A CROWTHORNE woman is warning landlords across the borough they may have signed a “misleading contract”.
Karen Markham was recently awarded compensation after the Property Ombudsman ruled she signed a contract with Romans estate agents that breached the Property Ombudsman code.
This was after a trading standards officer verbally told Ms Markham that the estate agent’s terms of business were “ambiguous and not clear”, she said.
Wokingham Borough Council confirmed that an officer from the Public Protection Partnership (PPP), which delivers trading standards, had contact with Romans in relation to the terms within their letting contracts.
Following an FOI request, a spokesperson for WBC said: “The officer emailed with comprehensive advice as to how to ensure compliance with the legislation, and that advice has been taken on board by Romans who have amended their documentation as required by Trading Standards.”
Ms Markham is concerned that other landlords in the area may also be in the same position, but do not know.
However the managing director of lettings at Romans said that they do not enforce old policies.
Around three years ago, Ms Markham bought her Crowthorne property from Romans and asked the company to market it on her behalf.
As a portfolio landlord, she has three other properties that she collects the rent for herself, but in this instance, decided to use Romans’ rent collection service as she was busy, she explained.
“I thought, I’ll let them do this, and then in a year, I’ll give notice and take over,” she said.
Later down the line, she discovered that the contract said that if she wanted to serve Romans notice, this could not be done with a tenant in situ, and she would have to continue paying commission.
In the case review in September last year, the Property Ombudsman said: “I have found that the Terms of Business and Lettings Authority provided to the complainant, did not meet the requirements under the Code (section 5). They did not clearly outline the circumstances under which Romans’ instruction could be terminated.”
The Ombudsman said they are “not satisfied that this liability for continuous fees, without the ability to serve notice, was specifically drawn to the attention” of Mrs Markham.
“Moreover, the fees in the contract are not expressed in clearly labelled sections,” they said.
“For example, the continuous liability is expressed in the first paragraph of the Letting Authority but is not repeated in the fees section.”
This led the ombudsman to support Ms Markham’s complaint that “information on Roman’s fee poster was misleading”.
“I have also not found that the contemporaneous system notes are sufficient to conclude that the indefinite nature of the rent collection service was explained sufficiently,” they said.
The Ombudsman said they found aspects of Romans communication with Mrs Markham “inconsistent” and criticised this as well.
This advice covered three areas, the Early Determination Fee, Right to Vary fees and Withdrawal Fee.
Mrs Markham was awarded £408.55 in compensation but said it’s the “principle” she is more concerned about.
Richard O’Neill, managing director of lettings at Romans, said: “We are sorry that Ms Markham was unsatisfied with the service she received from Romans and are happy that the issues have now been resolved. We always take this type of feedback seriously and aim to provide consistent and transparent service to all customers.
“We have worked closely with the Trading Standards Office to review our documentation and have actioned their suggestions to improve clarity and avoid similar issues in the future.
“A review of this kind is strictly confidential between Romans and the complainant. Therefore, we will not be publishing the results publicly, however we have now changed our Terms and Conditions and we do not enforce old policies.”
