The complaint

A complainant raised a dispute with The Property Ombudsman after their agent failed to refund their reservation fee and ceased all communications after a purchase fell through.

The complainant paid £7,200 to reserve a property, having been given written assurances by the agent that they would be given first refusal on a suitable alternative or be refunded in full if the sale did not go through.

This was also set out in the agent’s terms and conditions. The complainant provided a copy of the signed reservation form to The Property Ombudsman and all available evidence showed that the fee was held by the agent.

After a lack of response from the developer of the property, the agent advised the complainant via email that a sale was unlikely, and that it was the complainant’s decision whether the agent looked to find an alternative property or refunded the reservation fee.

The complainant was initially happy to continue with the property search but after no alternative was found, they requested that the reservation fee was refunded. The agent failed to action this request and stopped all communications with the complainant regarding this matter.

The investigation

Adjudication found that the complainant was unable to continue the sale through no fault of their own and the agent offered no evidence to show they presented any alternative properties to transfer the fee over to as per their terms and conditions.

The agent explicitly offered a refund if that was the complainant’s decision, then failed to action this once it was requested.”

The agent explicitly offered a refund if that was the complainant’s decision, then failed to action this once it was requested. Based on the evidence provided, the dispute was supported.

The complainant provided screenshots, emails and copies of completed documents to show they followed the agent’s internal complaints procedure. The agent failed to provide any evidence that it investigated the complaint or provided a formal written outcome to the investigation.

Adjudication by The Property Ombudsman found that the agent did not act in accordance with their obligations to paragraph 14d of the code which states that all written complaints must be acknowledged in writing within three working days and a proper investigation promptly undertaken. Adjudication therefore supported this aspect of the dispute.

Outcome

The complainant was awarded £7,400 to reflect the return of the fee and an additional £200 for the distress caused to the complainants.

Adjudication highlighted that the agent’s failure to submit their company file or evidence its compliance with the code drastically hampered the investigation. Instead, the process focused on the evidence and testimony of the complainant and on the assumption that this version of events is accurate.