EARLY RESOLUTION – MARKETING ISSUES

The Sellers submitted a complaint to us following their Agent acknowledging their request to stop marketing the property but failing to remove it from a number of portals for a period of two months.

TENANT ENQUIRY – DAMP & MOULD

A Tenant contacted us to seek advice about maintenance issues that were causing problems. The Tenant explained that his flat was suffering from damp and mould issues which had grown to the extent that it was beginning to damage his belongings.

The complaint

The Buyers located a property which they wanted to buy. Once they had made an offer they instructed a search provider to carry out a ‘Homescreen’ search report on the property. The Buyer wanted to check if the property would be at risk of flooding.

The Search Provider did as instructed and carried out a Homescreen search. They came back with the results of the search which did not highlight any potential risk of flooding to the property. They also reported that no action was required and gave the Buyers the impression that the property was not at risk of flooding. Happy with the search results, the Buyer went ahead with the purchase of the property.

The Complaint

The Buyers instructed the Surveyor to provide a report and signed and returned the Surveyor’s Terms and Conditions via email. The Buyers’ covering e-mail included a number of requests, one of which included accessing the loft to assess an existing planning application document attached to the Property which had been submitted before the owner had undertaken remodeling work. The Buyers wished to know whether the work detailed in the planning application could still be completed.

The complaint

The Leaseholders of an apartment had concerns relating to an incident that had occurred and the issues that subsequently arose.

On the day of the incident, the Leaseholders visited the foyer of the building to complain about a billboard that they say had been placed there on instruction of the Management Company’s director. The billboard advertised apartments to let inside their building and directed interested parties to enquire within, with arrows pointing towards the entrance of the building.

The complaint

The Tenant in a leasehold property had an outstanding balance of £10,562 in service charges.

The Tenant and the property management company came to an agreement surrounding the service charge with a settlement offer for the Tenant to pay 50% of the outstanding balance and the other 50% to be waived. The Tenant paid the reduced fee, requested confirmation of the zero balance, and thought this was the end of the matter. However, despite two further requests for confirmation of a zero balance, the Managing Agent failed to respond.

The Tenant then complained adding that the Managing Agent had also failed to properly inform them of additional service charges that had subsequently been charged.

The complaint

The Landlord of the Property instructed the Agent to find suitable tenants.

The Landlord made it clear to the Agent that they needed to know if potential tenants were self-employed or foreign nationals as this had implications for the rental protection insurance they had in place.

The Complaint

Following the market appraisal, the Agent contacted the Seller to confirm the details in the sales particulars were correct. The Seller did not raise any concerns regarding the document. The sales particulars stated that the property included a roof terrace. The property went live and marketing commenced.

The Complaint

The Tenants, a polyamorous throuple were looking for a place to rent. The Tenants approached the Agent to help them find a property that was suitable for their needs and also accepted pets.

In June 2020, the Agent was instructed by the Landlord to market the property to let for a monthly rent of £700. The Landlord informed the Agent he would not accept tenants with pets. The Tenants requested a viewing and the Agent arranged a viewing the following day. On the same day, the Tenants enquired if pets could be permitted. The Agent asked the Landlord who responded that he would allow pets if the rent was increased to £750 a month and the Tenants accepted the proposal.

The complaint

The Buyer was interested in a property for sale by the Agent and booked a viewing with the Agent. During the initial viewing, the Property looked great and appeared to be everything they wanted. They were told that if they wished to proceed, they would be required to pay a reservation fee of £1,000 to secure the property from the market.

The Complaint

The Developer of a new build mixed tenure development instructed the Agent to market units to potential buyers.

The Buyer subsequently entered into a reservation agreement with the Developer and paid a reservation deposit of £5,000.

The Landlords instructed the Agent to find tenants for their property. The Agent was in charge of viewings and began to market the property in the search for tenants.

A potential tenant contacted the Agent to book a viewing around the property. The Tenant was an electric wheelchair user who thought that the property would be suitable for their needs. The Agent accepted the viewing.

A case that The Property Ombudsman was asked to review came from a buyer concerning the survey.

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).

A case that The Property Ombudsman was asked to review came from a tenant about the information she was given about the deposit replacement product (DRP) before the tenancy commenced; her attempt to change from the DRP to a regular deposit scheme and the agent’s handling of the same; as well as concerns about the arbitration process.

A case that The Property Ombudsman was asked to review came from buyers who stated that the agent had failed to provide them with all material information about the property, in this case failing to notify them of badger setts in the garden.

A case that The Property Ombudsman was asked to review came from a leaseholder who stated that the agent had failed to pro-actively manage the water leaks from the flat above.

A case that The Property Ombudsman was asked to review came from a buyer who stated that the agent had failed to disclose that there was a basement beneath the property to which unauthorised alterations had been made by the sellers.

A case that The Property Ombudsman was asked to review came from landlords about the retention of a £2,500 landlord incentive payment paid by the Borough Council (BC).

Already well documented in the press, rising rents in the private rented sector combined with cuts to housing benefits following the introduction of Universal Credit, have made letting to councils a less attractive proposition for private landlords.

A case that The Property Ombudsman was asked to review came from freeholders concerning the management of the estate by the managing agents.