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 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 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.
A case that The Property Ombudsman was asked to review came from tenants concerning their tenancy as well as the handling of their complaint by the agent.
Find out more about this case and why the agent was right to tell the truth.
A Buyer contacted TPO to complain that their agent had refused to return a £5,000 pre-contract deposit. Find out more about the agent’s shortcomings and Ombudsman’s decision.
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.
Read more about this consumer case summary and the Ombudsman’s investigation, which found the agent had withheld material information with dire consequences for the Buyers.
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.
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)
