I knew there would be proof somewhere that Homebond , or broadly equivalent structural insurance in certain cases , is used on estate or block developments , its normally not used for one off housing .
The further you go out the country the more you get one off housing and the LESS reliable homebond is as an activity guide.
Here is the proof, thanks to NCB for some very clear data and graphs.
but just cos the builder advertises that he is homebond registered, how does he prove it…
also, what happens to the completion bond that the developer is meant to pay to the council as an act of good faith, rumours of lots of unfinished estates or estates where the builder returns to build on open areas?
The single most reliable metric is ESB network connections .
I know a guy who has finished his house and is living in it, never informed the council of commencement or sent in a completion cert and has not (yet) paid the development contribution which is about 1500 sobs… .
I know that I am only going to anny 2Pack but the most recent Homebond statistics show continued weakness.
The October registrations number of 1,315 was down over 65% from the same month last year - this means that registrations are down 41% on a 12-month rolling basis.
Its just that it is not representative of one off activity but estate activity in urban areas . If every house built HAD to be homebonded it would, of course, be definitive .
However the important question is does the % homebonded remain constant? If one-offs, or other non-homebonded residences make up a somewhat consistent proportion of overall starts, it can be a useful number, and is one of the few leading indicators.
I suspect it doesn’t remain constant. Purely anecdotally, as house prices shot up more people I knew bought a site (usually from their parents) and built their own houses. They would probably have bought in a development closer to town otherwise but were priced out of that market.
??