Follow us on Twitter @TheNeg
TheBusiness
TheOmbudsman for Property
Love thy neighbour? Christopher Hamer writes on third party property disputes.
T
he Property Ombudsman (TPO) scheme is designed to reach a
resolution of unresolved disputes in full and fi nal settlement. It provides consumers (who may be actual or potential buyers, sellers, landlords, leaseholders, lessees and tenants of property or otherwise involved by the actions of an agent) with free and independent redress relating to disputes with registered fi rms in connection with the sale, purchase, letting and / or management of property. Importantly, I want to highlight
that I may consider a complaint by a consumer who believes that they have been involved with, and adversely aff ected by, the actions of the registered fi rm even if they have not entered into a contractual relationship with that agent. I have received a number of
complaints from neighbours of tenanted property who are concerned, often appalled, by the way the tenants are failing to care for the property, often allowing for example, rubbish to accumulate until it becomes a health hazard or creating a nuisance by noise or, in a couple of situations, by failing to comply with restrictive covenants such as those concerning parking. In those cases I must make clear that it is those tenants who are responsible for ensuring that they comply with all conditions of their tenancy with their landlord; the agent is not responsible should the tenant fail to comply with a term such as ensuring that the property is kept in an acceptable condition. However, I do expect an agent
to treat all parties fairly, and in the certain circumstances that can include neighbours. If issues are highlighted to an agent I expect to see evidence that the agent
www.thenegotiator.co.uk
“I have received a number of complaints from neighbours of tenanted homes who are concerned, often appalled by the way tenants are failing to care for the property.”
promptly passed on such concerns to both their landlord client, to inform them of the situation, and to the tenants concerned. If the landlord does not wish to take any action there is little more that the agent can realistically do; certainly they cannot, as one complainant expected, take steps to evict the tenants themselves. Whilst I appreciate that
neighbour disputes can be extremely diffi cult and I often have considerable sympathy for the complainants, provided I see that the agent has taken reasonable steps to highlight to a tenant their obligations it is unlikely that I will support the complaint. However, I have supported a complaint and made
a modest award where, despite assurances to the contrary, the agent did not pass on any concerns received from a neighbour to the tenant but instead just ignored the situation for some time. A number of cases have been
referred to my offi ce which concern sales, usually from neighbours of the property in question who have asked the agent to pass on what they consider to be necessary and material information to the proposed buyer. In each instance, I will carefully consider the circumstances of the case. In one case, the owner of the
fl at below that being sold had advised the agent that he considered that the bath in the
property was not properly supported and could “sink” into his fl at. The agent discussed the situation with the seller who advised that the concerns were groundless and that there was no structural damage. The buyers had a full survey which had not highlighted any issues. A year later, water started seeping into the property below and the buyers, who had learnt of the neighbour’s concerns, complained to the agent stating that they should have been told of the matter. I did not support the complaint as the agent demonstrated that they had taken reasonable steps to satisfy themselves on the matter and I would not have expected them to pass on unfounded concerns. In another case, the neighbour
contacted the agent to advise that the property particulars showed that the owners of that property had a right to park on their land. They stated that this was not the case and, therefore, wanted the particulars amended and the proposed buyer advised that there was currently an ongoing dispute about parking.
This was an acrimonious
matter and I would have expected the agent to have verifi ed the situation and, if it was as the neighbour had stated, to have ensured that the proposed buyer was aware of the ongoing dispute, it being material to the sale. In any such case, my message has to be that an agent should clearly explain what they can do and the limits to that action. However, if approached by a third party, I would expect an agent to listen to their concerns and ensure that these are dealt with in the appropriate manner by liaising with the relevant individuals. As is often the case, prompt and accurate communication can avoid many complaints being referred to my offi ce. ●
TheNegotiator ● October 2012 ● 43
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52