had their lawyer ask us to give him a call to mediate, but he just tried to convince us to remove the message. We responded with a letter stating we felt they were unjust due to the following CC&R's...
Subject to provisions of Section 13.11, no sign of any kind shall be displayed from any Condominium that is visible from any other Condominium except the following:
(i)any sign advertising the Condominium for sale or rent, provided that: (a) no more than one sign is used, (b) the size, type, color, design and quality of the sin meets and guidelines adopted by the Architectural Committee; and (c) the sign is displayed within the area designated by the Board; or
(ii)any sign approved by the Board either on an individual basis or pursuant to Rules adopted by the Board
When I called our HOA management company he said they will not be responding and to call him on Monday, which he states is 10 days even though that is based on the date sent. He said then we can tell him if we are going to remove the message.
Craig
http://www.warehamsux.com |
Rumple Stiltskin
|
posted 5 February 2007 08:55 CET
YouTube it....
A system has been created which allows some corporate/public new house builders to avoid accountability and responsibility for those houses they produce which are shoddy or defective. My corporate/public new house builder was given the benefit of the doubt and entrusted with the opportunity, "to do the right thing." My corporate/public new house builder, experienced in matters of this type, chose another course of action. Perhaps recognizing their ability to stonewall, and sweep under the carpet, any disgruntled customers who got less than what they paid for. There was very little opportunity for the corporate/public new house buider's behavior to receive the public attention it deserved, nor very little economically viable recourse for the cheated new house buyer to pursue in an attempt to be made whole. Fortunately, the Internet is available for disclosures to be made for the benefit of all new house shoppers who may face a similar fate. |
 |
 |
|
Guestbook Home | Get This Guestbook | Get Joomla! Mambook v2.5. Copyright © 2003-2006 by Saka.
|
|
Home 
Washington Post
