Housing lawyer admits ‘nothing can be done’ to close down agents expelled from redress schemes

Housing lawyer Tessa Shepperson has defended accusations that property redress schemes are “useless”.

The accusation was levelled at Carter Stones, an agent in Ilford, Essex, which has featured both in EYE and the BBC You and Yours programme.

Both landlords and tenants complain that they are owed money by the agent – including money handed over after Carter Stones was expelled by both the Property Redress Scheme and by mydeposits.

They complain that after the PRS chucked out Carter Stones, they were left high and dry when the agent continued to trade illegally.

Shepperson, who is an independent member of the PRS Council, said that “the question of enforcement has always bothered us on the Council and we have discussed it many times”.

But she admitted that there is nothing any of the redress schemes can do to close down an agent who is trading illegally.

She said: “I think one of the problems shown up by this issue is that people misunderstand the role of the Property Redress Schemes.

“This is essentially to provide a free route for landlords and tenants who are unhappy with their agents’ service (or the service provided by any of the other PRS members) which they can use to make a complaint, as an alternative to going to court.

“This is beneficial as court proceedings are expensive, time-consuming and very stressful.

“A complaint to the agents’ Property Redress Scheme is free and considerably less stressful for people who are often already stressed out, or out of pocket, by the issue they are complaining about.

“So the schemes all have procedures for members’ customers to use when making a complaint, and qualified adjudicators to consider their case and make decisions and (where appropriate) awards. For example, they have the power to award up to £25,000 – although lower awards are more usual.

“Many cases are resolved at an early stage. If the initial mediation does not succeed, the Ombudsman will make his (or her) award and the Scheme member notified. They are then given a period of time to comply.

In the vast majority of cases, the scheme member will pay up, or apologise or do whatever he has been ordered to do. If they don’t do this, the penalty is expulsion from the scheme.

“This may sound like a bit of a rubbish penalty but actually it’s not. Under law, all letting agents and property managers must be a member of an authorised property redress scheme as a condition of being in business.

“So if they are expelled from their scheme, they are no longer compliant with the law. None of the other schemes are going to accept them as a member (unless and until they comply with the award made) as they all exchange information about which firms have been expelled and have an agreement to this effect.

“The rogue agent will then be vulnerable to being fined £5,000 and ultimately being closed down by the local authority.

“The problem is that this does not really help the victims of the rogue agent.

“However, there is nothing any of the redress schemes can do about it. They don’t have any powers to enforce the award – that is not what they were set up to do.

“And anyway – what could they do? How do you enforce a financial award against a criminal who has either spent all the money or hidden it where it can’t be found?

“It’s the same in other areas. For example, many, probably as many as 30% of all County Court Judgements, go unpaid. But we don’t say that Judges are useless and that there is no point in having a County Court system.”

Shepperson’s full blog is here: http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2017/03/09/property-redress-schemes-useless/

x

Email the story to a friend



6 Comments

  1. sb007ck

    So to sum up….these redress schemes that we all pay to be members of, or are told that we have to be members of, which are to provide confidence and reassurance to the public, are basically useless and toothless. During these Carter Stones pieces, i see no mention of the property ombudsman, or maybe i missed it, or perhaps she cannot help either?

    Report
  2. Chris Wood

    The system to police and enforce the law is unfit for purpose. Without a likelihood of being caught, people will offend. If people offend with impunity, others will follow. Where the public or businesses do complain but do not receive, do not feel they have received or, are not seen to have received justices/ redress, there will be anger and, further encouragement of law-breaking.

    The system is broken. It needs fixing but, who will fix it?

    Report
  3. Tim Hall

    “The rogue agent will then be vulnerable to being fined £5,000 and ultimately being closed down by the local authority.”
    Surely the agent should be closed down immediately?

    Report
  4. Russell Williams

    Maybe the ombudsman scheme websites (and maybe even the portals) could maintain a publicly visible list of expelled agents, as well as member lists.  That way, someone looking up Agent Z on Google would come across a trusted page telling them not to touch them with a barge pole.

    ie, you don’t play by the rules, so we’re going to publicise the fact.

    Report
  5. Beano

    There is no point relying on the public to see or hear about these things afterwards. They dont. Many people dont carry out adequate due diligence when engaging with service providers, you and I probably included in this.

    Instead of spending time looking at how to mess up the system by banning agent fees, perhaps (when forcing all agents to sign up to redress schemes) the powers that be should have looked at what happens when an agent is expelled. Clearly they didn’t.

    Quite simple really, the PRS etc, having expelled an agent then contact the local court or council enforcement team who within 28 days (have the power to) shut down any offenders, unless they are able to provide reasonable defence in that time.

    In the meantime an advertisement is placed concerning said agent, paid for by PRS subscriptions to alert those members of the public that care to look.

    Report
  6. LordyS06

    Current redress schemes, however they are named to somehow convince customers that they might have some Regulatory power, which they don’t, are not delivering for the consumer. Unless I am missing something they rely on membership subscriptions for their profits and to keep staff employed. They won’t bite hand that feeds etc.  Until that changes the position it takes with complaints amounts to no more than window dressing.

    Report
X

You must be logged in to report this comment!

Comments are closed.

Thank you for signing up to our newsletter, we have sent you an email asking you to confirm your subscription. Additionally if you would like to create a free EYE account which allows you to comment on news stories and manage your email subscriptions please enter a password below.