Homebond or not?

minnow

I've in the process of buying a house which is almost complete. Fully plastered, tiling, flooring etc ongoing.
The house is not currently covered by Homebond, but has been followed throughout the build by a Chartered Engineer, who will sign of the certs. The builder is registered with Homebond.

My solicitor has suggested that if I want protection against structural issues I should ask the builder to put the Homebond cover in place. The builder said this is possible (for EUR 700) but that it isn't worth doing. He said that it won't offer me any protection above what I have through the Chartered Engineer sign off, and that in the case of problems, Homebond would only go after the engineer who signed it off. He reckons I'll be paying twice for the assurance. He said that the 2014 change to the building regs put much more responsibility and liability on the engineer.

Can anybody cast some light on this? Is it worth getting Homebond ?

(I did question whether he can really get the cover at this stage given that normally Homebond would want to witness the key stages of the build. He said that he can get by providing the engineers reports).

Thoie

I have no professional experience, but anyone I've known who had homebond and found structural issues invariably found that those very specific issues were excluded :rolleyes:

imnorobot

Thoie wrote: »

I have no professional experience, but anyone I've known who had homebond and found structural issues invariably found that those very specific issues were excluded :rolleyes:

Yep would concur
Homebond is not worth the paper its printed on
when we had problems with the chimney we were told by Homebond to go to our insurance co even though the chimney had not been constructed properly
Useless

sydthebeat

Firstly, if the build was commenced pre 2014 then the 2014 bca regs most likely don't apply.

Secondly, if the house commenced without HOMEBOND insurance than it's unlikely they will cover it now, so the conversation may be mute.

minnow

sydthebeat wrote: »

Firstly, if the build was commenced pre 2014 then the 2014 bca regs most likely don't apply.

Secondly, if the house commenced without HOMEBOND insurance than it's unlikely they will cover it now, so the conversation may be mute.

Build started in 2015, so new regs apply.

Re: retrospective Homebond, I was also sceptical, but builder has dealt with them in the past and is adamant that it is possible to get cover (they will accept the engineer's surveys in lieu of their typical inspections.

Question is: is it worth getting it?

sydthebeat

minnow wrote: »

Build started in 2015, so new regs apply.

Re: retrospective Homebond, I was also sceptical, but builder has dealt with them in the past and is adamant that it is possible to get cover (they will accept the engineer's surveys in lieu of their typical inspections.

Question is: is it worth getting it?

The engineers certificate is not a guarantee or warrantee.

Homebond cover structural issues ONLY and only in the event the original professional can't cover.

For 700, it's up to you

minnow

sydthebeat wrote: »

Homebond cover structural issues ONLY and only in the event the original professional can't cover.

What do you mean "if the original professional can't cover"? Does the builder have to remedy anything once the house has been handed over?

I know that 700 is steep, but for 10 years cover it is not too bad.

I suppose to make the question more realistic, I could ask: what would I do if the house develops structural cracks in 5 years? Do I have any comeback to the builder or engineer? Would I be in a better position if I have Homebond?

893bet

Thought the "new" (or are they the old ones now u can opt out) regs made the engineer responsible for defects? Or their insurance at least. If not what's the point of paying so much for the AC role.

DOCARCH

893bet wrote: »

Thought the "new" regs made the engineer responsible for defects?

That's what Phil Hogan would have liked you to believe...but...it is not the case.

Under the 'new' regs, if you felt the engineer is/was at fault, then off to the courts with you, and take that gamble with potential costs!

minnow

DOCARCH wrote: »

That's what Phil Hogan would have liked you to believe...but...it is not the case.

Under the 'new' regs, if you felt the engineer is/was at fault, then off to the courts with you, and take that gamble with potential costs!

So for you Docarch, taking Homebond is the "safer" option? i.e. we'll be in a better position if we have a structural problem ?

BryanF

sydthebeat wrote: »

.

Secondly, if the house commenced without HOMEBOND insurance than it's unlikely they will cover it now, so the conversation may be mute.

Op
Assuming the above. Would you not be better off with your own insurance ?

minnow

BryanF wrote: »

Op
Assuming the above. Would you not be better off with your own insurance ?

What type of insurance do you mean BryanF ?

minnow

Some internet searching gave me following result:
"There are a least 4 Insurance companies offering structural warranties in Ireland, Global Home Warranties (see link here) , Build-Zone Structural warranties (see link here) and Core Warranty (see link here). The other insurance company offering structural defects insurance in Ireland is Homebond (see link here).
We have been kindly informed by a reader that although UK based, BuildZone and Self-Build Zone have been providing structural warranties in Ireland for over 5 years."

From http://www.bregsforum.com/2014/06/16/what-is-latent-defects-insurance-and-how-much-does-it-cost/

Has anybody used any insurer other than Homebond ?