Customer Complaint Case Studies

The customer complained that the developer failed to resolve snagging issues within 30 days and did not provide updates as per the Code. They also complained that the developer built a public footpath in place of a communal visitor parking bay in front of their property. The developer returned to make repairs by digging up their front garden but did so without obtaining permission or giving prior notice.

The customer raised concerns about neighbours and their visitors parking irresponsibly in the shared access driveway, including the turning circle. They believe the developer failed to enforce the restrictive covenant that prohibits residents from obstructing this area. The customer also explained that while the developer instructed them to remove signs they had installed to discourage parking in the shared driveway, the developer had refused to contact the neighbours who are allegedly breaching the covenant.

The customer complained that they were discouraged from proceeding with the exchange of contracts after they had reserved the property. They claim that they experienced various difficulties in progressing with the purchase. For example, the developer’s portal was not fit for purpose, their emails were ignored or not adequately responded to, they were provided with incorrect information, and the developer tried to cancel the transaction.

The customer complained that a metal access ramp had been unexpectedly positioned near their property. They claimed that the developer did not notify them prior to construction and that they would have considered looking at other properties if they had known the ramp would be located near their new home. Although the development utilises materials that reflect the local area, the customer felt the ramp did not fit in with its surroundings.

The customer reported that a major leak flooded the ground floor of their property, leaving them without gas and electricity for several hours and requiring them to move into a hotel for two weeks while repairs took place. On returning home, they found unfinished work and paint damage to furniture. The customer claims that contractors failed to complete the repairs to a satisfactory standard, and that they were incorrectly advised not to contact their insurer.

The customer complained that the developer proposed changes to their garden boundary after completion, reducing its size without consultation. They believe they were misled into purchasing the property with a larger garden than intended and would not have proceeded had they known the true boundary. The developer explained that the fence line had been set incorrectly during construction, resulting in several plots having larger gardens than shown on the title plans.

The customer complained that the developer was unclear about the scheme under which estate agency fees were paid, as they were deducted from potential cash incentives rather than paid upfront. They also raised concerns about multiple property issues, significant delays in resolving them, and poor complaint handling by the developer throughout the process.

The customer reported long delays in completing repairs, poor workmanship, and ongoing issues with damp, mould, and fungal growth, which they believed posed health risks to their children. They also experienced plumbing leaks and other unresolved snagging issues. Despite providing a snagging report, the developer completed only limited work and failed to address all outstanding items. The customer said the developer missed appointments, sent discourteous emails, and failed to deliver promised goodwill gestures.

The customer alleges that the developer used high-pressure sales tactics and failed to conduct proper quality checks before legal completion. The customer also reports delays in resolving defects and inconsistent communication throughout the process.

The customer reported issues with the part-exchange process, claiming the developer delayed marketing their old home and failed to provide the scheme’s terms. After moving in, they found the property poorly built and commissioned a snagging report, repeatedly contacting the developer to address defects. The garden also flooded due to poor drainage from nearby land and a shared driveway. Some repairs were made, but the problem persists.

The customer complained that the developer did not meet the Code by supplying kitchen floor tiles that were not fit for purpose, and by withholding known issues during the tile selection process and the after-sales service.

The customer complained that the bathroom sink’s waste pipes were visible behind the pedestal and not concealed as described in the developer’s quality guide. The developer initially agreed to reposition the pipes, but the proposed remedial work could not be completed due to the location of the floorboard joists.

The customer complained that the heating system in their new home did not perform as expected. When attempting to control the temperature of one bedroom independently from the rest of the house, the boiler entered a short cycling mode, and the room failed to reach the desired temperature. Although plumbers attended, they were unable to resolve the issue. The developer subsequently arranged for an independent assessment by a consultant who made adjustments and found the system was functioning as intended.

The customer complained that the brickwork on three elevations, as well as the garage padstone, was of poor quality and failed to meet the warranty provider’s technical standards. They also raised concerns about the developer’s alleged lack of responsiveness in addressing the issue.

The customer complained about a loose patio slab following a repair carried out by groundwork contractors. They felt the issue was not properly assessed by the developer and described the developer’s communication as obstructive.

The customer complained that the property did not match their expectations. They said the fourth bedroom was too small to fit a bed, they had not received confirmation of the property boundaries, and there was outstanding snagging work and a mould issue that still needed resolving.