Six property businesses have been thrown out Property Ombudsman (TPO) After failing to pay the compensation owed to consumers.
The decision was taken after a review by the scheme’s independent compliance committee found that the companies had breached membership rules by not complying with the ombudsman’s rulings.
The businesses – Brimmer Lettings & Management Ltd, Edward Clarke Estates, Hunter Ashley Sales & Lettings, Eight Asset Management (EightAM), Scampi, and Inspired Sales & Lettings – have all ignored compensation awards issued through the scheme’s dispute resolution process.
Brimmer Lettings & Management Limited
Brimmer Lettings & Management Ltd, on Plongington Road, Preston, Lancashire, was the subject of a complaint from a landlord who said he had not received rent collected by the agent.
The Ombudsman found that £950 in rent was paid by the tenant but not passed on to the landlord. An award of £350 was awarded for trouble and inconvenience caused by the agent’s poor communication. The landlord was awarded a total of £1,300.
Edward Clarke Estate
Edward Clarke Estates, based on Orsett Road, Grays, Essex, was ordered to pay £150 to a tenant after failing to respond to a formal complaint. The Ombudsman upheld the complaint on the basis that the tenant had received no response to his concerns. A prize of £150 was offered but was not paid by the company.
Hunter Ashley Sales & Lettings
Hunter Ashley Sales & Lettings, on Brunel Way, Slough, was the subject of a complaint from a landlord who said the agent had received more than £12,000 in rent but had not transferred the funds.
Evidence reviewed by the ombudsman included the former tenant’s bank statements and the agent’s own statements issued to the landlord. The agent did not respond to a formal complaint and did not speak to the ombudsman during the investigation.
The complaint was upheld and the agent was directed to pay an award of £12,635.
Driven Sales & Lettings
A landlord complained that Inspired Sales & Lettings in High Street, Rushden, Northamptonshire entered into a new tenancy agreement without his consent and then charged him for both a let-only service and property management, to which the landlord had never agreed.
The Ombudsman upheld the complaint, found a clear breach of the code of practice for residential letting agents, and awarded the landlord £834 in compensation. This included a £570 late-only fee refund, a £114 management fee refund, and £150 for aggravation, distress and inconvenience.
scampi
A landlord complained that Scampi, based on Peregrine Road in Ilford, Essex, stopped bringing forward rental payments, leaving them without any rental income for several months. The Ombudsman upheld the complaint and ordered Scampi to pay a total of £5,132.92, which included outstanding rent, overpaid management fee refunds and compensation. A payment plan was set up and the agent paid the landlord £1,882.92, but no further payments were received leaving £3,250 outstanding.
Eight Asset Management (EightAM)
A leaseholder lodged a complaint against Eight Asset Management regarding the management of a residential leasehold property on Edinburgh Way in Harlow, Essex. The complaint covered five areas: the agent withheld the requested available information; Maintenance work was carried out without proper permission; Lack of communication regarding parking matter; Unreasonable delay in providing information about CCTV; and inadequate disposal of complaints.
The Ombudsman ruled in the lessee’s favor and awarded £250 after the agent identified repeated communication shortcomings.
Chief Ombudsman Leslie Horton said: “We exist to provide a fair and independent way to resolve disputes with property businesses. Our decisions are binding on our members.
“Exclusion is always a last resort and follows a robust compliance process. The vast majority of our members comply with our decisions and pay awards promptly. Where businesses fail to do so, we will take appropriate action to protect consumers and maintain standards within the sector.”
The Ombudsman Scheme, established in 1990, provides redress in cases where consumer or property businesses fall short of required standards.
Although it is not a regulator and cannot take legal action, its decisions are binding on registered businesses. Firms failing to comply may be expelled and referred to relevant enforcement authorities.