Home » Resources » Redress » Industrial noise in a quiet location

Industrial noise in a quiet location

"Viewing a property is one thing, noting noise levels is another,” says Katrine Sporle, The Property Ombudsman.

Katrine Sporle
COMPLAINT

Katrine Sporle imageA case that The Property Ombudsman (TPO) was asked to review came from a buyer relating to the agent’s alleged failure to disclose information to her.

Unacceptable noise levels imageThe buyer claimed that the agent failed to disclose issues concerning the noise from a nearby industrial estate. The buyer explained that after she purchased and moved into the property she discovered the noise which she said was, at times, “unbearable”. The noise was at such a level that the buyer believed that the agent must have been aware of it.

The agent contested the allegation that one of their former employees had advised the buyer that the property was in a quiet location when she went to view it. Their viewing log showed that she had in fact visited the property on five different occasions – all at different times.

INVESTIGATION

When investigating this complaint, the Ombudsman referred to Paragraph 7i of the TPO Code of Practice. When marketing a property for sale, the agent had an obligation to comply with the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (CPRs).

The buyer had viewed the property five times and had not heard the noise that she later encountered.

The CPRs required the agent to disclose any information of which they were aware or should have been aware of in relation to the property in a clear, intelligible and timely fashion. All reasonable steps should be taken to ensure that all statements made about a property are accurate and not misleading. It was explained to the buyer that the Ombudsman does not decide whether or not there was a breach of the agent’s obligations under the CPRs in this case; only a court can make such a determination. What the Ombudsman does, and did do, was establish whether or not the agent met their obligations under the TPO Code of Practice and whether any shortcomings caused financial loss, aggravation, distress and/or inconvenience.

FINDINGS

Based on the buyer’s own account of the viewing and decision making process, the following was evident to the Ombudsman:

The buyer viewed the property on five separate occasions and also visited the surrounding area, including the industrial estate, before she had committed to the purchase.

During these multiple visits, the buyer said that she did not hear the noise that she later encountered.

From this, it was not unreasonable for the Ombudsman to conclude that the agent did not hear the extent of the noise either when visiting the property.

There wasn’t any evidence provided to indicate that the sellers had put the agent on notice of any issue regarding the noise from the industrial estate.

Whilst the buyer’s dissatisfaction at the noise was acknowledged, the Ombudsman was satisfied that the agent had acted in accordance with Paragraph 7i of the Codes of Practice and could therefore not be held responsible for the buyer’s claimed costs.

The buyer had added that the agent had denied a viewing of the property on three separate occasions. Although this was noted as frustrating for the buyer, it was clear that the agent had acted on the sellers’ instruction. A seller is entitled to decline a viewing for any reason if it is not convenient for it to take place.

Lastly, the buyer also said that the agent did not exhaust their internal complaints procedure as they had been unable to speak to the ex-employee who conducted viewings of the property. The fact that they could not get in contact with a previous member of staff to verify whether or not there had been noise on the previous viewings, was not a sign of their complaints procedure being exhausted. On the contrary, the Ombudsman was again satisfied with the agent’s actions and felt that they had investigated the matter to the best of their ability.

OUTCOME

In this complaint review, the Ombudsman was unable to comment on any verbal conversations that had taken place. A decision was based on written evidence provided and the circumstances made apparent through that evidence.

Taking all documentation into account, the Ombudsman did not support the complaints made by the buyer and did not consider that the circumstances merited an award of financial loss.

May 25, 2017

What's your opinion?

Please note: This is a site for professional discussion. Comments will carry your full name and company.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.