Persimmon Homes -- CEO £100m Bonus...

[crankedup]

blueg33 said:

Gunk said:

This is all true, however I think we are at an all time low with the quality of architecture on new home developments, most are derivative, designed on a computer to get through planning and produce the largest yield per acre. The result are housing estates with boring three storey town houses and double fronted detached houses all nodding to the past with fake tiny sash windows and pseudo period features. Where is the flair, imagination or progression?

Edited by Gunk on Thursday 21st December 17:04

I agree, but I think you will find the same with all volume housing, every town has identikit Victorian housing, identikit 1930's, identikit 1950's etc

Volume housing is like volume cars to that extent, it is not economic to be radically different, or architecturally interesting beyond the basic stuff, and plotting efficiency is vital, if you don't get that you don't buy the land and you are very quickly out of business.

To prove things can be better, though here are some I did earlier:




This won architectural awards


And then there are those built for a wider market, eg volume



and then there are the ones where the tax payer is footing the bill



Basically, the less money the customer has the less interesting the architecture.

In all fairness they do look fabulous, especially the image at the top of the series. Sits very well in its surroundings and looks a credit to the architect and looks well built.

[franki68]

blueg33 said:

crankedup said:

blueg33 said:

crankedup said:

blueg33 said:

crankedup said:

An old pal who worked in the construction industry some thirty years ago simply said to me
‘whatever you buy never buy a new build’.
Meanwhile Bovis Homes have made it into our BBC regional news broadcast. Building site at
Milton Keynes has twenty or so new home owners fairly disgruntled at the state of thier new homes. In some cases fire risk is apparent and a threat. Bouncy floors, gutter down pipes leading down to and adjacent to airbricks but no drain. Removal of a section of external walling revealed a truely shocking Just some of the snags that two years after complaints by owners still have to be resolved. On site quality control can be blamed but are the target demands unreasonable for the reward? Why people still decide to buy new houses remains a mystery to me, other than because it’s an easier less stressful process than buying an established older home.
I expect their company profits are climbing nicely, shame about the customer services though.

A friend said to me "never pay taxes", another said "never buy a Ford" that sort of stuff is meaningless.

Its well known that Bovis had issues caused by rushing jobs through for the year end, it cost the CEO his job earlier this year and they are playing catch up to sort them out. That doesn't mean that all new builds are a problem, its like saying "I bought a mouldy tomato from Tesco, therefore all tomatoes are mouldy". Its an idiotic statement to make.

Generally new builds are built to a higher standard than any volume houses for the masses have ever been built to, but on the basis of a few anecdotes and perceived bks people think that a Victorian Terrace or a 1930's semi is better built

Wrong imo, first hand experiences from a good pal that worked in the industry tells me just how crap new build is. Not only that I have been around long enough, bought and sold so many properties I have lost count, looked at new builds with my critical eye in. You can use all of the meaningless and inappropriate antecdotes you like, it doesn’t change realities.
So far as the comparison to today’s new build v Victorian, the only thing I can say is that the Victorian build didn’t understand thermal insulation, other than that i torian wins out hands down.

So far as Bovis is concerned, they got caught out this time, who’s next I wonder for they are all ste.

It may be your opinion, but quantitatively what you are spouting is plainly wrong.

I am not talking anecdotes as you have, I am not talking about "my mate says" or "I bought a house but..."

I am in the industry and have been for over 30 years, I am a chartered surveyor who has done his fair share of structural surveys when I was in agency, and I have seen good and bad of all types of houses. I have fired construction directors and site managers for crappy build, I have promoted people for good build, I have run house builders with the highest customer care ratings in the industry, I have inspect 1000's of new homes, I know what I am talking about.

Overall, new homes are:

better built
built to a higher standard with better materials (I would probably exclude soft wood skirting boards from the better materials bit)
built with better understanding of ground bearing capabilities,
built with a better understanding of structural loads
built with better moisture management
built with better plumbing and better electrics
built with an understanding of management of radon and ground gasses
built with better heating
built with better insulation
built with better understanding of solar gain
built with wall ties that are properly tested and installed (many properties built from 1910 to 1970's have issues with wall ties failure
built with closer supervision to ensure adherence to building regs

the list goes on

Please don't spout anecdotal crap to people who actually know about this stuff. Anecdotal crap is not fact its just anecdotal crap based on a sample size so small that its insignificant.

You are stating technical improvements that are built into houses, what I am saying is the houses built are rubbish. New shiny copper pipes are fine if the walls underneath the plaster are well built, they are not in too many instances.. The other stuff you mention is fine on paper, it just don’t get built to the standard required. You can stamp your feet all day and tell me how good an expert you think you are, but the houses are rubbish. now advise me why new build mass market homes are built like ste You could be god almighty for all I care the fact remains that new builds are thrown up by tradespeople who just want to earn and go. No interest in the product at all, designed down to a cost for max profit.
So far as design is concerned, what you spout is simply regulatory ‘as long as it complies ‘ it will do. Maybe you should get out more and have a close look at these new builds from the customers pov.

You remain wrong and easily led by popularist modern myth.

I or one of the other directors personally visit every plot during build and post snagging prior to handover and have fond for 20 years. We can spot stuff that the average buyer will never see. The vast majority of plots handed over are good. The fact that you think that senior management doesn't visit sits shows how far away from reality your stance is.

We have converted Victorian properties. Strip off the pretty corniced and deep skirting and a world of horrors awaits .

Edited by blueg33 on Thursday 21st December 20:20

I have a reasonable portfolio of properties ,mostly new builds and some old .I have significantly more issues with new builds .
Particularly plumbing is atrocious in new builds.

[blueg33]

SpeckledJim said:

I can appreciate the list of benefits to modern houses is very long.

But why does an interior wall have to flex when you lean on it? When a door shuts the whole room shudders.

It makes the whole house feel like it was lobbed-up, and it's why I won't buy one.

Simple - cost.

We have built lots of houses with solid walls upstairs and downstairs, concrete floors upstairs too so very solid, but even 10 years ago houses with this sort of spec needed to start at about £800k, and that just does not work for volume housebuilding.

A Rolls Royce feels much more solid than a Ford Fiesta, but if Ford made Fiestas to that spec people couldn't and wouldn't pay the money.

I just don't see why people don't get it.

We did a lovely house in Little Aston a few years ago, (its where Aston Villa footballers, estate agents and Birmingham gangsters live), very solid house, but the staircase alone cost £20k.

Edited by blueg33 on Friday 22 December 11:44

[blueg33]

crankedup said:

In all fairness they do look fabulous, especially the image at the top of the series. Sits very well in its surroundings and looks a credit to the architect and looks well built.

Thanks. The house at the top is one of 4 we building the grounds of an Edwardian Manor House called Netherswell Manor. We converted the Manor into another 4 houses some quite large.

The conversion was a nightmare, the original roof structure was totally unsuitable for the weight of the original tiles, we had to remove and replace the whole roof. The foundations were just shallow (20cm) rubble causing the double height bays to subside, we had to remake most of the foundations.

The surface stuff like stair cases etc was and still is lovely, but that stuff is just a suit of clothes, the body underneath was not in great shape.

The architect is a local one to where I live and is very good, but very expensive. I have done a few Cotswold jobs with them.

[crankedup]

blueg33 said:

SpeckledJim said:

I can appreciate the list of benefits to modern houses is very long.

But why does an interior wall have to flex when you lean on it? When a door shuts the whole room shudders.

It makes the whole house feel like it was lobbed-up, and it's why I won't buy one.

Simple - cost.

We have built lots of houses with solid walls upstairs and downstairs, concrete floors upstairs too so very solid, but even 10 years ago houses with this sort of spec needed to start at about £800k, and that just does not work for volume housebuilding.

A Rolls Royce feels much more solid than a Ford Fiesta, but if Ford made Fiestas to that spec people couldn't and wouldn't pay the money.

I just don't see why people don't get it.

We did a lovely house in Little Aston a few years ago, (its where Aston Villa footballers, estate agents and Birmingham gangsters live), very solid house, but the staircase alone cost £20k.

Edited by blueg33 on Friday 22 December 11:44

Fixtures and fittings can obviously add to the cost of any house, I think it’s a case of value for money and quality of construction that is in question here, certainly from my perspective. Showhomes are built to a better finish than the development in total, or they always used to be.
Are there any penalties applied to contractors when they carry out work be.ow set standards
I perhaps do not appreciate the quality controls set on site regarding the phases of build
I have vague recollections of award winning builds but these seem to have died out, does the Industry still use these as incentives to build quality?
I only speak from a customer pov and clearly do not know the answers to the issues raised. My preconceptions are deeply ingrained and reinforced when the media stir up development site issues.
I would expect smaller developers to build out to far higher standards than the big boysThis on the basis of tighter quality control, pride in the job, a use and use again work force, local reputation. By smaller I mean not listed on SM.

[blueg33]

crankedup said:

Fixtures and fittings can obviously add to the cost of any house, I think it’s a case of value for money and quality of construction that is in question here, certainly from my perspective. Showhomes are built to a better finish than the development in total, or they always used to be.
Are there any penalties applied to contractors when they carry out work be.ow set standards
I perhaps do not appreciate the quality controls set on site regarding the phases of build
I have vague recollections of award winning builds but these seem to have died out, does the Industry still use these as incentives to build quality?
I only speak from a customer pov and clearly do not know the answers to the issues raised. My preconceptions are deeply ingrained and reinforced when the media stir up development site issues.
I would expect smaller developers to build out to far higher standards than the big boysThis on the basis of tighter quality control, pride in the job, a use and use again work force, local reputation. By smaller I mean not listed on SM.

My show homes are always built to the same standard as the rest of the site, in some cases the spec on kitchens and bathrooms may include extras, that's for the sales Director and team to sort out.

Contractors usually carry the defects liability for at least 12 months so have to come and fix things. In terms of penalties it depends on how the contract is placed. We use JCT contracts which incorporate a liquidated damages so there can be a cost to the contractor. I currently have one development that is late on delivery because the contractor is an idiot, its costing him £16k per week.

There are still awards, the main one is the NHBC Pride in the Job award which is awarded to site managers. The NHBC reps visit the site regularly and the award is based on every aspect of the build. Its quite difficult to win, but the same site managers win over and over again and that's because their sites are the best. As I said before, a lot of the quality and especially finish issues are down to site management.

In my experience smaller developers are less good because they don't have the buying power, so they pay more for lower spec kitchens for example. Again site management still makes a difference and if the owner of the company is on site all the time acting as site manager then the trades may produce better quality, but not always.

You hit the nail on the head, perceptions are deeply ingrained and reinforced by the media, but that doesn't make them right. people forget about the 1000's of acres of Victorian sums that have been cleared, the millions of 1930's houses where wooden wall ties have failed etc.

materials and techniques get better over time and a volume house is probably better than its ever been. Where there is a loss is in the fancy stuff, its hard to find people with skills to shape lead details on hips, make a drystone wall, to carve stone features or lay knapped flint. This is a major loss to the industry, but the losses occur because the cost of doing these things in every house is too high. That's where the Victorians had the edge, labour was cheap, so you could get pretty cornices, carved quoins and dressed stone for a fraction of todays prices. But whilst these impact on the visuals, they do not impact on the structural integrity or longevity.

The top house that you liked of my pics was one of the most expensive 4 bedroom houses I have ever had built, that's why it look so good.

[Foliage]

As percentage of profit this is insane.

[drainbrain]

I have bought, sold and owned many (perhaps 1000) properties in my lifetime.

A flat in this new build block by Barratt is far and away the worst property I ever owned. It would take a very long post to detail all the reasons why.

It was horrible to own, was never let (it would have disintegrated) and didn't give me a good feeling about selling:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Main+St,+Glasg...


Conversely I have just taken tenancy in a new(ish, 2004) build flat. It's excellent. Really excellent. So good I might even buy it!

[rustyuk]

We moved last January and must have viewed 10 or more new builds. All used the same cheap doors. Quality was shocking.

This was around £500k in the Midlands so not cheap developments.

There was no noticeable difference between the large house builders and small independents.

[Yipper]

Foliage said:

As percentage of profit this is insane.

It is based on shareprice performance, and is "not bad" in that context (billions of uplift).

Where people are (rightly) getting shirty is:

1. The Persimmon share performance has been artifically exaggerated by free money from government bribes in its help-to-buy-votes scheme. Shares have been lifted primarily by the government, less so by Persimmon execs.

2. Roughly 97% of Persimmon staff get jacksh*t from the massive bonus pool. They do their share of the work, but don't get their share of the bonus pool. It is corporate looting by the 1-3% holding the purse strings.

[blueg33]

Yipper said:

2. Roughly 97% of Persimmon staff get jacksh*t from the massive bonus pool. They do their share of the work, but don't get their share of the bonus pool. It is corporate looting by the 1-3% holding the purse strings.

Are you Persimmon staff? All staff do get bonus at persimmon based on individual, regional and group performance.

However, the £100m is IMO (as someone in the industry) insane and completely unjustified and not typical of the sector.

[jjlynn27]

blueg33 said:

I quite like the one on the right (if it's a single family house). Any ideas where that is? (I'd like more pictures of that particular house).

[crankedup]

blueg33 said:

crankedup said:

Fixtures and fittings can obviously add to the cost of any house, I think it’s a case of value for money and quality of construction that is in question here, certainly from my perspective. Showhomes are built to a better finish than the development in total, or they always used to be.
Are there any penalties applied to contractors when they carry out work be.ow set standards
I perhaps do not appreciate the quality controls set on site regarding the phases of build
I have vague recollections of award winning builds but these seem to have died out, does the Industry still use these as incentives to build quality?
I only speak from a customer pov and clearly do not know the answers to the issues raised. My preconceptions are deeply ingrained and reinforced when the media stir up development site issues.
I would expect smaller developers to build out to far higher standards than the big boysThis on the basis of tighter quality control, pride in the job, a use and use again work force, local reputation. By smaller I mean not listed on SM.

My show homes are always built to the same standard as the rest of the site, in some cases the spec on kitchens and bathrooms may include extras, that's for the sales Director and team to sort out.

Contractors usually carry the defects liability for at least 12 months so have to come and fix things. In terms of penalties it depends on how the contract is placed. We use JCT contracts which incorporate a liquidated damages so there can be a cost to the contractor. I currently have one development that is late on delivery because the contractor is an idiot, its costing him £16k per week.

There are still awards, the main one is the NHBC Pride in the Job award which is awarded to site managers. The NHBC reps visit the site regularly and the award is based on every aspect of the build. Its quite difficult to win, but the same site managers win over and over again and that's because their sites are the best. As I said before, a lot of the quality and especially finish issues are down to site management.

In my experience smaller developers are less good because they don't have the buying power, so they pay more for lower spec kitchens for example. Again site management still makes a difference and if the owner of the company is on site all the time acting as site manager then the trades may produce better quality, but not always.

You hit the nail on the head, perceptions are deeply ingrained and reinforced by the media, but that doesn't make them right. people forget about the 1000's of acres of Victorian sums that have been cleared, the millions of 1930's houses where wooden wall ties have failed etc.

materials and techniques get better over time and a volume house is probably better than its ever been. Where there is a loss is in the fancy stuff, its hard to find people with skills to shape lead details on hips, make a drystone wall, to carve stone features or lay knapped flint. This is a major loss to the industry, but the losses occur because the cost of doing these things in every house is too high. That's where the Victorians had the edge, labour was cheap, so you could get pretty cornices, carved quoins and dressed stone for a fraction of todays prices. But whilst these impact on the visuals, they do not impact on the structural integrity or longevity.

The top house that you liked of my pics was one of the most expensive 4 bedroom houses I have ever had built, that's why it look so good.

sounds fair enough, I said earlier that I bow to your professional knowledge and it is perceptions that are ingrained from bad earlier experiences. I an equally sure that many builders out there provide good quality homes, it’s rather a shame that some of the major builders SEEM TO focus upon the profit (I know that’s essential) but seem to loose sight that the product is a family home. Maybe I am a bit harsh earlier in the discussion.and needed to broaden out the discussion.

[James_B]

crankedup said:

Yes that’s a lesson from many decades ago, and it hasn’t changed much, it can still work for some people. However, many of these Director level jobs and above are very much closed shop. You need to be known and it helps to have some well placed pals to assist in door opening. Much like the remnumeration boards which are a merry go around of well connected people.

Possibly, but I was only ever “known” by my work. I’m from a crappy state comp, and so like most have no “pals” from prior to my career to help out.

I do know a lot of people from all the years working though, as would anyone with the same experience.

That’s not what a closed shop is, though, it’s just sensible, you trust people who have the skills and who you know to be reliable.

[James_B]

John145 said:

t
I stated an example of risk but I guess if risk for you is only £££ then you won’t understand.

You’re really not understanding what people are writing, are you?

I took a risk walking away from a civil service job, I took a risk moving into trading, where the job is pretty likely to spot you out if you fall short. How can you read that and see only pound signs.

You were not taking a risk, doing your job well and signing it off correctly. Doing your job well and sticking with it is not a risk, so doesn’t carry a risk premium.

May I ask, as you feel that you have been underpaid, how much do you think you should have got for calibrating something that it was your job to calibrate?

[blueg33]

jjlynn27 said:

blueg33 said:

I quite like the one on the right (if it's a single family house). Any ideas where that is? (I'd like more pictures of that particular house).

Its in Tewkesbury Gloucestershire. Its a standard Miller Homes housetype tweaked a bit in terms of floor area. It is a detached house, I can't for the life of me remember the name of the housetype. I found the pic on Rightmove as I have archived all my photos of that site.

[blueg33]

crankedup said:

blueg33 said:

crankedup said:

Fixtures and fittings can obviously add to the cost of any house, I think it’s a case of value for money and quality of construction that is in question here, certainly from my perspective. Showhomes are built to a better finish than the development in total, or they always used to be.
Are there any penalties applied to contractors when they carry out work be.ow set standards
I perhaps do not appreciate the quality controls set on site regarding the phases of build
I have vague recollections of award winning builds but these seem to have died out, does the Industry still use these as incentives to build quality?
I only speak from a customer pov and clearly do not know the answers to the issues raised. My preconceptions are deeply ingrained and reinforced when the media stir up development site issues.
I would expect smaller developers to build out to far higher standards than the big boysThis on the basis of tighter quality control, pride in the job, a use and use again work force, local reputation. By smaller I mean not listed on SM.

My show homes are always built to the same standard as the rest of the site, in some cases the spec on kitchens and bathrooms may include extras, that's for the sales Director and team to sort out.

Contractors usually carry the defects liability for at least 12 months so have to come and fix things. In terms of penalties it depends on how the contract is placed. We use JCT contracts which incorporate a liquidated damages so there can be a cost to the contractor. I currently have one development that is late on delivery because the contractor is an idiot, its costing him £16k per week.

There are still awards, the main one is the NHBC Pride in the Job award which is awarded to site managers. The NHBC reps visit the site regularly and the award is based on every aspect of the build. Its quite difficult to win, but the same site managers win over and over again and that's because their sites are the best. As I said before, a lot of the quality and especially finish issues are down to site management.

In my experience smaller developers are less good because they don't have the buying power, so they pay more for lower spec kitchens for example. Again site management still makes a difference and if the owner of the company is on site all the time acting as site manager then the trades may produce better quality, but not always.

You hit the nail on the head, perceptions are deeply ingrained and reinforced by the media, but that doesn't make them right. people forget about the 1000's of acres of Victorian sums that have been cleared, the millions of 1930's houses where wooden wall ties have failed etc.

materials and techniques get better over time and a volume house is probably better than its ever been. Where there is a loss is in the fancy stuff, its hard to find people with skills to shape lead details on hips, make a drystone wall, to carve stone features or lay knapped flint. This is a major loss to the industry, but the losses occur because the cost of doing these things in every house is too high. That's where the Victorians had the edge, labour was cheap, so you could get pretty cornices, carved quoins and dressed stone for a fraction of todays prices. But whilst these impact on the visuals, they do not impact on the structural integrity or longevity.

The top house that you liked of my pics was one of the most expensive 4 bedroom houses I have ever had built, that's why it look so good.

sounds fair enough, I said earlier that I bow to your professional knowledge and it is perceptions that are ingrained from bad earlier experiences. I an equally sure that many builders out there provide good quality homes, it’s rather a shame that some of the major builders SEEM TO focus upon the profit (I know that’s essential) but seem to loose sight that the product is a family home. Maybe I am a bit harsh earlier in the discussion.and needed to broaden out the discussion.

Thanks that's fair comment, like all things the bad news stories always make more noise than the good ones. Sadly, profit has to be a focus, we all have shareholders to look after, in fact, if you have a pension you probably own some house builder shares and possibly some of the assets my current business builds.

I have worked for a few of the big companies, at a regional level they have all been aware that they are building family homes. A lot of time and effort is spent trying to get the houses right, a lot of R&D too. The more right the houses are, the easier they are to sell and the quicker the profit is turned round.

On the R&D front, to give an example. When I was at Miller we were unhappy with the way weatherdeck floor systems and engineered joists could lead to squeaky floors. We tried about ten different systems for fixing the weatherdeck floor sheets and were instrumental in developing a new type of fastener. That's not stuff any buyer can see and non squeaky floors get taken for granted

[crankedup]

James_B said:

crankedup said:

Yes that’s a lesson from many decades ago, and it hasn’t changed much, it can still work for some people. However, many of these Director level jobs and above are very much closed shop. You need to be known and it helps to have some well placed pals to assist in door opening. Much like the remnumeration boards which are a merry go around of well connected people.

Possibly, but I was only ever “known” by my work. I’m from a crappy state comp, and so like most have no “pals” from prior to my career to help out.

I do know a lot of people from all the years working though, as would anyone with the same experience.

That’s not what a closed shop is, though, it’s just sensible, you trust people who have the skills and who you know to be reliable.

I was referring to the CEO and Director level on listed Companies. On one hand people say that experience within a given industry is not required as such they Manager Company strategy. On the other hand others will say, as you yourself say, and I agree, it is sensible to have Management that have knowledge in depth of the industry which they head-up. I understand that the CEO Persimmon has climbed the greasy pole, but still the Company have quality problems. Have to agree that these issues are for on site quality control to address.

So far as my closed shop analogy is concerned, I believe it happens within all industry and businesses to a greater or lesser extent. Good example can be seen with our former Chancellor of Exchequer now. newspaper editor! How the *&#@ can that be anything but old chums.

[Kuji]

crankedup said:

James_B said:

crankedup said:

Yes that’s a lesson from many decades ago, and it hasn’t changed much, it can still work for some people. However, many of these Director level jobs and above are very much closed shop. You need to be known and it helps to have some well placed pals to assist in door opening. Much like the remnumeration boards which are a merry go around of well connected people.

Possibly, but I was only ever “known” by my work. I’m from a crappy state comp, and so like most have no “pals” from prior to my career to help out.

I do know a lot of people from all the years working though, as would anyone with the same experience.

That’s not what a closed shop is, though, it’s just sensible, you trust people who have the skills and who you know to be reliable.

I was referring to the CEO and Director level on listed Companies. On one hand people say that experience within a given industry is not required as such they Manager Company strategy. On the other hand others will say, as you yourself say, and I agree, it is sensible to have Management that have knowledge in depth of the industry which they head-up. I understand that the CEO Persimmon has climbed the greasy pole, but still the Company have quality problems. Have to agree that these issues are for on site quality control to address.

So far as my closed shop analogy is concerned, I believe it happens within all industry and businesses to a greater or lesser extent. Good example can be seen with our former Chancellor of Exchequer now. newspaper editor! How the *&#@ can that be anything but old chums.

It's more about quotas in the countries big boardrooms now.

What you are is much more important than who you know.

[TooMany2cvs]

There's an estate of 20-odd going up near here. They seem to be slot-together metal frames, presumably with some kind of panel to fit to the frame. Looks bloody odd - it's basically a muddy field of Meccano.