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.
I found that the Agent was involved in an ongoing dispute with the owner of the Property over possession. The situation was that the Agent (as the tenant) had agreed a tenancy with the Landlord and had then sub-let to Mr E. However, problems had arisen when the Landlord had defaulted on the mortgage repayments. Shortly after Mr E had completed an application form to rent the Property, a court hearing resulted in the lender being granted possession of the Property. Less than two weeks after moving into the Property, Mr E received a letter informing him that he would be evicted.
I was not satisfied that the Agent had acted appropriately by letting the Property when they were aware of the situation regarding possession. At the very least, I would have expected them to have informed the Tenant of the dispute. I considered that their failure had caused Mr E significant avoidable aggravation, distress and inconvenience. I supported the complaint and made an award of £600 which included the £100 administration fee paid by Mr E to the Agent for the processing of his application to rent the Property.
Paragraph 4f of the Code of Practice and the CPRs require information which is likely to impact on a consumer’s decision making process to be divulged prior to that decision being made. It should go without saying that information which impacts on a tenancy to the extent that the tenancy could be ended prematurely should be divulged at the earliest opportunity.