x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
STAY CONNECTED!
    
newsletter-button

Ombudsman bans two estate agency firms

29 May 2009
Written by rosalind renshaw

Two estate agent firms have been expelled by the Property Ombudsman service – formerly the OEA – after failing to pay awards made against them.

It means that, as the law stands, neither will be able to sell properties, although both could legally conduct lettings activities.

Both were informed of the decision a month ago and asked for their dismissals to be delayed while they paid the outstanding sums but, says the service, this has not been done and so their expulsions are now confirmed.

The agents are Brooklands, of 94 High Street, Newton-Le-Willows, Merseyside WA12 9SH, and DP Estates, of 12 Crouch Hill, London N4 4AU.

In the case of Brooklands, there were two complaints. One was about unfair treatment and discourtesy and the other about charging two parties a fee when the terms and conditions of the agency agreement did not entitle them to it.

In the case of DP Estates, the Ombudsman upheld one complaint. He found it failed to provide a copy of the tenancy agreement prior to occupation by the tenant; did not notify the landlord of key terms in the new tenancy agreement; showed a “destructive / unprofessional” attitude because another agent was instructed to sell the property; and omitted to meet complaints with appropriate response and failed to respond to phone calls and emails throughout the period 2005-2007.

Ombudsman Christopher Hamer made awards totalling £3,724 against Brooklands and £817 against DP Estates.

“Both these firms are involved in property sales, with DP Estates also covering lettings,” said Bill McClintock, chief operating officer of the Property Ombudsman service.

“As a result of their dismissal from our scheme they are no longer registered with an approved redress scheme as the law now requires for agencies involved in residential property sales.

“We will be advising other estate agency bodies, and the Office of Fair Trading, about the decision taken by our disciplinary council to dismiss these two firms.

“The public should be aware that these agencies will need to be able to produce evidence of registration with an alternative redress scheme if they are to continue to sell residential property in the UK.”

But he admitted: “Legally they could still be active in property lettings.”

He went on: “It is extremely rare for agents not to abide by the decisions of the Property Ombudsman, and these expulsions show that the scheme has effective sanctions when needed. Ultimately, lack of registration with an approved redress scheme means no UK estate agency can take any part in residential property sales. Those who ignore the law possibly face a fine of up to £1,000 from trading standards officers, who are aware of our decision regarding these two firms.”

Comments

  • icon

    do not use brooklands of newton le willows mr rc balls is a gangster keep away

    • 26 October 2013 19:32 PM
  • icon

    • 26 October 2013 19:29 PM
  • icon

    • 03 October 2013 14:01 PM
  • icon

    п»ї
    Yes, it is a good resource.

    • 26 June 2009 16:37 PM
  • icon

    п»ї
    Thx!

    • 23 June 2009 07:19 AM
  • icon

    This all sounds like licensing. Does this mean that all the current Estate Agents who have been professionally doing their job before the OEA existence, without any problems, must now 'pay' to carry on their lawful business or leave it to those prepared to pay; even though they may not be as professional?

    Can the Government now decide our occupation and what we say?

    • 30 May 2009 12:13 PM
  • icon

    This article is very, very unsettling. BIG BROTHER is here! Of course I am not aware of the full details in either of these cases but the levels of the "fines" suggest that they were not very serious. What worries me are words quoted such as "discourtesy" and "attitude". Are these dreaded people of the Ombudsman scheme really able to control our thoughts and what we say? Surely this must be an infringement of our rights under human justice and as good old fashioned Englishmen. If not then they are nothing more than thought police.

    I have had several instances when I have had to speak very sharply to people. Those whose children pick up delicate ornaments or open dresser drawers; those who under cover of "doing their own survey" proceed to peel wallpaper off the wall and bring down plaster. Yes in some eyes I was sure as hell discourteous. To my mind perfectly justified in the defence of my clients property but right or wrong I am B******* if anyone is going to tell me what I can or can't say under such conditions. I have even asked people to leave a house. In over 30 years in the business I have had only one client dispute a fee. We settled with only a difference of £74 so not worth going to court but I admit now that I didn't say "Oh you are a naughty little man". Much stronger language was used. Will the Ombudsman come down at instant notice or answer the 'phone and talk to these dratted types of people? No of course he won’t. He'll just wait for some whingeing ninny to "complain".

    The article also beautifully illustrates my fears of jobsworths leeching on our hard earned money. Why did both the "Ombudsman Christopher Hamer" and “Bill McClintock, chief operating officer of the Property Ombudsman service" both have to issue statements/comments?. Probably because they feel they have to publickly justify their torrid existence!

    “We will be advising other estate agency bodies, and the Office of Fair Trading, about the decision taken by our disciplinary council to dismiss these two firms." Well done chaps. You have nicely put people out of work, in a position that they can not work in the business again and as a result probably put tremendous strain on their families in these hard times. And then you crow that the OFT will probably start fining them as well! I hope they weren't members of the NAEA or they would no doubt get involved. This is all getting out of hand. Scrap the lot. Leave it to the Trading Standards Officers if you must.

    But to the companies involved - it sounds as though you deserve some rap on the knuckles, but if you can, try and get some advice about your Human Rights. These people are putting you in a position where you are unable to earn your living. I doubt if a proper judge in a courtroom would have done this as it seems no normal law was broken.

    Witch hunts, jobsworths etc etc all come to mind. Scrap the lot of them and go back to police, solicitors and proper law courts. Too many people are being given the right to fine, ban, enter premises and generally interfere. An Englishman’s home used to be his castle and we were once proud as a nation that we could say what we liked.

    In fact I feel so disgusted and frightened by this article that even I, a law abiding citizen approaching middle age, would advocate a boycott of these organisations – in preference to one over the ridiculous HIP saga.

    If I can, I will copy the article and response to Mr Cameron - even though he is a politician!!

    I'll try and keep you all informed. If I'm not closed down in the meantime!

    • 29 May 2009 13:00 PM
  • icon

    It's always the same. The honest agents pay out for the ones that couldn't care less. They'll just keep selling houses and not bother.

    • 29 May 2009 12:24 PM
  • icon

    Personally I wouldn't let the Government run a bath. The OEA (now TPO) is a great service which needs more resources. The OEA has clout, but once expelled, its the OFT who enforce regs. A government body failing again?

    • 29 May 2009 12:08 PM
  • icon

    Have you ever deal with Christopher Hamer? The bloke's on a total ego trip. It should be a redress scheme run by a Government department, not a private Business.

    • 29 May 2009 12:02 PM
  • icon

    DP Estates or David Phillips are still doing sales, I guess this ombudsman has no clout like all the rest.

    • 29 May 2009 11:12 AM
  • icon

    Wouldn't you just pay the fine and get on with the job rather than being banned?!

    • 29 May 2009 09:50 AM
Breaking News
MovePal MovePal MovePal