The Winning Bid! But at what cost?

Published on Monday, 29 April 2019. Posted in Case Studies

A case that The Property Ombudsman was asked to review came from buyers who stated that the agent misrepresented the property they purchased at auction as they failed to make them aware that the property was tenanted or that there were only 55 years remaining on the lease. The buyers were seeking the return of the £3,000 reservation fee they paid which the agent had transferred to the seller following their withdrawal from the purchase.

More haste. less high speed 2!

Published on Monday, 29 April 2019. Posted in Case Studies

A case that The Property Ombudsman was asked to review came from buyers concerning the accuracy of the information within the local authority search compiled by the search provider (SP).

The True Cost of Guaranteed Rent

Published on Monday, 29 April 2019. Posted in Case Studies

A case that The Property Ombudsman was asked to review came from landlords about non-payment of rent and damage to the property. The landlords let the property to the agent as a tenant under a three-year agreement, giving the agent the authority to sub-let the property in return for a guaranteed rent. The complaints concerned events at the end of that agreement, including rent for a period when a sub-tenant’s belongings remained in the property, and damage to the property and contents that was found when the landlords regained possession.

Communication Conundrum

Published on Monday, 29 April 2019. Posted in Case Studies

A case that The Property Ombudsman was asked to review came from a leaseholder. The agent was instructed by the freeholder to provide a management service in respect of the block in which the property was situated. Installation of water meters The leaseholder complained that the agent did not consult her about the installation of communal water meters, saying that the agent did not provide clear responses in a timely manner to her queries about the installation of the meters and the effect this would have on her water bill.

Check, check and check again... For fraudulent references

Published on Monday, 29 April 2019. Posted in Case Studies

A case that The Property Ombudsman was asked to review came from a landlord concerning the referencing that was undertaken by the agent on the tenants. The landlord explained that she was assured by the agent, before she agreed to the tenancy, that the tenants (Ms A and Mr B) had passed referencing checks. After the tenancy commenced, the landlord stated that the tenants paid no further rent, that Mr B became threatening, and that the tenants harassed the occupant of the first floor flat, the landlord’s sister.

Annual Report: Deposit dispute

Published on Friday, 09 June 2017. Posted in Case Studies

The devil is in the detail: A Landlord alleged their property had been damaged and claimed the agent had not submitted comprehensive documentation to the tenancy deposit scheme. Find out more about the missing documentation that helped the Ombudsman rule on this case.

Annual Report: Lost keys, delayed repairs and an expired gas safety check

Published on Friday, 09 June 2017. Posted in Case Studies

This dispute focused on the actions of an agent who had evaded the truth concerning a lost set of management keys, and had prolonged a maintenance issue. TPO’s investigation unearthed the truth and found the agent had failed to deal with the complaint or advise the complainant that the matter could be referred to TPO for independent review. 

Annual Report: Tenant Referencing

Published on Friday, 09 June 2017. Posted in Case Studies

A costly mistake - this referencing case summary highlights the Agent's role to ID Tenants. Read more about this and another fundamental issue missed by the agent, which resulted in the Ombudsman instructing the agent to pay a £21,972 award. (The highest award paid by an Agent in 2016 - see page 15 of the 2016 TPO Annual Report)

Annual Report: Charging VAT

Published on Friday, 09 June 2017. Posted in Case Studies

This case concerns the complaint by the sellers that the agent had charged them additional VAT on the commission fee, whereas they had understood that the fee was inclusive of VAT.