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)
This case concerns the complaint by the sellers that the agent had charged them additional VAT on the commission fee, whereas they had understood that the fee was inclusive of VAT.
Whose responsibility is it anyway? This case summary looks at a tenure dispute - find out more about the complaint and the Ombudsman’s ruling after the agent claimed long leaseholds amounted to ‘the same thing’ as freehold.
TPO Codes in action! Find out how The Property Ombudsman's CCAS-approved Codes are used to review every complaint and go above and beyond the law to protect consumers from unfair practices...
But what if a search fails to mention land earmarked for a new town, asks Katrine Sporle, Property Ombudsman?
Telephone bidding at auction may seem easier, but it brings extra responsibilities to both the buyer and the agent, says Katrine Sporle, Property Ombudsman?
In the curious story of the dog and the licence, the agent as the one in the doghouse, says Katrine Sporle, Property Ombudsman.
TPO’s work with other trade bodies and Compliance Boards adds to the scheme’s unrivalled knowledge of all sectors of the property industry. This case concerns the actions of a search provider after a buyer alleged it had failed to disclose a planning application for a new town in the vicinity of the property she had purchased.
This buyer thought he had bought a two bed property at an auction, only to discover the house had just one bedroom. The Ombudsman’s role in this case was to unravel the events that proceeded the auction, and the actions of the agent on the day itself before the gavel fell.
The tenants who made this complaint claimed the agent only disclosed all their fees and charges after they had paid a non refundable holding deposit. The Ombudsman’s independent review of the case looked at what information was disclosed and when, to assess if the tenants were treated fairly.
