Posts with tag: Property Ombudsman

Two more agents expelled from Ombudsman

Published On: November 11, 2015 at 2:40 pm

Author:

Categories: Property News

Tags: ,,

Another brace of letting agents have been expelled by The Property Ombudsman after failing to pay compensation, not co-operating with an investigation and showing a lack of compliance to outlined codes of practice.

A S Moon & Partners from Northumberland and CityWest.co.uk from Hounslow, have both been banned from the redress scheme for a minimum of two years.

Complaints

The decision to remove CiyWest from TPO membership came about following a complaint from a would-be buyer who gave the agent £2,500 for what he maintained was a deposit. However, the agent said that this fee was to fund speaking to mortgage lenders and arranging with suitable solicitors.

After consideration, the Ombudsman did not accept that the initial fee was a deposit. As a result, when the potential purchase fell through, the fee was not refunded. The Property Ombudsman criticised CityWest’s lack of explanation into whether the fee would be retained or returned. In addition, he considered the taking of the fee as unfair business practice. It has transpired that the potential buyer’s first language is not English and he was a first time buyer.

In spite of the agent claiming that they had charged the would-be buyer for their time, it emerged that the complainant was billed before the start of any work.

Two more agents expelled from Ombudsman

Two more agents expelled from Ombudsman

No Moon rising

A decision to expel A S Moon was taken following a complaint from a landlord of two properties. For the first, the complainant said that the agent returned a deposit to his tenant in full, despite there being significant damage to the property. For the second home, the landlord himself complained about not receiving rent and a failure to carry out a full inventory check, alongside failing to address and respond to the complaints made. As such, the Ombudsman upheld all complaints.

‘In these cases, both agents have failed to co-operate fully and bot have failed to pay awards made,’ said Property Ombudsman chair elect, Gerry Fitzjohn. ‘In the case of A S Moon & Partners the sum of £750 and in the case of CiyWest the sum of £2,800.’[1]

‘I would like to remind agents of their obligation to co-operate with any investigations by TPO, The Ombudsman requires any evidence they can provide and that is their chance to put across their side of the story. While the vast majority of agents do co-operate, the small number who do not do so, put themselves at greater risk of having a complaint upheld, when The Ombudsman has only the consumer’s evidence to consider, Fitzjohn added.[1]

[1] https://www.estateagenttoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2015/11/two-agents-expelled-from-the-property-ombudsman-for-not-paying-compensation

 

 

 

Property Ombudsman offers competition law guidance

Published On: October 13, 2015 at 12:38 pm

Author:

Categories: Property News

Tags: ,,

The Property Ombudsman scheme has provided a supplementary membership guidance note to assist letting agents in understanding their obligations under the revised Codes of Practice. This move has come to ensure compliance with the Competition Act.

Approved by the Chartered Trading Act, the revised codes came into effect on the 1st October.

Assistance

‘As part of the most recent Codes of Practice review process, we have produced further guidance in collaboration with the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to help support TPO members and improve standards within the industry,’ said Christopher Hamer, the Property Ombudsman. ‘This guidance note supplements section 3 of the TPO Code of Practice for Residential Estate Agents and has been drafted with the aim of ensuring agents do not compromise honesty in relation to the advertising of fees.’[1]

‘These guidelines come as a result of a well reported case that happened earlier this year where the CMA found that an association of estate agents and a newspaper publisher had entered into an illegal anti-competitive arrangement, breaking the competition. CMA imposed penalties of over £735,000,’ Hamer continued.[1]

Property Ombudsman offers competition law guidance

Property Ombudsman offers competition law guidance

Clarity

Ann Pope, CMA Senior Director of Antitrust Enforcement, added that, ’it is clear that some agents are still unclear how competition law applies to their business which is why we wanted this guidance to be disseminated widely. We wanted to assist agents and help the industry understand their responsibilities and what is seen as inappropriate practice.’[1]

‘In particular, we wanted to highlight that the ability of agents to advertise their fees or discounts freely plays an important role in stimulating price competition between competitors. If agents are prevented from advertising their fees or discounts in the media fee levels may be artificially inflated and owners are likely to find it harder to assess which agents offer the best value for money. It could also make it harder for new entrants to enter the market and compete effectively with established agents. Agents that continue to restrict their advertising of fees or discounts in this way are breaking the law and may face severe consequences,’ Pope added.[1]

[1] http://www.propertyreporter.co.uk/business/the-property-ombudsman-issues-competition-law-guidance-note-to-agents.html

 

 

Property Ombudsman expels London agent

Published On: September 4, 2015 at 9:15 am

Author:

Categories: Landlord News

Tags: ,,

The Property Obmudsman has moved to expel another letting agent following its lack of compliance with parts of the Code of Practice for Residential Letting Agents.

Bruten & Co Limited, a sales and letting agent based in Notting Hill Gate in London, has been banned from the Ombudsman for at least two years for its negligence.

Complaints

A decision to ban the company from the Obudsman followed a complaint from would-be tenants who highlighted concerns over many features of Bruten & Co’s level of service when applying to rent a property.

Coming in two parts, the initial section of the complaint centered around trying to arrange a tenancy, This consisted of three elements, two of which were upheld by the Ombudsman, Christopher Hamer. In addition, the second part, focusing on the handling of the prospective tenants’ complaint was also upheld.

The prospective tenants found that the agreement that they were sent featured a substantial extra term, which was not in the initial offer form that they had signed. Bruten & Co refused to amend the tenancy agreement, or refund the deposit and administration fees. Additionally, the company did not provide information on how the utility bills for the property would be worked out.

What’s more, the letting agent refused to sort out a complaint made to them by email, with a complaint sent through the post also not dealt with in a timely manner. Delivering a verdict, the Ombudsman decided that all of these issues involved breaches of the Code of Practice. As a result, he awarded the complainants a total of £768 in compensation, a figure that Bruten & Co still has not paid.

Property Ombudsman expels London agent

Property Ombudsman expels London agent

Impartial review

Mr Hamer said that, ‘my role as Property Ombudsman is to impartially review complaints made by members of the public against agents based on the evidence that is submitted to me. I aim to promote a resolution in full and final settlement of a complaint, and will determine appropriate redress where I am satisfied that the actions of an agent have disadvantaged a complainant. In this case, I considered it to be fair in the circumstances that Bruten & Co pay the sum of £618 to the complainants to cover the holding deposit and administration fees that had not been returned to the complainants.’

In addition to this, I considered that a further award of compensation for the aggravation, distress and inconvenience caused as a result of the failings in Bruten & Co’s complaints handling was also merited. I therefore made a total award of £768.’[1]

The Disciplinary and Standards Committee of The Property Ombudsman said that Bruten & Co’s shortcomings regarding the agreement and payment of the award were serious breaches of the Code of Practice.

Bruten & Co had been members of the Ombudsman since 1998.

Hamer concluded by saying, ‘agents cannot avoid paying awards if they jump from one scheme to another. Under the guidance of the Department for Communities and Local Government the three approved redress schemes will not accept into membership any agent that does not meet its obligations to another scheme. Once Bruten & Co have met their financial obligations they will be free to join another scheme. After the two years have passed they will also be free to re-join TPO, but they need to pay the award.’[2]

[1] http://www.propertyreporter.co.uk/landlords/property-ombudsman-expels-london-agent-for-two-years.html

 

 

 

Ombudsman Services Rejects 80% of Initial Complaints

Published On: June 30, 2015 at 5:38 pm

Author:

Categories: Landlord News

Tags: ,,,

Ombudsman Services has revealed that 81% of initial complaints against estate and letting agents are rejected.

Ombudsman Services Rejects 80% of Initial Complaints

Ombudsman Services Rejects 80% of Initial Complaints

Of the 5,265 initial inquiries last year, just 19% were investigated. The firm says that the complaints not upheld were outside the terms of reference.

Just over half of complaints were about member companies, but were outside the Ombudsman Services’ responsibility, including inquiries that were early, too old or lacked information. Almost half were about non-member agents. Some inquiries (2%) were requests for information and literature.

This leaves just 19% of inquiries that went to adjudication, resulting in 1,001 property complaints being upheld, an 8% increase. Only 934 complaints were resolved in 2014-15.

In 35% of these cases, there was no action. Awards and remedies resolved the remainder, with the most common financial award at £100.

Of the seemingly large amount of initial complaints, very few are taken forward and in only a fraction of these the Ombudsman Services was against the agent. When consumers complain against agents, very few succeed.

According to Ombudsman Services, the top three complaints are for valuations and surveys (42%), property management (25%) and residential managing agents (9%).

Ombudsman Services are not alone, however, in not progressing with a large proportion of initial complaints. In its latest report, The Property Ombudsman resolved 2,511 cases in 2014, after receiving an initial 16,792 inquiries. For this firm, a greater amount (85%) are rejected.

The Property Ombudsman says that this could be because the consumer has gone straight to them and has not tried to sort the complaint out with the agent personally.

Furthermore, an ombudsman cannot deal with a case that has become the subject of litigation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Property Ombudsman to stand down

Published On: May 7, 2015 at 11:35 am

Author:

Categories: Landlord News

Tags: ,

Just as the curtain is coming down on this government’s stay in office, the Property Ombudsman has also announced that they are to stand down.

After nine years, Christopher Hamer will officially stand down on the 30th November 2015.

Property Ombudsman

The Property Ombudsman scheme, of which Hamer is currently head, is a government approved independent dispute resolution service aimed to aid consumers who are unable to resolve disputes amicably with agents or landlords.

As a result, the Ombudsman can provide redress to position the consumer in their original position before any complaints were made, achieving a full settlement of the dispute and all associated claims from either party.

‘I have been in the post for many years, have enjoyed it immensely and found working with all the various stakeholder organisations and individuals most rewarding,’ said Hamer in a statement. ‘I hope the next Property Obmudsman finds it as enjoyable and rewarding as I did and I would like to wish them the best of luck,’ he added. [1]

 

[1] http://www.propertyreporter.co.uk/business/christopher-hamer-stands-down-as-the-property-ombudsman.html

 

 

Rise in challenges to Property Ombudsman

Published On: April 17, 2015 at 3:20 pm

Author:

Categories: Landlord News

Tags: ,,

The latest annual report from the Property Ombudsman has suggested that a growing number of people in the property sector are standing up for themselves.

Findings from the report indicate that more landlords and tenants that are not satisfied with their tenancy agreement are now prepared to challenge the source of the problem.

Changes in legislation have made it a legal requirement for agents and property managers within England to become a member of a government accredited scheme.

iStock_000016087530_FullChallenges

The number of challenges to the Ombudsman were up 42% in 2014, in comparison to the previous twelve months. Ombudsman spokesman Christopher Hamer said that, ‘2014 saw continued and significant growth in the private rented sector.’ He went on to suggest that of the supposed 1.6 million private landlords, many do not have the relevant experience or qualities needed to perform their role properly. This, Hamer feels, is why, ‘the role of letting and managing agents in providing quality customer service based on a comprehensive knowledge of relevant legislation is more important now than ever before.’[1]

 

Mr Hamer continued by calling for a carefully constructed regulatory regime in the private lettings sector. After acknowledging the different legislation that has been passed in the previous 12 months which has dealt with differing parts of the sector, Hamer said it was now time to, ‘bring all such legal obligations into a coherent and sensible single law.’[2]

 

Increases

More findings from the report show that there was 19% rise in registered membership letting offices, with a 40% overall rise in letting cases received by the Property Ombudsman. 33% of these cases were resolved by mediation.[3]

 

Of the issues reported to the Ombudsman, 11% related to repair and maintenance. 54% of complainants were landlords, as opposed to 44% for tenants. 23% of complainants hailed from the South East, 21% from Greater London and 9% from the South West.[4]

[1-4] http://www.propertywire.com/news/europe/england-property-ombudsman-report-2015041710404.html