TPO expels seven agents after more than £110,000 of redress goes unpaid

Seven estate and letting agents have been expelled from The Property Ombudsman (TPO) for not paying awards totalling £112,257.

The largest unpaid awards were by Slough-based Berkshire Estates, which owes £60,292 cumulatively, after failing to repay several landlords over deposits that it did not put in a protection scheme.

However Berkshire Estates, as well as five other expelled firms, is no longer trading, meaning the only route left to consumers owed money is through the courts as the redress schemes cannot help them.

Confusion has emerged over the status of another agent on the list called Abbey Properties, which owed £400 after a tenant complained that they were given a licence agreement rather than an assured shorthold tenancy agreement and was shown a property different from that advertised.

TPO warned that the Abbey Properties website is still active and it has listings with OnTheMarket and Zoopla, where its profile page suggests it is now a member of The Property Redress Scheme (PRS).

This would suggest it is trading illegally, having been expelled by TPO, which said it had reported the agent to Trading Standards.

But Companies House documents actually showed Abbey Properties,  a trading name for Abbey Property Hampstead Ltd – majority owned by  Seyed Ahmad Zolfaghari – has been dissolved.

Its trading name and website was purchased by Wellington Estates Property Limited, a separate company owned by Anna Marie Simmons last year.

She told EYE: “I purchased the landlord database and the domain last year from the owner, there is no connection.”

In another high profile case, Kent-based TM Estates has been removed after it failed to pay a £23,700 award regarding more than 20 complaints from a single landlord.

The complaints included: the agent claiming costs from the landlord for the installation of fixtures and fittings which were not paid for or ever replaced; charging a fee for finding a tenant who was already living at the property; and failure to pass on rent.

Marques Residential Limited, in Southampton, has been expelled for not paying £17,775 redress over failure to pass on rent.

Similarly, East Yorkshire-based Nextmove was expelled after failing to pay a £3,256 award for failure to pass on outstanding rent to a landlord.

East London-based William Huxley has been expelled after not paying a £6,583 award over complaints that it failed to return a holding deposit to tenants.

Lang and Ward, also in east London, has had its membership revoked after failing to pay £250 in redress for not returning a holding deposit after a tenant claimed they were misled over a tenancy agreement.

Gerry Fitzjohn, non-executive director at TPO, said: “Cases like these are rare, evidenced by the fact that just 0.1% of all TPO agents are referred to the compliance committee.

“As members of TPO, agents have an obligation to provide a reliable, trustworthy and professional service, and where they are found to fail in this, are obliged to comply with awards made by the Ombudsman. Last year 97% of agents paid awards made.

“However, in all of these cases, the agents have not co-operated fully and have failed to pay awards made.

“I would like to remind agents of their obligation to co-operate with any investigations by TPO.

“The Ombudsman requires any evidence they can provide and that is their chance to put across their side of the story.

“While the vast majority of agents do co-operate, those that do not put themselves at greater risk of having a complaint upheld, when the Ombudsman has only the consumer’s evidence to consider.

“Agents must comply with any award and direction made by the Ombudsman against them and pay the complainant the amount of any such award within the required period for payment.

“Cases of non-compliance are taken very seriously and are dealt with by our compliance committee and/or Trading Standards.”

x

Email the story to a friend



2 Comments

  1. DarrelKwong43

    maybe new starting agents should have to pay a deposit to the redress schemes, which at least gives some indication of financial suitability

    no point having a redress scheme, if the agent just refuses or cannot pay the award

    Report
  2. Woodentop

    Note this is always after the horse has bolted. No proactive policing, failure by government to get their house in order and look the other way to preventing. Licensing isn’t the answer as these stories prove the point, it is “mind set by people” who were members of a redress scheme and ignored the rules.

    Report
X

You must be logged in to report this comment!

Comments are closed.

Thank you for signing up to our newsletter, we have sent you an email asking you to confirm your subscription. Additionally if you would like to create a free EYE account which allows you to comment on news stories and manage your email subscriptions please enter a password below.