Landlords complained to the Property Ombudsman about an agent’s behaviour following the death of a tenant.

But the ombudsman ruled that, far from the gross negligence alleged, sensitivity had been shown.

Christopher Hamer includes the case in his interim report covering the first six months of this year.

The landlords had complained about the unnamed agent, alleging gross negligence and a lack of duty of care.

They said that the check-out inspection did not record all of the damage.

The landlords demanded compensation in respect of rent arrears and damage costs they had been unable to recover, and also demanded a refund of the agent’s management fees.

In his judgment, Hamer said that he acknowledged that the landlords’ primary complaint was a poor-quality initial check-out inspection.

However, while some instances of damage had been omitted, “to some extent omissions were made in order to show sensitivity towards the family of the tenant”.

Further omissions had been made because of the inventory provider’s health and safety policy, which prevented them from inspecting items soiled by body fluids.

The ombudsman also noted that the full security deposit had been handed over to the landlords after arbitration. In addition, the agent had made a partial payment of the rental arrears, after the landlords had issued legal proceedings, enabling the rental account to be closed.

The agent had also arranged for the inventory provider to conduct a second inspection of the property, and this report met with the landlords’ approval.

Hamer said that the health and safety policy on not inspecting items stained by bodily fluids was reasonable.

He concluded that the agents had acted reasonably and promptly, and the landlords’ complaint was not supported.

However, in a footnote to the case, Hamer does say that the agents would have “been wise” to have told the landlords of the limitations of the check-out inspection.