The Ombudsman has expelled an agent from its scheme after it failed to pay an award made against it.
The Derbyshire property agency, Beechwood, was yesterday afternoon continuing to show the TPO logos for both sales and lettings on its site. TPO said that it was illegal.
TPO had earlier delayed the expulsion of Letzlet Ltd, trading as Beechwood Lettings, while the complainant was helped to obtain a court judgment of £2,176, including court costs, against Letzlet Ltd, of Beechwood House, Matlock Street, Bakewell.
The TPO Disciplinary and Standards Council notified the agency of its expulsion in February and, as it has not responded, the expulsion has now been confirmed to the agency owner, a Ms H. Gregory.
The agent had failed to pay an award of £1,226, which included £976 in rent owing, and had delayed paying rent into the complainant landlord’s account on 12 occasions over a period of 19 months.
It failed to co-operate with the Ombudsman’s investigation and also breached the TPO Code of Practice by not having a complaints system in place.
The company had applied for its TPO membership to be transferred to Beechwood Property Portfolio Ltd from Letzlet Ltd, which had traded as Beechwood Property Sales. This application was made five months after the change of holding company and the new company has never completed registration with TPO.
The Ombudsman said that while Beechwood Property Portfolio is illegally displaying the TPO logos for both sales and lettings, it is not registered with an approved redress scheme as required under the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007.
On the afternoon of March 28, said TPO, Helen Williamson at its Matlock office confirmed by telephone that the company was still selling and letting properties across most of the Peak District.
Gerry Fitzjohn, chief operating officer of TPO, said: “Only two weeks ago, the Ombudsman, Christopher Hamer, made a renewed call for all lettings agents to be regulated in the same way as residential sales agents, and when you look at the behaviour of this firm, it’s easy to see why regulation is essential.
“It is not at present compulsory for letting agents to register with a redress scheme and, at the very least, we firmly believe the law should be revised to require this.
“This agency will be reported to the local Trading Standards team, who have the power to serve a fixed penalty notice for a £1,000 fine if this agency offers houses for sale while not registered with a redress scheme.”
Comments
Tpos are bunch of cowboys! My company was struck off for using their crappy logos without consent... 1 year later we are flying... TPOS is not to be trusted... Run by kids!! We do more business without... We are not answerable to anyone but god.
@Chris - couldnt agree more re: trading standards - looking at a previous e.a.t article & comments the other alternative to TPO is a complete mess (NFOPP/ARLA) -another reason for trading standards to take control like other industries - this will aid the public and is also recognised by the public already - without what is laughable re: stickers and the Nfopp board
http://www.estateagenttoday.co.uk/news_features/NFoPP-ddirectors-to-thrash-out-issues-surrounding-its-future
It is interesting that the Ombudsman calls for all agent to be a member of the Ombudsman scheme as though this will cure the problem when they cannot see that it was a member of their scheme was the problem, not someone who is not a member of their scheme.
If the company has been wound up, sound like something like that in the new limited company, then any order against it will be unenforceable, even with a court order. The Ombudsman could have done the claimant a disfavour if they have expended money pursuing a company dissolved before any payment can be made.
This is interesting. So Trading Standards could issue them with a £1000 fine for not trading under a redress scheme, yet the Ombudsman doesn't want them in their scheme. How can Trading Standards fine the agent when they can't get under a scheme?
This could backfire on the Property Ombudsman. The agent could be allowed to trade without an ombudsman scheme and if agents are allowed to trade without one, then other agents could choose to leave the scheme also!
We have been trading since 2004 and never had a single complaint against us. Vendors would still use us if we were in a scheme or not, so we would actually save money not being in a scheme and we would leave in a second if we could.
I hate government intervention telling us to pay money to private companies like the Property Ombudsman, who can then ramp up their fees safe in the knowledge that we have to go with them anyway!!
Trading standards should simply regulate all estate agents in the same way that they regulate shops, plumbers and other businesses. Why we should have another layer of regulation is beyond me. A car salesman can sell cars without joining an ombudsman scheme and some of these flash cars sell for more than my properties, so why give us a hard time!
Would never happen in Japan, shame on you agents, it is the law.
What an absolute waste of space organisation. The Agent is quite right to ignore this jumped up twit. Threathening this and that, who do you think you are. You think your logos are so precious? I wouldn't display them if I was a member, which I'm not. The Trading Standards team should be chasing cowboy builders, not logo compliance. Boycott.
"The Ombudsman said that while Beechwood Property Portfolio is illegally displaying the TPO logos for both sales and lettings, it is not registered with an approved redress scheme as required under the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007."
So what is the penalty for that then?
ooooooooooh I am quaking in my boots- - So if I rip off someone they make me take the stickers of my window.....
oh damn I will be out of business in the morning without these stickers
Yet another fee charging Quango that does little in return for its existence except fining agents for illegally displaying their logo
The point is these guys were under the umbrella of legislation through TPO and they have still not done as they should apparently. Legislation makes no difference there will always be dodgy agents whether regulated or not
First impression is that there is not eneough detail in the article to form a proper opinion on the reasons for this?
One landlord complainant, 19 occassions - strange?
I am not saying I am right and theret is no excuse regarding logos, but it would seem that the probability is a failure of administration during company reorganisation?
Crikey, asking them to take logos off their web page. I didn't realise the TPO powers we so far-reaching.
Sums up in a nut shell the lack of power these regulatory bodies have. They should be given the legal right to close down cowboy companies with penalties such as unlimited fines and imprisonment.
The fixed penalty notice is not much of a threat unless it applies to each and every time a property is offered for sale or to let.