b'THE PROPERTY OMBUDSMAN ANNUAL REPORT 2019MANAGING EXPECTATIONSINCENTIVISING LANDLORDS IN A MIXED TENURE ESTATE OR LETTING AGENTS?The Property Ombudsman was asked to review a caseA case that The Property Ombudsman was asked to from freeholders concerning the management of thereview came from landlords about the retention of a estate by the managing agents. 2,500 landlord incentive payment paid by the Borough The complainants, a couple who owned the freehold ofCouncil (BC).their property, complained about the general conditionIn this case, the landlords instructed the agent on a of the development which was managed in its entiretyfull management basis. Concerned about the length of by the agent. The development consisted of 850time it was taking to find tenants, the agent suggested properties, comprising around 450 houses, 30 blocks ofthey considered letting to tenants in receipt of housing flats, communal areas and green spaces, woodlands,benefit, explaining that the BC had a scheme. No mention meadows and balancing ponds. The agent was instructedwas made of the 2,500 landlord incentive payment that by the Resident Management Company. The variousthe BC were offering and no disclosure that the agent issues included: would retain such a payment.Parking - illegally parked vehicles, despite clear rulesThe landlords considered that the agents actions in for parking. The complainants said that the agent wasretaining this payment and failing to inform them about aware of this but failed to take any action. the payment was contrary to their obligations under the Waste Recycling - green waste area hidden byConsumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations commercial vehicles enabling some residents to dump2008 (CPRs), which requires agents to be open, honest rubbish in this area. The complainants said the agent hadand transparent.failed to deal with the issue. The agent said that the agreement was between them Flat obligations - residents in flats were not permittedand the BC and as such say that they were entitled to to keep dogs, but one resident did and some residents ofkeep the entire fee of 2,500 they were paid.the flats had washing drying on the balconies, which wasIn this case, the Ombudsman had regard to the CPRs, not permitted. The complainants said that the agent hadspecifically Regulation 6, which is concerned with taken no action about these matters.misleading omissions. This places agents under aFees - the complainants were dissatisfied that the agentduty not to mislead consumers by failing to givehad advised that they would charge for dealing withthem the information they need in order to make anqueries to the extent they consider reasonable. informed decision, where this causes or is likely tocause the average consumer to take a different The agent had taken some action to address the issuestransactional decision. but pointed out that they could only go as far as theirFollowing this case, TPO also sought Primary Authority client instructed, and although they could not resolve allAssured Advice on this topic - Assured Advice 33. issues to the complainants satisfaction, they had taken them seriously and given explanations where possible.Read the Ombudsmans findings and outcome of this Read the Ombudsmans decision here:case at: www.tpos.co.uk/news-media-and-press- www.tpos.co.uk/news-media-and-press-releases/case-studies/item/managing- releases/case-studies/item/incentivising-expectations-in-a-mixed-tenure-estate landlords-or-letting-agents14'