Complaint

Mr and Mrs I, the buyers, were investors who approached the Agent with a view to buying a rental property suitable for their needs. The Agent duly provided them with the details of the property which included rental values and was being sold with a sitting tenant. Mr and Mrs I proceeded to purchase the property, however, two years later, after being contacted by the local council, Mr and Mrs I complained to Agent that they had neglected to inform them that the property fell under the Council’s selective licensing scheme which, in their opinion had devalued the property.

Complaint

In this case the potential buyers, Mr and Mrs H, viewed the property four times before entering into negotiations where a mutually agreeable price was agreed. However, during the conveyancing process it came to light that the storage arrangements described on the draft sales particulars did not form part of the sale. Unfortunately, the transaction broke down and Mr and Mrs H sought reimbursement of their costs from the Agent.

Complaint

Upon making an agreeable offer, the potential buyers, Mr and Mrs G proceeded to instruct solicitors and a surveyor. Unfortunately, during this process it came to light that the basement, described in the sales particulars as having been converted to a further room that could be used a bedroom, did not have the required permission. Mr and Mrs G withdrew from the transaction and complained that the Agent’s sales particulars had misled them.

Complaint

Following her purchase of the property, the buyer, Ms F, asserted that the Agent had misrepresented the property by listing incorrect directional aspects on the sales particulars and that, as a result of this misinformation she would experience ongoing inconvenience until such times as she sold the property.

Complaint

Following the completion of the purchase, the buyer, Miss E, raised a number of complaints with the Agent regarding the pressure placed on her to use their associated conveyancing service, their record keeping concerning her offers and their subsequent complaint handling process.

Complaint

Following her successful purchase of the property, Mrs D, the buyer, complained that the Agent had failed to disclose that that the sellers did not own the entire garden (as depicted in the sales particulars) and were, at that time, in the process of obtaining possessionary title for the land that they did not own but which they had cultivated as their garden.

Complaint

The Agent marketed the property, (which formed part of an estate that the Agent had managed for over ten years), as in need of modernisation and updating. The potential buyer, Mr C, was fully aware of this fact when offering for the property however, he argued that he did not become aware that there was actually no garden; that the property was listed; and that it had septic tank drainage located on someone else’s land until some way into the transaction.

Complaint

In this case, Mr and Mrs A, the potential buyers, claimed that the Agent failed to check the PVCu windows and doors which had been installed by the sellers were compatible with the property’s grade II listed status, adding that this had caused them to enter into a long and drawn out transaction that did not proceed to fruition.

Complaint

Following the end of the tenancy and the tenant, Miss J, not receiving her deposit monies, she complained that Agent had failed to keep her informed about which protection scheme the deposit was registered with; that the Agent had not advised her how to dispute the landlord’s claims on the deposit and that the Agent had transferred the deposit to the landlord without her agreement. In addition, Miss J pointed out that despite requesting the same, the Agent had failed to provide her with the name and contact address of the landlord within the required timescale.

Complaint

A few days after moving in to the property, Mrs H, the tenant, arrived home to find the boundary hedge removed and her countryside view replaced with a substantial building site relating to the neighbour’s building project. Mrs H complained to the Agent that had she known that the countryside property was to be next to a building site for a prolonged period, she would not have applied for the tenancy. The Agent claimed that they were unaware that building works were being planned and stated that, as the landlords had already paid Mrs H an amount in compensation, the matter had already been dealt with.

Complaint

The prospective tenants, Mr and Miss G, claimed that the Agent had misled them by stating that the property benefited from electric night storage heaters when, in fact, they were ordinary electric heaters. Upon finding out this information Mr and Miss G withdrew from the tenancy and asked for a refund of their holding deposit. The Agent refused, claiming that the prospective tenants had not asked them to investigate the matter.

Complaint

The day after Mr and Mrs F, the prospective tenants, viewed the property, they paid the Agent a holding deposit of £280. Later the same day the landlord accepted their offer however, the next day, for reasons undisclosed, Mr and Mrs F withdrew from the proposed tenancy and requested the return of their monies. The Agent refused, pointing out that as per the terms and conditions of that payment, following the landlord’s acceptance of their offer, the holding deposit became non-refundable.

Complaint

Upon application for the tenancy, the prospective tenants, Mr and Miss D, were charged a holding deposit/administration fee of £500 which, following their references being declined, was withheld by the Agent. Mr and Miss D complained that the fee was unfair, especially as the Agent had not fully considered all of the referencing information provided.

Complaint

Following the tenancy commencing problems arose in relation to the credibility of the tenants following a request from a third party for the refund of £6,700 paid from their credit card without their permission for the deposit and advance rent. The Landlords, Mr and Mrs C, subsequently complained that the Agent (instructed on a tenant find only basis) had failed to undertake the necessary referencing checks on the tenants which, had they done so, would have exposed the applicants as serial fraudsters.

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.