Questionable practices lead to £11,000 award

The Complaint

A buyer made a complaint to The Property Ombudsman against an estate agent in relation to the purchase of a property. The complaint comprised of three key issues:

A. Material information and relationship between the estate agent and seller
B. Appliances
C. Data protection

The Ombudsman’s findings

A. Material Information.
The buyer claimed inadequate disclosure of material information and a conflict of interest between the estate agent and the seller. The buyer felt that the agent had failed to disclose the connection between the agent’s director and the selling company, leading to a lack of transparency in the sales process. Furthermore, she claimed the estate agent did not adequately inform her about the presence of an adult care provider on the estate and the ongoing disturbances caused by its residents.

The agent acknowledged that an individual within their company held dual roles as a Director at the estate agent and a Director of the company selling the property. They asserted that they had disclosed this connection.

The Ombudsman determined that the disturbances caused by the care provider’s residents constituted material information.”

While there was no evidence of direct involvement by the agent’s director in the sale to the buyer, the Ombudsman would have expected the agent to transparently communicate this connection in their marketing materials initially and reiterate it to potential buyers.

Despite the agent’s contention that they adequately disclosed this information, the Ombudsman found fault with their disclosure, deeming it insufficient and potentially misleading.

The agent also argued that the buyer had been aware of the adult care provider’s presence on the property before purchase and thus should have anticipated potential issues. The Ombudsman determined that the disturbances caused by the care provider’s residents constituted material information that should have been disclosed by the agent to the buyer.

In conclusion, the Ombudsman supported the complaint due to the agent’s failure to disclose crucial information, which impacted the buyer’s decision-making process and her subsequent experience living in the property.

B. Appliances
The buyer reported that, after accepting her offer, the estate agent contacted her three months later to arrange a £6,000 payment for appliances and furniture. She noted a verbal agreement, understanding it as necessary for the sale to proceed to contract exchange. However, upon receiving the keys, she found a leaking boiler and missing items.

The estate agent responded that they were not responsible for the condition of the property or the appliances at the time of sale.

Despite the directorial connection between the estate agent and the seller, the Ombudsman clarified that she could not consider issues related to the condition of the property and appliances upon completion of the sale, as it was not within the estate agent’s role to provide agreed fixtures and fittings.

Under Paragraph 12a of the Code, the estate agent has to communicate and liaise with the parties involved until exchange of contracts, and they were expected to act within their remit as an estate agent.

The buyer felt pressured to pay promptly to avoid delaying the sale.”

Despite the buyer’s solicitor confirming receipt of payments to proceed to exchange of contracts, the estate agent subsequently requested £6,000 payment before exchange, which the buyer felt pressured to pay promptly to avoid delaying the sale.

While there was no direct evidence of the call between the estate agent and the buyer, the Ombudsman concluded that the call included a request for payment. She found that the estate agent acted outside of their remit in facilitating this payment, contrary to Paragraph 12a of the Code.

As the estate agent provided no adequate explanation for accepting the £6,000 payment, the Ombudsman directed that these funds be returned to the buyer.

C. Data Protection
The buyer reported that, during communication with the estate agent about the mis-selling of the property and the properties rented by the adult care provider, the estate agent involved the care provider in their email chain without her knowledge or permission. The buyer alleged a breach of GDPR in disclosing her contact details to a third party unrelated to the complaint against the estate agent, causing tension between her, other owners, and the care provider.

The estate agent responded that, in response to neighbourhood issues, they reached out to all parties to facilitate communication and find a solution.

The Ombudsman found no evidence that the estate agent had obtained permission from the buyer to share her email address.”

The Ombudsman found no evidence that the estate agent had obtained permission from the buyer to share her email address with a third party or that she consented to including this third party in the email chain.

Conclusion

The Ombudsman supported the complaints and considered that the circumstances merited an award of compensation. An award of £11,200, which included the £6,000 payment and to compensate for the avoidable aggravation, distress and inconvenience caused to the buyer as a result of the shortcomings of the agent’s service.