b'DUAL FEE SURVEYORDISPUTESQUABBLESThe Property Ombudsman was asked to review a caseA case that The Property Ombudsman was asked to from a seller who was facing commission fee claimsreview came from a buyer about two issues raised in from two agents. the survey. This was a dual fee dispute, with the seller having paidThe buyer instructed the surveyor to carry out the a commission fee to the second Agent (Agent 2) forBuilding Survey report. Two issues were the subject the sale of the property and later being pursued for aof the complaint; the roof and the flooring.commission fee by the first Agent (Agent 1) which hadThe buyer said that, following his purchase, two not been paid. roofing contractors inspected the roof (two months Agent 1 was initially instructed on a sole agency basis.after the date of the survey) and advised that it Agent 1 arranged a viewing with the buyers. Therequired completely replacing at a cost of around buyers feedback from the viewing was that they really7,000. He also said that he found condensation in the liked the property and were considering an offer butloft and there was felt missing in the back corner. The would decide after seeing a mortgage advisor. buyer said that the survey had not highlighted these A week later, a sale of the property was agreed toissues as he considered it should have done and he another party. Two months later the sale to thatwanted the surveyor to cover the costs of a new roof.party fell through and on the same day Agent 1The survey reported some degree of staining to the contacted previously interested parties, includingrafters but stated that there was no evidence of leaks the buyers. Knowing the buyers previous interest,and the roof timber was dry on inspection. The survey Agent 1 contacted them again a week later about thenoted that internal inspection was restricted due propertys availability. In the meantime, the sellersto access but there was no evidence of roof failure had instructed Agent 2 on a multi-agency basis. Agentthat required significant remedial action. Externally, 1 confirmed the change to their contract. the survey noted the roof was generally intact and Shortly after receiving Agent 1s second email, theserviceable, but repairs were evident as illustrated by buyers knocked on the door of the property and thethe survey. It concluded by stating that when buying sellers conducted a viewing with them. The buyersa property of this age, maintenance work would be made an offer for the property the following dayrequired to sustain its condition but at present no through Agent 2. The sale progressed through Agent 2. significant or immediate action was required.Agent 2 stated that after a break from any involvementThe buyer also said that the surveyor verbally advised with Agent 1, the buyers chose to re-establish theirhim all floors appeared level and that there was no interest in the property through Agent 2. Agent 2 said,evidence of movement. However, since moving in to that had contact been maintained with the buyersthe property, the buyer said it was evident that the by Agent 1, it was reasonable to assume the buyersfloors in the former garage, the kitchen and first floor would have directed their attention to Agent 1. Agent 2bathroom were sloping. believed that they were the effective cause of the saleThe buyer said that he would have expected these of the property, in receiving the offer, processing andissues to have been detailed in the survey and, had progressing the sale. they been, he would have significantly reduced his The decision in this dispute reflected what was fairoffer or not offered on the property. and reasonable in the circumstances particularDo you agree or not? Read the full review and to the case in question and taking into account theoutcome at:obligations set out in the TPO Code of Practice.www.tpos.co.uk/news-media-and-press-What do you think? Read the whole case andreleases/case-studies/item/surveyor-outcome here: squabbleswww.tpos.co.uk/news-media-and-press-releases/case-studies/item/dual-fee-dispute14'