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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

A case that The Property Ombudsman was asked to review came from a seller who was facing commission fee claims from two agents.

This was a dual fee dispute, with the seller having paid a commission fee to the second Agent (Agent 2) for the sale of the property and later being pursued for a commission fee by the first Agent (Agent 1) which had not been paid.

A case that The Property Ombudsman was asked to review came from a leaseholder concerning the manner in which the managing agent for the block dealt with a water leak at the property. 

A case that The Property Ombudsman was asked to review came from sellers concerning the offer received and the commission fee payable.

A case that The Property Ombudsman (TPO) was asked to review came from a potential buyer concerning information provided by the agent when marketing a property for sale.

A case that The Property Ombudsman was asked to review came from a landlord concerning both the suitability of the tenant that the agent introduced to the property and the occupation of the property by other individuals not named on the Tenancy Agreement.

A case that the Property Ombudsman was asked to review came from buyers concerning their ‘PRC’ property.  They had purchased in 2011 and were now encountering difficulties trying to sell.  This complaint fell within the Ombudsman’s Terms of Reference, the buyers having made a complaint within 12 months of becoming aware of the issues.

A case that The Property Ombudsman was asked to review came from a landlord concerning the agent’s failure to charge market value rent or raise rent annually.

The Ombudsman was asked to decide on a dual fee dispute, with two agents pursuing the seller for commission fees, both claiming introduction of the buyers.  The seller believed that the agents should have been able to decide this between them once it had come to light.