“Underlying Culture of Concealment and Coercion - Free Fair and Impartial redress … !...”
May 01,2020
May 01,2020
3
people found
this helpful
this helpful
Underlying Culture of Concealment and Coercion - Free Fair and Impartial redress … !
It is my opinion The Property Ombudsman is not fit for purpose insofar as if a landlord has a complaint against an agent, where due diligence had not been shown and it is considered they are negligent, the written evidence provided will not be considered and where the complaint can be upheld through the courts TPO will liaise with the agent to address the issue prior to their decision being reached and then make no reference to this.
It is my considered opinion a landlord should not use TPO if the complaint is against an agent since they do not investigate fully and ignore evidence provided. Where negligence by the agent cannot be ignored they make no reference to this and assist the agent in compliance when they are in breach of their "Duty of Care" and fail to meet the Ombudsman "Code of Practice". It is my opinion TPO offer more protection to their paying membership, as clients, rather than to the complainant. They are free but most certainly not considered fair or impartial!
The letting agent, household name, failed to show due diligence and I wish to highlight the unjust redress by TPO, as detailed below:
DPS notified the agent £500.00 of the tenants deposit should be issued to the landlord, by the agent, since this claim against the deposit had not been disputed. The agent subsequently withheld this payment for in excess of 11 months stating 'there will be no refund and this is my final view point'! No reference was made to this by TPO other than 24 hours prior to their decision being reached the payment was received from the agent into the landlords account! DPS confirmed, in writing, £500.00 had been issued to the agent 11 months prior with the instruction to make payment to the landlord within the legislated time period, 10 days. TPO made no reference to this and therefore I can only assume they were aware payment had finally been made 24 hours prior and most certainly not within the legislated period. No case to answer! Notwithstdaning this the inventory check out had not been completed correctly, the agent accepted this other than the agent is not responsible for completing a third party inventory since they out-sourced the work. No case to answer!
Another local agent confirmed a tenant was a homeowner and since the landlord, required proof at this time the agent confirmed they had seen evidence of homeownership and the tenancy commenced. The tenancy went into rental arrears within 30 days and at this time the landlord established the tenant was not a homeowner and sought clarity from the agent. The agent responded, in writing, bank statements had been viewed and no rental payments were seen therefore it was considered the tenant was a homeowner'! It did not occur to the agent perhaps the tenant was not paying rent and the standard proof of homeownership, land registry or mortgage statement, should have been used insofar as due diligence under a duty of care! It is shocking TPO made no reference to this other than the tenancy agreement was between the landlord and tenant. No case to answer!
The Property Ombudsman did not make reference to the landlord stipulating the tenancy could only commence if the tenant was a homeowner and made no reference to the agents method of checking homeownership, which is considered negligent. It was later established, by the landlord, the tenant was not the homeowner by a simple land registry check at a cost of £3. The agent did complete land registry check but only once the tenant went into rental arrears and after the landlord had issued the land registry document to them! No reference was made to this by TPO!
The Property Ombudsman is an utter disgrace and should hang their heads in shame. I had considered taking the matter further however at the time I felt so disillusioned by the redress and lack of diligence by both the two agents and TPO, notwithstanding my time and effort to collate the information, that I merely provide proof to those that consider an agent being a member of TPO is an attribute, should think again!
It is my opinion The Property Ombudsman is not fit for purpose insofar as if a landlord has a complaint against an agent, where due diligence had not been shown and it is considered they are negligent, the written evidence provided will not be considered and where the complaint can be upheld through the courts TPO will liaise with the agent to address the issue prior to their decision being reached and then make no reference to this.
It is my considered opinion a landlord should not use TPO if the complaint is against an agent since they do not investigate fully and ignore evidence provided. Where negligence by the agent cannot be ignored they make no reference to this and assist the agent in compliance when they are in breach of their "Duty of Care" and fail to meet the Ombudsman "Code of Practice". It is my opinion TPO offer more protection to their paying membership, as clients, rather than to the complainant. They are free but most certainly not considered fair or impartial!
The letting agent, household name, failed to show due diligence and I wish to highlight the unjust redress by TPO, as detailed below:
DPS notified the agent £500.00 of the tenants deposit should be issued to the landlord, by the agent, since this claim against the deposit had not been disputed. The agent subsequently withheld this payment for in excess of 11 months stating 'there will be no refund and this is my final view point'! No reference was made to this by TPO other than 24 hours prior to their decision being reached the payment was received from the agent into the landlords account! DPS confirmed, in writing, £500.00 had been issued to the agent 11 months prior with the instruction to make payment to the landlord within the legislated time period, 10 days. TPO made no reference to this and therefore I can only assume they were aware payment had finally been made 24 hours prior and most certainly not within the legislated period. No case to answer! Notwithstdaning this the inventory check out had not been completed correctly, the agent accepted this other than the agent is not responsible for completing a third party inventory since they out-sourced the work. No case to answer!
Another local agent confirmed a tenant was a homeowner and since the landlord, required proof at this time the agent confirmed they had seen evidence of homeownership and the tenancy commenced. The tenancy went into rental arrears within 30 days and at this time the landlord established the tenant was not a homeowner and sought clarity from the agent. The agent responded, in writing, bank statements had been viewed and no rental payments were seen therefore it was considered the tenant was a homeowner'! It did not occur to the agent perhaps the tenant was not paying rent and the standard proof of homeownership, land registry or mortgage statement, should have been used insofar as due diligence under a duty of care! It is shocking TPO made no reference to this other than the tenancy agreement was between the landlord and tenant. No case to answer!
The Property Ombudsman did not make reference to the landlord stipulating the tenancy could only commence if the tenant was a homeowner and made no reference to the agents method of checking homeownership, which is considered negligent. It was later established, by the landlord, the tenant was not the homeowner by a simple land registry check at a cost of £3. The agent did complete land registry check but only once the tenant went into rental arrears and after the landlord had issued the land registry document to them! No reference was made to this by TPO!
The Property Ombudsman is an utter disgrace and should hang their heads in shame. I had considered taking the matter further however at the time I felt so disillusioned by the redress and lack of diligence by both the two agents and TPO, notwithstanding my time and effort to collate the information, that I merely provide proof to those that consider an agent being a member of TPO is an attribute, should think again!
Was this helpful?
Yes
Yes
Agent Response / Add a Comment
You can use this form to reply to the above review or a displayed comment on the above review.
Browse popular links for estate agents, letting agents and properties nearby
Latest Reviews
28th Nov 2022
reviewed by 'RoopDal'
25th Oct 2021
reviewed by 'Isa'
21st May 2021
reviewed by 'bogdan'
9th Jun 2020
reviewed by 'Elliott'
1st May 2020
reviewed by 'Vivivenne'
Opening Hours
Address
The Property Ombudsman
43-55 Milford Street
Salisbury
Wiltshire
SP1 2BP
01722 333306
Performance statistics
| Services | Valuation Accuracy | Fees Satisfaction | Min Price of property reviewed | Max Price of property reviewed |
|---|
Review statistics
| From Landlords | From Tenants | From Vendors | From Buyers | Other | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Areas covered
Services offered
- Sales
- Lettings
- Block Management
- Surveys
- Conveyancing
- Mortgage Advice
- Home Builder
Advertise on
Members of
Rankings
Overall
Overall
Latest Properties
No Properties
Oct 28,2024
Oct 28,2024
0
people found
this helpful
this helpful
An unethical, crooked organization funded by Estate Agents!
The organization has no interest in finding out the truth and ruling against the wrong, they are interested in ruling in favor of the agent always!
Sonia Estates in Kenton, Harrow decided my husband's sudden passing was ...
read full review
read full review
Was this helpful?
Yes
Yes
Nov 28,2022
Nov 28,2022
3
people found
this helpful
this helpful
In a word, The Property Ombudsman (TPO) is corrupt.
Firstly, it operates like a tortoise. They kept delaying and delaying investigation of our complaint against a Hornsea-based letting agent. Was this to give the letting agent more time to respond to our complaint?
Secondly, when ...
read full review
read full review
Was this helpful?
Yes
Yes
Oct 25,2021
Oct 25,2021
1
people found
this helpful
this helpful
It is not impartial and it does not matter how many evidences you sent, they still protect the agencies. Waste of time....
read full review
read full review
Was this helpful?
Yes
Yes
May 21,2021
May 21,2021
2
people found
this helpful
this helpful
Avoid - contacting TPO will be a waste of time. Turning to this so-called "Ombudsman" for complaints against real estate agents is akin to asking the wolf to guard the sheep.
Ten months of constant chasing and providing written support for each and every point ...
read full review
read full review
Was this helpful?
Yes
Yes
Jun 09,2020
Jun 09,2020
2
people found
this helpful
this helpful
If i could write 0 i would. What a waste of time. An impartial service that is funded y the establishments they judge. If you want a way to waste time appeal to them. However, it's best to seek help from citizens advice or your local ...
read full review
read full review
Was this helpful?
Yes
Yes
“Underlying Culture of Concealment and Coercion - Free Fair and Impartial redress … !...”
May 01,2020
May 01,2020
3
people found
this helpful
this helpful
Underlying Culture of Concealment and Coercion - Free Fair and Impartial redress … !
It is my opinion The Property Ombudsman is not fit for purpose insofar as if a landlord has a complaint against an agent, where due diligence had not been shown and it is ...
read full review
read full review
Was this helpful?
Yes
Yes
Jan 23,2020
Jan 23,2020
0
people found
this helpful
this helpful
The Property Ombudsman is listening my concern and problems with the property agent. I appreciate Hannah, Laura and her team to solve problem and the issues I faced and they explained me the steps....
read full review
read full review
Was this helpful?
Yes
Yes
Jun 19,2019
Jun 19,2019
8
people found
this helpful
this helpful
Over these past 3-4 years I have had to use TPOS twice, with complaints against a Property Management Company and later a Lettings Agent. Both occasions the Ombudsman review and investigation found in my favor. But however their award for compensation was paltry. Only a ...
read full review
read full review
Was this helpful?
Yes
Yes
No fees information available
Kindly note that legally, letting agents need to publish information about their tenancy fees, government-approved redress schemes and client money protection schemes on their website and on third party websites (on which agents are listed). For properties to lease/rent in England, agents need to keep this information up to date and precise on allAgents or specify within the property description.
Complaints Procedure
No procedure available.
