The Property Ombudsman | Press Releases 2009

Residential lettings and sales agency Global Realty has been expelled from The Property Ombudsman scheme (TPO) after failing to pay a £1,600 award made against it.

Ombudsman Christopher Hamer ordered the firm to pay £1,400 to a tenant whose deposit Global Realty had paid to the landlord of the property without ensuring that it was adequately safeguarded under the tenancy deposit protection laws. This action left the tenant having to pursue the landlord (so far unsuccessfully) for monies rightly due to her at the end of the tenancy.

Whilst the Ombudsman recognised that the landlord's behaviour was not Global Realty's responsibility, it was the actions of Global Realty that had severely disadvantaged the tenant and led her into a situation that the agent could have avoided. The Ombudsman made an additional award of £200 for the aggravation, distress and inconvenience experienced by the complainant.

The agency, with offices at 426 Finchley Road, London, NW2 2HY, and 10 Nugent Terrace, St John's Wood, London, NW8 9QB, was given its final warning to pay by Mr. Hamer on September 16 this year but has failed to respond.

'This firm signed up to be voluntary members of the scheme for its lettings activities so was bound to accept the Ombudsman's decision once it was made,' said Bill McClintock, chief operating officer of TPO, who has responsibility for membership.

'The breach of the rules means we have also cancelled Global Realty's membership for its sales activities. It remains registered with TPO at present under the terms of the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act to cover its sales activities but it is regrettable that this company has reneged on its commitment to its clients.

'The Property Ombudsman scheme's disciplinary and standards committee has made it clear that agents who don't honour the Ombudsman's decisions will be expelled and this is the fourth time it has used the sanction for non-payment of an award this year.

'When an agent is expelled, we automatically notify the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and trading standards officers in the firm's locality and would remind consumers that Global Realty is no longer entitled to display a TPO or OFT logo on its premises.'

End

Notes to editors:

Case summary:

The Complainant was a tenant who brought a complaint to TPO regarding the way the agent had administered the deposit. The tenancy commenced in October, 2007, but there was no provision within the assured shorthold tenancy agreement for a deposit dispute to be referred to a dispute resolution service and the agent had failed to ensure that the deposit was paid into a deposit scheme, thereby breaching their obligations both under the Housing Act 2004 and the TPO Code of Practice.

The tenancy was for a 12 month period but it was apparent, from e-mail documentation provided to TPO, that the landlord agreed, in March, 2008, to release the Complainant early from the agreement, on payment of a sum equivalent to six weeks' rent. After the Complainant had vacated the Property, the agent claimed that the deposit would be forfeit as the Complainant had moved out early. TPO accepted the logic of the landlord's claim to the agreed six weeks' rent (of which approximately £900 was still outstanding) but not the right to forfeit the £2,300 deposit as well.

At the end of the tenancy, the agent, aware that the monies would not be paid into a deposit protection scheme, released the deposit monies, in full, to the landlord, advising that they no longer wished to retain the deposit but that they considered that the landlord was entitled to the same.

The role of TPO was to address the impact on the Complainant of the agent's failure to lodge the deposit with a tenancy deposit scheme. If they had, this issue would have been quickly addressed without the Complainant being left to pursue the landlord through the courts, having already spent months trying to resolve this issue through correspondence.

TPO was persuaded that if the deposit had been paid into a deposit scheme as it ought to have been, and the agent had given the Complainant notice of where it was held, and had given the Complainant an account of monies claimed to be owing when she vacated, this could have been quickly addressed by the deposit scheme and, TPO believed, would have resulted in the Complainant recovering approximately £1,400 (the deposit less agreed rent outstanding). TPO therefore made an award of £1,400 in respect of quantifiable financial loss together with a sum of £200 in respect of the distress, aggravation and inconvenience caused to the Complainant as a consequence of the agent's actions, resulting in a total award of £1,600.

The Property Ombudsman scheme (www.tpos.co.uk) offers a free, independent, and impartial service to members of the public who are dissatisfied with the service provided by an estate agent who is a member of the scheme during the buying, selling, or letting of a residential property. The Ombudsman, Christopher Hamer, can recommend member agents pay compensation of up to £25,000 in any one case.

Any decision made by the Ombudsman is binding on member agents but not on complainants, who are free to reject the Ombudsman's decision and pursue the matter in the courts if they wish.

TPO was founded in 1990 as the Ombudsman for Corporate Estate Agents, so is now in its 20th year of operation. In 1998, it broadened its scope to make it available to all residential estate agents, becoming the Ombudsman for Estate Agents (OEA). From June 2006, the OEA extended its services to Lettings and Property Management agents.

With effect from 1 October 2008, all UK estate agents engaged in residential property sales are required to register with an Estate Agents Redress Scheme that has been approved by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and which investigates complaints against estate agents. The OEA (now TPO) was the first scheme approved by the OFT.

For more information, contact Maurice Hardy, PR for The Property Ombudsman, on 01264 771661 / 07831 272220.

21 October 2009

Four calls an hour over lettings problems

Ombudsman reports property sales disputes on rise again, too

The Property Ombudsman, Christopher Hamer, reveals in his latest quarterly report that the number of new cases concerning house sales he is investigating is on the rise again - and he expects the figures to grow still more later this year.

But so, too, are the disputes involving lettings. Consumers in the lettings market are now making 129 calls a week, that's almost four an hour on average, to the Ombudsman's office seeking advice, a significant rise over the 110 a week calling for help during quarter two of 2009 and far beyond the 77 a week this time last year.

Mr Hamer reports he is investigating almost 79 per cent more lettings cases (127) at the moment than he did in the same period, July 1 to September 30, last year (71) although the number of people calling for help about lettings has only risen by 67 per cent to reach 1,679 over the quarter.

Cases under investigation involving sales have risen 17 per cent for the third quarter, from 104 to 122. But reflecting market conditions they are still almost 32 per cent below last year's level (179) while enquiries are down by 36 per cent over the year (966 in 2009, 1,525 in 2008).

'The statistics in this report covering the period 1 July to 30 September 2009 show the continuing trend of increasing lettings disputes referred to my office,' explained Mr, Hamer.

'I have noted, however, a small surge in sales disputes and whilst there has been much talk about the market beginning to pick up, if that is true it will be some months yet before that has an effect on my workload.

'Trends in the market are mirrored in the numbers of cases that I am asked to decide about three to four months later so any actual increase in activity in the market will become apparent in my workload towards the end of the year.'

The principal causes of disputes over lettings arise when agents are alleged to have failed to make adequate checks of tenant references, not explaining that holding deposits are forfeit if the tenant does not go ahead with renting the property, and inspection visits not being frequent enough to prevent deterioration of the property.

With regard to sales, complaints have arisen from sellers who have been asked to pay for a Home Information Pack when the property has not sold and home owners who have become liable to dual fees after switching agents when the market was slow.

Related to this second point, Mr. Hamer reports he is also getting calls from estate agents complaining about the behaviour of other agents who are making unsolicited approaches to sellers who already have their properties for sale or to let, widely known as 'touting'.

He adds that the quantity and format of 'flyers' put out by agents, whether targeted at a district, street, or individual addresses, could be an irritation to occupants. To comply with the Code of Conduct issued by TPO, any material should also fully explain to property owners that there is the risk of a double liability to fees if they are currently, or have been, selling their property through another agent.

Any consumer dissatisfied by such an approach can ask the Ombudsman to intervene if the agents involved cannot resolve the complaint. However he has no power to intervene between agents - disputes should instead be addressed to Trading Standards or agents' professional bodies. If there is a breach of the Code of Conduct, Mr Hamer will then write to the offending agent asking for the activity to cease.

End

Notes to editors

Enquiries figures for this and the previous four quarters

	Q3 2008	Q4 2008	Q1 2009	Q2 2009	Q3 2009
Total	2882	3011	3157	3204	3430
Sales	1525	1279	1002	1076	966
Lettings	1006	1258	1489	1446	1679
Other	78	0	153	147	107
General	277	323	361	385	458
Insufficient Information	-	151	152	150	220

Cases opened in the previous four quarters

	Q3 2008	Q4 2008	Q1 2009	Q2 2009	Q3 2009
Total	250	249	192	221	249
Sales	179	162	102	104	122
Lettings	71	87	90	117	127

Any decision made by the Ombudsman is binding on member agents but not on complainants, who are free to reject the Ombudsman's decision and pursue the matter in the courts if they wish.

OEA was founded in 1990 as the Ombudsman for Corporate Estate Agents, so it is now in its 20th year of operation. In 1998, it broadened its scope to make it available to all residential estate agents. From June 2006, the OEA extended its services to Lettings and Property Management agents. Recent expansion has also seen its redress scheme extended to some UK commercial property transactions and foreign property purchases in the UK.

With effect from 1 October 2008, all UK estate agents engaged in residential property sales are required under the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act (CEARA) to register with an Estate Agents Redress Scheme that has been approved by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and which investigates complaints against estate agents. The OEA was the first scheme approved by the OFT and became TPOS on May 1, 2009.

For more information, contact Maurice Hardy, PR for The Property Ombudsman scheme, on 01264 771661 / 07831 272220

16 September 2009

Ombudsman scheme expels estate agent

An estate agency has been expelled from The Property Ombudsman scheme, still owing a £2,000 award made against it.

But the company passed itself off as a TPO member when the organisation checked on it with a mystery shop.

'I would warn potential clients of Foundations, in Beehive Lane, Gants Hill, Ilford, that this firm is not a member of our scheme and has been expelled by us,' said Bill McClintock, chief operating officer of The Property Ombudsman scheme.

'One of the reasons leading to the award against it was that it claimed to be registered with the National Approved Letting Scheme and to be a member of the National Association of Estate Agents but neither claim was true.

'The firm failed to renew its membership for its sales activities earlier this year. Unless this firm can prove membership of another approved scheme it will be trading illegally if it continues to sell houses.

'The complaint leading to the award was in respect of the firm's lettings activities, for which it was a voluntary member of TPO as there is no legal compulsion for lettings agents to have redress in place.

'Even so, firms are required by TPO to honour awards made against them but Foundations has failed to hand over the £2,000 award following a detailed complaint.

'The Property Ombudsman scheme not only ensures consumers have access to compensation when things go wrong but also brings higher standards to the industry as a whole, whether for residential sales or lettings.

'I have given the director, Mr. N. Kudhail, time to renew membership in order that we can pursue the non-payment of the award. The expulsion should demonstrate to estate agents that TPO will enforce its rulings and to consumers that we do not accept poor standards or lax behaviour from member agents when a justifiable complaint has been made.'

Earlier this year, TPO expelled two agents, one in London and the other on Merseyside, after they failed to pay awards against them. Both quickly responded following publicity and have been allowed to re-register for their sales activities but not to become full members until their standards have been monitored for a period of time.

End

Notes to Editors:

Following investigation, the Ombudsman, Christopher Hamer, supported the following complaints against Foundations and made the £2,000 award of compensation:

Substitution of tenant - the property was let to a limited company instead of two women, as had been agreed;

Non payment of rent for June, July and August 2008;
Lying about work status of tenants;
No confirmation of all outgoings paid to 10 Aug 2008;
No checkout of tenants;
No interim inspections;
Property not left in same condition as it was when first let;
Rent being paid in arrears, not in advance nor by direct debit;
Not remedying damage to the property caused by the occupiers;
Not returning calls or emails;
Using the National Approved Letting Scheme and National Association of Estate Agents when not registered as members.

Any decision made by the Ombudsman is binding on member agents but not on complainants, who are free to reject the Ombudsman's decision and pursue the matter in the courts if they wish.

OEA was founded in 1990 as the Ombudsman for Corporate Estate Agents, so is now in its 20th year of operation. In 1998, it broadened its scope to make it available to all residential estate agents. From June 2006, the OEA extended its services to Lettings and Property Management agents.

For more information, contact Maurice Hardy, PR for The Property Ombudsman service, on 01264 771661/07831 272220.

12 August 2009

Better support promised for homeowners over HIPs

Property Ombudsman to handle more enquiries and disputes

Two bodies covering the residential property sector in respect of consumer redress and industry Codes of Practice have commenced alignment of their consumer enquiry and dispute resolution functions.

The Property Codes Compliance Board (PCCB) has begun the transition to direct consumer enquiries to The Property Ombudsman (TPO) and later, in mid-September, will also be moving its consumer redress function to create a simplified redress system for consumers across the whole sector.

The Property Ombudsman, Christopher Hamer, has been resolving disputes with regard to estate agents' actions involving HIPs since packs were introduced in 2007 but his scheme has now been extended to directly include the many HIP and search providers registered with the PCCB.

The move follows the publication of a Memorandum of Understanding earlier this year between the two bodies setting out plans for closer collaborative working.

The changes to enquiry and redress handling by the PCCB is the first concrete example of what that this will mean in practice. Consumers who have problems with estate agents, Home Information Packs (HIPs) or the personal searches within them will now have one point of contact for information, advice and dispute resolution.

The majority of people with disputes concerning the content of the HIP can ask the Ombudsman to intervene if they fail to resolve the dispute through the HIP provider or search provider's own internal procedures.

'It is clearly a positive step that any consumer who feels disadvantaged because of something related to the estate agent, HIP, or personal search for a particular property now has one port of call for how the matter can be independently resolved,' said Mr. Hamer.

'My office has a lot of experience already in relation to HIPS either through dealing with formal cases or from consumer enquiries. We can now apply that experience to even greater effect.'

Richard Footitt, PCCB chairman, said the Board had been in discussions with The Property Ombudsman for some time and the new alignment offered a positive service for firms registered with the PCCB and their clients.

'The Property Ombudsman has extensive and unrivalled experience of handling consumer queries and complaints and providing effective redress where problems arise,' he added.

'The Board's role is to try to stop problems arising in the first place by ensuring that all PCCB-registered HIP and Search providers comply with the respective Codes of Practice. It makes sense to align our schemes to provide a single point of contact for consumers and independent redress for their complaints when things go wrong.

'Our earlier work covering codes of practice with The Property Ombudsman had already enhanced the consistency of standards for those responsible for delivering HIPs.

'Having our redress scheme implemented by The Property Ombudsman will also bring welcome clarity for consumers and a consistency of approach to dispute resolution across the residential property sector.'

End

Notes for Editors

Earlier this year, The Property Ombudsman and the Property Codes Compliance Board (PCCB) announced a Memorandum of Understanding to align the organisations' Codes of Practice to clarify the roles and responsibilities of estate agents and HIP and search organisations with the aim of introducing a single point of contact for enquiries and dispute resolution.

The Property Ombudsman Service (www.tpos.co.uk), formerly known as the Ombudsman for Estate Agents (OEA), offers a free, independent, and impartial service to members of the public who are dissatisfied with the service provided by an estate agent who is a member of the scheme during the buying, selling, or letting of a residential property.

Any decision made by the Ombudsman, Christopher Hamer, is binding on member agents but not on complainants, who are free to reject the Ombudsman's decision and pursue the matter in the courts if they wish.

The Property Codes Compliance Board (PCCB) independently monitors compliance by registered subscribing companies with the HIP and Search Codes. The Codes provide protection for home buyers, sellers, estate agents and conveyancers relying on searches and HIPs, and include good practice standards, robust insurance requirements and the independent adjudication of complaints. The HIP Code is owned by the Association of Home Information Pack Providers and the Search Code by the Council of Property Search Organisations.

For more information, contact Maurice Hardy, PR for The Property Ombudsman service, on 01264 771661 / 07831 272220 or Kate Nicholls, PR for the PCCB, on 07958 796238.

13 July 2009

Frustrated tenants still have big problems

Frustration with lettings agents is still the biggest cause of people contacting The Property Ombudsman and asking for help.

The Ombudsman, Christopher Hamer, reveals in his latest report, covering the second quarter of 2009, that more than 110 people a week asked for assistance with problems over property lettings during the period.

Since the end of June last year, enquiries regarding lettings have gone up by 44 per cent while those regarding sales have fallen by almost a third (30 per cent) although they are showing a slight upward trend once more.

'This is precisely what I forecast as the property market switched emphasis from sales to lettings during the current slowdown,' explains Mr. Hamer.

'Enquiries over lettings disputes now far outstrip those for sales and this is one of the principal reasons for asking the Office of Fair Trading to ratify The Property Ombudsman Lettings Code of Practice under its Consumer Codes Approval Scheme. We see this as the first step towards the time when all lettings agents must be legally required to sign up for a redress scheme.

'Such a requirement already applies to residential sales agents and as a result more than 10,400 sales offices were registered with my scheme at the end of June, the end date for my current report.

'In addition, my jurisdiction also covers 6,255 lettings offices as their operators have signed up voluntarily to The Property Ombudsman scheme and this means that 807 disputes that have arisen with lettings agents between April 1 and June 30 will fall within my jurisdiction. But that still leaves a significant number of the 1,446 enquiries outside my scheme, which clearly flags up that consumers have a potentially very large problem. We are trying to help these people with advice wherever we can.

'My message to consumers in the lettings market is that they should only use agents who are covered by The Property Ombudsman scheme and are therefore following the standards in our Lettings Code of Practice.

'During the quarter my team also looked at 866 disputes involving residential sales agents out of a total of 1,076 disputes brought to our attention. The rest were outside my jurisdiction for various reasons.

'While these initial investigations take place, 104 sales and 117 lettings disputes are now active cases, a far greater rise in lettings (27) than sales (2) over the previous quarter.'

Mr. Hamer also says in the introduction to his report that estate agents must take much greater care when explaining fee structures to clients and ensure that clients are aware of what they are signing up to.

He states that while he will not re-write contracts that are quite lawful, where there is evidence of deliberately induced confusion in the mind of the consumer he will find in the consumer's favour and make an award that compensates them for their loss.

'I am regularly presented with scenarios where the fees, although stated in the Agreement, have been clouded in some way either during substantiated conversations during the market appraisal or through some ambiguity in the wording of the contract,' says Mr. Hamer.

'I have seen cases where the agent has operated a fixed fee basis but it was clear from the evidence presented to me that the charge was portrayed as a percentage of the selling price and sellers therefore rightly assumed that it related to the achieved sale price.

'The message that I want to give from these circumstances is that clarity and precision when describing charges and fees and when they apply are absolutely vital.'

Mr. Hamer warns agents: 'Do not assume that clients have understood the detail of what is presented. Although they have committed themselves to a contract it is in my view best practice to highlight and specifically emphasise the relevant information.

'It will, for certain, reduce the number of complaints arising.'

In the report, Mr. Hamer cites a case where an agent sold a house for £220,000 but charged a flat fee worked out against an asking price of £300,000, the original amount he had recommended and which was £50,000 more than two other agents had advised.

The agent offered the complainant £500 in recompense but Mr Hamer judged this insufficient and awarded £1,304 against the agent, resulting in the complainant paying commission to the agent according to his sliding scale for a £220,000 sale.

End

Notes to editors

Enquiries figures for this and the previous four quarters

	Q2 2008	Q3 2008	Q4 2008	Q1 2009	Q2 2009
Total	3036	2882	3011	3157	3204
Sales	1533	1525	1279	1002	1076
Lettings	1004	1006	1258	1489	1446
Other	51	78	0	153	147
General	448	277	323	361	385
Insufficient Information	-	-	151	152	150

The Property Ombudsman Scheme (www.tpos.co.uk) offers a free, independent, and impartial service to members of the public who are dissatisfied with the service provided by an estate agent who is a member of the scheme during the buying, selling, or letting of a residential property. The Ombudsman, Christopher Hamer, can recommend member agents pay compensation of up to £25,000 in any one case.

Any decision made by the Ombudsman is binding on member agents but not on complainants, who are free to reject the Ombudsman's decision and pursue the matter in the courts if they wish.

For more information, contact Maurice Hardy, PR for The Property Ombudsman service, on 01264 771661 / 07831 272220

01 July 2009

Sales complaints down, lettings complaints up

The past two years have seen the UK residential property market suffer one of the biggest collapses in living memory, with house prices in most areas down between 20% and 30% on their 2007 highs.

Significant numbers of estate agents have closed down and those that remain are faced with a sales market, which, while improving, remains challenging.

As a result, many agents, perhaps without the necessary experience or expertise, have been focusing more of their attention on lettings.

This has made the need to oversee the rental market even more important, which is where The Property Ombudsman (TPO) scheme steps in.

Complaint levels

So what effect has the decline of the property market had on complaint levels against estate agents?

The first three months of 2009 saw the number of complaints received by TPO in relation to house sales fall by a significant 38% from the previous quarter, no doubt due to the decreasing number of sales (and sales agents) overall.

However, lettings complaints from the UK public have risen significantly over the past twelve months, by around 26% from mid2008 to the current period.

This followed an exceptional 200% rise in complaints over lettings during the whole of 2008, as more and more agents joined the TPO scheme for rentals.

So with the rental market in better shape than its house sales cousin, it is inevitable that I will see an increasing number of disputes from those who feel they have received a less than satisfactory service from a letting agent.

The Property Ombudsman scheme enables members of the public to complain about the level of service they receive from an estate agent or letting agent who is a TPO member (the majority are, although people should always check for the TPO logo before beginning the house buying or letting process).

When should I use the Property Ombudsman?

I may consider a complaint if you believe an agent has:

infringed your legal rights; or
failed to follow the rules and obligations set for agents under the TPO Code of Practice; or
treated you unfairly; or
been guilty of maladministration (including inefficiency or undue delay).

I can recommend that member agents pay compensation of up to £25,000 in any one case. Any decision I make is binding on member agents if the complainant accepts. However, the complainant is free to reject my decision and pursue the matter in the courts if they wish.

In addition, I provide information on serious breaches of the Code or serious unfair treatment to the TPO Disciplinary and Standards Committee, which decides on action against member agents, including expulsion from the scheme in such cases, or if they do not comply with my decisions (which is rare, but does sometimes happen).

Since October 2008, an estate agent who is not registered with an approved redress scheme such as TPO cannot legally undertake residential property sales and those who ignore the law face a significant fine from trading standards officers, who are immediately made aware of any TPO decision regarding expelled firms.

For example, two firms were expelled recently for failing to pay agreed awards to complainants but they quickly fell into line and paid up. Subject to the Disciplinary and Standards Committee being satisfied with their conduct, they may be readmitted at some point in the future.

With the market in its current state, it is crucial that homebuyers and tenants know that the Ombudsman has the ability to enforce decisions and come down hard on bad practices.

Making a complaint

If you have a complaint about a sales or letting agent, complaint forms are available free to download from the TPO website (see link, left). Once my office receives a complaint, the investigations team will contact the estate agent in question and request the relevant files. For this reason, it is vital that members of the public retain all their own documentation and provide it to me as well.

Only rarely will it be necessary for someone from my office to speak to the complainant directly. A case officer will normally carry out a formal review based on the documents from both sides.

That review provides me with the information I need to reach a proposed decision. All reviews and reporting remain confidential, so only the agent, complainant and myself will see them.

If the proposed decision supports all or part of the complaint, the estate agent has 14 days to accept the decision or make a representation detailing why they disagree. The case review is then sent to the complainants, who have 28 days in which to accept the decision or make their own representation.

I will only reconsider at the representation stage if:

they can show that there was a significant factual error that would have had a material effect on the decision; or
they can produce significant new evidence.

I will then make a final decision. After this, there is no avenue for appeal or further review of the complaint for either party within the scheme.

Overall, the purpose of the TPO scheme is to make life easier for the public and ensure people do not suffer because of poor service from an estate agent or a letting agent.

It therefore plays a key role when a dispute arises in making house buying or letting a little less stressful, which matters even more when the market is suffering and agents are clamouring for business.

29 May 2009

Estate Agencies expelled by Property Ombudsman Scheme

Two estate agencies have been expelled by The Property Ombudsman service after failing to pay awards made against them. Both were informed of the decision a month ago and asked for their dismissals to be delayed while they paid the outstanding sums but this has not been done so their expulsions are now confirmed.

The agents are Brooklands, of 94 High Street, NewtonLeWillows, Merseyside, WA12 9SH, and DP Estates, of 12 Crouch Hill, London, N4 4AU.

Property Ombudsman Christopher Hamer made awards totalling £3,724 against Brooklands following two complaints and £200 against DP Estates following a single complaint.

'Both these firms are involved in property sales with DP Estates also covering lettings,' said Bill McClintock, chief operating officer of The Property Ombudsman service. 'As a result of their dismissal from our scheme they are no longer registered with an approved redress scheme as the law now requires for agencies involved in residential property sales.

'We will be advising other estate agency bodies, and the Office of Fair Trading, about the decision taken by our disciplinary council to dismiss these two firms.

'The public should be aware that these agencies will need to be able to produce evidence of registration with an alternative redress scheme if they are to continue to sell residential property in the UK.

'Legally they could still be active in property lettings, but again there would be no Property Ombudsman redress, lessening consumer protection, which is available voluntarily from thousands of other UK lettings agencies.

'It is extremely rare for agents not to abide by the decisions of the Property Ombudsman, Christopher Hamer, and these expulsions show that the scheme has effective sanctions when needed. Ultimately, lack of registration with an approved redress scheme means no UK estate agency can take any part in residential property sales. Those who ignore the law possibly face a fine of up to £1,000 from trading standards officers, who are aware of our decision regarding these two firms.'

End

Notes for Editors:

Reasons for the original awards against Brooklands:

Case 1: Unfair treatment and discourtesy
Case 2: Charging two parties a fee when the terms and conditions of the agency agreement did not entitle them to it

Reasons for the original awards against DP Estates:

1. Failed to provide a copy of the tenancy agreement prior to occupation by the tenant
2. Did not notify the landlord of key terms in the new tenancy agreement
3. Showed a 'destructive / unprofessional' attitude because another agent was instructed to sell the property
4. Omitted to meet complaints with appropriate response and failed to respond to phone calls and emails throughout the period 2005 - 2007

The Property Ombudsman Service (www.tpos.co.uk) offers a free, independent, and impartial service to members of the public who are dissatisfied with the service provided by an estate agent who is a member of the scheme during the buying, selling, or letting of a residential property. The Ombudsman, Christopher Hamer, can recommend member agents pay compensation of up to £25,000 in any one case.

Any decision made by the Ombudsman is binding on member agents but not on complainants, who are free to reject the Ombudsman's decision and pursue the matter in the courts if they wish.

OEA was founded in 1990 as the Ombudsman for Corporate Estate Agents in 1990, so it is now in its 20 th year of operation. In 1998, it broadened its scope to make it available to all residential estate agents. From June 2006, the OEA extended its services to Lettings and Property Management agents.

For more information, contact Maurice Hardy, PR for The Property Ombudsman service, on 01264 771661 / 07831 272220.

12 May 2009

Estate Agent Disputes Reflecting the Market

Disputes between estate agents and their clients have finally started to mirror the property market trend, with a significant fall in the numbers involving property sales during the first quarter of 2009.

The Property Ombudsman (formerly the Ombudsman for Estate Agents), Christopher Hamer, says the latest figures show a decrease of 38 per cent against the last quarter of 2008, although property sales had declined by 60 per cent during 2008 as a whole.

But disputes involving lettings agents have shown a slight rise of three per cent this quarter - this is way down on the 200 per cent rise over the whole of last year as many more lettings agents joined the redress scheme.

As in 2008, the most prominent reasons for disputes arising from lettings related to the standards of referencing carried out by agents, whether or not inspection visits had taken place and, to a lesser extent, administration of the deposit, reported Mr Hamer.

During the first quarter of 2009, Mr Hamer received 3,157 enquiries regarding disputes with estate agents, both for sale and lettings, up from 3,011 in the last three months of 2008. As a result, 102 new cases were opened regarding sales (162 in October to December 2008) and 90 involving lettings (87).

Lettings agents are not required to join a redress scheme such as The Property Ombudsman through legislation, unlike sales agents, but the numbers joining continue to rise, making them subject to the Property Ombudsman's Lettings Code of Practice. The OFT is being asked to recognise The Property Ombudsman lettings Code of Practice under its Consumer Codes Approval Scheme which will ensure consistency in the standards of services delivered across both the sales and lettings markets. It would also mean that both Property Ombudsman codes had received independent scrutiny and accreditation, enhancing their credibility for consumers.

By the end of March, 2009, 5,639 lettings offices in the UK had voluntarily joined the Ombudsman scheme compared with 5,100 at the start of the year, a rise of 10.5 per cent.

Mr Hamer is now visiting agents around the UK to discuss how he deals with cases and explain to member agents how legislative changes will impact on the practices of the scheme.

It was partly because of the rise in lettings activity, along with a move to include some commercial property and overseas sales activities as well as HIPs providers, that the former Ombudsman for Estate Agents Scheme became The Property Ombudsman on May 1 this year.

End

Notes for Editors:

Any decision made by the Ombudsman is binding on member agents but not on complainants, who are free to reject the Ombudsman's decision and pursue the matter in the courts if they wish.

OEA was founded in 1990 as the Ombudsman for Corporate Estate Agents in 1990, so it is now in its 20th year of operation. In 1998, it broadened its scope to make it available to all residential estate agents. From June 2006, the OEA extended its services to Lettings and Property Management agents.

With effect from 1 October 2008, all estate agents engaged in residential sales are required to register with an Estate Agents Redress Scheme that has been approved by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and which investigates complaints against estate agents. The OEA was the first scheme approved by the OFT.

For more information, contact Maurice Hardy, PR for TPOS, on 01264 771661 / 07831 272220.

01 May 2009

Name change marks boost to consumer protection in property sector

The broader scope of the Ombudsman for Estate Agents scheme sees it changing to The Property Ombudsman Service (TPOS) on May 1.

The OEA was founded as the Ombudsman for Corporate Estate Agents and is now in its 20th year but has come a long way since its launch in 1990.

There will be a new logo for window displays, in blue with the OFT Approved Codes symbol alongside for sales offices and green without the OFT logo for lettings. Commercial property sales members will have a black logo when the scheme expands soon to cover some of their activities.

'Membership has increased dramatically in the past few years and at the same time OEA has also expanded to take in lettings as well as its original remit to cover agents selling residential property,' explains Bill McClintock, chief operating officer for TPOS. 'In the near future, we will also be embracing some commercial property activities as well as the UK end of foreign residential property transactions.

'As the principal means of redress for consumers in the property sector, reflected by 95 per cent of UK estate agency offices being covered by our scheme, and our widening fields of activity which will also extend to including HIPs and property search providers, we consider the old name no longer reflected all that we do.

'We have submitted our lettings Code of Practice to the OFT for endorsement under its Consumer Codes Approval Scheme, which we see as vital in current market conditions where lettings are dominating activity.

'As the principal means of redress for consumers in the property sector we will continue to drive up industry standards and the OFT approved Codes help achieve this.

'There is already great awareness of the OEA symbol and we want that to apply to the new identity as well so the old and new are closely related.

'Consumers have come to recognise the value of the OEA being available to them and we want them to be aware of and understand this change.'

Lord Best, newly-appointed chairman of the governing Council of the OEA in succession to former director general of fair trading Lord Borrie, assured consumers that none of the Ombudsman's procedures will change and the public can expect the same high standards of service.

'Consumers should remember that the Property Ombudsman Service will continue to be offered to them free of charge and that estate agents undertake to adhere to the Ombudsman's findings,' added Lord Best.

In his latest annual report, the Ombudsman, Christopher Hamer, revealed that he found wholly or partially in favour of consumers in 66 per cent of the cases he investigated and made awards totalling more than £380,000 to compensate them. He also disclosed that he had made the scheme's highest ever award of £23,880.

End

Notes for Editors:

Any decision made by the Ombudsman is binding on member agents but not on complainants, who are free to reject the Ombudsman's decision and pursue the matter in the courts if they wish.

OEA was founded in 1990 as the Ombudsman for Corporate Estate Agents in 1990, so it is now in its 20th year of operation. In 1998, it broadened its scope to make it available to all residential estate agents. From June 2006, the OEA extended its services to Lettings and Property Management agents.

For more information, contact Maurice Hardy, PR for TPOS, on 01264 771661 / 07831 272220.

24 April 2009

New collaboration boosts consumer protection

'Move is good news,' says Which?

Two main bodies involved in the residential property sector today announced plans for closer collaborative working. The Property Codes Compliance Board (PCCB) and the Ombudsman for Estate Agents (OEA) - who between them share responsibility for setting standards through their respective Codes of Practice that apply to the majority of HIP and search providers and estate agents - have agreed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

This provides for closer working relationships between them to ensure clear, common standards which are promoted amongst property providers. The two bodies have identified initial areas where they plan to work together over the next three months to:

align the respective Codes of Practice so that the roles and responsibilities of HIP and search providers and agents are clear
provide a single point of contact for consumers and independent redress for their complaints against providers and agents should things go wrong during the transaction.

'The OEA has extensive and unrivalled experience of handling consumer complaints and providing effective redress where problems arise. The PCCB brings a very hands-on and practical approach to complement this. Our programme of risk-based inspections gives us the ability to act quickly and secure changes in practice where these are needed, and we aim to support those in the industry who are striving to maintain high standards. Bringing the two approaches together promises to add real value to our efforts and is designed to assure consumers that we have their interests to the fore.'

Bill McClintock, Board Chairman of OEA said:

'These arrangements will enhance the consistency of standards for those responsible for delivering HIPs and will help consumers understand the process.'

The MOU is consistent with the recommendations contained in two recent government report on consumer redress and consumer experiences of HIPs. The plans have been welcomed by Ministers and consumer representatives.

Mark McLaren of Which? said:

'Most consumers find buying or selling a house a stressful, confusing and difficult process. So any development that genuinely enhances the consumer experience has to be good news. It is vital that consumers are able to easily access clear advice when they have a query or complaint and have this addressed quickly and efficiently. So we welcome this move to develop a seamless relationship between the vast majority of estate agents and HIP and Search providers for the benefit of consumers.'

End

Notes to editors

The Property Codes Compliance Board independently monitors compliance by registered subscribing companies with the HIP and Search Codes. The Codes provide protection for home buyers, sellers, estate agents and conveyancers relying on searches and HIPs, and include good practice standards, robust insurance requirements and the independent adjudication of complaints. The HIP Code is owned by the Association of Home Information Pack Providers and the Search Code by the Council of Property Search Organisations.
The Ombudsman for Estate Agents scheme offers a free, independent and impartial service to members of the public who are dissatisfied with the service provided by an estate agent who is a member of the scheme during the buying, selling or letting of a residential property. It covers around 95 per cent of estate agency offices in the UK.
A report of the government review of regulations and redress in the UK housing market, published on Tuesday 20th January stated that the range of voluntary and statutory redress schemes in the UK are 'unnecessarily complex with consequent fears of a lack of consumer confidence and opportunities for unscrupulous practice'. It goes on to note that 'there are still substantive inter-linkages and overlap of the target audiences between schemes. This is likely to cause some confusion for customers'.
For further information contact Kate Nicholls on 07958 796 238 (PCCB) or Maurice Hardy on 01264 771661 / 07831 272220 (OEA)

20 April 2009

Best takes the helm on OEA council

Lord Richard Best, a prominent figure in the UK housing sector, has become chairman of the independent council that oversees the Ombudsman for Estate Agents scheme.

A leading authority on social provision in the UK who was recently appointed to lead a new Commission on the Future for Housing in Northern Ireland, Lord Best joined the OEA council two years ago as vice chairman at the same time as consumer champion Lord Borrie, who rose to fame as Gordon Borrie - director general of fair trading under successive Labour and Conservative governments - took the chair.

At the time, Lord Best had just retired as director of both the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust, one of the largest social policy research and development charities in the UK.

'These were two important appointments for the OEA and both Lord Best and Lord Borrie have devoted a great deal of time and effort to the OEA in the last two years,' said OEA chief operating officer Bill McClintock.

'As Lord Borrie became chairman there was a great deal of focus on legislation designed to improve both the consumer experience and protection within the property industry and his assistance in guiding the OEA to become the first Government-approved body for both HIPs redress and, subsequently, Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act redress was immeasurable.

'Now the focus in the property sector has switched very much to the lettings sector, something in which Lord Best has great experience.

'In hindsight, the appointment of these leading exponents in their fields could not have been more apposite. No-one could have foreseen the current fortunes of the property market back in 2007, when they joined the council, but these two individuals have given great service, and will continue to do so as Lord Borrie has agreed to stay on the council and assist the OEA in whatever way he can.

Caption: Lord Best (left front) and Lord Borrie with members of the OEA council and Ombudsman for Estate Agents Christopher Hamer (fourth from the left at the rear).

'Both industry professionals and the consumers they serve have every reason to be grateful to Lords Best and Borrie for the time they have given to the OEA when there are a great many other calls on their expertise.

'In fact Lord Best's appointment this month in Northern Ireland, along with his other public commitments, clearly demonstrates the high regard in which he is held.'

At the time both joined the OEA, the body offered redress services to consumers using more than 60 per cent of using estate agents, mostly in England and Wales. But with legislative changes that have occurred since, OEA now embraces more than 95 per cent of estate agency outlets across the whole of the UK.

'In his recent report, the Ombudsman, Christopher Hamer, rightly concentrated on the increased importance of the lettings sector and the growth in the number of complaints it is generating,' commented Lord Best on his appointment.

'I am committed to improving the quality of service in the residential lettings sector. Already an increasing number of Managing and Letting Agents are voluntarily signing up to the OEA redress scheme to cover their lettings activities, before there is a legal compulsion to do so.

'OEA is also seeking approval under the Consumer Codes Approval Scheme operated by the Office of Fair Trading for the OEA Code of Practice covering lettings. I will be giving all the assistance I can to this extension of redress services which is of considerable value to Landlords as well as Tenants'.

End

Notes for Editors:

The Ombudsman for Estate Agents scheme offers a free, independent, and impartial service to members of the public who are dissatisfied with the service provided by an estate agent who is a member of the scheme during the buying, selling, or letting of a residential property. The Ombudsman can recommend member agents pay compensation of up to £25,000 in any one case.

Any decision made by the Ombudsman is binding on member agents but not on complainants, who are free to reject the Ombudsman's decision and pursue the matter in the courts if they wish.

Lord Best, as well as being recently appointed to lead a new Commission on the Future for Housing in Northern Ireland, is currently President of the Local Government Association, Chair of the Hanover Housing Group and of the House of Lords Audit Committee. He Chairs the Giving Forum and the Private Rented Sector Policy Forum. He is a Trustee of the RSA and The Tree Council and the Phoenix Fund for Zimbabwe. He is Vice Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Urban Development and Treasurer of the APP on Housing Needs and Homelessness.

He serves on the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee. He is Deputy Chair of Westminster City Council's Standard Committee and he is a Vice President of the TCPA and Patron of the Housing Associations Charitable Trust. He is also a member of the Audit Commission's Housing and Regeneration Advisory Board. Richard Best chairs the OPM Public Interest General Council.

He is a Hon Fellow RIBA, Hon Life Member Chartered Institute of Housing and has Hon Degrees from Sheffield University and York University. In the past Richard Best has been Director of both the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust, and the Chief Executive of the National Federation of Housing Associations (now National Housing Federation). He was a member of Ministerial Sounding Boards from 1999 - 2005 and Chairman of the Westminster Commission (2005/6). He was created a Life Peer in 2001.

17 March 2009

Lettings disputes growing as market changes

Ombudsman for Estate Agents also reveals scheme's largest-ever award

Ombudsman for Estate Agents Christopher Hamer is seeing a major switch towards dealing with disputes covering lettings as the profile of the property market changes.

During 2008, the period covered by his latest annual report, membership of the scheme rose by 17 per cent. At a time when overall sales activity across the market dropped by as much as 60 per cent, disputes involving sales only dropped by three per cent, a figure which Mr Hamer described as surprising.

'I am surprised that my workload in sales disputes has not reduced more significantly,' commented Mr Hamer. 'Perhaps it shows that buyers and sellers have still higher expectations of agents' service whilst there are so few properties being sold.'

While sales activity dwindled, the rise in the residential lettings market saw a 200 per cent increase in the lettings disputes handled by the OEA and Mr Hamer predicts that during 2009 lettings will become the major area of his activities.

'Lettings agents still only join the OEA on a voluntary basis and it is therefore satisfying to see so many firms opening up access to my scheme for their customers. Those firms will be operating in accordance with the standards laid down in the OEA's Code of Practice,' he added.

Highest ever award

The Ombudsman also reveals that in 2008 he made the highest ever award to a complainant in the 20 year history of the scheme, with the estate agent involved ordered to pay out £23,880 after conflicting advice had been given by staff and the agent had failed to act in the best interests of the client or negotiate effectively.

Of the total, Mr. Hamer awarded £1,000 to cover the distress, aggravation and inconvenience suffered by the complainant - the rest was an award to recompense for indentifiable financial loss. The maximum award he can make under scheme rules is £25,000.

Rise in new cases

Mr Hamer said he received 1,043 new cases in 2008, split between 743 for sales and 300 for lettings, an increase of 20 per cent over 2007 but 78 per cent compared with the same figure for 2006. In 65 per cent of cases the complaint was upheld, resulting in awards totalling more than £385,000. The majority of awards were for between £100 and £499 but 18 were for amounts above £3,000.

Mr Hamer says there is still much confusion between redress as offered by an ombudsman scheme and regulation. Many people mistakenly regard him as a regulator of estate agents but his purpose is to resolve disputes between agents and consumers and to award compensation to the complainant if that is called for, although he also has a role in influencing best practice within the industry.

However, Mr Hamer says that, while he is not a regulator, he does have the means to take action against estate agents through the OEA's Disciplinary and Standards Committee where there is a clear need and it is shown that an agent's failure in one case could lead to other consumers being put at risk. During 2008 he referred 21 cases to the DSC, 16 involving sales and the rest lettings.

Independent scrutiny 'strengthens Codes of Practice'

Mr. Hamer said that talks were now under way with the Association of Residential Letting Agents to bring all its members within the scope of OEA. At the same time, the OFT is also being asked to recognise the OEA lettings Code of Practice under its Consumer Codes Approval Scheme which will ensure consistency in the standards of services delivered across both the sales and lettings markets. It would also mean that both OEA Codes had received independent scrutiny and accreditation, enhancing their credibility for consumers.

Responding to industry calls for the OEA to give up ownership of its Codes of Practice, Mr Hamer sees it as more important that OFT accreditation of the codes is retained rather than who owns them.

'Given that around 95 per cent of estate agents offices are operating to the OEA Code I also think it would create confusion if a separate industry Code were to be drafted,' he added.

But he does think an independent body could do much to promote awareness of the house buying and letting processes, areas where there is still a great deal of confusion among consumers, and this body could also seek to promote professionalism within the industry.

He also backs a licensing or registration scheme such as that recently proposed by Bill McClintock, chairman and chief executive officer of the OEA operating company. Mr McClintock is now setting up a steering group to get his registration plans off the ground.

End

Notes for Editors:

Any decision made by the Ombudsman is binding on member agents but not on complainants, who are free to reject the Ombudsman's decision and pursue the matter in the courts if they wish.

For more information, or to arrange an interview with Mr. Hamer, contact Maurice Hardy, PR for OEA, on 01264 771661 / 07831 272220.

18 February 2009

Estate Agents positive about registration proposal

The idea that individuals working within estate agency in the UK should be registered has received widespread backing.

And now Bill McClintock, chairman of the board that operates the Ombudsman for Estate Agents scheme, is arranging a meeting in Central London to be attended by industry bodies, estate agencies, and other stakeholders, such as Which?

'The reaction has been encouraging, with support from across the industry,' said Mr. McClintock.

'It started with many of the principal London agencies backing the idea and has spread countrywide.

'For the industry to be seen to be fair, it has to raise the professional standards of those who are involved at the real sharp end of residential property sales and lettings negotiation. Registration is an excellent first step to do this.

'One of the familiar jibes aimed at estate agents is that anyone can set up an agency branch. What I propose is that people who have been estate agents for some time would be able to demonstrate that they have attained the necessary standards to practice. NFOPP and RICS already run training schemes for entry standards and require members to undergo continuing professional development. This standard would make a good starting point for the registration requirement.

'The hard times the industry has been suffering have seen firms go to the wall with many good agents losing their jobs. Hopefully, as business revives they will come back to be valued members of the profession, for that is how I want estate agents to be seen.

'Others who have fallen because, frankly, they were not good enough to stay in business in tough markets will find it hard to return unless they are fit to be here.

'This is all the more reason to implement a registration system now. We no longer want to inexperienced and unprofessional individuals who can give the industry a bad name. We want an industry that can prove its worth and serve the public with integrity.

'The reaction has been encouraging, with support across the industry. Many firms, both large and small, are showing great enthusiasm and very few have been negative.

'I am arranging a meeting at the head office of the Guild of Professional Estate Agents in Park Lane and will be inviting representatives of NFOPP, embracing NAEA and ARLA, RICS, NALS, OEA, Which?, and individual estate agencies to form an inclusive steering group to take the proposal forward.

'Keeping up the momentum is vital. Already, in just a few weeks since I first floated the registration idea, companies representing probably half the estate agency branches in the UK have committed to the scheme in principle, which would cover all individuals negotiating residential sales, lettings, and property valuations.

'It's a tremendous opportunity to set up a new system that will protect both consumers and estate agencies and ensure that proper standards are provided in an industry frequently dealing with consumers' highest value assets.'

End

Editor's note:

Bill McClintock took his first job in estate agency when he joined Henry Duke and Son in Dorchester in 1959 as an articled clerk so celebrates 50 years in the business next September. He rose to become managing director of Royal Life Estates South with a chain of 250 offices, joining the main board of Royal Life Estates (750 offices) from 1988 to 1992.

In 1992 he acquired a substantial shareholding in Cornerstone Estate Agencies (347 offices) and sold out in 1995 to become international development director of Hamptons.

On his return to the UK, he headed the overseas division at Hamptons before becoming a co-founder of the Guild of Professional Estate Agents, an affinity group of about 500 estate agents across the UK dedicated to improving standards. It also owns the fast growing Fine and Country brand with 300 offices.

In 2003 he became the chief operating officer of the Ombudsman for Estate Agents for the UK and in 2004 was appointed chairman, a post he currently holds.

For more information, contact Maurice Hardy, PR for the OEA, on 01264 771661/07831 272220

15 January 2009

Proposal to register UK Estate Agents

A major change that would lead to registration of individuals working within residential estate agency is being proposed by a leading industry figure.

Bill McClintock, chairman of the board of the company operating the Ombudsman for Estate Agents (OEA) scheme, says the time has come when the residential property industry must address the registration problem. He is in talks with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), the National Federation of Property Professionals (NFOPP), the Register of Estate Agents (ROEA), the Property Codes Compliance Board (PCCB) and Government departments in order to drive the scheme forward.

Mr McClintock, who this year celebrates 50 years in the industry, says he has long held the view that estate agents should be registered in order to protect consumers and that the latest round of legislation has now made this feasible without waiting for a fresh Act of Parliament.

'Under the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act, which came into effect on October 1, 2008, every residential estate agency handling property sales has to be a member of an approved redress scheme,' he explains.

'This means that every residential sales estate agency in the UK has to belong to the OEA or the Surveyors Ombudsman Scheme (SOS). OEA now has almost 95 per cent of UK residential estate agencies registered with it so between us and SOS we should know of every business trading in the UK. Any we don't know about are now operating outside the law.

'Both schemes operate to a Code of Practice and it is a straightforward matter to amend both Codes to include a requirement for all member agents to use only registered staff to advise on property values or negotiate sales.

'My idea is that all existing agents would initially be registered. After one year, those joining the industry would be required to train in order to join the register and those already in the industry would be required to demonstrate they had achieved at least that minimum standard in order to remain registered.

'One of the arguments against registration is that it is a barrier to entry to the profession but that, of course, is nonsense. To be a driving instructor in the UK you have first to register and then become the holder of a provisional permit to work while you demonstrate your proficiency and pass an exam.

'There are many other professions where a competence to do the job has to be demonstrated and that is not seen as a restraint of trade, so estate agency could easily be viewed in the same light.

'The big concern over the years is that individuals who break the rules or who are not professionally competent can easily move to a job in another estate agency, maybe in a different part of the country, and just start working again. Employers have nothing they can check to ensure the honesty or suitability of a job candidate.

'NFOPP and RICS already run training schemes for estate agents and require their members to undergo continuing professional development and this standard would make a good starting point for the registration requirement.

'New legislation has given the industry the opportunity to take the initiative and itself introduce registration quickly, efficiently, and fairly to those who already work in the sector. I would consider the cost to be minimal and it could even be included in the membership fees of professional bodies.

'The public would be able to access the list of registered estate agents through any of the organisations backing the scheme, so checking credentials would be simplicity itself.

'It is now almost 20 years since the Ombudsman scheme started and 11 years from the date when it was opened up to all estate agents. It has brought consumers the benefit of redress at no cost to them and every member must have professional indemnity insurance.

'During all the time I have been in the industry there have been frequent calls for some sort of licensing or registration scheme and now we have the chance to bring this major benefit with minimum disruption. I see this as an industry-wide scheme and engaging all the professional bodies and unaffiliated practising estate agents rather than something run by OEA as an individual organisation.

'The bones of the scheme are in place and with backing from the Office of Fair Trading and the department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform we could have this established very quickly. Everyone I have spoken to within the industry is supporting this and wants to see it implemented.'

End

Editor's note:

Bill McClintock took his first job in estate agency when he joined Henry Duke and Son in Dorchester in 1959 as an articled clerk. He moved to Hampshire in 1964 and rose to become managing director of Royal Life Estates South with a chain of 250 offices, joining the main board of Royal Life Estates (750 offices) from 1988 to 1992.

In 1992 he acquired a substantial shareholding in Cornerstone Estate Agencies (347 offices) when it was purchased from Abbey National and sold out in 1995 to become international development director of Hamptons with specific responsibility for Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaysia.

In 2003 he became the chief operating officer of the Ombudsman for Estate Agents for the UK and in 2004 was appointed chairman, a post he currently holds.

He is a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (FRICS), a Fellow of the National Association of Estate Agents (FNAEA), and a Member of The International Real Estate Federation (FIABCI). He also has experience in the commercial property field and has been involved in a significant number of developments let to Government departments as well as shopping and office developments principally in London, the South East, and Wales.

For more information, contact Maurice Hardy, PR for the OEA, on 01264 771661 / 07831 272220