Please Note: All references to the masculine include the feminine on TPO website and documents.
Case Summaries
This is an example of Cases closed this year, this list will be updated monthly.
Sales
1. This was a straightforward transaction which did not proceed to exchange and completion following the prospective buyers withdrawing from the transaction. The Complainant (the potential seller) sought to hold the member agent liable for not returning the prospective buyer"s deposit to her. Whilst my review found that the agent had failed to adhere to Paragraph 8a of the TPO Code of Practice by taking the deposit in the first place (I noted that they subsequently wrote to the Complainant confirming the deposit was non-refundable), I also found that the agent wrote to the Complainant two days after the offer (which included the deposit) was made, expressing their concerns regarding the prospective buyers" unwillingness to formally confirm the arrangement in writing and concluding that they would have to return the monies to the prospective buyers should they withdraw from the transaction. However, I noted that the member agent did not reiterate this position in their subsequent correspondence with the Complainant and, in fact, at one point confirmed that they would transfer the deposit to her. I, therefore, considered that this had caused the Complainant a degree of distress, aggravation and inconvenience. I also found that the agent failed to evidence that they ceased marketing the property, following the Complainant"s instructions to do so. However, I was not persuaded that the circumstances of that issue merited an award of financial compensation. Finally, I supported the complaint that the agent failed to deal with the Complainant"s issues in accordance with Paragraphs 12d and 12f of the TPO Code of Practice and I considered that this had caused the Complainant further distress, inconvenience and aggravation. I, therefore, made an award of £150.
2. The Complainant was a potential buyer. She brought a complaint, alleging that the agent had failed to advise her that there was planning permission for the owner of the land opposite the property that she intended to purchase to extend a factory. Having paid a non refundable deposit and incurred costs, the Complainant obtained details of the planning consents and decided to withdraw from the purchase. I first clarified that there was no obligation upon a member agent to disclose any information but if the Complainant had directly requested the same, any information provided must have been accurate and not misleading. The Complainant stated that the agent advised that planning permission for houses had been granted for the land in question. The agent disputed this, stating that they had commented on the proposal for the factory extension but had advised the Complainant to contact the owner of the land, providing contact details to facilitate this. I could not comment on the verbal discussion, having no knowledge of the same. There was no evidence to persuade me that the agent had misled the Complainant and hence the complaint was not supported.
3. The potential buyers and Complainants had an offer accepted for the property. Their circumstances then changed, necessitating the sale of their own property in order to fund the purchase. The complaint was that they informed the agent of this, asked the agent to liaise with the seller and inform her as to the seller"s reaction to this development. They claim that the agent made no contact with them thereafter, until they themselves called to arrange access for an architectural assessment (in the belief that having heard nothing all was proceeding as planned). When they called the agent they were told that the property had been remarketed when they had advised of the need to sell their own property and that subsequently a higher offer had come in that very day and the seller had accepted this. The Complainants said they were told that it was the agent"s policy only to confirm to the seller in writing any further offers received, not prospective buyers. The agent accepted that this was the case, but claimed to have verbally informed the Complainants that the property would be remarketed following the need for them to sell their own property. This was the word of one party against the other, however in the light of admitted policy of not giving written confirmation to a potential buyer of further offers or continued marketing, and a lack of contact notes to indicate such a conversation took place, I was inclined to accept the Complainants" version of events. I decided that the Complainants had been disadvantaged, in effect precluded from further part in the sale. I supported the complaint and made an award of £200 for the inconvenience, aggravation and distress caused by the agent"s failings.
4. The Complainants, who were sellers, did not believe that the agent had acted in their best interests and achieved the best possible price for the property. It had been on the market for sale by private treaty with the intention that it would go to auction if a sale had not been agreed beforehand. The buyer"s offer was accepted with the condition that exchange of contracts should take place before the proposed date of the auction. As the property was not of standard construction, the buyer was advised by his surveyor to ensure that repair work previously carried out had been completed to an acceptable standard and a certificate issued. Whilst this issue was being resolved, the buyer put his solicitor"s searches on hold. In the meantime, the property was still entered into the auction and the Complainants agreed to the asking price being reduced on two occasions leading up to the auction. The buyer attended the auction and acquired the property for £34,500 less than the original price he had agreed to pay. I considered that there was no certainty that the buyer would proceed with his purchase at the agreed sale price without attempting to negotiate a reduction. I also had to take into consideration that the Complainants were complicit with the reductions to the guide price for the auction. I did not support the complaint.
5. This was a straightforward relationship between the member agent and the Complainant (the seller) which broke down following a lack of communication and delays to the marketing of the property. The agent"s account of events blamed the initial delays on the tenants of the property failing to keep three appointments which did not allow them to conduct their "take on process". They acknowledged that the subsequent delay and lack of communication occurred as a result of a family bereavement which reduced their capacity to carry out their services. As the member agent provided no company file to evidence their account of events, nor contested the Complainant"s comments, I supported the complaints that they unduly delayed their marketing of the property. I also supported a complaint concerning their lack of communication with the Complainant, which they themselves acknowledged. I, therefore, made an award of £100 for the unnecessary and avoidable distress, aggravation and inconvenience caused to the Complainant.
Lettings
6. This was a straightforward tenancy which became contentious following the check-out inspection. The Complainants (the tenants) argued that the manner in which the member agent conducted the check-out inspection caused them financial loss and distress, aggravation and inconvenience. My review found that the agent had proposed charges for two items of cleaning and for repairing a dent in the hall wall, which I considered should not have been the liability of the Complainants. I reached this view because all three items were present in the original inventory. However, other than the costs for these items, I considered that the deposit deductions proposed by the agent were fair. Concerning the manner in which the agent conducted the check-out inspection and compiled their subsequent report, I found no evidence to indicate that they were dishonest, that they encouraged the landlord to make a claim for deposit deductions or that their responses to the subsequent complaint were either unprofessional, rude or failed to comply with the TPO Code of Practice, as alleged by the Complainants. I also noted that the Complainants had reached a settlement (which reduced the charges proposed by the agent) regarding the deposit deductions directly with the landlord and that they did not raise their dispute via the Tenancy Deposit Scheme within the required timescales. Given these factors, I considered that the Complainants had not suffered any financial loss or any distress, aggravation or inconvenience, which they could have otherwise avoided themselves. Whilst, I supported the complaint to the extent that the agent proposed charges for three items which I did not consider should have been put to the Complainants, I did not consider that an award of financial compensation was appropriate.
7. This was a straightforward transaction which became strained both before and after the tenancy commenced. The Complainant (the landlord) raised numerous issues concerning the member agent"s communications, gas and electrical inspections and the manner in which they dealt with her complaint. The Complainant had stated that this was her first experience of being a landlord; however, she took the decision to instruct the agent on a tenant find only basis. Whilst it was her responsibility to ensure she was fully aware of her obligations and duties as the landlord, it was clear from the nature of the many communication issues she raised, that she had not done so. I did support some of the communications issues raised; however, I did not consider these merited any award of financial compensation. However, my review also found that, despite being instructed by the Complainant to arrange a gas and electrical safety inspection of the property, prior to the start of the tenancy, the agent had failed to do so. My review also found that, the agent subsequently failed to address any of the complaint issues raised by the Complainant. Accordingly, I supported both of these complaints and made and award of £150 to reflect the distress, aggravation and inconvenience caused to the Complainant.
8. The Complainant, who was a tenant, claimed that the letting agent withheld information from him with regard to the future use of the shop unit below the property he was letting. He also raised a complaint concerning the condition of the property when he moved in and other management issues during the tenancy. The Complainant claimed that he had asked the letting agent on several occasions whether the empty shop unit below the property would be used as a take away or restaurant and was told it would not be. As the letting agent stated that he made no such assurances, I was unable to come to a judgement on this complaint. I explained that the condition of the property at the beginning of the tenancy was the responsibility of the landlord and as the letting agent was only employed on a tenant find only basis, they were not responsible for dealing with any issues raised during the tenancy and so did not support a complaint raised in this regard. I did support a complaint raised that the letting agent had provided the Complainant with an incorrect address for the property. I also criticised the letting agent"s handling of the complaint in that they failed to take it seriously or act in accordance with the requirements of the TPO Code of Practice. I made an award of £50 for the element of the complaint that I supported and the complaints handling failures of the letting agent.
9. The Complainant was the landlord of the property. He claimed that the agent had not provided or explained any Terms of Business with regard to management fees, which it was claimed had been taken in advance for twelve months. It was claimed that the agent had not passed on any rent or advised of rental arrears, had failed to communicate with the Complainant or tenants; had refused to evict the tenants and had not conducted a check-out, produced a check-out report or returned the keys. The agent disputed all allegations, and counter-stated that the Complainant had failed to comply with his duties as landlord to provide a habitable property. The agent said that they had not taken management fees, but rather the agreed tenant-finding fees, the tenants having withheld rent due to the condition of the property. The agent said the tenants vacated after repeatedly requesting improvements to be made to the property since before the tenancy began to no avail, had not returned the keys and the Complainant had not been to check the property since (twelve months), or subsequently re-let. The minimal evidence provided by the Complainant did not substantiate his claims, and appeared to corroborate the agent"s version of events. The Complainant had shown a very hands-off approach to being a landlord, in correspondence to the agent referring to "your tenants" seemingly unaware that the Tenancy Agreement was between the tenants and himself and had only demonstrated he chased up for rent after six months. The agent claimed to have attempted contact with him in order that he resolve the issues with the property, as the tenants withheld their rent because of this. I did not support the complaints and made no award.
10. The Complainant (the tenant) signed two Tenancy Agreements for two properties in a space of one month and paid two tenancy deposits. The Complainant vacated the properties without providing the required written notice stated in the Tenancy Agreements. The agent retained the tenancy deposit due to rent arrears (the Complainant not having provided the required notice in writing to vacate the properties) and cleaning costs which exceeded the sum taken for the deposits. The complaint was how the agent handled the dispute. The Tenancy Agreements did not include details of how the Complainant could apply for the release of the deposit or details of what he should do if he disputed the landlords’ claims to retain the deposits. Under the Housing Act 2004 the agent was obliged to provide these details. What was more the agent acknowledged that they deliberately decided not to refer the Complainant to the recognised Tenancy Deposit Scheme as they had no confidence in the independent arbitrator. I concluded that this was a breach of Paragraph 1d of the TPO Code of Practice and made an award of £400. I advised the Complainant that I was unable to adjudicate on whether the deductions claimed by the agent on behalf of the landlords were fair and referred him to the relevant scheme which held his deposits.
