Complaint

In this case, the potential buyers, Mr and Mrs A, alleged that the Agent had failed to inform them that there were environmental issues in respect of the Property and asserted that, had they been made aware, they would not have proceeded to make an offer and thereafter incurred the costs that they did.

Complaint

Shortly after the commencement of the tenancy, the Tenants, Mr and Miss F, raised concerns regarding the Agent’s communication. Firstly, Mr and Miss F alleged that the Agent had provided them with a misleading response in relation to them querying the trading hours of the business on the ground floor of the Property. Secondly, Mr and Miss F raised concerns regarding the condition of the Property.

Complaint

In this case, the Tenant, Mr E, complained that the Agent should not have let the Property given that they were aware that a possession order had already been served prior to the commencement of the tenancy. The Agent failed to respond to the complaint.

Complaint

The complainant, Miss D (on behalf of herself and four other Tenants) complained to the Agent that they should have been informed that the Property had been burgled on two occasions prior to them entering into the tenancy agreement and that the security measures previously recommended by the police following the first burglary had not been implemented.

Complaint

In this case the tenant, Mr C, alleged that the Agent had provided him with misleading information concerning a right of way across the Property. The Agent responded stating that the information had been provided to them in good faith by the Landlord.

Complaint

Following commencement of the tenancy, the Tenants found that the residents parking that the Agent had advertised with the Property, did not exist. They immediately raised the issue with the Landlord, Mrs B, and sought to renegotiate the tenancy terms. Mrs B promptly complained to the Agent.

Complaint

The Tenants, Mr and Mrs A, agreed to rent a fourth floor apartment in London for 18 months without the knowledge that six weeks after the start of the tenancy, the building the apartment was situated in was scheduled for major redevelopment works. According to Mr and Mrs A, had they known, they would not have signed the tenancy agreement and,as such, blamed the Agent for not providing them with all the information they needed to come to an informed decision.

Complaint

The tenants, Mr and Mrs F, viewed the property whilst the previous tenant was in occupation. The property was being marketed by the Agent as unfurnished. However, when the tenancy started the bedrooms contained some furniture which Mr and Mrs F did not require. They raised a complaint three days after the tenancy started concerning the contents, condition and cleanliness of the property. Mr and Mrs F requested an immediate termination of the tenancy and the return of the rental and deposit monies paid to the Agent.

Complaint

After moving into the property, the tenants, Mr and Mrs E contacted the Agent to inform them of bad smells emanating from the kitchen. The Agent reported the matter to the landlord however, the issue took five months to resolve and at one point the toilets could not be used when sewage from the inspection pit overflowed into the neighbours’ driveway. After discussing the matter in some detail with the landlord, Mr and Mrs E complained that Agent had been aware that the property had suffered from a history of drainage problems but had withheld that information from them prior to the start of the tenancy.

Complaint

Shortly after moving in to the property the tenant expressed his dissatisfaction surrounding the noise levels coming from the neighbouring property. The tenant stated that he had asked the Agent during the viewing who was occupying the next door property and was informed that it was a family. However, after moving into the property it became apparent that the next door neighbours were students who had a propensity for playing loud music long into the night. The tenant agreed with the landlord, Mrs D, to end the tenancy early. Mrs D then complained to the Agent that they had misrepresented the property to the tenant which directly caused her loss of rent following a vacant period of three months.

Complaint

The potential tenants, Mr and Mrs B signed the tenancy agreement several weeks in advance of the tenancy starting. However, during their moving preparations, the Agent informed them of the landlord’s intention to develop the shed in the garden into a studio for him to work from. Mr and Mrs B were understandably unhappy about the situation (especially as Mrs B intended to work from home) and considered the property to be no longer suitable. Despite the Agent’s attempts to negotiate a solution, Mr and Mrs B withdrew from the transaction and all monies paid were returned to them. However, they were faced with the inconvenience of finding another property at short notice and asserted that the Agent had known about the landlord’s plans at an early stage but had failed to disclose the same.

Complaint

As part of a dispute arising from additional and unauthorised work carried out by a gardener at the property, Mr A, the tenant, raised a number of complaints against the Agent, one of which was that the Agent had falsely claimed membership of a wellknown trade body.

Complaint

After purchasing the property Mr and Mrs F began to experience problems with other drivers parking in front of their property and blocking their access to the hard-standing in their front garden where they parked their car. After investigating the matter with the Highways Department, it became clear that unless the kerb was dropped, other drivers were entitled to park in such a manner which restricted access. Mr and Mrs F noted that the property particulars referred to the property as benefitting from off-street parking, yet the Highways Department had informed them that it was illegal to drive over a pavement where the kerb had not been dropped to access the space. They subsequently complained to the Agent, seeking the cost of dropping the kerb as compensation.

Complaint

Having purchased the property which was sold as a three bedroom detached house, the buyers, Mr and Mrs E, complained that the Agent had not informed them, either during viewings or via the particulars, that the property actually consisted of two parts; a freehold title on the former ground floor shop and a leasehold title for the former first floor flat. Mr and Mrs E also claimed that the rear garden was not included in the sale, despite it being detailed within the sales particulars.

Complaint

Following Miss D’s offer being accepted and the memorandum of sale issued, her solicitor informed her that the tenure of the property was not freehold and was in fact a shared ownership leasehold property. Miss D subsequently withdrew from the transaction and alleged that the Agent had misdescribed the property as being freehold.

Complaint

In this case Mr C was attempting to purchase a flat with the intention of converting the loft space and letting it to a lodger to help him pay the mortgage. He was initially informed by the Agent that the loft space belonged to the flat. However, on checking the lease, his solicitor found that this was not the case and the sale fell through, by which time Mr C said that he had incurred costs in the region of £700 and sought compensation from the Agent.

Complaint

After viewing the property and making an acceptable offer, the potential buyer, Mr A, found out through his solicitor that there were planning permission and title issues. Mr A subsequently complained to the Agent that this information had not been divulged or included in the sales particulars. The Agent argued that reference had been made to the planning issue and commented that it was not their role to investigate the title of the property.

Complaint

Mr and Mrs F, the buyers, complained that throughout the sales particulars the Agent had misdescribed the property as benefitting from double-glazing, when in fact, it did not. Mr and Mrs F stated that they had relied on this incorrect information when purchasing the property and considered that the Property Misdescriptions Act had been breached, directly resulting in them facing an estimated bill of £6,000 to install double-glazing after discovering the error after moving in.

Learning

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs) require agents to take a different approach to disclosure of information about properties they are marketing from what is considered acceptable practice under the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991.

Complaint

Following the successful completion of the transaction, Miss E, the buyer, complained that the Agent did not disclose their financial interest in the property which had led to delays resulting in additional solicitor fees. The Agent denied that they held a financial interest in the property.