b'THE TRUE COST OFMORE HASTE, LESSGUARANTEED RENT HIGH SPEED 2!A case that The Property Ombudsman was asked toBuyers who were concerned about the accuracy of the review came from landlords about non-payment ofinformation within the local authority search compiled rent and damage to the property. by the search provider (SP) contacted The Property The landlords let the property to the agent as a tenantOmbudsman to have their case reviewed.under a three-year agreement, giving the agentThe buyers said that the search contained inaccurate the authority to sub-let the property in return for aand misleading information about the proximity of guaranteed rent. The complaints concerned events ata proposed high-speed railway to the property. The the end of that agreement, including rent for a periodsearch recorded that the property was not within when a sub-tenants belongings remained in the200 metres of the centreline of a proposed railway, property, and damage to the property and contentstramway, light railway, or monorail. However, after that was found when the landlords purchasing the property, HS2 notified the buyers that regained possession.phase 2 of a high-speed railway route between West It is the Ombudsmans view that such arrangementsMidlands and Leeds had been confirmed and was between landlords and agents act as a mechanismwithin 200 metres of their property. The buyers said by which property management services arethat this information should have been included in provided, and consequently fall within her Terms ofthe search as they say that the route was proposed by Reference. In this case, there was no managementHS2 some years before the search was compiled.agreement detailing the terms of the guaranteed rentThe buyers said that they would not have purchased arrangement. The agents obligations towards thethe property if they had known about the proposed landlords were determined in accordance with theHS2 railway route. terms of the tenancy agreement between them.The Ombudsman was critical of SPs failure to meet The tenancy was due to end in November 2017, but their obligations under Paragraph 2 of the Search the agent had indicated that it had been terminatedCode by ensuring that they accurately reported the early by mutual consent. As such, they did notmost up-to-date available information.consider that there were rent arrears, but theTo find out what award the Ombudsman made in this landlords disputed this.case visit:Having examined the tenancy agreement between thewww.tpos.co.uk/news-media-and-press-landlords and the agent and requested supportingreleases/case-studies/item/more-haste-evidence from the agent to determine the condition ofless-high-speedthe property at the start of the tenancy, find out who the Ombudsman held liable for the rent and damages.Do you agree or not? Read the full review and outcome at:www.tpos.co.uk/news-media-and-press-releases/case-studies/item/the-true-cost-of-guaranteed-rent15'