Homes From Hell
Almost five hundred newly built homes are sold every day but for some the move is a disaster. Meet the people who've paid thousands for their homes - only to see them crumble before their eyes. When is Homes From Hell next on TV?
Still looking for more?
|
Homes From Hell is a Documentary programme. Homes From Hell is a 4 star programme.
 Next Show TimesYou may also like
Tags |
In the UK... it's next showing on ITV2 
United States
Comments
Hi
Is homes from hell repeated?
Thanks
I have just watched the new homes from hell. I had read in the press about Fiddlers Castle in the press, but after this programme I truely hope that human decency prevails and the owner of Fiddlers Castle can keep his "family home". There is NO justification in demolishing a BEAUTIFUL building as Fiddlers Csstle. To all jealous planners "Think again"...
I too watched New Homes From Hell and hope that sanity prevails with the demolition of Fiddler's Castle.The building work was undertaken without planning permission on green belt land and the construction was carried out in a secretive manner designed to try and circumvent sensible planning requirements to which the majority of people adhere.
leave iddlers castle alone it looks lovely and what armer isnt entitled to a house on his own land at least its not an eysore like some o the crap those planers pass
It's a nice building, but it should be demolished.
This is because, as the programme correctly states, it will set a precedent.
If the home is not demolished it could be sold for millions in the near future and people should not be able to profit in this way when trying to circumvent the law.
I have just watched a "homes from hell", I recorded some time ago. It included the bit about Fiddlers Castle in this programme I realy hope that common sense prevails and the owner of Fiddlers Castle can keep his family home. There is no reason to demolish such a fantastic building unless there are building defects or it is an ugly sight. Neither of these seem to be the case. Best of luck to the owners from zaybxmail@tiscali.co.uk.
http://www.persimmonatmaplelodge.co.uk/
Lets hope that common sense DOES prevail abd that castle gets demolished as soon as possible.
The owner/builder appears to be a dishonest snidy git who believe that the law of the land doesn't apply to him.
very clever. am proud ae ye.best of luck in the future
Re. Fiddlers Castle. Just watched Homes From Hell...what a laugh. Well done. That's one in the eye for the bureaucrats..and do you know what, it's a great building!! K.
just watched homes from hell july 30th 2008, what a clever man that built fiddlers castle i would like to shake his hand, these jobsworth council people should let him keep his castle as he beat them with there own rules now they want to move the goalposts, hope he end up keeping it, good luck to him
keep fidlers castle!! It is lovely, boo to everyone that says to demolish it, cold hearts!
Fidders Castle. Quite right!!! you should be able to build whatever you want providing it is built safely and on your own land! there are too many regulations for deciding what is or isnt acceptable!
I built a house in the cotswolds EVENTUALLY with planning consent...so knowing what the planners are like I say good luck to Mr Fidler. We had to appeal etc etc etc - I even hand delivered letters to each of the planners houses (becos we believed the planning officer wasn't giving them all the right info that we were submitting) and one of the 'Planners' actually lived in a caravan...I couldn't believe someone living in a caravan could decide on planning matters...the worlds a mad place. So good luck to him!!
I hope the planners get to pull this place down as soon as possible. People like this think they can build on green belt land and which we all struggle to maintain. I hope they make hime pay to take it down too.
Keep findlers castle, it was built leagally and should remain in place.
This one is going to the House of lords, I am gernbiunly interest in the final outcome, as far as I know there is nothing the the planning act that says the building has to be visible, this is going to be argued on the basis of what is development etc.
A very interesting case that I hope goes the home owners way.
To all those who think that "Fiddlers Castle" shouldn't be demolished, I hope that an illegal travellers site appears in your neighbourhood. You may think again then.
Chris your a dick, how can u compare a brick built home, to a bunch of caravan towing jippo pikey mofos.......idiot!
I think it was a lovely house. We had an extension many moons ago, and the plans had to be submitted; then re-submitted; then re-re-submitted. The final version was a compromise, and naff. If he had applied for plannig permission, he may have ended up with a tacky box thing for his grandchildren. As such, he has a lovely house on his land.
The greenbelt should be preserved, but so should beautiful architecture and ingenuity in buildings. We can stack many people in boxes in the cities, but how many of us are truly happy in them?
Well done for finding the loop holes in the law. Do you know we all break the law every week? We should be practising with our longbows on the village green inthe event of war. Just making a point about the red tape and beurocracy we all have to face.
love it i think it was a fab idea and such a stunnin outcome. and chris your comment "I hope that an illegal travellers site appears in your neighbourhood. You may think again then" thats just a pathetic comment travellers get away with it all the time so why not some respectable citizens they own the land...... travellers dont!!!! and the fiddlers made a beautiful addition to the country side travellers dont!!! catch my drift now!!!!
i belive that the letter of the law should be obeyed. if it is the case that after four years it ok, and is does not say it should be visible then it should stay. and planers will have to adapt the laws to close the loophole they have four years to do it.
Comparing Fiddlers Castle with Illegal travelers sight ?come on ??? so H R Owen and car junk yard ?? are the same ? wake up ?.mind you I'm not rich,neither a crook.I live in a Council estate but the man is simply a genius,long live Fiddlers Castle
Rip it down fine him £300,000 and put him in prison Rich Bsastard
How Chris can compare Fiddlers Castle to a travellers site is beyond me? As for Richard's comment on struggling to maintain green belt land, the latest news on the television is that the current Government are trying, as we speak, to start relaxing "the laws" on green belt land to appease the home shortages. One rule for them, another for us. Mr Fiddler, I shake your hand on your last eight years stance in this matter. You have our total support.
Fiddler's castle is a beautiful house, a vision come to fruition in the most impressive and inspiring way. It's tasteful and aesthetically pleasing, and he deserves to home his princess in a dream castle after such a marvellous adventure in building it. If the law does not explicitly state that the development should remain visible, then his achievement pre-dates any necessary amendments that must be made to the law, and his right to keep it should be honoured. I'd give him my full support, and only wish I had a home like that. Good luck to him, I say.
Demolish Fiddlers Castle! and put him in jail! sceaming twat! good plan but he's just been fucked over by his own loop hole!
Good news - it's coming down - see http://www.reigate-banstead.gov.uk/public/news/4-29315.asp
He said there were risk in the approach he took - well, hello risk and hello bulldozer.
We have a similar problems with our home since 2006. People who know us said that we should have watched the programme on Wed 1st Oct we missed it as we did not know it was on.
How can we watch it? Will it be repeated any time soon or can we view it on line?
Very well done. Have just seen the programme for the second time, and support you entirely. Great to beat the establishment, John Retired lawyer now violinist-how appropriate is that?
Well the fiddlers castle episode has just been repeated on the gogglebox, I for one see no reason to demolish this home. If the laws do not state that the home remains visable for the 4 years then he has broken no law and the house should stand. People such as "Ian Plymouth" below, are clearly just jealous, I would hazard a guess that his animosity to the "Rich bsastard" stems from being too bone idle to go out and get a decent job to pay for his own home, much easier to sit in your dank hole and moan about others who can be arsed to work and dream.
Why so precious about the "Green belt" anyway do you all think that all the rural homes/castles/mansions that are in the countryside should be knocked down, perhaps we should all move back into tents and return the whole country to its green status. In closing yes the building was built in secret and perhaps it is not in the spirit of the law, the biggest reason to keep the home as far as i can see is that is offsets the true horror that is the poorly built pokey cornflake box houses that the planners seem to think are viable homes for the future.
I await your critical replys........
who cares if its legal or not?? fiddlers castle is a great house, its owner a great man who put a lot of money on the line to build his wifes dream house,anyone who shows such cunning and balls should be applauded and maybe knighted to live as a sir in his castle
well done your castle is fab total support
MILLER HOME ALL BRICK WORK REMOVED AND HOLE HOUSE TOTAL REBUILD LAST YEAR AND STILL GOT WORK DONE WINDOW OUT DUE TO WATER PATIO DOOR REPLACED 4 TIMES STILL WATER COMES IN HOUSE FROM HELL
MMM another "poor" farmer, who happens to also own a £500,000 house in Africa by the way, and thinks he can screw the majority law abiding people? I'll drive the bulldozer myself... as for "well done your castle is great..." you twat, why don't you concrete over the Lake District while you're at it?
What a fantastic house fiddlers castle is,my dad bryan built his own house and was just as lovely.
thankfully 'taste' or lack of it doesn't come into it, otherwise every little hitler on every local council would populate the country with their own trite ideas of what britain should look like... built through deception it should and will be demolished at his expense... grow up, in the eyes of the law it is EXACTLY the same as a traveller site, so be thankful.
cheers
neil.
Re."Fidler's Castle"
Watched the programme repeated today 3 Jan 09.
Having also read some of the misguided (and in many cases, misspelt) comments. I for one am very pleased that all of Mr Fidler's appeals have been turned down and in view of his undoubted wealth I trust that Reigate Council will strongly enforce both the demolition of the "castle" and removal of materials from the site.
All of the work and all of the Public's expenses ( Public means you and me IF you work and pay taxes etc) must be paid for by the owner.
I have just seen a repeat of the fiddlers castle episode and am amazed at some of the comments here which range from the appreciation of the building, addmiration of the farmers guile, inteligent analysis of the law nd logical reasoning of a soltin to his problem; then of course there was the jealous inane response of the those who in truth as children would have comlained "he's got more than me"; the people who complain when their change is short but say nothing when its greater and claim "result"!
I take my cap off to the man. He inteligently found a solution to his problem wthin the parameters of the law ie the rules of the game but the planners now change the rules.
He obeyed the laws, literaly, maybe not the spirit of them but then when ever have the law keepers ever allowed the spirit of the law to overide its litteral application. Speeding laws are there for safety yet they are applied literaly even if there are no risks to safety with the stance being that the law is the law. Well if the law is the law and he didnt break it, and he did not, then it is most hypocritical of the authorities to then make adjustments to the law to suit them or is it just "Heads we win tails you lose"
Oh and by the way I have had an ilegal travelers site on my doorstep and the planners gave it planning permission. This is green belt also. I have no problem with the site just that the law is very ficle and travellers have a disconcerting reputation. I drove down to the site and met with the travelers because I wish to have an informed opinion and I found them most agreeable dispite their presence being bound to effect the value of my 5 bedroomed detached 1 acre of land, heated swimming pool house. I am happy for them to be there, live and let live as the travellers said to me!
Glad that you've a nice house Trevor, so have I! You, and many others who comment in favour of Mr Fidler's cleverness and his "letter of the law" approach seem to ignore the facts.
A Planning APPLICATION should be just that. the first step in a logical process:-
1. Submit plans which show how the structure is to be built (is it safe etc.), how it will look when finished etc.
2. ALLOW comment by other interested parties.
3. Meetings between "Hitlers on the Council payroll" and owner. In my earlier experience as a novice builder/restorer an important phase during which, together with some "you can't do that" negatives, I remember getting a lot of advice which saved me money in the longer term.
4. Contact with Building Inspectors, most of whom I found to have been builders themselves.
5. Building phase with inspections at all important stages during the construction. I found, almost without exception, that the advice and help I was offered was sound and sensible - maybe I was just lucky to have built in Oxfordshire?
If Mr Fidler was so sure that he had the right to build a "farmhouse" on his own "farm" why didn't he just inform the Council of his intentions? The answer is simple, just as in the case of an illegal traveller's site - a deliberate intention to side-step the law.
We should all remember too, because we live in a democracy, that we are ultimately responsible for the elected government and the laws it frames - whether we choose to vote or whether to abstain.
I have just watched this episode showing Fiddlers Castle - what a beatiful property it should be considerd becoming a listed building. Even some of the most intelligent designers cannot create something so beautiful as Fiddler's Castle. I hope it does not get demolished as this would be criminal and displace people from their home. It would not be eco friendly either as what would happen to the material - there is enough waste in the world. So what if he did not seek planning permission in the first instance, but he did work within the LAW - Good luck
This is the second time we've watched homes from hell,and fiddlers castle looks more beautifull than ever.Tough tatties to the folks that have there noses out of joint,ive also done in the past a wee bit of building improvements with out the council hitlers being told.
I say that all the folks that love the castle be there if there is a judgement day,and we'll seee who wins.
Good luck to him I say. The building looks great and makes a change from the boxes people normally build and no doubt he'd never have got planning for for it legitimately. Planners are too strait laced unless it's for the government who can do what ever they like at our expense I may add. They just declare we need more housing or a new bypass and promptly roll over the greenbelt or your house if they want to. As for the spirit of the law, don't make me laugh, when did anybody in power care about that our government bend the rules daily (expense account anyone?) to suit there objectives so why shouldn't we?
Give it a hundred years and it'll be listed because it's different and interesting.
It should stay!
Bracing myself for the backlash from the jealous, righteous types.....
This man is your tipical arsehole who happens to have a bit of cash!
I live in a 250yrs old converted farm/barn house which i have been renovating for sometime now.Its costing a fortune due to all the regulations set by the planning department. As its listed we have to follow strict rules and regulations and have regular visit to ensure we are following procedure. So why should his guy think he's above the law?
I myself live on Greenbelt and struggled to add a garage to the property. I was informed that it had to be to THEIR specifications.(We are only applying for a garage)
So i was strongly against this prat getting away with conning society out of beautiful countryside by building (in my opinion) this eyesore.
I strongly believe there are plenty of old buildings waiting to have a new owner to love and cherish them with no need to steal natural landscapes and potential farming land. By the way there may come a day when we will need this plot to grow our future crops (if you listen to the dome and gloom at present)Whats wrong with restoration? We have many uninhabited properties in the counrtyside with alot more curb appeal than Fiddlers Castle.
I think it's a great house and not an eyesore at all, it's beautiful. If it's demolished it'll be a crying shame. I support you all the way.
So, Miranda Bob & Iwan - you support this illegal development? Then I trust you won't object when I build a house 2 ft from yours without permission? THINK ABOUT IT, YOU CRETINS!