This case concerned a dispute referred to The Property Ombudsman (TPO) from a tenant concerning the condition of the property. The problem came to light on the day the tenancy was due to commence when the complainant (tenant) arrived at the property to move in.

The complainant explained that they had arranged and agreed a move in date with the letting agent.

However, upon entering the property, she discovered that it had not, in fact, been professionally cleaned, which was a breach of the landlord’s obligations in the tenancy agreement.

The complainant refused to move into the property and it was agreed between the landlord and the complainant that the tenancy agreement would be considered void.

The agent, after checking with the landlord, repaid the tenant in full, but she wanted compensation…

The complainant went on to write to the letting agent requesting that she be reimbursed all of her monies – which consisted of the first month’s advance rent, the security deposit and the agent’s arrangement fee.

The agent’s response

The letting agent was clear in showing that, after checking with the landlord, they did in fact repay the complainant in full, which included the agent’s arrangement fee. The payment had been received by the complainant on the day following the removal date.

However, three months after the event, the complainant wrote again to the letting agent asking that they provide her with further monies as compensation.

The complainant required that the agent pay her the cancellation charge of £220 for the removal company, the costs of a cancelled trip to Europe – which the complainant alleged she had to cancel due to the failure of the tenancy (although no evidence of such a trip or applicable receipts were produced) and also £3,000 for the alleged distress she had suffered due to the breach of the tenancy agreement.

Who is responsible?

In considering this separate issue, the Ombudsman’s review pointed out that the tenancy agreement was not with the agent but between the complainant and landlord. Consequently, the manner in which the property was left for occupation was the responsibility of the landlord.

In this case, it was not only clear that the agent didn’t manage the property (they provided a tenant find and rent collection service only to the landlord) but also that they had been specifically instructed by the landlord, in writing, that it was he who would take responsibility for the inventory, check-in report and a professional clean of the property.

The agent was clearly in compliance with section 11 (f, g, h) of the Residential Lettings Code of Practice; an agent must ensure at the start of a tenancy that any inventory and/or schedule of condition be prepared for the client by them, unless instructed to the contrary. The landlord had evidently given their instructions outlining their role in regards to the inventory and check-in and cleaning.

The Ombudsman was therefore satisfied that the landlord had explicitly instructed the agent in writing not to complete any of these tasks.

A question of service

It was also felt that it was necessary in the Ombudsman’s review to make reference to the complainant’s statement that she had received a “poor service” from the letting agent. Having considered the evidence presented, the Ombudsman was persuaded that the agent had fully met their obligations in relation to the Codes and was again satisfied that the agent had delivered a fair and reasonable service.

The letting agent’s service included a quick and generous reimbursement of the agent’s arrangement fee, which they were under no obligation to do.

Paragraph 14i in the Residential Lettings Code of Practice (Management) states that letting agents must communicate promptly to the client and tenant on any important issues or obligations relating to the use and occupation of the property, including significant breaches of the tenancy agreement that they become aware of.

Taking this all into account, the Ombudsman did not support this complaint and made no compensatory award.