WORKERS' LOANS

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 145, 23 June 1930, Page 8

WORKERS' LOANS

(To the Editor.)

Sir.—Two fellow-builders have written you an account of their experiences with the State Advances Office, and their experiences are apparently very different from mine. They infer that I must write with inside knowledge. Nothing of the sort, just the \. knowledge gained by experience and . trying to see . things from the other fellow's point o£ view- as well as from my own. They do not like my reference to motor-cars, but how anyone could see a jibe, or sneer in it I cannot understand. Again, I did not blame the lawyers for delay ,in receiving payments. That they could not give the required certificate'was not their fault, butiwas due to various reasons that anyone who has dealings in buying and selling land can understand. Another complaint is that money is held back for trivial defects. ■ Why not, any • architect" would do ' the same, and keep 5 per cent, for 90 days? Ifjmore than £10 is withheld, then the defects are more than trivial. Every builder has this experience, and I challenge anyone to say that he has been' gent back to do that which is unfair or unreasonable. What complaints there "would be about inspectors passing shoddy work if these items were overlooked. , One thing that puzzles me, Mr. Editor, is how it is that your correspondent refers to financial difficulties when he can get his joinery so much cheaper than I can. "Another Builder" says that after years of plodding a builder's money may be tied up in • assets and second mortgages, and that some .owners .buy furniture instead of paying the builder. This in a few in- ' stances is unfortunately true, and is a matter of grave concern, to builders.' But why blame the State Advances for-it? ' In conclusion, allow me to point out what should be obvious to anyone. "The State, Advances may grant up to 95 per cent, of 'the value of the security,"' not must, as1 claimed by "Third Builder."--!' am,ietc'.V ai- -' ' ' '■■■"'• BUILDER.