homeowners 9and engineers0 beware1 it could happen to you

huangyhg

homeowners (and engineers) beware! it could happen to you.
i thought i'd pass along a site that i saw a year or so ago and recently visited again. it's a rather in-depth "diary" of the problems one homeowner is having with their home. in an ironic twist, i visited a project site that we got a call to perform testing on new fill but apparently the fill was already being placed. the "developer/contractor" told me today that the old undocumented fill (10'+) and old storm aluminized steel pipe under a planned building pad was no problem because the structure would act just like a house and float up there...huh.
anyway, this site is worth passing around to your collegues. it might be worth keeping in the back of your mind the next time you're on a project site. if anyone happens to know the congressman for the area of this falling-in house, it sure would be a good deed to put in a good word for this person (by the way, i have no connection to them personally). this is sort of my "good deed" by passing the website link along.
reminds me of an area on the outskirts of brooklyn years ago. the houses were built on fill and iirc a ten year wait is necessary.they built the houses before ten years on slabs.the worst case had a 12" wide crack in the slab !
i have read the entire site, in detail, and although i am not in a position to comment professionally, here is the jist of my view:
1.  the house was built on soils which were not specifically tested for susceptibility to expansive soil actions.  i should think the subdivision was tested for expansive soil susceptibility, however this may not have found the issue at this site.  if the issues were known, and the design was not carried out to address this, my following points are moot.
2.  the home owner's reaction has been emotive and aggressive.  the builder may have failed in their duty of care, however simply rejecting all possible remediation in favour of pressing for a buy-back is not condusive to a solution.
3.   the professional reports have been thorough and well measured in their advice.  the option 3 solution would likely result in an effective repair, and a home without expansive soil issues.  the cracked windows are the only point which may complicate this, however coupled with greater drainage as required by the proposed solution, this should also be aleviated.
4.  the home owner's insurance situation is something the owner has grabbed onto and repeats numerous times.  i would find it hard to believe that the home, once repaired in accordance with the selected option 3 proposal, would not be insurable.  i would be very interested to hear anyone who could explain how or why this might be the case.
at the end of the day this home will never be this person's dream castle... but i think that pulte should be given the opportunity to repair the home in accordance with the professional advice they have received.  if i were the home owner i would press for an extension of the warranty to cover cosmetic defects for 18 months after the work scheme were carried out.  also the timber i-joists should be recertified by the manufacturer (through repair or inspection) or otherwise replaced.  beyond this i do not believe the owner's emotive responce has been at all helpful.
residential home owners make the most difficult clients.  they want to pay for a a suzuki swift and get a rolls-royce...  it just doesn't work that way in real-world economics.
anyone else have an opinion on this case?
cheers,
ys
there is a lot of internet activism in the us about allegedly poor construction of houses.  it is understandable and i imagine effective in some instances.  part of it is due to the contracts people sign in which they agree not to sue and rather accept binding arbitration.  i am sure there are some shonky house builders there, just as probably everywhere else in the world.  unfortunately, homeowners often have no one knowedgeable enough to protect their interest during construction.
it would be interesting to know the final outcome of this case.

just looking through a few pages of the site, it looks to me like it is indeed a bad house, but the owner seems to be a good bit of the problem, too.  maybe if i had paid $300,000 for it, i might feel differently myself, though.
i'll throw in my two cents. everyone here should take off their engineer or architect hat for just a minute and think about being "the average homeowner"........ok now, put the hat back on (and remember the fundamental oaths we take when we became professionals).
i think the homeowner has every right to be outraged. these are not even remotely close to "cosmetic" problems in my opinion...these are a slow and agonizing failure of the structure on multiple fronts. situations like this are exactly why my firm doesn't deal with residential work. the vast majority of developers are only concerned with high profits, cutting corners, do not perform necessary design/analysis/testing related to the site or structure,etc. the only line of defense is the building inspector which may be doing (or even able to do) little in the way of helping the future homeowner. the inspector is on site on a limited basis and is no engineer. the times i've dealt with neighborhood developments, i was shocked to learn how much profit the developers make on each lot and then to see what kind of crap they put in/under houses.
i think the homeowner should be "difficult" because the developer will do everything possible (legal or otherwise) to keep from having to fix all the problems. if the developer makes a minor so called "fix", they will then be able to say "see, i've put all this time/money in to fixing the problem so i'm done". the homeowner is the lone sheep with limited funds while the developer has a team of high paid lawyers and deep pockets.
i would like to hear how the issurance company can get away with dropping coverage since that seems very shady...i'd consider filing a complaint with the better business bureau since this sort of situation is exactly what insurance is for...they should not be allowed to drop coverage due to this one house.
as far as the contract, i'm sure it's like every other contract...intentionally long, infused with lawyer jargon, disclaimers, etc. unfortunately, the homeowner did sign it. however, the homeowner may still have a case if it was not written in a manner that is understandable to the homeowner. the homeowner is not a lawyer or engineer or otherwise and has a right to not be taken advantage of. on a flipped argument, a homeowner's real estate agent should be there to help the homeowner avoid some of those landmines. either way, given the age of the house and the resulting destruction that is occurring, the developer should be fully liable to purchase the house back from the owner. i could see how this sort of language would apply to some situations but may also be construed as unreasonable given the damage that has occurred...i think a court might throw this part out of the contract.
if i recall correctly, there are little known laws that protect the residential home owner from poor foundation conditions...it seems like i re  
do you honestly believe that this home should be bought back?
obviously there are flaws which are in need of repair, however unless you assume that the builder has done something incorrectly on purpose (and i do not; please refer to my first post), this is not a cause for buy-back.  
the repairs would have been done over a year ago had access to the home been permitted...  but no; instead the home owner refused to permit the repairs and has continued campaigning for the only acceptable solution (in her mind): the re-purchase of the home.
just look at the dates involved!  a quick summary:
- date of closing: 12 june 2006.
- date first issue noted: 11 july 2006.
- september: pulte inspects; they concluded there was no fundamental problem.  
- october: pulte inspects: oops; might be something to this complaint (engage pes)
- november through december: inspections and on-site testing.
- january: reports to pulte from professional engineers engaged.
- 11 february 2007: pulte offers a viable structural/geotechnical solution.
- ?? february 2007: home owner rejects repairs and demands buy-back.
before you criticise or jump on any band wagons: how many of you would have caught the trouble faster than october (two months after first complaint; pretty fast really!), given that you would only be seeing sticking doors in a home with a floating slab.  
including inspections, testing, consultation and professional services work (with how busy we all are!), everything was addressed, reported back, decided upon and corrective actions offered by pulte on 11 feb 2007.  perhaps it could have been faster, however this is only 7 months after the first complaint.  and at this point pulte was willing to do significant works, offered to house the owner in alternative accommodation, pay a meals stipend, as well as permit access to the home while under construction.  short of guaranteeing a negative pressure workspace i can't see what more they could have done.
oh, and the date stamp, google cache and internet archive all indicate that the website is from may 2007.  thus the homeowner was offered a fully workable solution, with alternative accommodation as well as meals, and refused it.
this is almost certainly not a black and white issue, and yes, i do think it is unfortunate that it has happened...
but i do not accept that this woman is the down-trodden victim to be pitied and pulte the evil mega-corp to be harassed and badgered.
just my honest, impartial, opinion given even the one sided account fully intended to make me conclude the opposite.  i wonder what is not written on the site that might further clarify the situation?
regards,
ys
b.eng (carleton)
working in new zealand, thinking of my snow covered home...
i do believe it should be bought back. the repairs suggested are cosmetic at best and do not fix the problem. the problem will continue to get worse. if the problems are so minimal, it sure did have an effect on the appraised value of the home. the photos do not look trivial to me. i do believe the shotty construction was "intentional" in the sense that the developer intentionally did not provide a suitable foundation (either through construction methods or lack of enlisting a geotechnical engineer if crappy soil conditions were known to exist) for the structure.
if it were my house, i'd expect a complete fix...which would end up costing more than the value of the house...so yes, they developer should buy it back. heck, if it's all just cosmetic issues and there's really no serious problems, then obviously the house would have appreciated in value over the years and the developer could then turn around and sell the house for the same price or more than they sold it originally.
and i've never personally seen a developer willing fix such a mess of a house so i think being a raging hell of a woman will probably see more actual results. but what do i know...it's all just my opinion. we shall agree to disagree on the matter then.
i agree with msucog.  a competent builder would not have built on this site without specific geotechnical advice.  this is a major project builder who should be responsible for his finished project, and the owner should not have to bear this misery.  i may have dealt differently with the builder, but cannot say i would have accepted his repair proposals.
i didn't even read the article, but just from being reasonable, i fall in the camp of the homeowner and here is why.
if you hold zero expertise in a particular area and are relying on the builder/developer to build a house properly as well as perform the necessary tests on soils, etc. to ensure satisfactory performance(which i think we can all agree should be done on any home, but people expect more on expensive ones and rightfully so - a home is the largest investment most individuals in the free world make in their lifetime).
when someone has just invested such a large sum of money in a brand new home and the home has serious problems such a short time after completion of construction, i don't believe that the homeowner has any responsibility to give the builder the benefit of the doubt for any fixes that could occur.  the homeowner has no reason to believe that the fix will be carried out with greater care than the original construction (and i would argue that the homeowner would be foolish to believe that it would be).
additionally, i think we can all agree that engineers are not infallible, and to believe that the recommendations provided (even if executed properly) would have completely remediated the problem (and not just provided a temporary bandaid to get past any additional warranty period provided) might be naive at best and stupid at worst.  i am not saying that any of the reccommendations  would be purposefully inappropriate, but we all know mistakes happen and after just experiencing that severe of a problem i know i certainly wouldn't be giving anyone the benefit of the doubt - especially on the investment that i'll be paying a large portion of my salary for over the next 30 years of my life.  
well i think that's officially the first time i have been stupid in just about as long as i can re