Outcome: Complaint upheld in part

The Issues

The customer complained that they had felt pressured into completing their purchase and did not have their home demonstration until the day of completion.  The customer was also concerned about the number of snags and building defects they had to raise with the developer and the amount of time it took to address them.

The Circumstances

The property was complete at reservation but the customer’s purchase involved a chain leading to some delays and an extension of the reservation agreement.  Shortly before the revised expiry date of the reservation agreement, the developer indicated that they intended to remarket the property if the transaction did not complete by the end of the month.  Although the customer would have preferred a few additional days, they were able to meet the deadline for completion, but it was not possible to arrange a home demonstration visit before the day of completion.

The customer raised a number of snagging issues due to building defects with the developer, all of which were accepted.  All but two were addressed between the summer and the year end, with the outstanding issues being held over until the weather improved.

The Ombudsman’s Decision

The Ombudsman considered that the evidence about the progress of the transaction demonstrated that both parties were trying to address issues within the chain to complete the transaction.  The developer was not willing to extend the agreement again and this would have been unsettling for the customer, but it was not a breach of the code and did have the effect of bringing the transaction to a conclusion for the whole chain.  This aspect of the complaint was not upheld.  Ideally, the home demonstration visit should take place before completion, but the information provided demonstrated that it had not been possible to arrange an appointment to suit the customer before the day of completion.

The developer acknowledged that their after sales service had been below standard and apologised for it, acknowledging that they needed to improve their processes for dealing with after sales issues when there was no longer a site presence.  Taking account of the length of time it had taken to address some of the building defects and issues and the fact that the customer had to chase repeatedly for updates, the Ombudsman upheld this aspect of the complaint and awarded the customer £250 for the inconvenience.