The Property Ombudsman Avis 399

Wow, I should have checked Trustpilot before I bothered. I contacted the ombudsman over Rosetree my service provider who had used a section 20 to steal £350 from 24 owners and not provide the gates they had promised or a refund, was told I needed a final outcome from RT before I could submit a complaint. RT have sent a joint letter to all the owners, but will not give individual outcomes to the complainants as they obviously know without it we cannot go to the ombudsman. So basically any complaint you take up with your service provider cannot be escalated to the ombudsman as long as your service provider ignores you. What a joke these people are.

A fantastic service! I pulled out of a sale in August 2025 due to important material information not being disclosed by the estate agents, after complaining to their in house complaints department I felt like I was left with nowhere to turn and I was out of pocket by nearly £1k, a friend suggested I raise my complaint with The Property Ombudsman and I’m so glad I did. I did have a long wait however my expectations were managed early on with an email stating there would be a delay and I wasn’t in any hurry so this didn’t bother me. It took 6/7 months but I finally got my money back from the estate agents that failed to disclose non standard construction, Elinor Iles was very understanding when I misread an email and the report issued was fair and took into consideration both sides of the complaint. If you have a genuine complaint and have the time, I would 100% recommend The Property Ombudsman and can’t thank them enough!

They get paid by the companies to make a decision on their behalf!

do not use this company, they are paid by the member and even though they see failure they will take no action. Consider legal action against all these companies to get justice.
You will waste 6 - 9 months of your life trying to get answers from these companies who are not there for justice and fairness.

I submitted my complaint with full supporting evidence, including the agent’s substantive written response. TPO’s assessment team declined to proceed on the basis that the response did not carry the exact phrase “Final Viewpoint Letter” - a label not strictly required by their own Terms of Reference. The instruction was to start the entire process from scratch.

The same email pre-judged the substance of the complaint, asserting that the agent could not be at fault because their role was limited to rent collection. That is a question for the Ombudsman to determine on evidence, not for the assessment team to dispose of in a templated rejection.

This is a process that exists to filter complainants out, not to resolve disputes. Independent in name. Procedural attrition in practice. Consumers expecting impartial redress should set their expectations accordingly.

Does not understand the law and exists to protect its members, i.e. estate agents

Following the apalling service I received from TPO with my complaint, I have decided to help with the huge number of others, who are, much as myself - deeply disappointed, dissatisfied and frustrated by the inactive, lack of support and incompetence of TPO.

Please do as I have done, remain strong and continuous in bringing this to the attention of your Trading Standards. Complain to CTSI, highlight the areas and failures of the Property Ombudsman, as they are part of the Alternative Dispute Resolution service that the CTSI oversee and regulate.

Take this up with your local MP as I did, who has made a written complaint to the Secretary of State for Housing - Steve Reed OBE. Mr Reed's PA has replied to assure me that they will investigate.

We all have to be a part of bringing far more light and attention to this total pile of cr@p, that is evidently unfit for purpose.

Make a NOISE!!

I am disappointed with how my case was handled. Despite the agent admitting that they had not informed the landlord of ongoing issues, this was not recognised as a breach of the TPO Code of Practice. In particular, this appears contrary to Paragraph 1f (duty to act in the best interests of the client) and Paragraph 5a, which requires agents to take reasonable steps to ensure that all relevant information is communicated to their client.
In addition, statements made by the agent were accepted without any supporting evidence, including allegations that were never substantiated by the police or the council!
This, combined with the structure of the scheme and its close association with the industry it oversees, raises concerns regarding the independence and consistency of the assessment process.
Overall, the decision did not appear to fully reflect the available evidence or properly assess the agent’s responsibilities under the Code, including their duty to communicate significant issues and act with due diligence.
If you experience a similar issue or lack of proper consideration, a complaint should first be made through The Property Ombudsman’s process and, if concerns remain, escalated to the ADR relevant redress scheme oversight body.

Solely there to protect estate agents. Just look; NOT a gov.uk address, for a reason.

Response to their reply

You are a membership club and you solely protect your members. You only have to see and read all the one star reviews here to see that. You are NOT ombudsmen, you are frauds.

I had a disappointing experience with The Property Ombudsman. I raised a complaint in January and recently received a response closing the case under Paragraph 12a (“no reasonable prospect of success”).
This was surprising given the amount of evidence I had already provided, and the fact that I had indicated I could supply further supporting information if required, in case something was not clear.

I also felt that key aspects of my complaint, including the conduct of the agent and complaint handling, were not fully addressed in the outcome.
While I understand the Ombudsman has limits to its remit, the process felt very brief and did not give the impression of a full assessment.
I spent a significant amount of time and effort preparing my complaint and feel it was dismissed without proper consideration.

27/04/2026-Update on my original review:

I have contacted TPO as prompted below. I hope the issue I raised can be looked at again. I'll be updating here for any developments.

27/04/2026 - Second update

Following my original review, I requested a reconsideration of the decision. I have now received a final response, which confirms that the case will not be reopened and the original outcome stands.

I was also advised that while I can raise a service complaint, this is limited strictly to issues such as communication or delays, and explicitly excludes any review of how my complaint was assessed, how evidence was considered, or how the decision was reached.

In effect, this means there is no mechanism to challenge or meaningfully review the substance of the decision, even where concerns are raised about how the complaint was characterised or assessed.

This has been particularly disappointing. My concern was not simply the outcome, but that key aspects of my complaint were not properly addressed. The response I received reinforces the impression of a very narrow and inflexible process, where once a decision is made, there is little scope for meaningful reconsideration.

While I appreciate that all schemes must have limits, the overall experience has left me feeling that my complaint was not fully or fairly examined.

Unfortunately, I cannot recommend choosing a letting agent because they are a member the of the property ombudsman. If you raise a complaint against the Letring agent with the ombudsman, they are very quick to close a ticket without contacting you to truly understand what the core issue is. In my case the letting agent was abusing the contract terms but the ombudsman closed my ticket on a technicality and no one actually directly spoke to me to find out what the core issue was. And clearly being a member of the ombudsman and abiding by their code of conduct doesn't mean anything if the ombudsman doesn't enforce those rules. Very disappointed.

Take my advice and go direct to small claims / the true legal route.

This "company" is not a government body. They are funded by and work in the vested interests of their members (allegedly). They do not seem to care if their own members have broken the law or misrepresented / obfuscated facts, all they will do is disagree and then (quite rudely) dismiss the claims of the case.

The worst part of this is that they continuously extend deadlines and keep VICTIMS waiting in exactly the same manner as the offending parties. They delayed my case for months which was seemingly purposeful to wear me down (allegedly). Their remediation and appeals process is also a joke and every written response was negative and dismissive in tone. This is not like a government operated ombudsman, but it needs to be and we will push for it in parliament.

William H Brown and I Am Sold diddled me out of my LIFE SAVINGS and they would not offer even a penny of recompense - even with 3rd party evidence. The whole thing is an exercise in psychological manipulation, TORTURE and time wasting.

What an appalling process to go through, from a huge lack of timescale, communication, knowledge and genuinely a poor experience after reporting such a straight forward problem.

TPO decided to take the information that the agent relayed to them which was factually inaccurate relating to removal of goods the day before completion, the agent advised it was the day before exchange, hence they based their decision on this information.

This has taken 6 months to get to this point.

After a poor repose email from my following up it's juts left a very poor taste in my mouth and what is the point of this service in the first place if they don't listen or accept the factual evidence provided!!

It's shocking, absolutely shocking!

As others have said, this is a totally corrupt service that is biased in favour of its paying member agents. I was surprised to be given a peanuts award by the adjudicator and her reasoning made no sense so I asked to see the emails the agent had sent her. Firstly the TPO let the agent send in WORD documents instead of original emails and secondly, and much more seriously, the agents emails had deliberately ADDED one whole new email from them and DELETED one whole original email from us, the complainant. This is FRAUD and a deliberate attempt to corrupt the complaints process. I told TPO this but they have repeatedly and laughably denied the agent's emails have been faked, despite the fact that any monkey can see that this is true :D It is beyond a joke. I'm writing to the government department responsible for this corrupt organisation. and KEYWEST in LEICESTER are the agents committing this FRAUD. Avoid them at all costs.

Polygon Management Company Limited’s experience of The Property Ombudsman Service was deeply troubling.

This was a business complaint concerning serious management and complaint-handling failures by one of its member agents. The complaint raised substantive issues about missing records, unsupported assertions, continuing non-response, ongoing prejudice, and a failure to deal properly with formal complaints. TPO reduced that complaint to something far narrower and safer, then treated a token £100 offer as “fair and reasonable” without giving any proper or transparent explanation of how that conclusion had been reached.

What followed was worse. When the reasoning was challenged and the basic decision-record material was requested so the outcome could be properly understood and tested, TPO refused to engage in any meaningful way. When formal pre-action correspondence was then sent, the response was effectively that there would be no further engagement unless proceedings were issued.

That is not the conduct of a body that inspires confidence as an independent ombudsman. It is the conduct of an organisation acting as a buffer between member businesses and proper scrutiny.

In PMC’s experience, TPO was opaque, dismissive, evasive and institutionally unwilling to examine either the member’s failings or its own. It presented the appearance of accountability without delivering the substance of it.

Businesses and consumers alike should think very carefully before placing reliance on this private company as a genuine route to redress. In PMC’s experience, this is not a body fit to hold itself out as an effective ombudsman service and should not exist.

Took around 5 months for my case to be evaluated. I was then told that because the agent had 'made a fair and reasonable offer' they could not consider my complaint.

What actually happened was that they contacted the agent BEFORE me, and told him that if he offered me £350 they would consider this to be fair and reasonable.... and on that basis they then concluded that they could not consider my complaint further.

This is a sham. The £350 is an insult to the distress that I suffered.

It is clear from reading through these reviews that this is an organisation that is not fit for purpose. It's actions ENABLE agents to provide a poor level of service with very little come back for the consumer. The financial rewards are an insult and a joke.

TPO: you are swamped with complaints because some within the industry provide a poor service - consumers expect a better service for the money they pay. There is no incentive for agents to deliver a high quality service if your awards are limited to a couple of hundred pounds. This is not a service that meets the needs of the people who use it and the industry suffers as there is no incentive to do better.

Please do not offer to 'explain the outcome' to me - I get it and in my view it's appalling. I am more interested in why you're not working to improve industry standards and drive up consumer satisfaction. Too radical??

It took many months for an adjudication which was entirely toothless and pointless. A total waste of time - really - do not bother.

I am an 84-year-old consumer, and my experience with The Property Ombudsman (Case Ref: 15562) regarding a 5-bedroom misrepresentation in Torquay has been a masterclass in bureaucratic incompetence. This case has been handled with total inconsistency:

1. The Initial Refusal: This case was originally turned down.
​
2. The Reopening: Upon challenge, the TPO admitted a mistake and reopened the case, acknowledging its validity.
​
3. The Evaluation Promise: On 18 March 2026, I was formally confirmed in writing that the case was being referred to the Evaluation Team for a full assessment.
​
4. The Retroactive Refusal: On 13 April 2026, the Assessment Team issued yet another summary refusal, citing a "12-month rule" that was visible from the very first day.

You cannot turn a case down, admit a mistake by reopening it, promise a full Evaluation, and then retroactively "un-open" it weeks later based on a timeline you already waived. This is a gross procedural failure that undermines the entire integrity of the Ombudsman’s service.

The TPO is actively ignoring professional evidence—including a Surveyor’s Report explicitly classifying the property as 5 bedrooms—in favor of protecting an agent’s deceptive marketing.

ADVICE TO ALL CONSUMERS: If the TPO gives you the runaround or ignores your professional evidence, do not accept their excuses. Contact your local MP immediately. I have already briefed my local MP on this systemic failure and the TPO’s refusal to uphold its own Code of Practice. When an MP gets involved, the Ombudsman is forced to answer for its procedural chaos. Don't let them silence you—demand a redesign of this broken system.

Hopeless and corrupt even when presented with evidence of wrongdoing by the letting agency they still side with them. A completely pointless ombudsman.

My Friends, be warned, I’ll prove how TPO cheats on you. They base their resolutions on what they call “terms of reference”. They don’t show them to you in advance, they only defend erroneous resolutions by referring to them when the matter is closed. Even then they refuse you a copy, tell you to look in internet !
Article 10 f or 10.6 says…..The Ombudsman shall only consider, or continue to consider, a dispute if they are satisfied that the act or omission giving rise to the dispute first occurred or could reasonably have come to the notice of the Complainant, not more than twelve months before the Complainant first made their complaint in writing to the Member.
If the firm cheated on you for 10 years, and you didn’t realize, the fault is whitewashed. Worse, this is a free license to continue cheating forever. This shows clear bias against the claimant.
In my case, 8 years of charging me for Rent Guarantee without taking out the insurance, some £5000 plus interest. TPO awarded me £185.
The proof presented was a letter from the firm stating explicitly how much I was paying for this service, (mixed in with general fees). Further proof, when I enquired about this, they took out the insurance 5 days later and replied that the insurance was active ! Further proof, the firm offered me £185 in compensation for the error, which I refused.
My friends, be warned, TPO is a mockery of justice, here is the evidence. Now, TPO itself must pay me the compensation, it will not rest here.
Neil Callwood

My friends…. Writing two weeks later,…. The firm has now argued as follows, I quote “”the information available indicates that you were aware, or reasonably ought to have been aware, of the matter more than 12 months before you raised your complaint with the agent. In those circumstances, the time limit applies.”” Of course, if I was aware of it and did nothing, then I have little or nothing to claim now. But can anyone reasonably believe that I was aware that they were stealing from me and I did nothing for 8 years ?
I saw that they were charging me for the insurance, every month, so I assumed that all was OK. How was I to know that they hadn’t taken out the policy ? That they were taking my money for no service given.
One puts their trust in the chosen professional, I put my trust until one day they offered me the very service that I was already paying for !! When I asked why, they immediately took out the insurance, but I only discovered three months later that there had been no policy for the previous 8 years !!
Common law is based on logic and reasonableness. TPO's article 27 obliges them to respect the law. That I was aware of the matter is illogical and unreasonable. So it must be assumed by all that I wasn’t aware. I will hold TPO responsible for this enormous miscarriage of justice….. …
However, the main point here is not my own personal case, it’s article 10.6 which is illegal and immoral, for so many cases dismissed as a result of this article. Common law says that the fault is not pardoned by the passing of time; this article is illegal. It also clearly shows bias in favour of the firm.
I invite TPO to answer this matter here, for all of us to see. Neil