Outcome: Complaint upheld in part

Case date: 28th February 2024

The Issues

The customer made a new home after sales complaint which concerned a gas leak which was confirmed around 3 weeks after moving into the property. The customer took the view that the leak was present when they moved in and was the fault of the developer, leaving the property unsafe for the customer and surrounding properties.

The Circumstances

During the purchase process, the customer told the developer that they intended to have work carried out on the downstairs flooring in the property after they moved in.  At the developer’s request the customer signed a disclaimer acknowledging that the developer would attach the skirtings using a temporary fixing to allow access to the customer’s tradesman, and that the work carried out by the customer’s contractor would not be covered by the warranty.

Around 10 days after moving in, and after the customer’s contractor had completed their work, the customer contacted the developer’s sales team to report a sewage like smell in the property.  After 3 visits, including a further report from the customer, a gas leak was discovered, caused by a nail in a gas pipe on the ground floor.  The developer arranged to have the pipe replaced.

The customer complained to the developer about what had happened. Although the developer did not accept that the leak was present when the customer moved into the property, they offered the customer a 2 year guarantee on the remedial work and a goodwill payment of £500. 

In their new home after sales complaint to the Ombudsman the customer also pointed out that they had alerted the developer to the fact that there was no carbon monoxide device in the property despite it being referred to in documentation they had been provided with, including the gas safety certificate.

In response to the new home after sales complaint, the developer explained that they had used fixings for the skirting boards as previously agreed and these were not the same as the nail found in the pipe.  The developer felt that the nail was likely to have been used by the customer’s contractor.

The developer said that there had been no evidence of a gas leak prior to completion during various documented visits and inspections.

The Ombudsman’s Decision

The work undertaken by the customer’s contractor shortly after completion meant that it was not possible to establish who was responsible for the gas leak, or that the developer was in breach of the Code in that respect.

However, the Ombudsman was concerned that it took 2 weeks and 3 visits for such a potentially serious issue to be identified and that the developer had not kept the customer fully informed of their findings after the first visit. 

In relation to the CO2 device, there are several documents containing inconsistent information about the presence of a device at the property.  It was not clear whether there was a device which was removed on at least one occasion, or whether the device was not fitted until the customer brought its absence to the attention of the developer.

The Ombudsman upheld the service aspects of the complaint in relation to the delays in identifying the problem and the issue of inconsistent documentation.

In terms of remedy, the developer had already addressed the issue of the CO2 device and had offered the customer financial compensation of £500 for their patience while the source of the problem was identified.  Taking all the circumstances into account, the Ombudsman considered this as reasonable redress for the issues identified.