How can we help you?

Case studies

< Back

New Homes Quality Code: Part 1, fair and complete information

Case date: 14th May 2024

Outcome: Complaint upheld

The Issues

The customer complained that the developer gave them false information about the location of streetlights on the development, although they acknowledged that this was unintentional and a genuine error. Nevertheless, they relied on the incorrect information they were given. For them, the location of street lighting was a key factor in deciding which plot they preferred.

The Circumstances

When the customer reserved the property,  a sales adviser showed them the external works plan and advised them that there would be no streetlight outside the property that they had chosen.

The sales adviser subsequently emailed the customer on the day of reservation giving them a further explanation of the location of the streetlighting, clearly stating that the nearest streetlight would be across the road in a position where it would not be visible from the property. However, the sales adviser misinterpreted the plan; a streetlight would be located outside the property.

The customer relied on the information they were given.

The Ombudsman’s Decision

The developer accepted that they had made an error, but despite this and the subsequent efforts they made to put matters right by working with the local authority and the customer to relocate the streetlight, they had failed to provide clear and accurate information to the customer; the requirements of the Code had not been met.

The streetlight was moved to a new position more distant from the property, but there was a three month period when the drive of the new home was partially obstructed by the street light column. When it was re-located, its final position was closer to the property than had been represented on the plans at reservation and it was still clearly visible from the windows.

The Ombudsman upheld the complaint and awarded the customer £1500.00. The customer was entitled to expect that the sales adviser would give them correct information and had suffered both temporary and permanent inconvenience when the developer tried to address the situation.

< Back To Case studies

Read Next