b'THE PROPERTY OMBUDSMAN ANNUAL REPORT 2019DELIBERATING DEPOSITBADGERED BUYERSREPLACEMENTThe Property Ombudsman was asked to review a caseA case that The Property Ombudsman was asked to from a tenant in regard to information she was givenreview came from buyers who stated that the agent had about the deposit replacement product (DRP) beforefailed to provide them with all material information about the tenancy commenced; her attempt to change fromthe property, in this case failing to notify them of badger the DRP to a regular deposit scheme and the agentssetts in the garden.handling of the same; as well as concerns about theThe buyers said that they noticed holes in the garden arbitration process. during one of their viewings and upon querying this with The tenant said that she was not made aware of thethe agent, said that they were informed they were fox Terms of the DRP before she was asked to sign the Noholes. In a later conversation with the previous owners, Deposit Option (NDO) agreement.the buyers, now owners of the property, queried the The agent provided a copy of the information they saidholes. The seller confirmed that they were badger they sent to the tenant when she applied to rent theholes, and that he had commissioned a report about the property. This was a 25-page document which includedbadger setts in the garden which had been supplied to a Tenancy schedule as well as the Terms of the NDOthe agent with the instructions that they provide a copy to agreement.The tenant provided the document sheprospective buyers.received; this was 13 pages and the Ts & Cs of the NDOThe buyers subsequently contacted the agent and agreement were not included.There was some basicreceived a copy of the Badger Exclusion and Damage information to explain the process of the DRP. Report the seller had commissioned, which detailed The second element of this complaint concerned thesignificant costs to install exclusion fences to dealtenants attempt to cancel the NDO agreement and paywith the extensive badger sett and allow full use ofa traditional security deposit instead.The tenant wasthe garden. upset that she was asked to pay an administration fee toA significant selling feature of the property was the do so. large garden and the extent of the tunnels not only Finally, the tenant was upset about having to pay a feecaused damage to the shed, and lawn, but meant that the to challenge the deductions at the end of the tenancy.badgers were present in over half of the garden.If the Having rented before, she had thought that she couldbuyers were to enjoy use of the garden, they ran the risk approach a tenancy deposit scheme with no charge.Inof disturbing badgers in their setts.To avoid the risk of this case, while the Ombudsman had concerns about anythis and to allow the buyers to be able to use and enjoy consumer being charged to access redress, the NDOthe garden, it was necessary for works costing around clearly stated that there would be a fee of 150 (inclusive12,500 to be undertaken.of VAT) to access arbitration, allowable as this was not aFind out the Ombudsmans decision here:traditional deposit dispute. www.tpos.co.uk/news-media-and-press-Read this case in full along with the Ombudsmansreleases/case-studies/item/badgered-buyersdecision at: www.tpos.co.uk/news-media-and-press-releases/case-studies/item/deliberating-deposit-replacement15'