Today’s Blog gives us a clear perspective on the lengths developers are allowed to go with untruthful information, both in their advertising material (I’ve covered some of the content in their brochure in earlier blogs) AND on their web site, obviously to give consumers confidence when researching for a home builder.
So, we know without question that developers and builders are “allowed to lie to consumers to get them to buy“!
My question is allowed to lie “to whom“?
The obvious answer is “the consumer“!
There is no-one else involved.
Have I lost anyone yet?
Let’s start off today’s blog by identifying the many representations set out on this one page of their propaganda page . . . . . oh, I’m sorry web site).
My bet is that they had one meeting with an ad agency who, for a fee too the scant information about these guys (the builder) and for one fee, morphed it into this grandiose narrative of what “people would want to believe in a developer” and published it as factual commentary on their web site!
Upwards of 90% of home buyers today start their search on the Internet.
For some strange reason they are willing to believe everything that they find there and today’s blog will show exactly how artificial that can be.
You see, I’m going to parallel all of this well written (ad agency) material and then add in the second half of today’s blog a litany of actual comments set out in a law suit by one of the home owners.
If you’ve been reading my blogs for the past couple decades you will know my number one saying which is:
“believe NOTHING that you hear and only half of what you see“!
HERE’S THE COPY ON . . . . . . Builder’s HOME PAGE (above):
“When it comes to new home construction . . . . . . (builder) is as close as you can get to a custom home builder without the added expense”.
Here’s a rendering of the $1 Million Plus House “PROMISED” (see what they actually “Delivered” below)
“Our moderate size works for our new home purchasers because they get individualized attention to detail and highest quality assurance”.
“Each home, each family, each step of the way we are driven to take every care in construction and accept only the highest quality materials and workmanship in each and every . . . . . . (builder)”.
“Only when our families are completely satisfied do we move on to another project”.
FACT: Here is the actual testimony set out in one Owner’s “Motion Record” Suing :
The House “DELIVERED”
- June 1, 2014 – Plaintiff “purchased home from . . . . . . (builder)”;
- “. . . . . . (builder) promised Closing of December 15, 2014”
- “Construction commenced but was delayed”;
- . . . . . . (builder) delivered several Notices of Delayed Closing, the last of which on October 30, 2015″
- “Thereafter sunrise ceased delivering Notices of Delayed Closing (This is a “Tarion Breach”) but construction continued”;
- “. . . . . . (builder) eventually constructed a house that was substantially different from the Plans”
- “The design changes were not agreed to by the purchaser”
- “The Deficiencies included: a. a front entry porch on the right side of the house did not include two colums on either side of the main entrance with a symmetrical arch above the two columns and the entrance, with a Juliet balcony above”; b. “there was no window at the base of the main floor column”; c. “the type and quality of the stone mouldings and window sill details are not in accordance with the Plans; d. Downspouts from second story we not installed”; e. the natural gas meter and hydro meter were installed at the front of the house instead of the back”
- “The construction of the external structure was completed in or around August 2015 and the Buyer immediately pointed out the deviation (deficiencies above in #8) from the plan by . . . . . . (builder)”
- “Neither . . . . . . (builder) nor the warranty company acted to correct the deficiencies”
- “In September 2015 the builder (defendants) promised to reconstruct the house according to the Plan”
- “. . . . . . (builder) subsequently gave Notice in February 2016 that they wished to Close the Purchase in the near future after procuring an Occupancy Certificate from the Town of Oakville, notwithstanding that . . . . . . (builder) had not corrected the Deficiencies.”
- “Unbeknownst to the plaintiff (buyer) at that time, internal and external inspections were still incomplete and
- construction liens on the property due to the defendant’s non-payment for work performance”
- . . . . . . (builder), one of the defendants in this action, undertook on behalf of . . . . . . (builder), that they would correct the Deficiencies and complete the defendants’ obligation if the plaintiff assisted them by closing on the property that day to provide funds to enable them to pay for remedying the Deficiencies and pay off the liens”
- A written Agreement was exchanged by email wherein the defendants agreed to complete certain tasks, the details of which were contained in the written agreement within certain time frames
- The plaintiffs relied in good faith on the undertaking and the reconfirmation of the continued effect of the Agreement and paid the defendants in full on April 16, 2016 the entire balance due”
- the building permit at the Municipality remains open (today)”
- . . . . . . (builder) continuously pressured the plaintiffs to close despite the fact that they sill had not corrected the Deficiencies”
- The Defendants represented that they would go bankrupt and be unable to correct the deficiencies if the Plaintiffs refused to Close while promising that they would correct the Deficiencies shortly after Closing if the Plaintiff agreed to close quickly;
- Under pressure, the Plaintiff acquiesced and agreed to close. A closing date of April 19, 2016 was set”
- On April 19, 2016, title could not be transferred to the plaintiffs because the defendants’ contractors placed
- Instead, the defendants used the funds provided for their own benefit and to complete construction of the properties on the POTL. To date the Deficiencies have not been corrected, in breach of the defendants obligations.
- In June 2016 the defendants sent a contractor to do a stucco redesign on the front of the plaintiff’s house.
- The stucco contractor applied poor workmanship and was instructed by the defendants to tear down the stucco work that he installed
- In tearing down the stucco the defendants’ contractor tore off the aluminium roofing on the house and removed safety handrails from the front steps, leaving it in an unsafe condition not in accordance with the Building Code.
- Since April 21, 2016 . . . . . . (builder) has closed on two other lots/properties but still has not fulfilled its outstanding obligations to the plaintiffs
- No work has been done to correct Deficiencies and the house has been left in an unsafe and unsightly condition.
- The costs to remedy the deficiencies has been estimated at $250,000.00.
- The funds provided to the defendants on closing were impressed with a trust in favour of the plaintiffs to ensure they would be used for the purpose of remedying the deficiencies
- In breach of that trust, the defendants used the funds to enhance the value of their own interests in the related properties
Now all of this is in harsh contrast and contradiction to what is published on . . . . . . builder‘s web site. Remember, here’s what that professionally orchestrated and articulated but totally untruthful web site had to say:
“When it comes to new home construction . . . . . . (builder) is as close as you can get to a custom home builder without the added expense”.
“Our moderate size works for our new home purchasers because they get individualized attention to detail and highest quality assurance”.
“Each home, each family, each step of the way we are driven to take every care in construction and accept only the highest quality materials and workmanship in each and every . . . . . . (builder)”.
“Only when our families are completely satisfied do we move on to another project”.
The tragedy here is not even all the lies exposed!
That they can get away with all these layers of lying, with impunity is the real shocker! And yes, this is much more common than you would think or like to think!
I was tremendously impressed to have the Municipality respond so pro-actively, but we all have to realize that under the present system of doing things, there really is little that even they can impose on any of the other players.
The Municipality has a CONTRACT between the Municipality and the Developer has contracts with the builders. The builders have contracts (AP&S) with the consumer. The Developer’s responsibilities are to do the grading, fences, landscaping and roads once the homes are built.
The breakdown here is that someone actually put a legitimate “Consumer Protection Clause” in the Subdivision Agreement and then someone also chose to simply ignore that clause, and the result has been devastating to those buyers that plopped down their friendly Million Plus on to live in what can only be called a night mare!
One of the builders, (there appears to be three or more, actually the better of the bunch it appears through my casual observation), has just two houses on which to apply the stonework and brick which requires scaffolding which would impede any efforts to complete the grading.
I will contact them as well as the developer today to see if they are willing to come to the assistance of the unfortunate buyers that have been required to live in this mess for almost a full year now.
All that is required is that each player does there part to complete their work in the shortest amount of time (the place is over a year late now!).
Stay tune.
I’m Charles
Sunrise Homes Review, complaints,
Municipality of the Town of Oakville
