Agents have been warned to tighten up on their record-keeping after a surge in initial complaints to the Property Ombudsman.
They were 19% higher in the first four months of this year than the same period last year. Initial complaints against both sales and lettings agents have risen.
Ombudsman Christopher Hamer, in his first interim report for 2012, said that poor record-keeping by agents hinders the resolution of many complaints.
He said that, despite TPO codes requiring full and clear records to be kept for six years, he still sees ‘many disputes where claims are made by either the agent or consumer that a certain conversation took place, but with neither party able to substantiate their claim’.
He said: “Despite so many agents having access to specialist sales and lettings software packages, the issue of record-keeping continues to be problematic.
“If a complainant makes a claim and has a record which appears to substantiate that claim, but the agent is unable to provide any contemporaneous evidence to counter the allegation, the result is that I can only find in the complainant’s favour.”
In one instance, Hamer cites a complaint by sellers who said that as the market had gone quiet, they agreed with the agent that marketing of the property should be suspended, but that the agent should keep the property in mind if any potential buyers showed an interest in something similar.
The sellers thought this had terminated their agreement with the agent. However, six months later, the agent called the sellers to arrange a viewing which resulted in an offer and sale. The sellers claimed that due to lack of active marketing, they should have a reduced fee. They also claimed that the agent had not passed on information during the transaction.
The Ombudsman did award the agents their commission, as he ruled they were due their fee. However, as they had ‘failed to demonstrate any sort of action during the last three weeks of the transaction’, he made an award of £50 to the complainants.
In another case, he awarded £100 to a complainant on the grounds that six telephone calls over an eight-month period was not an adequate level of contact in order to keep the marketing strategy of the property under review with their clients.
Membership of TPO has continued to grow this year. Sales agents now number 11,693, up from 11,504 at the start of the year, while letting agents number 9,163, up from 8,701.
The majority of initial complaints to the Ombudsman have been on the lettings side at 2,689, up from 2,438 in the same period last year, compared with 1,332 complaints against sales agents, up from 1,242.
Comments
So, in a world where electronic communication is the order of the day, where we're striving to save paper, and use the systems available to keep paperwork to a minimum.....
the Ombudsman wants to see 'contemporaneous notes' on every interaction with the client.
Speak to them on the phone, then write down what was said.
Txt them, then copy down the txt on paper.
e-mail them, print the e-mail off for the file. ....... and the list goes on.
"The sellers claimed that due to lack of active marketing, they should have a reduced fee. "
What about all the marketing before they decided to put it on hold? Seems that gets forgotten as always.
Rather like if you get a quick sale, vendors want a discount as 'you haven't done much' - but when you spend loads of months of adverts - they want a discount because it took too long.
2,689, up from 2,438
That the same percentage increase in the number of new Foxtons offices - is there a link? ;)
whats the £100 quid one?? An overpriced idiot complained his agent didnt ring him enough to chat shit?? I ve tried calling vendors to give them 'advice' and they take it off the market for telling them the truth... it is always the same kind of people who blame the agent rather then look closer to home...
pssst.. all agents claim to be better then selling then others when it really is down to price 99.9% of the time...dont tell anyone though or we ll be out of a job
Why on earth anyone would waste their time with this outfit is beyond me. What a waste of space.
Frankly this is a stupid and spurious claim by the vendor.
The agent was employed to find a buyer at a price agreed by the vendor the sale went through. I bet there was no contractual agreement about 'keeping in contact'. he did just that.
Personally I would tell the Ombudsman to shove it and not pay. The small amount is just not worth chasing so I would expect the vendor to give up.
Are we going the way of the yanks? Litigate first after turning brain off.
So the sellers requested to come off the market but for the agent to contact in the event someone may want to buy.
When they came off they knew the agents fee. The agent did as asked and remembered their wish. The sale went through. So their problem was?
Sounds as though an award of £50 for the sellers was a way of saying 'clear off' in support of the agent.
"The Ombudsman did award the agents their commission, as he ruled they were due their fee. However, as they had ‘failed to demonstrate any sort of action during the last three weeks of the transaction’, he made an award of £50 to the complainants."
One has to ask yourself, Agents find the buyer ......Solicitors are the ones who progress (action) the matter through and agree dates......give the agent the £50 back, this case is utter nonsence the vendor seems very unreasnoble.