Screenshots taken and reported to the ICO, as this is a breach of GDPR law.

As a business owner we have a right to reply and put the full facts of this so called complaint from Mr Adam Bowen.

Mr Bowen has chosen to make it personal in stating that Haydn Yemm is unprofessional, unreasonable and agreesive. Which the TPOS has thrown out after reading all the subsequent emails.

I have been an estate agent over 35 years and dealt with thousands of clients in variuous different property tranactions. Mr Bowen wasnt happy with the length of time it took for the transction to go through which as most people know is down to solicitors. He contstantly called my staff and my self liars which as a business owner I was not standing for.

Our role as Estate Agents is to act in our clients best interest at all times which we did. The owner has also posted a 5 star review on All agents for the service recieved by my staff and myself during the sale process.

What he missed out on his petty complaint is that my staff negotiated with the owner to store his furniture whilst the sale was going through to save money on storage costs. This was arranged but Mr Bowen was still not happy and demanded the heating be put on to protect his furniture all at the owners expense.

Mr Bowen came into our office to borrow the keys to check his furniture and whispered to one of my staff that he will be renegotiating the price due to the delay with probate. I then notified Mr Bowen that the owner will definatley renegotiate but unfourtunately wants the price to increase which he thought i was unprofessional and aggressive. I was taking my clients instructions that if he was to mess about with the price she would remarket at a higher figure. For me passing on this information he didnt like the response.

Mr Bowen contstantly threatened to pull out of the transaction which I replied that he can do that at any time throughout the transaction and if he could please cinfirm which he obviously didnt.

Part of his complaint which you can see below was key collection day no one from my sales team were in the office that afternoon ( Friday ) as they were all on appointments and the keys were dealt with by my Lettings department which is a basic handing over once ID is confirmed. Bearing in mind we manage over 350 rented properties this is something they are more than qualified to handle. Mr Bowen was still not happy.



He was awarded £150 to be paid by 11th October which a payment was set up to be actioned for that day as I was away on annual leave out of the country.

This little keyboard warririor was still not satisfied with that so chose to post his 1 star review on all agents to try and damage my business.

As you can see from our presence on allagents we have hundreds of 5 star reviews from very satisfied clients and have recently won awards across all three of our offices.

We are currently liasing with our company solicitors regarding the content of Mr Bowens slanderous comments and preparing a case which I will post the findings here.


Regards


Haydn Yemm MNAEA
Managing Director



AGAINST
COMPLETE ESTATE AGENTS (RUGBY) LTD
(USING A TRADING STYLE OF COMPLETE
ESTATE AGENTS)
2
3
Reference: 74805TPO50422 8 August 2022
COMPLAINT BY MR ADAM BOWEN
AGAINST COMPLETE ESTATE AGENTS (RUGBY) LTD
(USING A TRADING STYLE OF COMPLETE ESTATE AGENTS)
BACKGROUND
This case concerns the complaint by Mr Bowen (the Buyer and Complainant) against
Complete Estate Agents (CEA), raised in connection with the performance of their
branch in Rugby, whilst buying * (the
Property).
I have considered the specific complaints within the TPO Complaints Form and, where
relevant, the information in the Case History (although I may not necessarily comment
on it in my Review). The Complainant has already been sent a copy of the Agent’s
undated submission letter and his response, dated 18 April 2022, has been taken into
account in reaching my findings.
I note from the evidence provided that both Mr Bowen and Miss Ashleigh Adams were
purchasing the Property. However, I also note that Mr Bowen took the lead in
correspondence with CEA in relation to the complaint and is the only Complainant who
has completed the Complaints Form. For the avoidance of doubt, I will not accept a
separate complaint from Miss Adams relating to the same issues as listed on Mr
Bowen’s Complaints Form. As such, any award I may make in relation to financial loss
and/or aggravation, distress and inconvenience will be in Full and Final Settlement of
those issues.
THE ISSUES
The issues that I have been asked to examine concern:
A. Probate
B. Sales progression
C. Keys
D. Complaints handling
OMBUDSMAN’S FINDINGS
A. Probate
The Complainant has said that CEA provided misleading information regarding the
timescales under which Probate would be granted for the Property, to allow the sale to
complete. The Complainant says that he was informed at his viewing of the Property that
it takes 10 to 12 weeks for Probate to be obtained and that it was applied for in April
2021. The Complainant has said that his solicitor has subsequently advised that they
doubted the information provided by CEA was true, as the Probate Office do not give
timescales out as to when they will issue a Grant of Probate.
CEA’s response is that all information that they relayed to the Complainant was received
from the Seller. CEA say that they were given information from the Seller’s solicitor and
4
the Seller regarding the Probate. CEA have said that it was not a straightforward
process for the Seller to obtain the Probate but say that they kept all parties updated
throughout.
Under Paragraph 7i of the TPO Code of Practice, effective from 1 June 2019 (the Code),
where CEA gave information to the Complainant, it was required to be accurate and not
misleading. In accordance with their obligations under Paragraph 12a of the Code, after
acceptance of the Complainant’s offer, CEA were required to report information deemed
helpful to bringing the transaction to fruition.
Within their response of 7 February 2022, CEA said that the Seller informed them prior
to the commencement of marketing that she had applied for the Grant of Probate to be
issued. However, I have not been provided with any contemporaneous written evidence
to allow me to establish the exact information provided by the Seller, nor have I been
provided with any evidence of CEA’s communication with the Complainant in relation to
the Probate, or the timescales in which this was expected to be obtained. I am critical of
CEA for not providing written records of their communication with the Seller and the
Complainant regarding the Probate being required, as I am unable to determine whether
CEA relayed information that the Seller provided, or if they provided approximate
timescales to the Complainant, based on their previous experience of selling properties
which required Probate to be issued before completion. I support the complaint, due to
the lack of evidence provided to show that CEA communicated the information they were
provided with in the first instance, in accordance with their obligations under Paragraph
7i of the Code. I consider that the lack of evidence to show that the information relayed
to the Complainant verbally was as that received from the Seller has caused the
Complainant avoidable aggravation, distress and inconvenience which merits an award
of compensation. It is CEA’s obligation to provide sufficient evidence to show that they
communicated appropriately, to which they have not disputed providing the Complainant
with a timescale in which they expected the Probate to be issued, and I support the
complaint as I am unable to establish where the timescale came from.
I will not, however, hold CEA responsible for the length of time it took for the Seller to
obtain the Probate, in order to progress the sale; CEA had no control over this process
and could only relay updates provided by the Seller and her solicitor during the
conveyancing process. Having considered the contemporaneous written evidence
provided by both parties, I am satisfied that, throughout the conveyancing process, CEA
sought updates from the Seller and her solicitor in relation to the application for Probate,
which was relayed to the Complainant promptly. This is all CEA could do in the
circumstances. I appreciate that the Complainant was frustrated by the time it took for
the Probate to be issued, and that the timescales he was provided with initially were
exceeded, but this was out of CEA’s control. In some cases, Probate can be issued in a
matter of weeks, but there are many factors which can cause this timeframe to be
longer, to which CEA could only relay the updates provided to them.
I support the complaint for the reasons explained and consider that the Complainant has
been caused avoidable aggravation, distress and inconvenience, which merits an award
of compensation.
B. Sales progression
5
The Complainant has said that CEA advised that solicitors were using the cyber-attack
as an excuse for not communicating with clients, which he found to be unprofessional.
The Complainant has also said that, when he tried to renegotiate the purchase price of
the Property, CEA informed him that the Seller would remove the Property from the
market if he attempted this, without speaking to the Seller in the first instance.
CEA’s response is that the Seller was using Premier Property Lawyers, who were
affected by the cyber-attack. CEA say that they had a conversation with the Seller
regarding the market conditions shortly before the Complainant contacted them
regarding his wish to renegotiate on the purchase price.
Under Paragraph 1e of the Code, CEA were required to communicate with the
Complainant consistent with fairness, integrity and best practice, for which I would
expect CEA to remain professional within their communication. I would also expect CEA
to provide accurate information that had been provided by the Seller, in relation to the
transaction.
With regard to the information provided in relation to the Seller’s solicitor, I have been
provided with a news article from 19 November 2021, which states that Premier Property
Lawyers had been unable to access their IT systems following an incident on 7
November 2021, which was causing delays in completing sales. I note that this was the
Seller’s solicitor and CEA’s file note of 11 November 2021 states that they made the
Complainant aware that the Seller’s solicitor had not been able to work for the past week
due to a system issue. CEA’s subsequent file note of 25 November 2021 states that the
Seller informed CEA that there were still issues going on with her solicitor.
On 1 December 2021, the Complainant said that it was disappointing that CEA had not
heard back from the Seller’s solicitors regarding the Probate, to which CEA advised that
they were experiencing a high volume of solicitors informing them that they had been
unable to get hold of the Seller’s solicitor, but advised that they were fully operational
and that they had not experienced issues in contacting the Seller’s solicitor. CEA
mentioned that some other solicitors may be using the cyber-attack from the Seller’s
solicitor as an excuse for giving them time to work on their cases, but it does not appear
that this comment related to either the Seller’s solicitor or the Complainant’s solicitor.
The Complainant’s solicitor responded the following day, advising that they had not
heard from the Seller’s solicitor to confirm relevant information for the sale, despite being
aware that they now had access to their systems again.
I acknowledge that the Complainant considers CEA’s comment to have been
unprofessional, but I will not criticise CEA for relaying information provided to them by
other solicitors, in relation to the IT issue the Seller’s solicitor faced, as well as relaying
their own experience in contacting them. It is apparent that CEA and the Complainant’s
solicitor had different experiences in attempting to contact the Seller’s solicitor, to which
the Complainant’s solicitor’s comment is in line with CEA’s comment regarding what
other solicitors had informed them of. The Complainant also said in his email to the
Seller of 4 January 2022 that he was aware of a clear communication issue between the
solicitors in progressing the sale. I will not hold CEA responsible for the Seller’s solicitor
communicating with CEA but not other solicitors, including the Complainant’s solicitor,
and I do not consider that CEA made any inappropriate comments regarding the parties
of the sale to the Complainant in relation to the cyber-attack and subsequent issues
solicitors were facing.
6
With respect to the Complainant’s comment that he wished to renegotiate on the
purchase price of the Property, but was informed of the Seller’s stance without CEA
contacting the Seller to confirm this, I have been provided with CEA’s file note of 10
December 2021, which shows that they had spoken to the Seller regarding the
progression of the sale. Within the file note, CEA stated that the Seller had informed
CEA that if the Complainant threatened to withdraw from the sale, she would withdraw
from the transaction and request that he remove his belongings that were being stored in
the Property pending completion of the sale. CEA’s subsequent file note of 4 January
2022 states that the Complainant went to CEA’s office and mentioned that he may be
looking to reduce his offer or withdraw from the sale, due to the time it has taken to
progress. Given the Seller’s communication with CEA just over three weeks previously,
CEA informed the Complainant that the Seller had already informed them that, if the
Complainant tried to negotiate, the Seller would withdraw and remarket the Property. I
do not take issue with CEA’s communication in this regard.
It is apparent that the Complainant was not satisfied with CEA’s response and he
contacted the Seller directly the same day to ask if the information provided by CEA was
correct. The Seller responded to the Complainant, confirming that she would not
renegotiate on the price and would indeed remarket the Property to achieve a higher
sale price if the Complainant attempted this, as nothing was now holding up the sale.
From this, I am satisfied that CEA communicated the Seller’s intentions with the
Complainant appropriately and accurately, which was confirmed by the Seller directly. I
do not take issue with CEA’s communication and, as explained previously, they could
only relay what the Seller had informed them of.
For the reasons explained, I am satisfied that CEA communicated appropriately with the
Complainant and I do not, therefore, support the complaint.
C. Keys
The Complainant has said that CEA called him to confirm that the sale had completed,
but that this staff member then left the office in order to avoid giving him the keys to the
Property.
CEA’s response is that the keys for the Property were labelled in the office and the keys
were collected by the Complainant after completion took place.
Under Paragraph 13c of the Code, at completion, CEA were required to offer to assist
with the handover of keys during their office working hours.
I note that, prior to the completion of the sale, the Complainant stored some of his
belongings in the Property with the permission of the Seller and, when he required
access to the Property in this regard, he was able to pick up the keys from CEA and
return them the same day. Both parties were therefore aware that the Complainant was
able to attend CEA’s office to obtain keys for the Property during the conveyancing
process.
CEA’s file notes state that exchange of contracts took place on 21 January 2022 and
completion was set for 28 January 2022. CEA’s file note, made at 11.11 hrs on 28
January 2022 states that the Seller’s solicitors had informed them that the sale had
7
completed and the keys could be released to the Complainant. CEA noted that both the
Complainant and the Seller were aware of this.
I have not been provided with any further notes to show the events that took place in
relation to releasing the keys to the Complainant. The Complainant has said that, when
he went to pick up the keys, despite being called by the Sales team to advise that he
could pick up the keys, none of the Sales team were at the office when he attended, and
he was simply handed an envelope, which he said was an unpleasant experience. I
cannot dictate to CEA how to run their business and it is unfortunate if the staff members
that the Complainant had been in communication with during the sales process were not
in the office to handover the keys upon completion. However, it is apparent that the
Complainant was able to obtain the keys in order to access the Property after completion
and there were staff in the office to facilitate the handover. I have not been provided with
any evidence to indicate that CEA acted inappropriately or that any staff members
purposefully left the office so as not to meet with the Complainant when he was
collecting the keys. I consider that CEA ensured that the Complainant was provided with
the keys promptly upon completion of the sale.
I do not support the complaint.
D. Complaints handling
The Complainant has said that he received aggressive and intimidating emails from CEA
in response to his complaint. The Complainant also says that he received an email from
the Seller which indicates that CEA had disclosed his complaint to her, causing the
Seller to retaliate to him via email.
CEA’s response is that they promptly responded to the Complainant’s complaint in order
to respond to the issues raised, which they do not consider was aggressive or
intimidating, but professional. CEA say that the Complainant emailed the Seller directly,
which she was not impressed with, and that their communication was in January 2022,
with the Complainant not raising his complaint until 6 February 2022.
In accordance with their obligations under best practice (Paragraph 1e of the Code),
CEA were required to communicate appropriately and professionally with the
Complainant. I would not expect CEA to be aggressive or intimidating within their
responses to the complaint raised. I would also not expect CEA to discuss the
Complainant’s complaint with the Seller.
The Complainant requested CEA’s in-house complaints procedure on 11 January 2022,
which was provided to him the next day. The Complainant then raised his complaint on 6
February 2022 and CEA promptly provided their response the following day. The
Complainant stated that he was not satisfied with this and would refer the matter to this
Office, which CEA acknowledged, advising that they were happy to provide this Office
with the evidence they held of their actions during the sale. The Complainant responded,
saying that CEA’s intimidation techniques would not work on him.
Having examined the content of CEA’s emails of 12 January and 7 and 8 February 2022,
I am satisfied that CEA responded to the Complainant in accordance with their
obligations under best practice. I do not consider that CEA were aggressive in their
response, nor that CEA attempted to intimidate the Complainant in response to being
8
informed that he would contact this Office to escalate his complaint. I am of the view that
CEA responded with their view of the issues raised and informed the Complainant of his
option to contact this Office, to which they are required to provide this Office with their
company file upon request.
With regard to the Seller being aware of the complaint, the Complainant says that the
Seller said in her email to him of 13 January 2022 that she was happy with CEA’s
service, which indicated to him that his threat of a formal complaint was disclosed to her.
As explained above, I note that the Complainant requested CEA’s complaint procedure
on 11 January 2022, which CEA responded to the following day. However, I have not
been provided with any contemporaneous evidence to show that CEA informed the
Seller that the Complainant was not satisfied with their service during the transaction.
I note that the Complainant emailed the Seller directly on 12 and 13 January 2022,
where he said that he was not receiving assurances from CEA that they had spoken to
the Seller regarding the signing of the contract and outstanding replies to enquiries
made by his solicitor. The Complainant asked the Seller to provide an update, as CEA
had not responded to him. Within the Seller’s response of 13 January 2022, she stated
that it was not CEA’s job to chase the solicitors and that she was happy with the service
they had provided to her in selling the Property. With the context of the Complainant’s
emails to the Seller which prompted her response, I am of the view that the Seller was
responding to the comments the Complainant had made about CEA’s service. I do not
consider that the Seller’s response is sufficient to allow me to conclude that CEA
discussed the Complainant having asked for CEA’s complaints procedure with the
Seller.
From the evidence provided, I am satisfied that CEA communicated appropriately in
relation to the Complainant’s complaint.
I do not, therefore, support the complaint.
CONCLUSION
I have supported one of the complaints that have been made and consider that the
circumstances merit an award of compensation. My award has been set at the level I
consider to be fair, in order to compensate for the avoidable aggravation, distress and
inconvenience caused to the Complainant as a result of the shortcomings I have
identified in CEA’s service.
The Complainant has requested an apology from CEA and would like CEA to change
their practices, as well as receiving compensation for the issues raised.
My role is to provide a decision in Full and Final Settlement of a complaint, and letters of
apology have the potential to give rise to additional dissatisfaction. This is a pertinent
point in light of the absence of an expression of empathy within CEA’s submission letter,
despite the Complainant requesting this. As such, I consider it unlikely that an apology
from CEA would meet the Complainant’s expectations.
I do not consider that further communication between the Complainant and CEA is
conducive to resolving the complaint. In addition, I am not a regulator of the sales
industry and cannot dictate how an agent runs their business. However, I find it
9
important to highlight that I expect CEA to take on board the highlighted shortcomings in
service as outlined in the Review, in order to improve their standard of service. I will also
make an award of compensation to reflect the avoidable aggravation, distress and
inconvenience incurred by the Complainant, as a result of CEA’s shortcomings in this
regard. I consider CEA’s acceptance and subsequent payment of the award to the
Complainant (should he accept) to be sufficient acknowledgement of the shortcomings
identified in their provision of service.
Both parties will be informed by my Office of the opportunity to represent against my
decision and it may be helpful if I advise that I will only reconsider the case if it can be
shown that either my decision was based on a significant error in fact that fundamentally
alters a material part of the decision, or significant new evidence has been produced that
was not previously available that would have a material effect on my decision. If it were
simply the case that either party considers the amount of the award made by me to be
unsuitable, this does not alone constitute grounds for Representation.
I will also make clear that any Representation must be in writing, sent by letter or email,
to allow a proper consideration of the matter. This Office cannot accept representations
by telephone.
PROPOSED DECISION
For the reasons stated in my Review, I have supported one of the complaints that have
been made.
Accordingly, I make an award of £150 in compensation. This is in full and final
settlement of this dispute.
Property Ombudsman