Essex estate agent expelled from The Property Ombudsman for not returning £350 holding deposit

Buyers, sellers, tenants and landlords in Romford, Essex, are being warned that a local estate and letting agent, Target Estates, has been expelled from The Property Ombudsman (TPO) scheme, despite appearing to have now ceased trading. The Property Ombudsman received a complaint from a potential tenant who said that Target Estates did not provide her with criteria for referencing or for renting the property until after she had paid the holding deposit. The potential tenant said that the rent was advertised as weekly, but was later told she would have to pay monthly. Target Estates’ response was that the tenant was shown a copy of the holding deposit receipt at the viewing which detailed the criteria for letting. The agent had not complied with their obligations under best practice of the General Membership Obligations, nor with their obligations under the CMA Guidance. It was also not clear that the complainant had read and agreed to the terms of the Holding Deposit, prior to paying the fee and the fee was detailed as non-refundable, contrary to the CMA Guidance (this case was prior to the tenant fee ban and therefore CMA guidance was valid at this time). It was also not clear that the tenant had read and agreed to the terms of the Holding Deposit, prior to paying the fee and the fee was detailed as non-refundable, contrary to the CMA Guidance. Target Estates had not carried out any referencing work in preparation for the proposed tenancy and the landlord had continued marketing the property throughout the period of the application. The full holding deposit was transferred to the landlord, which was unreasonable as neither the landlord nor Target Estates had incurred any losses. The Ombudsman supported the complaint and directed Target Estates to return the holding deposit of £350. Target Estates failed to pay the award (to return the £350 holding deposit) and the Ombudsman referred the agent to the scheme’s independent Compliance Committee, which ruled the firm should be expelled from The Property Ombudsman scheme. Target Estates is not registered with a redress scheme, which is a requirement of every sales and letting agent in order to trade legally. However, they do not appear to be trading still. They also do no not appear to be a member of a Client Money Protection scheme, also a legal requirement, do not have any professional memberships or advertise on the any of the main property portals, Rightmove, Zoopla and OnTheMarket. 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 Target Estates has failed to do. It appears that this agent is no longer trading, which is frustrating for the tenant who is owed outstanding monies. We would like to remind consumers to ensure they always use an agent which is a member of a redress scheme (The Property Ombudsman or The Property Redress Scheme) and holds Client Money Protection.” Every sales and lettings agent in England is required to register with a Government-approved redress scheme, which enables consumers to have their complaint reviewed independently in the event of a dispute arising that the consumer is unable to resolve with the agent directly. An agreement between the two Government-approved redress schemes (The Property Ombudsman and The Property Redress Scheme, means Target Sales & Lettings 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.