The complaint

After moving into his newly purchased home, Ahmed found that all the windows were single-glazed and claimed that he was misled by the property survey. The cost to replace the windows with double-glazed units would be upwards of £15,000.

He stated that, had he known this detail at the time of purchase, he would have negotiated the purchase price. After raising a complaint, Ahmed took his dispute to The Property Ombudsman, seeking compensation.

The investigation

The property business responded that the purpose of the survey was to establish any defects that might affect the property’s safety or functionality. In their view, the windows were fit for purpose, and the only negative impact was reduced energy efficiency.

They pointed out that this detail was outlined in the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC), which was available to Ahmed before he purchased the property.

The Ombudsman acknowledged Ahmed’s frustration at discovering the true specification of the windows only after completion. It was reasonable for him to expect the property survey to describe the glazing type correctly. In this respect, the property business fell short of its obligations, and the report contained misinformation.

However, the Ombudsman also noted that the EPC, completed in April 2024, clearly stated that the property’s windows were single-glazed and rated as “very poor.” This information was available to Ahmed at the time he reviewed the survey.

The Ombudsman considered that Ahmed had the opportunity to question the discrepancy between the survey and the EPC before proceeding with the purchase and could not determine whether the seller would have agreed to reduce the purchase price, or whether Ahmed would have chosen not to proceed had the survey been accurate.

The outcome

The Ombudsman supported Ahmed’s complaint, recognising the distress and inconvenience caused by the inaccurate survey. While the level of compensation Ahmed sought for potential replacement costs was not awarded, the Ombudsman directed the property business to pay him £200. This amount reflected the shortcomings in service and the aggravation caused.

The property business should have provided an accurate survey report. For buyers, this case highlights the importance of carefully reviewing all available reports before completing a property purchase. While the property survey should be accurate, buyers are encouraged to cross-check findings with the EPC and raise any concerns when conflicting information arises.