Complaint

The Buyers claimed that the Agent had incorrectly advertised the property. They explained that during the conveyancing process they discovered that an area of land at the rear of the garden was not included in the title plan belonging to the property, and in fact belonged to the local council. The Buyers argued that the Agent should not have marketed the property without having checked this. They also pointed out that they incurred additional costs in registering all of the garden (as seen) as part of the property, arguing that they were treated unfairly by the Agent as a result of the Seller not agreeing to make an allowance for these costs as part of the transaction.

Complaint

Following the potential Buyer withdrawing from the transaction, the potential Sellers claimed that the Agent had fabricated information provided to the potential Buyer, including inventing offers and viewings. The Sellers also claimed that the Agent failed to deal with their complaint appropriately. The Agent’s response was that they simply applied 'gentle pressure' on a difficult purchaser to assist the progression of the transaction.

Complaint

In this case, the successful Seller was concerned that the Agent had released the key to her Buyer a week before completion, enabling him to begin major building work (including re-wiring and the removal of fireplaces and kitchen cupboards) without her permission. She also alleged that they had permitted unaccompanied viewings; failed to issue a Memorandum of Sale in two instances and handled her complaint unsatisfactorily. She was seeking a refund of the £1,200 commission fee which she had eventually paid on a 'without prejudice' basis shortly before a Small Claims Court hearing to avoid further costs. The Agent acknowledged that the key had been released to the Buyer prematurely and was unable to explain how this had happened. However they insisted that contracts had already been exchanged and noted that the Seller had not suffered any financial disadvantage as the sale had completed successfully. They made no apology and denied the other allegations, but reluctantly offered a £100 fee reduction as a 'goodwill gesture'. When the Seller indicated that she was not satisfied with this and was withholding the commission fee, the Agent initiated proceedings in the Small Claims Court.

Complaint

Following their purchase of the property, the buyers, Mr and Mrs B, raised a complaint with the Agent, pointing out that although the particulars detailed that the garage benefitted from a vehicle inspection pit, there was actually no such facility.

Complaint

Shortly before exchange of contracts was due to occur, Mrs G, the buyer, raised a number of complaints against the Agent in relation to the sales particulars and the information verbally provided to her during viewings, both of which indicated that the loft space attached to the top floor flat formed part of the property and had the potential to be converted into a further living space, but which her solicitor had subsequently discovered was not necessarily the case. The Agent responded by stating that the property had been marketed on the basis of its potential and on the information provided and approved by the sellers.

The Property Ombudsman (TPO) scheme will be issuing revised Codes of Practice for sales and lettings agents from next month to further improve standards in the industry and ensure consumers are treated fairly.

The Codes, which will be effective from 1st August 2014 and reflect the developments in industry practice and legislative changes affecting both consumers and agents.

Complaint

Mr and Mrs B placed an acceptable offer on the property, which had not yet been completed by the property development company who was the seller. A number of months later it became apparent during the conveyancing that there was a planning issue which was likely to delay the transaction. The seller advised that the matter was in hand and would be resolved soon, however, Mr and Mrs B decided to withdraw from the transaction. They then
complained to the Agent asserting that they should have been made aware of the planning issue and sought compensation for their abortive fees.

Complaint

The complainants, Mr and Mrs J, bought a property in the knowledge that five months prior to making their offer the property had been flooded. The property was situated near the sea and a river. A year after the purchase, the property was flooded again and, according to Mr and Mrs J, was at risk to flooding on an additional three separate occasions. Mr and Mrs J alleged that the Agent withheld information and deceived them about the true nature of the risk of flooding.

Complaint

Mr and Mrs I, the buyers, were investors who approached the Agent with a view to buying a rental property suitable for their needs. The Agent duly provided them with the details of the property which included rental values and was being sold with a sitting tenant. Mr and Mrs I proceeded to purchase the property, however, two years later, after being contacted by the local council, Mr and Mrs I complained to Agent that they had neglected to inform them that the property fell under the Council’s selective licensing scheme which, in their opinion had devalued the property.

Complaint

In this case the potential buyers, Mr and Mrs H, viewed the property four times before entering into negotiations where a mutually agreeable price was agreed. However, during the conveyancing process it came to light that the storage arrangements described on the draft sales particulars did not form part of the sale. Unfortunately, the transaction broke down and Mr and Mrs H sought reimbursement of their costs from the Agent.

Complaint

Upon making an agreeable offer, the potential buyers, Mr and Mrs G proceeded to instruct solicitors and a surveyor. Unfortunately, during this process it came to light that the basement, described in the sales particulars as having been converted to a further room that could be used a bedroom, did not have the required permission. Mr and Mrs G withdrew from the transaction and complained that the Agent’s sales particulars had misled them.

Complaint

Following her purchase of the property, the buyer, Ms F, asserted that the Agent had misrepresented the property by listing incorrect directional aspects on the sales particulars and that, as a result of this misinformation she would experience ongoing inconvenience until such times as she sold the property.

Complaint

Following the completion of the purchase, the buyer, Miss E, raised a number of complaints with the Agent regarding the pressure placed on her to use their associated conveyancing service, their record keeping concerning her offers and their subsequent complaint handling process.

Complaint

Following her successful purchase of the property, Mrs D, the buyer, complained that the Agent had failed to disclose that that the sellers did not own the entire garden (as depicted in the sales particulars) and were, at that time, in the process of obtaining possessionary title for the land that they did not own but which they had cultivated as their garden.

Complaint

The Agent marketed the property, (which formed part of an estate that the Agent had managed for over ten years), as in need of modernisation and updating. The potential buyer, Mr C, was fully aware of this fact when offering for the property however, he argued that he did not become aware that there was actually no garden; that the property was listed; and that it had septic tank drainage located on someone else’s land until some way into the transaction.

Complaint

In this case, Mr and Mrs A, the potential buyers, claimed that the Agent failed to check the PVCu windows and doors which had been installed by the sellers were compatible with the property’s grade II listed status, adding that this had caused them to enter into a long and drawn out transaction that did not proceed to fruition.

Complaint

Following their purchase of the Property, Mr and Mrs F complained that the Agent had provided incorrect information in stating that there were five communal parking spaces available near the Property when this was not the case. Mr and Mrs F maintained that they were told these were in addition to the double garage.

Complaint

The Seller (a mortgagee in possession), instructed Agent B to market the Property for sale on a dual agency basis with Agent A, who had been marketing the Property prior to it being repossessed. Following the initial viewing the eventual buyer, Mr E, submitted an offer through Agent B which was accepted. Exchange and completion took place four weeks later. However, after several weeks, Mr E wrote to Agent B to complain, advising that Agent A had given him a copy of a structural report outlining subsidence at the Property with an estimated repair cost of between £25,000 and £30,000 adding that they had informed him that they had provided a copy of that report to Agent B two months previous. Agent B denied that they had received a copy of the report and argued that they were not advised of any structural concerns with the Property by the Seller or any estate agent.

Complaint

The potential buyers, Mr and Mr D, asserted that the Agent’s sales particulars were misleading as they had described the Property as being ‘ideal for any investment’, yet they had discovered through their solicitor that the lease contained a covenant preventing the Property from being sub-let, making it unsuitable for a buy to let investment. The Agent responded stating that they had been unaware of the covenant, that this was a matter for legal representatives to determine and, therefore, they could not be held accountable for
Mr and Mr D’s losses.

Complaint

Following the discovery of issues concerning access and a leasehold title, the potential buyer, Mrs C, withdrew from the transaction and raised a complaint against the Agent stating that this information should have been divulged to her at an earlier stage which, if it had been, would have resulted in her not incurring legal and surveying costs. The Agent responded by pointing that the issues concerned fell within her conveyancer’s responsibility, adding that they were not made aware of either issue by the Seller.