Tuesday, July 8, 2025
Aimed at raising awareness and standards in the property industry, our expulsions updates offer some insight into what leads up to Property Redress’s decision to expel a member, following a lengthy disciplinary process. This list of agents recently expelled by Property Redress includes an explanation of the facts that we considered when assessing each case, and the outcome, including details of any award made.
All expelled members are reported to National Trading Standards who will then investigate and follow up with any appropriate action. Recently the judge and jury used the evidence from the investigation, which included information and statements we provided, to convict one particular agent of fraud. Find out more here.
Our aim, as always, is to help improve industry practice and highlight those that fall short of good practice, using our services as learning opportunities for all parties.
The group of agents in this report have been expelled at different stages of our process, some early due to not engaging with us (default) or where they have agreed to resolve the case but then not complied. Others went through the proposed, review and final decisions and still refused to comply.
The six cases outlined below are examples of agents who remain expelled, highlighting the failings that led to their removal. In each case, consumers were left out of pocket, exposed to risk, or experienced unacceptable levels of service. The agents failed to engage with the complaints process, settle awards, or meet their professional obligations.
The complaint related to the installation of a new roof using materials listed in a Section 20 notice, which started leaking after only two years, other unresolved issues with damp and mould, incorrect invoices not being amended and poor communication.
The complainant was signposted to the Leasehold Advisory Service for the roof issue, which was outside our authority to deal with. The agent did not engage with us during the early stages of the process, only providing evidence after the deadline had passed. This was still considered in the decision made when looking at the agent’s due care and skill relating to their service and communication. Evidence showed delays in replying to emails, the complainant having to chase for replies and some replies being months late, unprofessional and inflammatory. The decision awarded £600 for distress and inconvenience which was not settled.
The complaint related to rent that had not been passed on to the complainant before the agreement with the agent ended, and there were months of attempted communication through calls, emails, and WhatsApp messages, to chase payment. From the evidence provided by both parties, the resolution proposed the agent pay £100 for poor communication and provide evidence to the complainant that there were no bookings for the rent period being claimed. If the agent was unable to provide this evidence, they were to pay the owed amounts to the complainant. The company, based in Reading, appears active.
The complainant landlord had ended the management agreement for five flats with the agent, due to their poor service. The landlord was claiming outstanding rent that had been collected but not passed on, and that the tenancy deposits and the current deposit protection certificates be transferred to him.
The decision considered the evidence from the complainant only as the agent did not engage with us. A compensation award of £4202.06 was made, equal to the rent owed, and £500 for stress and inconvenience. The agent was also instructed to provide deposit protection certificates to the landlord for all properties and for the landlord to set up his own deposit protection membership with one of the three schemes, which the agent could then transfer all deposits into as they must always remain protected until the tenancy ends.
The complaint related to various duties that the agent had neglected, including not protecting tenants’ deposits and lack of regular inspections, which had caused distress and inconvenience. Now that the complainant has instructed a new agent to manage the 15 properties, the concerns centre on the lack of handover documents provided and the time it is taking. Even the new agent has sent the agent emails chasing the documents and querying a £1775 payment that needs to be allocated. The agent provided no evidence or response to the complaint.
The complainant’s evidence did not show that the deposits had been paid to the agent or that the agent was responsible for protecting the deposits, so this part of the claim was unsuccessful. The evidence did include numerous emails chasing for information, and outstanding documents which the landlord is entitled to, and the lack of response from the agent shows a poor level of service. The decision awarded £3000 for the lack of documents, the extent of non-compliance, the considerable distress and inconvenience. The decision also required the agent to provide more detail on the payment of £1775 and to provide the outstanding documents, which included tenancy agreements, gas safety certificates, EICR certificates and contact details for tenants in some of the properties, in line with the schedule provided.
The complainant was informed by the agent managing his property that they were no longer trading, but the complainant said two months’ rent that was collected from the tenants remains outstanding. The agent was also asked to begin rent arrears proceedings and provide handover documents to the new agent, which have not been done.
The evidence confirmed the property was being fully managed by the agent, including rent collection, and the agent had confirmed receiving two months’ rent, before the tenant stopped paying, which were not transferred to the complainant. For the poor service, the agent was to transfer the £1100 outstanding rent and pay £100 compensation to the complainant.
The complainant said the agent was withholding the tenant’s £1700 deposit and had not sent it to the complainant’s relevant deposit account, as requested. The evidence contained emails, starting in May, chasing the agent, who then replied that they needed to release it from their deposit scheme. Five months later, at the end of September, the agent confirmed the money would be transferred within the week, but there is no evidence of any payment. The proposal, which both parties agreed to, was for the agent to pay the complainant £1700, which remains unsettled.
The cases referenced in this report relate to complaints concluded during the period from May to October 2024, though the underlying issues may date back further. This reflects Property Redress’s commitment to providing agents with a reasonable opportunity to comply with decisions before formal expulsion is confirmed and then an additional amount of time to rectify the situation before the names of expelled agents are published. In a significant number of cases, agents who initially do not comply with their responsibilities later return to settle awards, provide non-financial information and pay any outstanding penalty fees, at which point they may be reinstated. Allowing this period makes sure that expulsions are only recorded where there has been sustained non-compliance. The reasons for delays in compliance can be complex, and the scheme’s approach is designed to balance consumer protection with a fair and proportionate process.
Sean Hooker, Head of Redress at Property Redress, commented:
“Agents who do not engage in the complaints process, ignore their professional responsibilities, or withhold client money are not only breaking trust, they fall short of the service they owe the people their business is there to serve. These expulsions reflect our zero-tolerance approach to non-compliance. Our aim is not only to protect consumers but to raise standards in the industry. We urge landlords, tenants, and homeowners to check that their agents remain members of a government-approved redress scheme and to report any misconduct immediately.”
Property Redress continues to work closely with enforcement bodies and industry regulators to make sure that expelled agents are prevented from re-entering the market without settling their responsibilities. Property Redress’s disciplinary process includes opportunities for resolution, but expulsion is a necessary last resort when agents refuse to comply.
