Complaint

The prospective tenant, Mr B, viewed the property (a ground floor flat) that was advertised as benefitting from a cellar. At the time of the viewing Mr B and the Agent discovered that the stairs to the cellar had been broken by a contractor who had been working in the property. The contractor had not reported the damage to the Agent or the landlord. According to the Agent, he informed Mr B that he would be surprised if the landlord would mend the stairs. The comment was subsequently disputed by Mr B, following his withdrawal from the transaction, who claimed that the Agent had told him to pay an administration fee of £120 and that they would let him know what was to happen with the cellar.

Complaint

Following the prospective tenants applying to rent the property, the Agent conducted negotiations regarding the furniture own by the Landlords, Mr and Mrs A, which was to be removed. The negotiations did not reach a mutual agreement and the prospective tenants withdrew from the transaction. Mr and Mrs A subsequently complained that the Agent had removed the majority of furniture from their property, despite it being marketed as ‘furnished’ and that the subsequent withdrawal of the prospective tenants had deprived them of the opportunity to receive rent, particularly since they had declined another set of prospective tenants from another letting agent.

Complaint

Upon instruction the Landlord, Mr E, agreed with the Agent that prospective tenants would be charged a holding deposit which, in the event that the tenancy did not proceed, would be divided up with £200 due to him and £100 to the Agent. A prospective tenant was found who paid the £300 holding deposit but had to withdraw from the tenancy after subsequently losing his job. The Agent refunded the full £300 and Mr E complained that he had not received his £200.

Complaint

Following their purchase of the Property, Mr and Mrs F complained that the Agent had provided incorrect information in stating that there were five communal parking spaces available near the Property when this was not the case. Mr and Mrs F maintained that they were told these were in addition to the double garage.

Complaint

The Seller (a mortgagee in possession), instructed Agent B to market the Property for sale on a dual agency basis with Agent A, who had been marketing the Property prior to it being repossessed. Following the initial viewing the eventual buyer, Mr E, submitted an offer through Agent B which was accepted. Exchange and completion took place four weeks later. However, after several weeks, Mr E wrote to Agent B to complain, advising that Agent A had given him a copy of a structural report outlining subsidence at the Property with an estimated repair cost of between £25,000 and £30,000 adding that they had informed him that they had provided a copy of that report to Agent B two months previous. Agent B denied that they had received a copy of the report and argued that they were not advised of any structural concerns with the Property by the Seller or any estate agent.

Complaint

The potential buyers, Mr and Mr D, asserted that the Agent’s sales particulars were misleading as they had described the Property as being ‘ideal for any investment’, yet they had discovered through their solicitor that the lease contained a covenant preventing the Property from being sub-let, making it unsuitable for a buy to let investment. The Agent responded stating that they had been unaware of the covenant, that this was a matter for legal representatives to determine and, therefore, they could not be held accountable for
Mr and Mr D’s losses.

Complaint

Following the discovery of issues concerning access and a leasehold title, the potential buyer, Mrs C, withdrew from the transaction and raised a complaint against the Agent stating that this information should have been divulged to her at an earlier stage which, if it had been, would have resulted in her not incurring legal and surveying costs. The Agent responded by pointing that the issues concerned fell within her conveyancer’s responsibility, adding that they were not made aware of either issue by the Seller.

Complaint

Following their third viewing, Mr and Miss B made a number of offers for the Property the last of which was accepted. Conveyancers were appointed and a survey instructed.

However, several weeks into the transaction Mr and Miss B viewed a local news programme where it was reported that a large development of 1,200 houses, a retail park and a waterside park were planned in an area 200 metres away from the Property. After further research Mr and Miss B found that the draft proposal had been made public several months before they viewed the Property. They decided to withdraw from the transaction and subsequently complained that the Agent had failed to disclose this information to them, despite stating that they had raised questions about proposed local developments during their viewings. The Agent contested that Mr and Miss B had raised such questions.

Complaint

In this case, the potential buyers, Mr and Mrs A, alleged that the Agent had failed to inform them that there were environmental issues in respect of the Property and asserted that, had they been made aware, they would not have proceeded to make an offer and thereafter incurred the costs that they did.

Complaint

Shortly after the commencement of the tenancy, the Tenants, Mr and Miss F, raised concerns regarding the Agent’s communication. Firstly, Mr and Miss F alleged that the Agent had provided them with a misleading response in relation to them querying the trading hours of the business on the ground floor of the Property. Secondly, Mr and Miss F raised concerns regarding the condition of the Property.

Complaint

In this case, the Tenant, Mr E, complained that the Agent should not have let the Property given that they were aware that a possession order had already been served prior to the commencement of the tenancy. The Agent failed to respond to the complaint.

Complaint

The complainant, Miss D (on behalf of herself and four other Tenants) complained to the Agent that they should have been informed that the Property had been burgled on two occasions prior to them entering into the tenancy agreement and that the security measures previously recommended by the police following the first burglary had not been implemented.

Complaint

In this case the tenant, Mr C, alleged that the Agent had provided him with misleading information concerning a right of way across the Property. The Agent responded stating that the information had been provided to them in good faith by the Landlord.

Complaint

Following commencement of the tenancy, the Tenants found that the residents parking that the Agent had advertised with the Property, did not exist. They immediately raised the issue with the Landlord, Mrs B, and sought to renegotiate the tenancy terms. Mrs B promptly complained to the Agent.

Complaint

The Tenants, Mr and Mrs A, agreed to rent a fourth floor apartment in London for 18 months without the knowledge that six weeks after the start of the tenancy, the building the apartment was situated in was scheduled for major redevelopment works. According to Mr and Mrs A, had they known, they would not have signed the tenancy agreement and,as such, blamed the Agent for not providing them with all the information they needed to come to an informed decision.

Complaint

The tenants, Mr and Mrs F, viewed the property whilst the previous tenant was in occupation. The property was being marketed by the Agent as unfurnished. However, when the tenancy started the bedrooms contained some furniture which Mr and Mrs F did not require. They raised a complaint three days after the tenancy started concerning the contents, condition and cleanliness of the property. Mr and Mrs F requested an immediate termination of the tenancy and the return of the rental and deposit monies paid to the Agent.

Complaint

After moving into the property, the tenants, Mr and Mrs E contacted the Agent to inform them of bad smells emanating from the kitchen. The Agent reported the matter to the landlord however, the issue took five months to resolve and at one point the toilets could not be used when sewage from the inspection pit overflowed into the neighbours’ driveway. After discussing the matter in some detail with the landlord, Mr and Mrs E complained that Agent had been aware that the property had suffered from a history of drainage problems but had withheld that information from them prior to the start of the tenancy.

Complaint

Shortly after moving in to the property the tenant expressed his dissatisfaction surrounding the noise levels coming from the neighbouring property. The tenant stated that he had asked the Agent during the viewing who was occupying the next door property and was informed that it was a family. However, after moving into the property it became apparent that the next door neighbours were students who had a propensity for playing loud music long into the night. The tenant agreed with the landlord, Mrs D, to end the tenancy early. Mrs D then complained to the Agent that they had misrepresented the property to the tenant which directly caused her loss of rent following a vacant period of three months.

Complaint

The potential tenants, Mr and Mrs B signed the tenancy agreement several weeks in advance of the tenancy starting. However, during their moving preparations, the Agent informed them of the landlord’s intention to develop the shed in the garden into a studio for him to work from. Mr and Mrs B were understandably unhappy about the situation (especially as Mrs B intended to work from home) and considered the property to be no longer suitable. Despite the Agent’s attempts to negotiate a solution, Mr and Mrs B withdrew from the transaction and all monies paid were returned to them. However, they were faced with the inconvenience of finding another property at short notice and asserted that the Agent had known about the landlord’s plans at an early stage but had failed to disclose the same.

Complaint

As part of a dispute arising from additional and unauthorised work carried out by a gardener at the property, Mr A, the tenant, raised a number of complaints against the Agent, one of which was that the Agent had falsely claimed membership of a wellknown trade body.