That sinking feeling

That sinking feeling

Substandard construction, not least by 'quality' developers, is turning families' dream homes into nightmares

Somruedee Sasikul points to the big pit engineers have excavated to inspect the steel foundation piles at her house. Kitja Apichonrojarek
Somruedee Sasikul points to the big pit engineers have excavated to inspect the steel foundation piles at her house. Kitja Apichonrojarek

Somruedee Sasikul, a mother of two, never thought her new dream home would one day become the family's worst nightmare after she found the foundation piles were broken.

In early 2013, her family looked for a new home because they wanted to leave her parents' house where they had been living. She had no idea which developers or project brands she should choose.

"I just thought the word 'project' looked reliable and should ensure quality," she says.

When Mrs Somruedee's husband confirmed that the project was developed by a listed firm, they did not hesitate to make a decision. A listed company should be good and have greater responsibility, they thought.

But their expectations were dashed. A month after moving into a newly built townhouse priced 3.8 million baht at Pruksa Ville 42 Thoet Thai-Kallapapruek in Bangkok, they found horizontal cracks along the outside wall, from one end to another, about 10-15 centimetres above the ground.

On the other side of the wall inside the house, they also found horizontal cracks at a joint between the wall and floor after they removed decorative mouldings.

When the cracks began to get bigger, Mrs Somruedee decided to send her youngest daughter, who was only a few months old, to stay with a relative for her safety.

Ms Somruedee, 41, a wholesaler of belts, was shocked after learning from her engineer friend that these cracks were caused by a structural problem.

After notifying developer Pruksa Real Estate Plc, a structural and foundation engineering firm came to inspect her house.

The inspection found that three out of nine foundation piles had broken because four were misaligned.

Pruksa offered to enhance the strength of the house's structure with micro foundation piles, but Mrs Somruedee refused and asked for a full refund of the selling price plus interest.

"We are not confident about the house because the repair is guaranteed for only five years. What about after that? We don't want to live with a fear of future cracks or a collapse," she says.

Mrs Somruedee's house is the most damaged unit in the project. Other units were found to have no official housing plan. More than half of units do not have all the equipment listed in the contract.

Other problems listed in a complaint to the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) include substandard construction of the three-year-old project's bridges, roads, walls and water drainage pipes. The swimming pool is also smaller than advertised in the sales brochure.

Mr Umpon Wongsiri  is inspecting  townhouses at Pruksa Ville 42 on Thoet Thai Road in Bangkok after receiving a complaint about the poor quality of construction including cracks, a collapse and broken foundation piles that were the main cause of the collapse.

A problem that all 317 units share is the incorrect installation of wastewater pipes, says Watayoot Thongprom, a representative of homeowners.

"After 100 of us visited the OCPB and other government agencies as well as a TV station early last month to make a complaint, Pruksa sued us for damaging the company's name," he says.

However, the developer agreed to withdraw the case after the OCPB met a Pruksa representative on a visit to the project last Thursday.

Pruksa's senior vice-president Wasan Phanpichit said the company would solve all the problems at the project, with the OCPB helping to coordinate with homeowners on repairs and compensation.

"We had inspected and were ready to repair everything that was our responsibility. But some customers did not want us to do so. The OCPB's site visit last week can help us and customers find a fair solution," he says.

In April, the OCPB visited the eight-year-old Baan Klang Krung Ratchavipha project developed by SET-listed developer AP (Thai) Plc.

OCPB secretary-general Umpon Wongsiri said problems found at Baan Klang Krung in Bangkok's Chatuchak district were worse than those at Pruksa Ville 42 because land subsidence had affected more than 200 units.

"The Pruksa case is about a foundation pile problem at a few houses but the land condition is usual. The AP case is more severe, with 69 houses having heavy land subsidence. Some areas around the units have subsided by 50-100 cm," he says.

AP has offered to pay 70% of repair costs to solve subsidence of more than 10 cm, as less than that is considered normal.

According to the OCPB, it found substandard construction caused by poor-quality materials at the Baan Klang Krung project in 2011, with a homeowner asking for compensation of around 2 million baht plus interest.

Ms Somruedee points to the big hole Prusak engineers have dug out to inspect the steel foundation piles at her house. Kitja Apichonrojarek

The complainant received compensation of around 500,000 baht from AP, the amount it will pay to other homeowners in the project with similar problems in the future.

AP executive vice-president Visanu Suchatlampong said subsidence at Baan Klang Krung might have been caused by usual subsidence in Bangkok of 1-2 cm per year and subsidence caused by the great floods in 2011.

"Though the project was not flooded, the surrounding areas were. It was also situated near Klong Prem Prachakorn, so subsidence was heavy," he said in a statement.

In another case involving AP, 140 single houses at The City Rama 5-Ratchapruek 2, a newly developed project, were found to have subsidence as deep as 35 cm, according to PPTV channel last Thursday.

Though reliability is the first thing to consider when choosing to buy a housing unit, Mr Umpon suggests buyers should arrange a field survey on the site.

Mr Umpon (left) from the OCPB looks at the damage at one of the townhouses at Pruksa Ville 42 after receiving complaints. Kitja Apichonrojarek

"Take a look at the land by yourself and ask neighbours nearby what the site used to be before becoming a housing project," he suggests. "Consumers should also ask the civil engineering department at the district office what the site used to be."

They should read the contract they sign with the developer thoroughly and collect all documents such as advertisements and sales brochures as evidence in case the developer breaks a promise.

"Both consumers and developers should be more cautious. Consumers should be selective when buying a house, while developers should take no advantage, do what was promised, be more responsible and take good care of customers after a sale," Mr Umpon says.

"This can help reduce the number of unhappy homebuyers amid the property boom."

From January to May, 752 complaints about property projects and housing issues were submitted to the OCPB, up from 448 in the same period last year. The property sector was the subject of most complaints to the office.

OCPB is due to summon five property associations to discuss poor-quality housing projects next month after complaints soared by 68% in the first five months. 

The associations are the Housing Business Association, Thai Condominium Association, Thai Real Estate Association, Home Builder Association and Thai Home Builders Association.

"If the number of complaints about property increases, we need to consider whether to take criminal cases against developers," Mr Umpon says.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (1)