Headlines

• 57,635 consumers sought assistance from The Property Ombudsman in 2023
• 62% of lettings enquiries came from tenants
• £1.52 million awarded to consumers in 2023
• 5,644 disputes accepted for investigation (an increase of 46% from 2022).
• 83% of cases resolved by formal decision were found in favour of the consumer.
• 47% of disputes accepted were resolved through early resolution.

Key Lettings and Property Management, based in Kent, has been expelled from The Property Ombudsman (TPO) following their failure to comply with an adjudicated award totalling £3,100.

The Property Ombudsman was asked to review a dispute from a landlord against a letting agent.  

The landlord incurred loss of income due to repairs to his property caused by fire damage due to an illicit drug farm in the property. The landlord requested the letting agent compensate him for unpaid rent and repairs that needed to be carried out at the property which was covered by a Guaranteed Rent Agreement. The total compensation requested was £30,350.68.  The landlord was made aware that TPO’s maximum award limit is £25,000.  

The Property Ombudsman was asked to review a dispute from sellers involving the commission fees charged by two sets of agents following the sale of a property.

The sellers raised a dispute against Agent 2, who maintained they had an entitlement to payment of sales commission as they believed they were the effective cause of the sale, not Agent 1 with whom the buyers first viewed the property with.

The seller instructed Agent 1 to market the property on a sole selling rights basis. This was a fixed price agreement, which also granted Agent 1 the option to purchase the property at a fixed price of £125,000 for a period of 16 weeks (the option period). Agent 1 would then resell the property to a third-party buyer, retaining the price difference in lieu of a traditional commission fee arrangement.

A case that The Property Ombudsman (TPO) was asked to review came from a tenant against a letting agent in relation to the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) and the Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) for the property.

The property was let to the tenant under an Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) for a period of twelve months, for a monthly rent of £3,500.

A case that The Property Ombudsman (TPO) was asked to review came from a buyer against an agent following her request for the reservation fee of £13,650 to be refunded, which the agent denied.

The buyer said she was under a great deal of pressure when she offered to purchase the property and that she subsequently realised that it was not suitable for her, with its proximity to a busy and noisy road, as she cared for a daughter with additional needs.

The Property Ombudsman (TPO) was asked to review a case from tenants in relation to the request for a refund of their early termination fee charged by the agent.

The issues that TPO was asked to examine included:

• The agent not refunding the early termination fee as per the terms of the agreement. The tenants said that the agent had agreed that depending upon when they moved out of the property, the sum paid would be refundable. The tenants said that the agent then informed them after they had moved out, that they had made a mistake and that the cancellation fee was not refundable as it had been paid to the landlord for the re-letting fees he had incurred.
• The tenants said the agent did not confirm the early termination date of the tenancy with them, and they found new tenants without informing the existing tenants (the complainants) in advance.

The tenants sought a return of the cancellation charge (£1,993.68) and an unspecified sum of compensation to reflect the aggravation that the matter caused.

A case that The Property Ombudsman (TPO) was asked to review came from leaseholders against an estate and management company over who were responsible for £1,020 in legal fees.

The leaseholders were seeking a refund of the £1,020 in legal fees to resolve the dispute, as they considered that the estate and management company had failed to correctly interpret the details of the residents’ voting rights, and as such were responsible for the disputed fees.

Two London companies have been expelled from The Property Ombudsman (TPO) for failing to pay compensation to consumers.

This brings the total number expelled this year to 13, down from 18 in 2022.

The Property Ombudsman has welcomed two new non-executive directors to its Independent Board. Louise Baxter, Head of the National Trading Standards Scams Team, and Nick Samuels, Non Executive Director at Gaughan Group and Group Chair at Stone Circle (Wiltshire Council), will replace Gerry Fitzjohn, former Chairman of TPO Board, and Mark McLaren.

In order to help agents better understand how the Ombudsman comes to decisions over complaints, we now issue a quarterly case summary review, giving you the opportunity to see examples of real complaints, how they were reviewed, as well as the outcome. These are a collection of case summaries which have been published in the trade press over the last quarter.

Remember, if there are any specific topics you would like us to cover, please email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. with CASE SUMMARY TOPIC in the subject, and we will endeavour to cover these in future examples

• Consumer enquiries to The Property Ombudsman in 2022 remained high at just under 45,000
  
  
• Issues dealt with at enquiry stage, reducing the need for formal complaints to be raised against TPO members, comprised:
  • Just under 14,000 issues from tenants and landlords about their letting agent
  • Over 5,500 buyer and seller issues relating to their estate agent
  • Over 3,000 leaseholder issues about their managing agent
    
    
• Over 1,500 tenant issues about their landlord where no agent was involved were dealt with at the enquiry stage, with tenants being provided with advice and guidance to help them resolve their issues. 

• Just under 17,000 further consumers provided with advice and guidance through TPO’s self-service portal. 

• 6,012 disputes resolved through early resolution or formal ombudsman decision 

• TPO member compliance with Ombudsman decisions remained extremely high at 98.4%

This dispute concerned a drainage and water search report prepared by a search provider for a buyer that the seller claimed had caused the sale to be aborted.

This dispute concerned the description of an item sold at auction.

The dispute concerned the provision of a health and safety report, the handover of management responsibilities to the new managing agent and the events that took place during an annual general meeting.

This dispute concerned damp problems resulting from construction issues on a new build development and the action taken by the managing agent.

This case concerned the requirements of the rent guarantee insurance policy in relation to the referencing conducted by the Agent.

This case concerned a hybrid rent to rent arrangement whereby the Agent became the primary tenant but was only required to install tenants and collect rent, with the Landlords managing the occupational tenancies.

This dispute concerned the Agent’s handling of reports of internal mould and broken decking by the Tenant.