Summary
Relevant sections of the New Homes Quality Code
Part 1: Selling a new home
Part 3: After-sales, complaints and the NHOS
Investigation outcome
Partially upheld. The customer was awarded £20,000 in compensation, and the developer was directed to issue a formal apology and complete outstanding remedial work.
The award primarily reflected the evidenced cost of installing the recommended drainage solution to address the waterlogged garden, as the developer was unable to implement an effective solution themselves.
The amount directed falls within the exceptional award category set out in the NHOS guidance for non-financial losses. Awards above £2,500 are rare and reserved for exceptional cases.
Recommendations for developers
- Take a proactive and transparent approach to managing customer concerns, ensuring issues are fully investigated, decisions are clearly communicated, and complaint handling follows the requirements of the Code.
- Where independent expert evidence identifies a defect and recommends remedial works, developers should carefully consider those recommendations and provide clear justification where an alternative approach is proposed.
- Ensure any financial settlement offered as an alternative to remedial works is fair and proportionate to the scale, cost, and impact of the issue.
Issue
The customer raised several defects within their new home, including a persistently waterlogged rear garden, a faulty front door, an en-suite shower leak, extensive plastering defects, a wobbly bannister, and creaking and movement in the en-suite flooring.
The customer also reported confusion caused by an incorrectly revised garden boundary plan issued after completion, and raised concerns about delays in resolving defects, poor communication, and how their complaints were handled.
Circumstances
- After moving into the property, the customer reported several defects. Although some remedial works were carried out, many issues remained unresolved, were subject to repeated delays, or were not investigated as agreed. The customer also experienced missed appointments, delayed reimbursement of agreed expenses, and an unauthorised visit to the property.
- Following completion, the developer incorrectly issued a revised garden boundary plan despite no change having been made to the boundary. This resulted in confusion and a dispute with a neighbour before the error was identified and corrected. Delays and poor communication further added to the customer’s inconvenience.
- The Ombudsman found that while some defects were addressed, others were not adequately investigated or resolved. There was a lack of consistency in the developer’s response to the issues raised, and the customer was not always provided with clear explanations when no further action was proposed.
- Professional reports confirmed that the garden suffered from severe waterlogging resulting from site conditions, including clay-rich soil, combined with inadequate drainage provision. The reports recommended the installation of a suitable drainage system. The developer was unable to implement the recommended works because of concerns about potential impacts on neighbouring properties and instead offered £5,000 in compensation. The Ombudsman concluded that this offer was insufficient given the evidenced cost of the recommended works and the ongoing impact of the issue on the customer.
Ombudsman’s decision
The Ombudsman upheld the complaint in part, finding that the developer had failed to meet the Code’s requirements in relation to quality of workmanship, timeliness, communication, transparency, and complaint handling.
The most significant issue was the severe and unresolved waterlogging of the rear garden. Expert evidence confirmed that drainage works were required, yet the developer was unable to implement an effective solution themselves, leaving the garden largely unusable and causing ongoing detriment to the customer.
The Ombudsman awarded £20,000 to reflect the seriousness of this issue, including the evidenced cost of remedial works, and the inadequacy of the developer’s earlier £5,000 offer. The award also took account of additional failings, including unresolved defects to the front door and en-suite flooring, poor plastering workmanship, delays in remedial works, poor communication regarding the incorrect boundary plan, and shortcomings in complaint handling.
Overall, the compensation reflects both the unresolved garden issue and the cumulative impact of the developer’s wider service failures, placing the award within the exceptional category under NHOS remedies guidance.
Learnings
- Providing clear and detailed explanations where action will not be taken is essential. Customers should be given a transparent rationale for decisions, including any technical, practical or site constraints, so they can understand why an issue cannot be progressed and have confidence that it has been properly considered.
- Where a financial settlement is offered instead of carrying out remedial works, it must be proportionate to the scale, cost, and impact of the issue. Offers that do not realistically reflect the level of remediation required, particularly where defects remain unresolved, are unlikely to be considered fair or reasonable.
- Accuracy and transparency are essential throughout the sales and after‑sales process. Issuing incorrect plans or information can create significant confusion and distress for customers.
