‘Consumer detriment’ is defined by the OECD in terms of the harm or loss that a consumer experiences when they purchase goods or services not meeting their expectations: it can have an impact in stress, money or time. As the OECD notes, it can derive from being misled by unfair market practices; paying more than they would have, if better informed; unfair contract terms; or receiving products that do not meet their quality or performance expectations. Apparent instances (meaning known to the consumer, rather than hidden) of such detriment are regularly tracked in the UK via surveys led by the CMA and conducted by the National Centre for Social Research. 

The Consumer Detriment Survey 2024 was published in March 2024, with additional analysis by the CMA Microeconomic Unit (May 2025). In the latest figures, services continue to create proportionally more examples of detriment than items (goods); within services, ‘real estate services’ (including construction) created a high volume of net monetised detriment, also showing a very negative impact on the individual consumer. Over the whole population, each average individual suffered 7.7 instances of detriment in the year surveyed, contributing to an estimated monetised total of £71.2bn.

Figures from Ireland summarising consumer contacts with its Competition and Consumer Protection Commission in the first six months of 2025 showed that queries about vehicles and transport were the most frequent, with home buying and home improvement issues the second most frequent category of concern (unchanged in ranking from the same period in 2024): Consumer Helpline Report H1 2025. The top issues cited by consumers include traders refusing to resolve problems or unwilling to resolve them to the consumer’s satisfaction; consumers waiting a long time for work to be started after agreeing a start date with the trader; and traders not turning up when scheduled to fix an issue reported to them by the consumer. In the light of those figures, in November 2025 the CCPC contacted traders providing home maintenance, construction and improvement services, reminding them of their obligations and warning of the possibility of enforcement action.

The opposite metric from detriment is the benefit to consumers from interventions by the CCPC on their behalf: its Impact Report for 2021-2024 records a consumer benefit ratio of €21 for every euro spent, with €682m in estimated consumer benefit against a total operating cost of €32m over the period. Consumer protection work generated an estimated €220m, driven by enforcement actions against traders and providing consumers with information and guidance on their rights. In July 2026 the CCPC published its Annual Report 2025.

(Table 6.1) Examples of ‘misleading actions’ led the CMA to take legal action (under its pre-2024 Act powers) against a seller of mattresses, Emma Sleep and associated companies. Its website included misleading countdown timers, false ‘high demand’ messages and ‘discount’ claims, where substantially the same deal was available after the purported discount period ended. The defendants consented to formal court proceedings, resulting in May 2026 in a Penal Notice from the Chancery Division; in July 2026, Richards J in the Chancery Division struck down one aspect of the CMA’s enforcement order. Further investigations are underway (June 2026) into other companies’ use of fictional ‘limited time offers’ on their websites.

(especially for the main text to n 36) It could also be misleading in this specific sense for a UK trader to suggest that they are a member of a ‘trusted trader’ scheme, when they are not. A glazier in Plymouth threatened to damage a customer’s property when he was not paid; fraudulently used the logo of ‘Secured by Design’, the police-supported security organisation; and carried out substandard work. Prosecuted by Trading Standards, he was given a suspended prison sentence for fraud and other offences and ordered to complete community service: ‘Rogue Glazier Given Suspended Sentence’ Journal of Trading Standards (31 July 2025).

(especially for the main text to n 42) In Ireland, the CCPC prosecuted a former car dealer for giving a second-hand car buyer inaccurate information about the car’s history. The trader pleaded guilty and was fined €2,000, also ordered to pay costs of €8,145 and to compensate the consumer by €8,700 (the price paid for the car): see ‘Former Kildare Car Dealer Fined After Pleading Guilty to Misleading Consumer’ Irish Legal News (6 January 2026).

(especially for n 44) Viagogo and its pricing practices were in the CMA’s sights again in November 2025, an investigation having been opened into suspected infringements of consumer law. The outcome has not yet been announced (August 2026).

(especially for the main text to n 48) For the campaigners whose work led to the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022 (E&W) and the end of leasehold sales of individual dwellings (other than in multi-unit developments), see Jessica Murray, ‘The Developers Got Greedy’: the Women who Took On the Leasehold Scandal – and Won’ The Guardian (16 June 2026).

(especially for n 51) In August 2025, the FCA announced that it was considering how to streamline and enhance its sustainability reporting framework, intending to:

• Simplify disclosure requirements and ease unnecessary burdens on firms.
• Maintain good outcomes for clients and consumers and improve the decision-usefulness of reporting, building on the work of the Sustainability Disclosure Requirements to improve trust and reduce greenwashing.
• Promote international alignment and help maintain the UK’s position as a global leader in sustainable finance.

In 2024 the CMA accepted a final ‘undertaking in lieu of a reference’, after homebuilder Barratt took over competitor Redrow. This aimed to ensure that what was originally a Redrow development site geographically close to one of Barratt’s would be developed to Redrow’s standards (including after-sales care) and marketed separately via an independent agent, these arrangements then being monitored by an independent trustee approved by the CMA.

(especially for the main text to n 67) In July 2025, seven major UK housebuilders investigated for possibly anti-competitive information-sharing offered a package of commitments to address the CMA’s concerns. The housebuilders would: 

• agree not to share certain types of information with other housebuilders, including the prices houses have been sold for, except in limited circumstances
• introduce enhanced compliance measures and training programmes
• work with the Home Builders Federation and Homes for Scotland to develop industry-wide guidance on information sharing
• make a combined £100 million payment which will be split between affordable housing programmes across all 4 nations of the United Kingdom. 

(especially for n 80) For an example of a business successfully requesting an interim injunction under the ACL s 18 to stop the negative impact of ‘trolling’ via untrue online statements about its work (suggesting that the plaintiff bought written-off vehicles, repaired and sold them), see Rafiei Commercial Pty Ltd v Dokt [2025] FCA 764 (Dowling J); but fulfilling the tests for a remedy under the ACL was not straightforward.

(especially for n 81) On the measure of damages under the ACL, see Larsen v Tastec Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCA 145 at [50]ff (Adamson JA).

For an example of liability for misleading or deceptive conduct in NZ law, asserted in parallel with a common law claim in negligence (successful) and deceit (unsuccessful), see Routhan in the update above to section [5.9.5]. The FTA 1986 (NZ) part of the claim is discussed in detail in the first instance judgment, Routhan v PGG Wrightson Real Estate Ltd [2021] NZHC 3585 (Dunningham J) at [131]ff (not challenged on appeal). 

A further recent example is Rahal v Bhargav [2026] NZCA 176, where the court (Palmer, Dunningham and Grice JJ) affirmed the personal liability under the FTA 1986 (NZ) s 9 of a director and shareholder of the company which sold the plaintiffs a ‘leaky home’ in Auckland (the defendant company was also liable in contract for breach of an express warranty that any work on the property requiring building consent had received the necessary consent). Reviewing the case law on ‘the amount of the loss or damage’ (s 43(3)((f)) payable under the FTA 1986 (NZ) s 9, including in PGG Wrightson Real Estate v Routhan [2023] NZCA 123, the Court adopted a higher figure than the trial judge. Damages were not necessarily limited to the difference between what the buyers paid and the actual value of the house they bought, but in a case like this should include estimated repair costs, as well as a modest award for general damages (reduced from NZ$80,000 to NZ$35,000):

[42] ... They [the buyers] could not sell the property because its value as a leaky home was less than their mortgage. Instead, they were locked into retaining the leaky property, living in it, enduring the physical and mental health consequences of doing so with their family, and repairing the property, in which it was reasonable for them to incur expenditure. It does not make sense to award damages on the basis of possible resale when resale was not possible.

In 2021, anti-competitive conduct in NZ acquired new criminal sanctions in the Commerce Act 1986 (NZ) s 82B, discussed for the first time (after a guilty plea relating to a cartel agreement intended to fix prices for bridge jointing services) in R v Kumar [2024] NZHC 3955. Wilkinson-Smith J in the end imposed six months’ community detention, coupled with 200 hours community work; the 1986 Act sets maxima for individuals of imprisonment for not more than seven years or a fine not exceeding NZ$500,000, or both. Mr Kumar’s company was fined NZ$500,000. On enforcement by the NZ Commerce Commission, see also the update above to section [4.14.4].

In July 2025, the MHCLG started consultation about additional regulation under the LFRA 2024 (E&W) of managing agents and of service charges for major works in long leasehold developments: see Strengthening Leaseholder Protections over Charges and Services: Executive Summary. See further the updates below to section [11.15]. 

(especially for n 160) The Data (Use and Access) Bill 2024 became the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (UK), Part 5 amending the UK-GDPR; the wide-ranging 2025 Act provides for the regulation of data in many areas. 

(especially for n 160) Craig Ballentine was released and able to travel home from Dubai for Christmas 2024 to Cookstown (NI). 

TrustMark has reported on ‘the skills gap’ in the RMI sector in the UK – very large numbers of SMEs and ‘micro-businesses’, including sole traders: 45% of the businesses surveyed had at least one vacancy, but entry-level pay has declined over time, making such construction-related jobs unattractive to young people. For its recommendations, see Skilled to Build: Empowering the UK’s Repair, Maintenance and Improvement Sector for a Better Future (2025).

For TrustMark’s advocacy of reform, see its September 2026 research report, Consumer Protection in Home Improvements; for its role in identifying inadequate home insulation installers, see the update below to section [12.6].

From July 2025, users of the UK property search website Zoopla can access Checkatrade’s services and traders.

In August 2026, the UK Government (DBIST) announced support for an Approved Code for home improvement projects: those signing up would be ‘trusted traders’: ‘able to demonstrate that they meet higher standards of customer service, transparency and dispute resolution’ (as often, ‘higher than what’?). There will also be a new system to protect people’s money during building projects, along lines already operating for projects using web-based Trusted Payments, with payments directly linked to key project milestones and (in all likelihood) an insurance-backed warranty. It is not clear whether adherence to the new Code (to be approved by the CTSI, like Consumer Codes in general, and with input from the Furniture and Home Improvement Ombudsman) will be mandatory as a condition of operating in the sector – which could need primary legislation.

Explaining the new statutory prohibitions against fake reviews in the UK, in April 2025 the CMA published guidance on the DMCCA 2024, sch 20, para 13: Fake Reviews (CMA208). 

The CMA then investigated 100 companies operating websites containing customer reviews; the results (July 2025) suggested that more than half could be failing to comply with its guidance. Some appeared to have no policy in place banning fake reviews, nor could a policy be found setting out their approach to incentivised reviews. Others had policies in place, but unclear, incomplete or inaccessible. This led in March 2026 to focussed investigations into five companies providing products and services online (none in construction).

In August 2025, the CMA published further guidance for online review sites, as well as for businesses whose services or products are reviewed.

In November 2025, National Trading Standards (UK) reported that the availability of AI had increased the potential for fake reviews (and completely fake websites). It gave advice on how consumers can protect themselves, in relation to both products and services:

• Question rave reviews – if multiple similar reviews have been uploaded at the same time, if a reviewer’s account has been activated recently or has only reviewed a narrow range of products, alarm bells should ring.
• See beyond the stars – whilst a star rating of 4.5 or 5 can be a good indicator of quality, don’t go by this alone – look at the reviews too and check them against these tips.
• Is it AI talking? – Genuine reviews will often be personal and specific to the individual’s experience of using the item, whilst a fake is more likely to be vague, using generic words and phrases such as ‘amazing’, ‘awesome’, ‘buy this product’.
• Review the reviews – Trusted online review checkers can help you decide if reviews are genuine – current options include TheReviewIndex and RateBud.
• Don’t buy from an ad – If you’re tempted by a product, go back to your browser and search the company website separately. Check out a range of well-known independent review sites (such as TrustPilot) and see if you can find other mentions of the website online. And don’t always rely on the padlock symbol as many criminals have cottoned on to this.
• Beware fake websites – Don’t automatically trust a website that you don’t know. Look for a company address, phone number and professional email address that you can verify, check out their socials and see if you can find reviews about the company elsewhere online. You can also use a web URL checker to see if it’s listed as a scam site.
• Pay securely – Always pay by credit or debit card or a legitimate payment platform (such as PayPal) when shopping online. If a seller asks for a bank transfer or other method of payment, alarm bells should ring.

(especially for the main text to n 217) When a troublemaker pretends to be a former customer and posts a one-star review on a trader’s website, threatening to do more and potentially impacting the trader’s average star rating (‘If you don’t response me I will put more negative on your business profile’), the scheme operator (Google) may be unwilling to take action, as reported on LinkedIn (May 2025) by licensed conveyancer Rose Davis from Nottingham (UK): ‘Conveyancer Refuses to Give In To One-Star Scammer’. 

For an example from Victoria of a builder suing a disgruntled homeowner client who posted critical material on social media (the judgment for damages also requiring the posts to be taken down), see Singh Homes Pty Ltd v Singh [2025] VCC 1740 (Clayton J). The judgment dealt with the consequences of the jury having found that the posts were defamatory and contravened the prohibition against misleading and deceptive conduct under ACL s 18. Clayton J accepted that there was sufficient evidence to show that the builder had lost some potential contracts, resulting in a damages award of around A$635,000, but was not satisfied that there had been the serious harm required for compensation for defamation. On applications for leave to appeal and cross-appeal, as Singh v Singh Homes Pty Ltd [2026] VSCA 191, the Victorian Court of Appeal (McLeish, Walker and Donaghue JJA) upheld the primary judge’s approach to the issue of whether the statements made were ‘in trade or commerce’ under the ACL and of quantification of the alleged ‘counterfactuals’: the ‘loss of chances’ caused by the statements. On counterfactuals, see also updates above to section [5.9.5] and below to section [10.12].

(especially for n 218) For an example of Australian protection under the ACL against inaccurate and negative reviews posted online, see the update above to section [6.3.1].

Checkmate’s original owner stopped issuing policies in 2022; policies may be being sold under the Checkmate brand by its new owner but are no longer under the CCHB. 

In May 2026, the CCHB paused its normal three-year rolling review of its Consumer Code, pending possible legislative or regulatory changes in private estate management arrangements (applicable to many new home schemes), home buying and selling reform and material information in property listings: all directly impacting codes of conduct affecting developers. The unacknowledged elephant in the room could be the adoption of a single statutory Code and ombudsman under the BSA 2022: see section [6.7.3] and its updates below.

(especially for the main text to nn 254-256) Updated figures from the NHQB (April 2026) suggest that at the end of 2025 56% of all new home sales in GB were protected by its Code, the NHOS dealing with about 600 queries a month. Between 1 January and 25 November 2025, the NHOS received 1,328 customer complaints, with 457 new complaints accepted for investigation. It issued 129 final decisions: 20 upholding the complaint, 24 not upholding it and 85 partially upholding it.

The MHCLG’s online pre-tender documents for a version of the NHOS to become statutory and mandatory state: 

This is expected to be a concessionary arrangement [from September 2026 to September 2031, with a possible two-year extension], and the contract value would be based on estimated revenue. The value is expected to be circa £12m depending on fees and pricing model. 

Unless ‘folded in’ to an expanded statutory NHOS, the NHQB may retain its present role and status; its website gives no information on its possible futures.

Clarifying the scope of the Code, amendments resulting from the NHQB’s 2024 review are now included in ‘What the Code covers’ on p 2 of the 2026 edition – also entitled NHQB Code of Practice. These confirm that it does not apply where the home is bought by a commercial entity (ie a company, trust, charity etc); nor to a range of possible claims:

• for issues that could be dealt with through the structural warranty
• for blight (where a home falls in value or becomes difficult to sell because of major public work in the area)
• related to the tenure or occupancy status of other properties;
• related to loss of value due to changes in market conditions or other factors outside the control of the developer;
• for personal injury; or
• not covered by the scheme rules of the New Homes Ombudsman Service.

Part 1 of the Code, section 1.3 banning high-pressure selling techniques, now has additional items added, following the NHQB’s 2024 review. These include regulating time-limited financial incentives for reserving a home or committing to buying, and barring ‘drip-pricing’: in stages revealing mandatory elements of the minimum price, or additional elements most buyers can reasonably be expected to choose. [‘Drip-pricing’ in other sectors became a CMA concern in Summer 2026, with three companies under investigation – none in construction.]

Section 1.7 on commission and incentives also includes an extra paragraph requiring the developer to disclose ‘any fee, commission or any other reward or advantage for introducing a professional adviser or recommending certain products or services to a customer’. It is unclear if this requires disclosure of the notional cost of the home’s third-party warranty, or of the ‘volume discount’ (or rebate) the developer gains from its chosen warranty provider: see further the update below to section [7.2.2].

The full text of Core Principle 2 in the 2023 edition of the UK New Homes Quality Code – unchanged in the 2026 edition – requires each ‘live’ Registered Developer to: 

[C]arry out and complete work in line with all regulations and requirements that apply to the new home, as set out by the Government, and have the necessary certificates from an appropriately approved body to show they have done this. 

The Code’s section [2.6.g] requires a Registered Developer to supply the buyer – before they commit to a purchase contract – with:

Information relating to the standards the new home is being built to, including confirmation that it will meet the building regulations, the relevant home warranty provider’s standards and the manufacturer’s and supplier’s performance standards. 

On completion, sections [2.11.j and k] of the 2026 Code require the customer to be given: 

• a copy of the building regulation control inspection records if they ask for this (E, W & NI); or confirmation that the relevant local authority has inspected the new home and confirmed it is ready to be lived in (Scotland).
• the building regulation completion certificate (or confirmation that the relevant local authority has inspected the new home and passed as being habitable and fit for occupation in Scotland) if this is available. If the certificate is not available, the developer must tell the customer that it will not be available until after completion (for example, if the new home is an apartment, the certificate may not be issued until the whole apartment block is completed), or signpost the customer to the organisation that can provide it. 

Existing buyers may have a fight, even if already taking legal action against the developer, to get access to these documents, as new home buyer Gary Prince’s LinkedIn posts (July 2025) reported in relation to Persimmon. It would of course be damaging for a developer to admit to a home buyer (or to the NHOS) that any of these expected documents do not exist, or that they record non-compliance. On disclosures when an existing home is for sale, see sections [4.4.4] and [8.7] in the book and their updates here.

(especially relevant to n 282) A further proposed Code change from the NHQB 2024 review would have expanded section 1.2 to specify three categories of ‘material information’ which the developer should disclose to a would-be purchaser, but also National Trading Standards requirements. These requirements were withdrawn in May 2025 on the coming into force of the DMCCA 2024 (UK), when the CMA’s new ‘direct enforcement’ powers overtook those of Trading Standards officials: see the update above to section [6.2.2]. The Code now refers specifically to the 2024 Act and adds a catch-all disclosure category of ‘anything else which would likely impact a consumer’s decision’. 

Relevant here are the standard forms developed by the Law Society for home sales. The draft of its revised TA6 Property Information form was unsuccessfully challenged at a Special General Meeting in July 2024; it includes questions newly requiring sellers to provide buyers with information on domestic solar installations, electric vehicle charging, private drainage and environmental regulations, as well as about energy efficiency. TA6 comes with explanatory notes (there is also a comparable 5th edition of the TA7 form for leasehold sales). On disclosures when a home is put on the market, see also sections [4.4.4] and [8.7] in the book and their updates here. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2024/13/contents. Version 2 of the New Homes Quality Code was published on 1 March 2026; some of its detailed changes, affecting reservations made after that date, are noted in updates above. The NHQB claims that the revisions will ‘further strengthen the consumer protections, improve transparency at every stage of the home-buying journey, and ensure the Code continues to set the benchmark for quality, service, and accountability across new-build homes’. There seems no official news on the possibility of the Code acquiring statutory status, though the NHQB strongly advocates a single statutory code and ombudsman, as does the Fabian Housing Centre research report On The Ladder (July 2026).

On what ‘fair value’ means, in February 2026 Graeme Reynolds, FCA Director of Competition and Interim Director of Insurance commented:

It might sound like dry regulator speak, but it’s really asking a simple question – are customers paying a reasonable price for a product, compared to the benefits they get in return? This is not us setting a particular price or level of profit which firms can make. But it's a challenge to firms – can they provide evidence that their customers are getting a fair deal? If they can’t, then they need to look again.

The FCA considers that developers registered with the NHBC for the purpose of offering new home buyers Buildmark cover are not themselves intermediaries subject to financial services regulation. So the NHBC is not responsible for the failure of the ‘builder’ to set up a policy before becoming insolvent, leaving the intending homeowners unprotected; and the process of being sold a policy cannot be the subject of a complaint by the homeowner against the developer before the FOS: Decision DRN114728 (9 October 2013). Nor is the NHBC responsible for any misinformation provided by the builder, as the builder’s role in forwarding the relevant policy documents is not an activity regulated by the FCA: Decision DRN1608960 (3 July 2014); or for how the builder responds to claims made against it in Years 1 and 2: Decision DRN2193382 (17 May 2013). All the 400+ FOS decisions since 1 April 2013 on complaints made by homeowners against the NHBC can be searched on the FOS website via the keyword ‘Buildmark’, showing only about 1 in 4 complaints upheld. These figures are hard to reconcile with FOS’s own for ‘building guarantees’: see the update below to section [9.6.1]; also section [7.2.6] in the book at n 81 and its update below.

An integral part of the Consumer Duty is to ensure that consumers understand the features of the product or service they are being offered: a 2026 FCA report, Consumer Understanding: Good Practice and Areas for Improvement discusses the issues.

In July 2026, the FCA reported on measures to refine the Consumer Duty after three years of operation, making it ‘more precise, proportionate and workable in wholesale markets’. The proposed changes are intended to have no impact on ‘retail markets’, directed at individual consumers. The FCA also reported on the need for firms subject to the Duty to focus on consumer outcomes, with adequate monitoring in place to help them understand what is happening across the customer journey, identify poor outcomes or emerging risks, and take appropriate action. This applies across all four of the Consumer Duty outcomes: products and services, price and value, consumer understanding, and consumer support.

Recent public statements in the UK have raised the issue: is there a tension between enforcing regimes protecting consumers and promoting economic growth (the ‘primary mission’ of the UK Labour Government)? Or are the two goals versions of the same objective? See Department for Business and Trade, Strategic Steer to the Competition and Markets Authority (May 2025), which encourages growth-oriented interventions by the CMA, while respecting its statutory powers and independence. 

The CMA’s own stance is in The CMA’s Approach to Consumer Protection (April 2025):