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.

This dispute underlines the importance of considering all material information when providing market valuations and advising on asking prices.

This dispute concerned the Seller’s perception that the Agent had provided false and misleading information in relation to the Buyer during the period between acceptance of offer and exchange. Importantly, it also provides a good example of how straightforward disputes can be avoided if clear and regular communication takes place and internal complaint procedures are accurately followed.

This dispute involved three parties, the Buyers and their Neighbours who made separate complaints in relation to the consequences of the Agent providing incorrect material information.

A case that The Property Ombudsman (TPO) was asked to investigate came from a seller against a quick sale agent and related to their communication and approach to the purchase of her property.

A case that The Property Ombudsman (TPO) was asked to review came from a seller against a Quick Sale agent. The sellers felt that they were misled, poorly communicated with and treated badly by parties engaged by the agent. They subsequently raised three complaints:

The Complaint

Following a successful bid and a subsequent survey, the Buyer withdrew from purchase of the property. The Sellers (the complainants) were concerned that the Agent had allowed the Buyer to place a bid on the property, without paying a deposit and which was also conditional upon completion of a satisfactory survey.

The Complaint

Within two weeks of moving into the property the Buyers (the complainants) discovered extensive flooding to the rear of their back garden.

The Complaint

Following the purchase of their new home, the leaseholders became aware of flooding issues within the new development that impacted a number of communal areas, including corridors, the basement and a purpose-built bike shed.

The Complaint

Following receipt of an insurance demand in which the premium had increased substantially, the leaseholder questioned this with the managing agent. The correspondence between the two parties did not resolve the leaseholder’s concerns and following the matter evolving into a formal complaint, the dispute was escalated to TPO.

The Complaint

Whilst pursuing the purchase of their property the Complainant (the Buyer) instructed a search report to be completed by a Search Provider. The report did not find any planning applications within a 750m radius of the property and so the Buyer went ahead with the sale.

The Complaint

The Buyers moved into the property which was located next to a care home. Between the care home and the property was a strip of land which, at the time of the survey inspection, was fenced off and did not appear to form part of either the property or the care home

The Complaint

Upon reviewing the tenancy agreement, the Tenant (complainant) found that the only option available to them on the online form provided by the Agent was to select a No Deposit Option (NDO) which was a £35 per month charge.

The Complaint

The Landlord (the Complainant) brought the case to TPO as they considered that the Agent did not conduct due diligence during the referencing process which resulted in them accepting Tenants that went on to use the property to cultivate cannabis plants.