Back to discussions

Discussion thread

Does anyone have experience or recommendations are any of these 3 companies

Read this thread as context for better builder due diligence. Original historical wording is preserved and comments are not independently verified unless labelled.

Source and review policy

This thread is one source, not a verdict

Historical comments are preserved for context with original wording where possible. They are not independently verified unless labelled, and may not reflect current circumstances. Use them alongside public records, third-party review sources, contract checks, and a direct response from the builder.

Marie

Hiya! We signed up with Navigation Homes Hawkes Bay. Lovely people but have noticed a few errors in the development of the scheme plan. A few other builders have expressed concerns about the number of PC sums in our quote. We are thinking of switching to Design Builders or Versatile. Does anyone have experience or recommendations are any of these 3 companies? Thanks so much!
Reply
Historical discussionNot independently verified
Source detailsComment #117964Source link

Chris C

Hi Marie, I can’t comment on the three builders you’ve named. But of course lots of builders will express ‘concern’ about ‘PC sums’ in another builder’s quote, especially if they assume you don’t really know what they are, or how they work. Their concern could partly be for you (because sometimes these are ways for builders to give a low quote, and then increase the contract sum later), and partly to scare you into going with another builder (ie them). First you need to make you really are looking at PC (Prime Cost) Sums, and not Provisional Sums or Items. I’ve tried explaining the difference before, so you could try CtrlF and searching. Also you could look at https://www.mbawa.com/prime-costs-and-provisional-sums/ which explains it very well. By definition Provisional Sums or Items are potentially more problematical (but sometimes useful and almost unavoidable in a contract), because they are for work (commonly things like foundations and earthworks) where the extent and difficulty cannot be accurately assessed before the work starts on Site. But you can reduce the risk, for example by getting fixed rates for provisional quantities (cost per hour/per cubic or linear metre etc). Generally true PC Sums should be less of a risk. Because they are a sum of money put in to supply a specific item. Examples would be an oven, carpets or even a whole kitchen. As long as you know the amount in the PC Sum, and the exact type of item you would get for that if you make no changes, then it gives you the chance to upgrade (or theoretically downgrade) and just pay the difference in cost between the PC Sum and the cost of your chosen item. Where it can lead to shocks later, is if you let a builder persuade you the PC Sum in the contract will get you something wonderful, without realising it won’t get even close to what you want/need in your new house. We return again to the need for due diligence, and checking out exactly what it says in the contract.
Reply
Historical discussionNot independently verified
Source detailsComment #117967Reply to #117964Thread #117964Source link

Jakobs Victoria

PC Sums are fine, if supported by quotes (PC quotes) or by quantified amounts eg 65m2 of concrete at xx/m2.
Reply
Historical discussionNot independently verified
Source detailsComment #117973Reply to #117964Thread #117964Source link

Tom

Yes, the couple are lovely but it will change when you start working with them. They will leave you into oblivion and not always transparent. They will not respond to your emails as they used to when you have not started with them. They chose what emails they will respond. That few errors you have noticed will multiply once you have started with them. They are just new to the industry. They started i think last 2019. You need to constantly follow them up and monitor the progress as they will forget what you have discussed during the early phase. Please do due diligence. All the best.
Reply
Historical discussionNot independently verified
Source detailsComment #117976Reply to #117964Thread #117964Source link