b'THE PROPERTY OMBUDSMAN ANNUAL REPORT 2018Case summariesTPOs free, fair and impartial service is a genuine alternative to the small claims courts.The Ombudsman is not a regulator, but TPO agentsof Practice and the extent to which there has been can be held to account for their actions against theconsumer detriment. The real-life consumer case best practice obligations set out in the schemessummaries in this section provide a snapshot of the approved Codes of Practice.varied and complex cases that TPO deals with on a daily basis. To read the summaries in full, please TPOs Codes set standards for agents that go aboveclick the link under each case or visit:and beyond the law to protect consumers from unfairwww.tpos.co.uk/news-media-and-press-releases/practices and raise industry standards.case-studiesEach case is different, but all cases are reviewed against the obligations set out in the relevant Code THE WINNING BID! COMMUNICATION BUT AT WHAT COST? CONUNDRUMTPO was asked to review a case from buyers whoA case that The Property Ombudsman was asked believed the agent misrepresented the property theyto review came from a leaseholder. The agent was purchased at auction as they failed to make theminstructed by the freeholder to provide a management aware that the property was tenanted or that thereservice in respect of the block in which the property was only 55 years remaining on the lease. The buyerswas situated.were seeking the return of the 3,000 reservation feeThe leaseholder complained that the agent did not they paid which the agent had transferred to the sellerconsult her about the installation of communal water following their withdrawal from the purchase. meters, saying that the agent did not provide clear In considering this complaint, the Ombudsman hadresponses in a timely manner to her queries about particular regard for two paragraphs of the TPO Codethe installation of the meters and the effect this would of Practice for Residential Estate Agents; one relatinghave on her water bill.to compliance with CPRs (7i) and the other relating toThe agent said that the installation of water meters basic information agents should provide in regard towas undertaken by another company who had been leasehold properties (7k). instructed directly by the freeholder, rather than The marketing details stated that the tenure of theby themselves. They say that this company notified property was leasehold, however the agent did notall the leaseholders that water meters would be provide the length of the lease, which was 55 years. Ininstalled. The agent said that they had responded to addition, the marketing details produced by the agentqueries raised. made no reference to there being an ongoing tenancy.The leaseholder also complained that service charge To find out what this meant for the buyers andand ground rent demands incorrectly stated the whether this complaint was upheld visit:name of the freeholder on the reverse and that the www.tpos.co.uk/news-media-and-press- agent had delayed billing her for ground rent. The releases/case-studies/item/the-winning- agent acknowledged that service charge demands bid-but-at-what-cost were sent out with the freeholders name incorrectly stated, which they say was due to an administrative error. They apologised for this.Find out more about this case and the Ombudsmans decision at:www.tpos.co.uk/news-media-and-press-releases/case-studies/item/communication-conundrum12'