Guide to awards

Friday, November 8, 2024

We are committed to dealing with all complaints fairly and impartially and recognise that every complaint is individual.

 

Before deciding if the agent has made a mistake or treated the consumer unfairly, we will investigate both parties’ positions and their evidence. Any award we make will be based on what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

 

This guide gives a general overview of our approach to making an award.

Where an award differs from this guide, we will explain the reasons in our decision.

We can deal with a complaint if the member: Our awards can include:
  1. has not met their legal or contractual responsibilities
  2. has affected or breached the consumer’s rights
  3. has not acted in line with any code of practice they signed up to
  4. has treated the consumer unfairly which may include:
    • poor or incompetent service
    • rudeness or discourtesy
    • a lack of clear explanation
    • not completing a transaction efficiently or as reasonably expected
    • avoidable delays by the member in delivering agreed or expected service(s)
More information can be found in our Conditions of resolution here.
  1. a meaningful apology
  2. an explanation
  3. practical action/solution to minimise any loss
  4. repayment of actual loss and/or costs paid, supported by relevant evidence
  5. a payment, where appropriate, for inconvenience and distress
  6. an appropriate action suggested by the person making the complaint, or decided by us

Award bands

We are authorised to make awards based on the following bands:

Apology Compensation Amount Description
See our guide to apologising Mild: Up to £200 Minor breach with little or no distress or inconvenience, if any
Moderate: £200 - £500 Moderate breach, on-going issues over a length of time
Substantial: £500+ Major or multiple breaches and/or serious distress (based on evidence of extensive disadvantage)

Most common complaints

The most common types of complaints that we deal with include:

Where the Agent: The Agent Did Not: Award Band
showed a lack of duty of care provide any formal complaints process mild
could have communicated more effectively act professionally and was rude mild
respond in a reasonable time mild
respond at all mild
did not respond to the formal complaint at all, quickly enough, or the response was unreasonable mild
caused loss, delays, and inconvenience extensively fell short in their duty of care and professionalism moderate
provided misleading information provide material information such as fees and charges moderate to substantial
provide accurate information leading to a breach of Consumer Protection Regulations substantial
did not act on a tenant’s requests at the start of the tenancy not cleaning the property mild
not carrying out repairs mild
not removing previous tenant’s belongings mild
not carrying out health and safety checks mild
did not act, as instructed, or did not meet their contractual, legal or statutory responsibilities provide a tenancy agreement mild
provide a management agreement mild
provide inspection reports or inventory/check-in and check-out reports mild
carry out adequate referencing mild to substantial
carry out Right to Rent checks, if needed moderate
protect a tenant’s deposit moderate to substantial
produce an inventory/check in or check out report moderate
produce a valid EPC moderate
carry out any inspections moderate
arrange essential safety checks – e.g. GSC, EICR moderate
serve notice to a tenant mild to substantial
did not transfer rent to the landlord on time mild to substantial
carry out necessary or agreed repair work mild to substantial
produce annual accounts for a leaseholder or RMC mild
did not give correct notice to enter a property mild

How evidence can affect awards

Where the Agent: The Agent Did Not: Award Band
showed a lack of duty of care provide any formal complaints process mild
could have communicated more effectively act professionally and was rude mild
respond in a reasonable time mild
respond at all mild
did not respond to the formal complaint at all, quickly enough, or the response was unreasonable mild
caused loss, delays, and inconvenience extensively fell short in their duty of care and professionalism moderate
provided misleading information provide material information such as fees and charges moderate to substantial
provide accurate information leading to a breach of Consumer Protection Regulations substantial
did not act on a tenant’s requests at the start of the tenancy not cleaning the property mild
not carrying out repairs mild
not removing previous tenant’s belongings mild
not carrying out health and safety checks mild
did not act, as instructed, or did not meet their contractual, legal or statutory responsibilities provide a tenancy agreement mild
provide a management agreement mild
provide inspection reports or inventory/check-in and check-out reports mild
carry out adequate referencing mild to substantial
carry out Right to Rent checks, if needed moderate
protect a tenant’s deposit moderate to substantial
produce an inventory/check in or check out report moderate
produce a valid EPC moderate
carry out any inspections moderate
arrange essential safety checks – e.g. GSC, EICR moderate
serve notice to a tenant mild to substantial
did not transfer rent to the landlord on time mild to substantial
carry out necessary or agreed repair work mild to substantial
produce annual accounts for a leaseholder or RMC mild
did not give correct notice to enter a property mild
Part of the Brown & Brown Team
Copyright © 2024 Property Redress. All rights reserved. Company number: 08994516 Registered office address: 7th Floor Corn Exchange, 55 Mark Lane, London, England, EC3R 7NE Property Redress is approved by Government under the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015