Trading standards calls for property complaints overhaul
The Chartered Trading Standards Institute says the political parties must simplify the current property redress schemes.

Property complaint schemes must be overhauled and simplified, according to Trading Standards.
The Chartered Trading Standards Institute has called on the political parties to make changes so there is a clearer way to look for redress from estate agents when things go wrong.
A Lords Committee recently called for a single property ombudsman, as well as a regulator backed by a licensing scheme for agents.
Confused
In its manifesto for the General Election, the institute says “consumers are confused about how to seek redress when they have a problem”.
In the private property sector there are two ombudsman schemes (The Property Ombudsman and the Property Redress Scheme), the institute highlights.
Poor awareness
Citizens Advice also found consumer awareness of ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) schemes was only 16% in non-regulated sectors, like the property industry, the institute says.
More needs to be done to protect consumers and to help them seek redress.”
“More needs to be done to protect consumers and to help them seek redress by improving accreditation and accountability, and simplifying the redress routes.
“We are calling on the next Government to: Review the redress landscape to make it simpler for both businesses and consumers to navigate,” the institute says.

Sean Hooker, Head of Redress for the Property Redress Scheme, says: “We have helped thousands of people resolve their complaints, with most of them dealt with through our informal early resolution process, saving complainants time and money and avoiding the stress of court or the tribunal.
“We however agree that much more can be done, which is why we were so disappointed that the legislation to bring in mandatory redress to cover landlords failed and that the register of properties and landlords, that could have incorporated a portal for tenants to access where to find redress, was not given the go ahead.”




