The Property Ombudsman, Christopher Hamer, is to step down towards the end of the year.
He will be leaving on November 30 after fulfilling the maximum nine years he is allowed to serve as ombudsman.
Announcing his departure to Eye, he took the opportunity to criticise the “scattergun” approach to the legislation of letting agents and calling for the introduction of one comprehensive Act of Parliament which would regulate the sector.
Hamer said that such an Act would set out agents’ responsibilities, force them to have client money protection insurance, and contain powers to ban rogue letting agents.
He said: “There should be parity between letting agents and estate agents.
“The current scattergun approach to legislation is confusing and wrong.”
He also highlighted the fact that while it is now mandatory for letting agents to belong to a redress scheme, this applies only in England.
Hamer also criticised policies announced by some of the political parties to ban letting agent fees and introduce rent controls.
He said: “I don’t think fees charged to tenants should be banned.
“If they are, then landlords will be charged more, and costs will simply be passed on to tenants in the form of higher rent.
“For an industry that is meant to be about fairness and transparency, that is the wrong move.
“If politicians do ban fees, they should assess the consequences. Who is going to pay the costs?
“And if they introduce rent controls, there is a danger of landlords quitting the market.”
Hamer said: “When I started I had no experience of the property industry, but during my time I have been pretty impressed by the majority of agents.
“The majority of cases I deal with are caused by brains being out of gear, not malice. Most are about mis-communication, not criminal intent.
“That said, there are some letting agents that sail very close to the wind.”
Hamer, left, is pictured with TPO chairman Bill McClintock in Edinburgh, where TPO Scotland has just been launched
Comments (17)
Time well served. Always found Chris and Bill to be fair and upfront.
Peebee you just turned into everyone’s irreverent Great Aunt Rene. On her 3rd funeral of the week she just has to mention the turnout being a bit low or that the departed was a bit too generous to the GI’s during the war.
NOW HEY, you!
Thanks to my Auntie Gertrude I have ‘Uncles’ in seventeen States, I’ll have you know…
How many in each state?
Knowing Auntie (Dirty) Gertie, Robert – I’ll bet they were all left in a RIGHT state… ;o)
I would type chuckle but would end up with a lectiure about posting something meaningful,
Now I don’t know Mr Hamer – I’m certainly not disputing anything that is said above…
…but how come previously, whenever a story regarding TPO has been published, they – and he – never got the lickings of a dog from anyone?
To me, this smacks a bit of ‘you can’t speak ill of the dead’.
Just saying… bring on the ‘Dislikes’. Doesn’t matter how many I get – I’m simply speaking the truth.
Enjoy your ‘retirement’ – or whatever you have planned, Mr Hamer.
Chris Hamer has been a fabulous advocate for the industry. I have had the pleasure of speaking to his executive on several occasions when discussing various industry issues and they have always remained steadfast and objective.
In addition, he has put in place a service that is unrivaled and long may that live.
Scholar and a gent
I will miss
Chris’ monthly comments.
I would like to echo the words of Eric. Best wishes for your future plans Mr Hamer from all at Polecat Properties.
I would like to thank Mr. Hamer for his service to the property community. He has always been at the forefront of helping raise standards in the PRS and, like Eric, I will be sorry to see him go. Thanks Mr. Hamer for taking part in the many interviews we did together at various events and conferences. It was always valued to have your input. All the very best for your future from all of us at Property Tribes.
An industry that deals with people will always require a skilled individual / organisation who can explain what these fee’s are and show why they are charged. As you mentioned, there are costs involved in placing the right tenant in the property, these are essential if you are to prove arms length approach as should be, and this is one of several costs that is easily explained and proven to any tenant. My only concern is the ability of many agencies staff to provide this information in a professional and transparent manner. So although I am all for some form of regulation, I would prefer it were built by those of us in tge ground as opsed to thoe who come into this industry with little or no previous experience or dare I say, common sense.
Agree – he has been a steady hand at the helm. He has seen to be fair and impartial. He has done a good job at helping raise the standards in the industry without the hysteria that politicians bring.
I am personally very sad to see that His Royal Ombudsmaness is stepping down. Chris has done an immense amount for the industry with good humour and professionalism and has been a driving force in raising standards. He has been tireless in addressing audiences and supporting industry whilst remaining totally impartial – a tough balance to achieve. He has engaged & educated an industry which is better off for his influence. There are few people I respect as much and am personally extremely grateful for the assistance he has given me over the years. Finding a new Ombudsman will be a mammoth task.
The more that politicians interfere unnecessarily with the lettings sector the more tenants will end up paying – purely because existing landlords will exit the sector and new landlords will not enter it.
Yes there are rogue landlords and yes, there are rogue agents (just as there are rogue tenants) – all thankfully are very, very rare – but there is already plenty of legislation in place which could deal with these issues.
We’ve not had to appear in front of the Ombudsman but I’ve met and also heard Chris speak at various events and he always comes across as someone very level headed, sensible and fair. He will be difficult to replace.
“If politicians do ban fees, they should assess the consequences. Who is going to pay the costs? There is a very obvious answer to that question; tenants. Tenants ought to be paying something, there isn’t a law that says if one is a tenant one is entitled to a free ride through life akin to checking into self catering holiday accommodation absolved of all responsibility to pay, maintain or in some cases think about the home in which one is living.
Tenants ought to be paying someone to advise and protect their interests, ethically it shouldn’t be the same agent being paid to look after the landlord interest.
The solution has been design, the technology tested all that is required is a forced change to resolve a what is essentially lucrative conflict of interest. (p.s @Rent rebel it won’t be me who is profiteering from a changed and sensible system, the costs won’t come down, the balance of who gets what for what will change, although un-facilitating rogue agent might be a benefit everyone welcomes)