10 Dishonest Estate Agents tossed out by Property Redress Scheme, United Kingdom

By Vineet Malik | August 1, 2023 | London, England

The Property Redress Scheme (PRS), United Kingdom (UK) last week, made names of five deceitful estate agents public for indulging in unfair trade practices. The other five names were revealed in April this year. These estate agents were held guilty for not refunding the agreed compensation and deceiving their customers

1. AWT Sourcing Ltd., UK - ordered to pay £4194

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.

2. Landside Property Management Ltd., London - ordered to pay £300

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.

3. Easy Livings Property Solutions Ltd., UK - ordered to pay £300

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.

4. ICRI Ltd., London - ordered to pay £200

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.

5. Easy Let London Ltd., London - ordered to pay £3708.19

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.

---------

Also see..

Estate Agents Expelled by PRS in April 2023

1. Sourced Properties Group Ltd. UK – ordered to pay £8,000

The PRS says: “The complainant paid an £8,000 sourcing fee and signed a three-year lease to use an apartment as serviced accommodation. The fee was then transferred to a managing agent who, it transpired, had no permission from the property owner to use the apartments as serviced accommodation.

The agent claimed that this responsibility was the managing agent’s and not theirs. The PRS found that there was a misleading omission by the agent, who had not acted with professional care and diligence. The decision awarded the sourcing fee in full.”

2. NALC Auctions Ltd., London - ordered to pay £1,000 plus full deposit

The PRS says: “An auction buyer queried the parcels of land included in an auction lot and was assured that the details provided were correct and complete. After the buyer paid their deposit, it became apparent that some of the parcels included in the lot were not available for sale.

The transaction was declared void, but the agent declined the request to refund the deposit. Due to the agent’s lack of care and skill in making sure the parcels were all still available and their false assurances, which caused the buyer to act to her detriment, the PRS decision awarded the full deposit as well as compensation for distress and inconvenience.”

3. Procured Property Ltd., London – ordered to pay £4,700

The PRS says: “The agent gave the buyer several assurances about property surveys, existing tenants and prospective buyers. After paying the sourcing fee and conveyancing fees, these promises were not upheld, as there were no existing tenants, no survey reports and undisclosed repair costs became apparent.

Despite assurances that these costs would be reflected in the price, no reduction was offered. “The PRS’s decision also considered the agent’s pressure on the buyer to make a quick decision and pay the fee, saying there was a lot of interest in the property. Due to the lack of due diligence and honesty the agent was instructed to refund the full sourcing fee.”

4. Rent Room Ltd., London – ordered to pay £150

The PRS says: “The tenant rented a room from the agent and, when the tenancy ended and the keys had been returned, the agent asked for the complainant’s bank details so the deposit could be refunded. The tenant subsequently chased the payment on several occasions and was assured each time that the deposit would be repaid but it was still outstanding when the complaint was raised with the PRS.

“The tenancy agreement was not provided by the tenant, who said it was lost and the agent did not engage with the PRS. With no agreement, the contract terms were unclear. On this point, the tenant was advised to take legal advice on the deposit refund and the potential consequences of non-protection. The PRS’s decision went on to assess the poor service offered by the agent and for this, £150 was awarded for both stress and inconvenience.”

5. Fountayne Managing Ltd., London – ordered to pay eight months management fees and directors were expelled

The PRS says: “The leaseholder terminated his agreement with the agent, who was required to pass on all relevant documents to make the handover run smoothly. The agent provided no audit trail of any documents being sent and frustrated the process by indicating that the freeholder was responsible for collecting the information, which would only be available for sixty days, before being destroyed.

“As the leaseholder received no formal set of accounts or other information requested, the PRS awarded a refund of eight months’ management fees for the period of poor service. The agent was also instructed to provide service charge statements that need to be verified by an accountant and to send the leaseholder a meaningful apology. The leaseholder was signposted to the Property Tribunal for legal issues raised that were outside the PRS’s authority. Due to non-compliance with this decision and the link between the two businesses and their directors, both this agent and Fountayne Residential Ltd were expelled.”

About Property Redress Scheme

PRS is an authorised Government organization that provides impartial services pertaining to consumer complaints on property related issues.

Approach PRS if you are deceived by an Estate Agent

All property agents involved in conducting business in the UK have a legal obligation and responsibility to perform their work under the specified ambit of PRS. Consumers can exercise their right to file a complaint in the event of any dishonest dealing or deficiency in service alleged to have committed by an estate agent.