The cheat builders, TV4, broadcast 2010-03-17

Review Board for Radio and TVs: DECISION The program is criticized but released. The Board of Audit considers that this is in short supply in relation to the requirement of factuality.

My own comment: The TV program manipulates truths and lies to fit into a predetermined story, where reality has no place
My own comments bellow.

The cheat builders program included the following errors:

1. The customer and the hostess claim that there was mold in the house after three weeks. It is further alleged that dehydration was done via a hair dryer.
- Instead, there was a water leak where moisture penetrated into the wall between the care room and the parents bedroom. The wall was opened by us and moisture was found, but no mold. A professional company was hired by us who placed dryers. Several moisture measurements were made and when the moisture was gone in its entirety the wall was put back on.

2. The program claims that the walls are poorly insulated and that there were no vapor barrier.
- Instead, the walls have 200 mm insulation and 0.15 mm vapor barrier.

3. At one point in the program, Wrigfors is mentioned as a deliberate cheating artisan.
- I am neither and never have been. any artisan, and has not done a single work of art in the house in question.

The following comments 4 and 5 in the program were not included in our commitment, but were work done by a contractor that the customer himself hired:

4. The program states that there were settlements in the walls.
- It was pointed out to us before the house assembly, that the foundation was uneven and that it could cause settlements and cracking at a later stage. The ground and ground contractors did not rectify the roughness of the foundation.

5. The TV program does an inspection of the foundation and it is found that there is no plastic wrap.
- In the final inspection protocol there is an inspection note stating that the basic contractor is responsible for the lack of plastic foil on the ground in the ground.

At the final inspection, 67 comments were noted. In a follow-up protocol, it was found that 54 of 67 inspection comments were corrected.
The customer confirms in writing that the protocol reflects the state of action correctly.

The 13 unmeasured inspection measures were:
5 referred to wallpapering for remediation inspection.
3 there we proposed financial compensation
2 referred to the heating system that the buyer himself had purchased and was not part of our commitment.
3 referred to the land and ground contractor and was not included in our commitment.

The inspector, who had been appointed by the customer, valued all inspection notes to 87500 and the house was approved at the final inspection.
Despite this, after a while from the client's lawyer, a score of 993000 comes to fix a number of inspection remarks.
We found the valuation that the customer had made with knowledge of the inspector's valuation beyond all reasonableness.
It turned out that the valuation of 993000 was made by the company that made the wrong foundation of the house and that there was an old relationship between the customer and the company that made the valuation and who had built a garage that stood halfway on the site.

For the house, we had signed both a completion guarantee and a construction defect insurance, so if the customer's requirements were relevant there was an insurance cover for this.

Before I could see the program in advance, the producer for the program writes to me the following, exactly quoted:
There are two reasons to let you take part in the program:
1. We may correct any errors in the program before sending.
2. Give you the opportunity to respond to the criticisms made.
However, it is impossible to say in advance how much time you have. For example, if you have a lot of criticism then you should of course have more space. I am responsible for the production of the program but ultimately it is the responsible publisher on TV4 who decides what to broadcast. This also applies to what you say.

After some tours I got to see the program beforehand and then found that the program had so many errors that if they were to correct all the errors, then there was no story to tell. I pointed this out both orally and in writing for TV4 but the errors were not addressed in the program that was broadcast.

It can be stated that for the program makers you are just one object. The program they produce will prove something that they have decided in advance, you manipulate truths and lies so that they fit into their predetermined story, they have no impression whatsoever of what I have to say.