The Property Redress Scheme’s latest list of expelled agents

Aimed at raising awareness and standards in the property industry, our quarterly expulsions update offers some insight into what leads up to the PRS decision to expel a member, following a lengthy disciplinary process. This list of agents recently expelled by the PRS includes an explanation of the facts that we considered when assessing each case, and the outcome, including details of any award made.

 

The PRS expulsion list:

 

AWT Sourcing Limited

 

The complainant buyer signed a property deal in July 2021 and paid a sourcing fee of £4194. The claim was that the property was sold using misleading details such as the value of the property; that the property needed a valuation and builders quotes for work needed, which came out much higher. This showed that the agent did not perform their due diligence properly. The complainant also made a £2,000 deposit payment to the estate agent, £250 to a solicitor for searches and £840 for surveys, however the requested resolution was only for the sourcing fee refund. The PRS found that the non-refundable clause was unenforceable, the agent had not fulfilled their responsibilities for their prospective buyer or provided the service offered. The decision awarded the sourcing fee in full.

 

Landside Property Management Ltd

 

The complaint concerned the service provided by the agent in relation to the unavailable concierge service, with parcels going missing, flat doorbell problems and a lack of response to queries and requests for updates. The doorbell was not a managing agent issue but a snagging issue for the landlord, and missing parcels was something we could not investigate, other than from a communication perspective and whether the leaseholders had been informed that the concierge was going to be away. The agent was found lacking in their due care and professional diligence mainly in relation to their poor communication with the complainant. The decision awarded £200 for stress and inconvenience. We had multiple complaints raised about this member who never engaged with us or the process.

 

 

Easy Livings Property Solutions Ltd

 

The tenant complained to the agent about issues with health and safety hazards in the property, regulation violations, and the agent’s behaviour. They also contacted their local council with other issues. The agent’s response was that pest control was carried out whenever it was reported, other repairs were done and some of the problems were made worse by the tenant’s lifestyle.  The case officer decided that none of these were dealt with effectively or in a reasonable time and there was no evidence that the agent had communicated at all with the landlord and could have done better when communicating with the tenant. For the inconvenience and stress the complainant was awarded £300.

 

 

ICRI Ltd

 

This complaint related to the agent’s email tone after they had been asked to provide proof of the work to repair a leak, which they claimed was the leaseholder’s responsibility. The leaseholder employed a managing agent to investigate who initially could not see the problem. The poor email communications continued to increase in their condescending tone, although the leaseholder did ultimately sort out the leaking overflow pipe. The RICS code of practice requires all agents to always ‘use reasonable care and skill’ and act professionally when dealing with their clients. For the agent’s lack of professionalism, compensation of £200 was awarded.

 

 

Easy Let London Ltd

 

This case centred around a rent-to-rent agreement. The complainant ‘owner landlord’ claimed rent and council tax was outstanding from the ‘tenant’ who had sub-let his property on a guaranteed rent basis. The sublet tenancy had ended with the property needing cleaning, rubbish removed, locks repaired or replacing and other damage, all of which were the ‘tenant’s’ responsibility to sort, in line with the agreement. The ‘tenant’ was responsible for returning the property to the owner landlord in the same condition as it was in at the start of their agreement. The case officer also considered the poor level of communication and delays, before awarding compensation for unpaid rent, council tax, end of tenancy issues and stress and inconvenience totalling £3708.19.

 

For the latest complaints statistics from the Property Redress Scheme, as well as the thoughts and opinions of over 3,000 landlords and agents in the results of our sentiment survey 2022, read our interactive annual report.