Complaint

Following the prospective tenants applying to rent the property, the Agent conducted negotiations regarding the furniture own by the Landlords, Mr and Mrs A, which was to be removed. The negotiations did not reach a mutual agreement and the prospective tenants withdrew from the transaction. Mr and Mrs A subsequently complained that the Agent had removed the majority of furniture from their property, despite it being marketed as ‘furnished’ and that the subsequent withdrawal of the prospective tenants had deprived them of the opportunity to receive rent, particularly since they had declined another set of prospective tenants from another letting agent.

Complaint

Upon instruction the Landlord, Mr E, agreed with the Agent that prospective tenants would be charged a holding deposit which, in the event that the tenancy did not proceed, would be divided up with £200 due to him and £100 to the Agent. A prospective tenant was found who paid the £300 holding deposit but had to withdraw from the tenancy after subsequently losing his job. The Agent refunded the full £300 and Mr E complained that he had not received his £200.

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.

Love thy neighbour?

The Ombudsman discusses complaints received from neighbours of tenanted property.

Complaint

In this case the Agent arranged a tenancy for two years in favour of four tenants who had offered to pay £200 per month more than the previous tenants. The landlords, Mr and Mrs J, were understandably happy that the Agent had found tenants willing to pay a higher level of rent. However, nine months into the tenancy Mr and Mrs J were contacted by the police to advise that they intended to raid the property as the heat signatures detected from the building indicated that it may be being used for drug cultivation. Furthermore, the police advised Mr and Mrs J that the persons living in the property were not those as recorded in the tenancy agreement and that references may have been forged. Following the raid, which found that the property was being used as a cannabis farm, Mr and Mrs J complained to the Agent stating that they should have been more diligent in their referencing. The Agent responded by arguing that, as per a previously arranged tenancy, they had not used a referencing service provider, adding that the documents provided by the tenants contained no information which should have put them ‘on notice’ that something may have been wrong.

Complaint

Following the end of the tenancy and the tenancy deposit scheme awarding the full amount of the deposit to Mrs I (the landlord) in respect of damage caused to the property, she raised 21 different complaints concerning the Agent’s conduct which she asserted had contributed to the problems arising. Mrs I’s central claims were that the tenant found by the Agent was unsuitable for the property, that they failed to undertake proper references and that they did not carry out inspections during the tenancy which would have alerted her to the problems sooner. The Agent’s response was that they had obtained acceptable references, that they were not responsible for the tenant’s behaviour and that they were, therefore, not liable for the balance of the costs not settled by the security deposit.

Complaint

The landlord, Mrs H, entered into a guaranteed rent arrangement with the Agent. However, following a series of rental payments being missed, Mrs H instructed the Agent to regain possession of the property. After a number of months, Mrs H became concerned about the time being taken and, following a number of her letters not being responded to, raised a complaint.

Complaint

The prospective tenant, Miss F, paid a holding deposit and administration fees to the Agent on the condition that the landlord agreed a break clause which met her employer’s approval. Miss F asserted that an agreement had been reached that if this requirement proved impossible she would get her money back. Unfortunately, following a suitable break clause not being agreed, Miss F withdrew and the Agent stated that they would only refund half of the monies.

Complaint

The Agent had arranged a two year tenancy between the tenant and the landlord, Mr G. By the ninth month the tenant had accrued £6,900 rent arrears and had caused approximately £2,000 worth of damage to the property. Mr G commenced possession proceedings and a Court hearing took place at the tenth month where the judge awarded possession to Mr G together with an order for the rent arrears owed by the tenant. The matter of damages to the property was not considered by the Court. However, unbeknown to Mr G, a few days before the Court hearing, the Agent agreed with the tenant that due to the severe rental arrears the deposit of £1,592.28 would be released in full to cover some of that debt. After being informed of this development, the judge deducted £1,592.28 from the money judgement order for rent arrears awarded to Mr G. Mr G then complained that the Agent’s actions had denied him the opportunity of seeking payment towards the damages via the
tenancy deposit arbitration process and instead, was left with no option but to commence further legal action to recover these monies.

Complaint

After the Agent found a potential tenant who wished to move into the property immediately, Mrs E, the landlord, paid the existing tenant £500 to end the tenancy early. She did so on the assumption that the £500 holding deposit received by the Agent from the prospective tenant would mitigate her loss should the new tenancy not proceed. However, following the prospective tenant withdrawing due to personal reasons, the Agent kept the £500 holding deposit.