THE PROPERTY OMBUDSMAN

Underlying Culture of Concealment and Coercion - Free Fair and Impartial redress hellip !

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!