The building industry will unveil stringent new guidelines today in an attempt to stamp out gazumping. Sanctions will include publicly naming builders who put up the price of a house, following an agreement to sell at a certain price, and a specific time period within which contracts must be signed.

The Irish Homebuilders Association (IHBA), which represents 1,300 builders, maintains that gazumping only occurs in a minority of cases. However, it believes that such incidents give the industry a bad name.

Gazumping occurs where a buyer has an agreement with a builder to buy a house at a certain price, but when the buyer goes to sign the contract, the price has risen.

It is understood that potential purchasers will put down a deposit for a house at a specified price. The contract must then be issued by the builder within four weeks. The buyer will then have three weeks to sign and return the contract with a contract deposit. The price of the house would not change during this period.

It is understood that under the new code builders will only be able to accept a booking deposit when they know they can issue a contract within four weeks. The effect of this is unclear, but it may mean that putting a deposit on a home months in advance of the house actually being built will become a thing of the past.

Builders who sign up to the scheme, but who are found to be in breach of it, will face disciplinary action, according to industry sources. It is understood that "transgressors" names will be published in the national media. The IHBA will give purchasers a copy of the guidelines, known as the Home Purchase Protection Pledge, which will outline their rights under the scheme. The scheme will also be backed by a strong marketing campaign. The scheme is expected to come into effect within weeks.

The code, which the IHBA is expected to argue was introduced on its own initiative, is expected to receive a broad welcome. A handful of high-profile cases have turned public attention to the issue.

Only last October a young Kildare couple called for new legislation to prevent builders from raising the price of a house after a deposit is paid. It followed a Circuit Court ruling that a developer had not acted illegally when he increased the price of a house by £20,000 after accepting a deposit.

The judge said that, although she had considerable sympathy for the couple, she had no choice but to dismiss the case. She agreed with previous High Court decision in a similar case. Then, Judge McCracken, who was hearing the case, had said that, although he did not morally agree with the builder's action, legally the defendant was entitled to do what he did.

The judge ruled that the young couple did not have a binding contract with the builder. A booking deposit did not constitute an agreement.