An agent that EYE had alerted The Property Ombudsman (TPO) about almost two years ago is named among eight firms that have been expelled from the redress scheme owing a total of £11,834.
EYE queried Flintons’ membership of TPO in December 2018 after it emerged that it shared a director with Citiside Properties and setup next door just days after the latter had been expelled.
Flintons was also found to be displaying the safeagent logo when it was not a member.
TPO said in December 2018 that east London-based Flintons had not flagged any issues when it was approved for membership in April of that year, but it was subsequently accused in BBC investigations of charging for viewings and of illegal evictions – all claims it denies.
A TPO alert released at the end of last week revealed the agent, which is listed on Companies House as Flat Sharing Ltd, has been expelled for failing to return a tenant’s deposit.
A complaint was made to TPO after a tenant vacated a rental property on June 11th 2019 but did not get their £802.56 deposit back until October 24th 2019, breaching rules that it should be returned with 10 days.
TPO said Flintons had agreed to pay £250 in redress but failed to honour this so has been expelled.
It subsequently entered liquidation in February 2020.
All the expelled agents on TPO’s latest list have either entered liquidation or are no longer trading, making it harder for consumers to get money owed to them.
The largest unpaid award on the list of expulsions was £5,000, owed by Stoke on Trent-based firm SSM2 Ltd for advertising a property as having a third bedroom in the loft space when the attic conversion did not comply with regulations.
TPO criticised the agency for failing to check whether the conversion was compliant.
It was considered that the agent’s liability should be balanced with the fact that neither the surveyor or the buyer’s solicitor identified the issue before the sale completed.
An award of £5,000 was made to reflect the significant distress that had impacted upon the complainant but was not paid so the agent has been expelled.
Companies House Documents show the agency went into liquidation in 2019.
Its trading name and assets have since come under a new owner.
Six further agents have been expelled for failing to pay awards:
- Barrington & Blake Estates Limited (trading as Barrington & Blake Estates Limited in Cleckheaton, West Yorkshire) – £300 unpaid award and in liquidation.
Complaint from a seller over poor service - Sam Allan Estates Ltd (trading as Sam Allan Estates in Morpeth, Northumberland) – £500 unpaid award and in liquidation.
Complaint from a landlord over the agent’s approach to referencing - Ronald Davis & Co Ltd (trading as Davis & Co Ltd in Crystal Palace, London) – £1,204 unpaid award and in liquidation.
Complaint from a landlord over unpaid rental money and over-charging of fees - Target Estates Ltd (trading as Target Estates in Romford, Essex) – £350 unpaid award and ceased trading.
A complaint from a potential tenant who was not provided with criteria for referencing or for renting a property until after she had paid a holding deposit - Olive Branch Estate Limited (trading as The Olive Branch in Tonbridge, Kent) – £1,400 unpaid award and ceased trading.
A complaint regarding the agent’s failure to address maintenance issues which were promised, as well as failure to protect or return the tenant’s deposit. - Residential Asset Management Limited (Trading as RAM in Barkingside, Ilford) – £2,830 unpaid award and ceased trading. TPO is aware that a there is a separate registered legal entity now trading from the last known address, using the same trading name. Residential Asset Management Limited has been referred to Trading Standards. Companies House documents show all of Residential Asset Management Limited’s directors had resigned as of last month.
Letting agency denies illegal evictions and leaving tenants’ belongings in black bags on the street
Comments (3)
As you say I suspect there is more to this story than has been reported particularly as the EA involved has gone bust probably only one case of many.
The fact remains that all Estate Agents who are responsible for providing information to a potential buyer either verbally, in writing and in pictures must ensure it is accurate clearly in this instance a loft room described as a bedroom without either building regs. or planning is not. Did the EA complete a fact find which would have disclosed whether any alterations to the property had been carried out and then ask for further details? I suspect not as that appears to reflect the TPO findings and then who knows if they ever completed a fact find on any property possibly not.
Too many questions unanswered to form a view as to who other than the EA is liable but a useful reminder to ensure a fact find is completed and held on file to be used as a due diligence defence if needed. Just my view on this point.
Totally agree with you whatdoiknow58. I suspect they called it a bedroom, if they had called it a loft room they would have been free and clear! However, neither solicitor or surveyor picked it up either!
My point is, but poorly presented, if the TPO want the agent to take responsibility for saying that everything in the marketing literature is true, then we need a Land Registry system that makes this straightforward. In that situation, do you need two solicitors to carry out the transaction? Why can we not make the conveyancing system less opaque and make it work, both for the property industry as a whole, but even more importantly for the paying customers!
Perhaps another questiopn to ask, is this what the TPO is aiming to achieve by stealth? Their Estate Agent Code of Practice would point in this direction….
Interesting, a surveyor and solicitor do not flag a loft bedroom as being an issue, but the agent gets fined £5000 by the TPO! I can only assume there is more to this than is being reported. Would this have been the same outcome in a court of law? I do not fully understand how an agent who’s job it is to put seller and buyer together somehow takes on liability for the legal structural condition of the property!
It feels as if the TPO is trying to create a system of estate agency that bears no relationship to the actual law of estate agency. I have no problem if it is desired to make estate agents legally liable for the properties they sell, but how is this done with the system of records we currently have in this country?
Please EYE, open up a debate on how the selling of properties could be improved. I have suggested on here before that the Land Registry holds all of the relevant documents electronically upon first registration ie. Section 106, highways adoption, building regs etc. All the things that solicitors seem to get totally hung up on and yet, then do not ensure the next time the property is sold, the same questions do not get asked again!
If all of this information was publicly held and available, it becomes so much easier for the estate agent to do relevant checks and take responsibility and for sales to go through in a timely manner.
Any thoughts?