Case summaries The Ombudsman is not a regulator, but TPO Agents can be held to account for their actions against the best practice obligations set out in the scheme’s approved Codes of Practice. TPO’s Codes set standards for agents that go above and beyond the law to protect consumers from unfair practices and raise industry standards. Each case is different, but the way the Ombudsman reviews them is exactly the same. The real-life consumer case summaries in this section provide a snapshot of the varied and complex cases that TPO deals with on a daily basis. To read the summaries in full, please click the link under each case or visit www.tpos.co.uk >news >case-studies. TPO’s free, fair and impartial service is a genuine alternative to the small claims courts. This dispute concerned an offer received on a property for sale and the commission fee payable. The agent was instructed by sellers on a Sole Agency Agreement to market a property for an initial asking price of £295,000. The fixed fee agreed was £4,560 plus VAT (£5,472), but the sellers also took advantage of a promotion that the agent was offering. That agreement stated that if the sale price achieved was less than 95% of the asking price, they would qualify for a significantly reduced fee of £500 inclusive of VAT. A buyer made an offer of £281,000 equating to 95.25% of the asking price, meaning the sellers did not qualify for the promotional offer. The sellers agreed to accept the buyer’s offer, however, some months later the sellers discovered that a prior offer, only £1000 less, was made but not submitted to them. This offer would’ve qualified the sellers for the promotional fee, meaning that they would have been better off financially if they had accepted the lower offer. The Ombudsman supported the complaint and all parties accepted the decision. To see the case summary in full, visit:- www.tpos.co.uk/news-media-and- press-releases/case-studies/item/ offer-and-fees-dispute A landlord alleged that the agent did not charge market rent or implement rental increases allowed for by the tenancy agreement during the ten-year period in which the property was let, until this was specifically requested by the landlord. The agent commented that the property required refurbishing and that, as such, they did not feel that rent increases could be justified. They also said that there was no obligation upon them to consider annual rental increases during periodic tenancies. The Ombudsman accepted that the agent may have felt any increase to the rent was unjustified because of the condition of the property. Depending on the rental market, it may also often be in a landlord’s interest to retain a reliable tenant at a lower rent than to risk void periods and potentially unreliable tenants at a higher rent. However, the agent should have explained their position to the landlord and given the landlord the opportunity to consider renovations to the property to support any increase in rent. As it was, concerns were not raised with the landlord regarding the standard of décor and furnishings in the property until 2016. Find out the Ombudsman’s decision here:- www.tpos.co.uk/news-media- and-press-releases/case-studies/item/ market-value-and-rent-rises SALES – OFFER AND FEES LETTINGS – MARKET VALUE AND RENT RISES   12 THE PROPERTY OMBUDSMAN ANNUAL REPORT 2017