Southampton based Estate Agent expelled from The Property Ombudsman following a complaint

Buyers, sellers, tenants and landlords in Southampton are being warned that a local estate and letting agent, CE Property Ltd (trading from Bitterne Precinct as Charles Carr), has been expelled from The Property Ombudsman (TPO) scheme. This means the agent can no longer legally trade until the outstanding award of £350 is paid. A case was referred to TPO after a complainant (on behalf of the landlord) said that no inspections of their rental property took place in the last two years of the tenancy and that the property was not up to standard as a result. The complainant said that Charles Carr did not attend the check-out, the cleaning by the contractor used was not satisfactory, the agent had re-let the property without communicating with the complainant and returned the tenant’s deposit without his knowledge. Charles Carr’s response was that they acknowledged not carrying out inspections as often as they would have liked. The agent said that a third-party inventory company produced the check-out report, that they found and referenced new tenants as the landlord had advised he wished to re-let and, that they could not be held responsible for the cleaning carried out by the contractor. The agent said that the complainant missed the deadline for raising a dispute, so the deposit was returned to the tenant. On reviewing the evidence provided, the Ombudsman was not satisfied that the agent had carried out any inspections of the property in the last two years of the tenancy and therefore supported the complaint with regard to this. However, the Ombudsman was satisfied that the Charles Carr had arranged for a detailed Check-out report to be produced, in accordance with their obligations, but was critical that they did not compare the condition of the property to the inventory produced at the start of the tenancy. The Ombudsman could not hold the agent responsible for the actions of the contractor. The Ombudsman agreed that communication regarding the re-letting of the property was poor, as they referenced and arranged for new tenants to move into the property without confirming this with the landlord. However, the tenants were properly referenced and there was no detriment to the complainant, so not award was made. Finally, the Ombudsman was not satisfied with the agent’s actions to return the tenant’s deposit, despite being aware that the landlord wished to make a claim for the full deposit. They failed to communicate any deadlines to provide evidence of their claim, so this element of the complaint was also supported. The Ombudsman supported the complaint and made an award of £350 for the breaches made, however, Charles Carr failed to pay the award and was therefore referred to TPO’s independent Compliance Committee, which ruled the firm should be expelled from The Property Ombudsman scheme. CE Property Ltd has been referred to Trading Standards. Gerry Fitzjohn, Non-Executive Director and Chairman of TPO’s Finance Committee: “As a member of TPO, agents are obliged to comply with awards made by the Ombudsman, which Charles Carr has failed to do. Although the company has gone into liquidation and has therefore ceased trading, a new company trading under the same name but with no linked directors is trading from the same address. This agent is registered with the other redress scheme, PRS.” An agreement between the two Government-approved redress schemes (The Property Ombudsman and The Property Redress Scheme, means CE Property Ltd will not be able to register for any form of redress until the award is paid. Redress registration is required for the agents to trade legally.