The Property Ombudsman Bewertungen 

Awful experience. They were over 3 months delayed in provided a response. When I phoned them up they said it can take 6 to 12 months for a response. After making me wait for months for a response, they then say that my complaint is over 12 months (the irony), when a part of my complaint was about a review that was recently posted, and the response came shortly after I complained about their response which felt like retaliation as they couldn’t have come to that conclusion if they reviewed the actual complaint.

NOT RECOMMENDED THIS SERVICE AS THEY FAILED TO HELP US DEAL WITH GREEDY LETTING AGENT

DESPITE MY LOWER, THAN LOW EXPECTATIONS OF THE PROPERTY OMBUDSMAN, HAVING READ SOME OF THE TRUSTEDPILOT REVIEWS......THEY FELL LOWER THAN MY RE-ADJUSTED RIDICULOUSLY LOW EXPECTATIONS!!

I GENUINELY wish that they had NOT bothered wasting my time completing their lengthy forms & wasted time (spending a substantial amount of searching for email correspondence/evidence to support my claims) whilst dealing with health issues snd family bereavement. IM GENUINELY FURIOUS!

There is soooooo much that the Property Ombudsman does NOT deal with in relation to issues with MANAGING AGENTS AND LEASEHOLDERS, that there really is NO POINT BOTHERING!! They were not able to assist with my customer service issues, admin issues, accounts issues, EXCESSIVE or UNREASONABLE CHARGES (set by The 1st Tier Tribunal) OR LEGAL BREACHES OF LAW.....THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO POINT BOTHERING TO COMPLAINT TO TPO!!

This identifies all the errors this organisation made.
We want regulation within the property industry.
Not a toothless organisation that is only protecting their jobs, not the consumer
ERROR 1: They got the law wrong on conflict of interest

The Ombudsman wrote:

“there was no obligation for FPA to disclose this relationship… as there was no apparent conflict of interest here.”

This statement is factually and legally incorrect.

Why?

Under the Estate Agents Act 1979—Section 21, an estate agent MUST disclose in writing if:

They,

A family member, OR

A business associate

has any personal interest in the transaction.

A solicitor handling the buyer’s side who is the father of the auction manager dealing with the sale IS a connected person in law.

This is exactly the type of relationship the law requires to be disclosed.

The Ombudsman missed a statutory breach.
This is grounds for review on its own.

ERROR 2 — They accepted FPA’s “no reserve price” statement despite your documented reserve

You had stated repeatedly that:

FPA set a reserve price at £205,000.

The Ombudsman states:

“FPA say that no reserve price was set.”

But your own evidence shows:

You were given a reserve

You agreed a reserve

You relied on their valuation

You proceeded on the belief that £205,000 was the minimum

This is a major factual error by the Ombudsman, which directly influenced the outcome.

ERROR 3 — They failed to consider the pattern of linked transactions

You now have 14 examples of the same:

FPA handling sale

Black Pen Associates buying

MTL Law (father) doing conveyancing

Properties undervalued

Immediate resale for substantial profit

The Ombudsman treated your case as an isolated incident, even though the pattern suggests:

systemic undervaluing

preferential sale channel

an ongoing relationship

sellers consistently disadvantaged

Not considering new evidence or systemic issues is grounds for review.
ERROR 4 — They dismissed the conflict of interest without investigation

Their logic:

“FPA worked for you, and the buyer’s solicitor worked for the buyer, so there is no conflict.”

This is not how conflicts are assessed.

A conflict exists when:

A relationship could influence behaviour

Even if both parties are “officially” separate

Even if no wrongdoing is proven

This is a basic misunderstanding of conflict-of-interest rules.

Another review ground.

ERROR 5 — They assumed refurbishment might explain the £96,000 increase (with no evidence)

The Ombudsman wrote:

“It is possible the buyer carried out refurbishment.”

There is no evidence of refurbishment.
Even if there was, they should have:

requested documents

checked planning records

inspected marketing photos

They instead speculated in favour of the agent.

That is procedural error.

ERROR 6 — They ignored FPA’s duty to disclose “referral fees”

They wrote:

“…it is not unusual for an agent to recommend a solicitor…”

Yes — but referral fees MUST be declared in writing.

The agent recommended a solicitor connected by family.
The Ombudsman did not even ask whether a referral fee was paid.

Another legal oversight.

ERROR 7 — They accepted FPA’s excuse that the staff member “no longer works here”

FPA is required under the Code to:

keep records for 6 years

produce them upon request

The Ombudsman accepted:

“The employee no longer works here.”

This is NOT an excuse.
It is a breach.

The Ombudsman failed to enforce the Code.

ERROR 8 — They failed to consider seller vulnerability properly

You told FPA:

you were distressed

you were not in a good place

you relied completely on their advice

FPA:

did not perform a fact find

did not identify vulnerability

did not provide extra support

did not advise you to get independent valuation

did not advise on risks of auction vs private sale

This is a major breach.

The Ombudsman acknowledged this but undervalued the seriousness.

The Property Ombudsman, has given me a great help and support when I had now one to turn to.

They are professional with empathy, understanding, fair and managed to achieve what I requested for.

Justice was served as far as I am concern, thanks to the support and help I received from The Property Ombudsman.

Thank you and keep up the good work.

They are useless. 0 stars. Biased towards property managers. Why do they exist?

Absolutely useless - failed to understand the complaint and flatly refused to entertain any dialogue which could make them think outside their "script"

Helped the real estate agent screw us over - apparently leaving a stench of marijuana, cat urine & cigarette smoke (in a non-smoking property) is "acceptable wear-and-tear".

Don't waste your time complaining to them - may as well talk to a brick wall: it's more consoling!!

If zero stars were possible, TPO would deserve it.

They claim they step in after 8 weeks if an agent hasn’t resolved a complaint — in reality, they hide behind technicalities and paperwork. Instead of protecting consumers, they protect the industry.

I provided evidence, timelines, and proof of poor service from my agent. TPO refused to accept the case because I didn’t have the “final cover letter” the agent never issued. What right do they have to call themselves an Ombudsman if they let agents off the hook on a paperwork loophole?

Most reviewers here say the same: delays, let down, no outcome. TPO are supposed to be independent, but in practice they shield the businesses and leave landlords and tenants out in the cold.

Don’t waste your time thinking TPO will fight for you. They won’t. They favour Estate Agents.

Estate Agent did me over, I mean seriously did me over. I thought the Prop Ombudsman would hold them accountable, it was within their remit, my complaint was just, they waited nearly a year to tell me to go away and didn't even try to help. Ignored my appeal. Waste of time.

Edit (as I can not reply) - I did "reach out" to you with regards to your one-line rejection letter to my 4-page complaint about the Estate Agent in question, you completely ignored it (just like you did to my initial complaint). A bit disingenuous of you to say here that you would do otherwise.

Other reviews speak for themselves. In my own case they counted a single invoice from a property agent as more important evidence than my proof of payment (bank transfer + acknowledgement payment email). Wholly siding with the agents and basically acting as their lapdog. The only plausible explanation, coupled with how others have experienced them, is outright corruption - payments or funding funnelled indirectly from billionaire property agent firms. Hardly the first example of such a thing in the UK. In short: corrupt, unfair and unfit for purpose."

I contacted the property ombudsman after hiring a surveying company to conduct a level 3 building survey.
The report I got from them stated that whilst relatively minor repair works were needed, the house was basically sound.

This couldn’t have been further from the truth. After moving in I discovered that numerous faults had been missed or vastly under reported and I was facing a huge repair bill to rectify. Numerous contractors visited and confirmed this. I was also given reports and photographs to prove evidence that the house was in great need of repair.
The surveying company was not interested in my complaint to them so I contacted the property ombudsman.

I supplied them with all of the evidence I had gathered and explained to them that had I known the true extent of the work needed, I would not have progressed with the purchase of this house.

Whilst it took them months to initially begin the examination of my complaint, it took them all of a few days to dismiss it.
My ‘case handler’ completely ignored my concerns regarding the under reported faults, dismissed the photographs stating that the surveyor could not possibly have seen the damage (this was to the roof that I was told needed some pointing and realignment of tiles, but in fact needs much more, potentially replacing) and completely took the side of the surveying company.

I appealed the decision but was told without further evidence, there was nothing more they could do.
I do not know what further evidence I could provide more than the dozens of photographs, contractor reports and the fact a lot of the damage is clear from street level to those with even a modicum of knowledge.

I was told if I was unhappy with the decision I should take the matter up with the courts. If I had known how useless they would be, I wouldn’t have spent months waiting for them to dismiss my case so quickly.

After reading more about the property ombudsman I am no longer surprised that they sided with the surveying company. They are funded by their members who of course are the ones I am complaining about, so it’s no surprise that they found in their favour.

DO NOT waste your time appealing to these people if you have been taken advantage of or mislead, you really will be wasting many months of your life.

As expected, truly awful service!
LW (not allowed to mention full name) you should be ashamed of yourself! Siding with a company in the wrong. I truly hope you never have to go through this ordeal.

TPO sided with Yopa even though I had proof of them jepodising the sale of my property (found out my rep from Yopa works with TPO so it’s as corrupt as anything)
This service is truly shocking - and as for Yopa - AVOID this company.

Both of the people I dealt with at TPO seem to be uniquely unqualified for their jobs. The total lack of professional curiosity, the lack of awareness of how to conduct an investigation and the apparent lack of understanding as to what constitutes professional behaviour is simply incredibly. I am honestly astonished.

So many of the issues I found with their response to my complaint are repeated in these negative Trustpilot reviews, over and over. TPO employees fail to grasp the basic facts of a complaint; they excuse the bad behaviour of estate agents or even pointedly ignore issues that reflect negatively on them.

It is clear that TPO has systemic problems. For example, they have an internal review process that explicitly excludes reviews of their decisions – what kind of ombudsman fears scrutiny of its own decisions?

From the evident lack of impartiality, it would seem that TPO is little more than a public relations salve for the property industry. They clearly lack the professional rigor of the Energy Ombudsman and the Communications Ombudsman.

30 Sep 2025 - Re: TPOS response below
Who do you think you are fooling? Your 'review' process has so many restrictions and has such a narrow remit that it effectively PREVENTS ANY REASONABLE REVIEW of your decisions. As I said, fear of scrutiny is not a good look for an Ombudsman.

TPO is meant to provide accessible redress outside of court. In practice, they neither investigate agent misconduct nor protect landlord rights.

In 2023, I bought a flat as a first-time buyer, with a tenant in situ from Martin & Co Oxford, who also managed the property before and after the sale.

The seller had carried out renovations overseen by the agency, used as selling points. These same renovations were later denied or ignored when I needed proof for a deposit claim.

I submitted a complaint to TPO, supported by strong evidence of Martin & Co Oxford’s misconduct, including:

Testimonies confirming tenant-caused damage,

Proof the agency misled the deposit scheme and withheld key documentation,

Evidence of false accusations, mismanagement, and financial harm.

TPO dismissed nearly everything.

Their internal SAR (Subject Access Request) logs (which I requested) show that exchanges between Martin & Co Oxford and TPO, as well as within TPO itself, make it clear my complaint was never treated seriously and was even met with derision.

TPO then assessed my complaint point by point, ignoring how omissions and errors linked together to cause financial loss.

Their conclusions — and why they’re flawed:

a. “We are unable to consider complaints about events at the time you bought the property…”

Martin & Co Oxford withheld renovation records they had promoted at sale—records I later needed to prove damage. Their refusal blocked my ability to claim against the tenant. This wasn’t historic — it directly affected the present.

b. “I am unable to criticise Martin & Co Oxford for giving advice about deposit deductions...”

They accused me of “seeking betterment” — while withholding the very renovation details that disproved it. One issue enabled the other.

c. “I am unable to conclude that damage was due to agent mismanagement...”

They accepted an inspection report omitting major damage I had flagged — signed off by someone who never visited the flat. This isn’t oversight, it’s cover-up.

d. “It was your duty to pay for the repairs...”

Regardless of who pays first, letting agents must report damage and preserve evidence when tenants are liable. TPO ignored testimonies, photos, and expert reports proving the tenant caused the damage.

e. “Martin & Co Oxford made a fair offer for the boiler service...”

They diverted funds meant for the check-out inspection to an unnecessary 4-month old boiler service (they had had installed themselves so they knew how old it was), carried out without my knowledge or consent. TPO called this “fair”.

f. “I am unable to conclude that you received less of the tenant’s deposit than you should have...”

Martin & Co Oxford failed to get the tenant to sign the check-in inventory (allowed by TPO). They then falsely told the deposit scheme that I only sought a partial refund and agreed with deductions. Both were false. TPO still refused to intervene.

The company file that never was

TPO told me they would request Martin & Co Oxford’s company file. But my SAR shows the agency provided nothing.

Despite this, TPO still cleared them. How can an ombudsman claim to investigate when the agent didn’t even submit its file?

The outcome?

Martin & Co Oxford’s failures (not providing renovation records, securing inventory signatures, or presenting my claim properly) denied me legal recourse against the tenant. This isn’t just negligence. It’s a denial of justice.

TPO brushed it all off as either “out of scope” or “not proven”, despite multiple forms of evidence.

Even faced with proof bordering on illegality, TPO won’t act. Their adjudicator used the word “unable” five times. A perfect summary of what TPO is: simply… unable.

GDPR now, your fault later

Before buying the flat, I asked Martin & Co Oxford what renovations had been carried out. They refused to tell me — citing GDPR or claiming it “wasn’t my business yet”.

After the purchase, I was told it was my fault for not checking this prior to the purchase by TPO.

So when exactly was I supposed to find out? Before, when I wasn’t allowed to ask? Or after, when it was too late?

I am seeking legal advice. Let this be a warning. If you’re seeking justice after letting agent misconduct — TPO will not help you.

Final thought:

TPO’s own notes imply it was my responsibility to uncover what Martin & Co Oxford failed to disclose (including unauthorised occupancy, renovation details, and missing inventory records).

In other words, if the agent misled me or withheld information, that’s somehow my fault for not foreseeing it.

What kind of message does this send to consumers?

What’s the point of regulation if the burden always falls on victims?

TPO: Spare me your useless copy-paste. Don’t reply to my review!

100% waste of time - they will just send you a boiler plate two-page text explaining why they will do absolutely nothing.
They should be shut down.
As a 'regulator' they are wasting the time of people with valid complaints but who have not read the reviews on TrustPilot.

Sent in a complaint 11 months ago, was told it was in line with what the ombudsman look at, 7 months later it got assigned to a resolution officer who agreed there was a case. It then got passed to an adjudicator a week ago who contacted me today. Their email agreed the service of the management company fell below their expectations, however the ombudsman aren’t going to help. It was reiterated several times it’s not because they are too busy, but it seems by the 3rd time of reading that, they may just be too busy to help. Almost a year waiting for that. Hard to see the point of the ombudsman if they are too busy to help, whether it’s lack of staff or lack of an impartial view, I wouldn’t put any faith in the ombudsman moving forward and see little point in the organisation as a whole. Beyond disappointing!

I sought the advice of this outfit on the phone but their voicemail message informed me that no one would speak to me because of “staff training”. I do not know of any other service which would treat customers in this way.
I then read other reviews which basically said this outfit is very poor.
I shall save my time and leave them well alone. Their attitude shows complete indifference to customers

My property management company, Countrywide Property Lettings (CRL, where the C really should stand for Clowns) neglected to arrange a water cylinder inspection that was declared mandatory by the building management company, and this despite my four documented reminders over two months from 8 timezones away. Within a few months, the cylinder burst, causing damage to my property and adjoining ones as well. I had to pay for a new cylinder and repairs in my property, fair enough, but I also paid 5000 pounds excess to the building insurance to repair other properties.

I first spent 3 months with CRL trying to get them to admit fault, but got the runaround at the working-clown level, culminating in a generous offer of 75 pounds for my trouble. I rejected that and took my case to the Property Ombudsman (TPO) because I felt here was an impartial party that would surely see the evidence that is clear as day and make me whole for the costs incurred.

TPO after 6-7 months of "sorry we are backlogged but will get to your case soon" emails, finally came back with an adjudication stating that (1) clearly CRL was in the wrong based on cited clauses of property manager responsibilities and (2) mentioned that CRL had admitted negligence in getting the inspection done. And yet the adjudication was for 200 pounds in the end! I have rejected the adjudication and called TPO a few names in my response. This corruption and collusion between the property management companies and the property ombudsman, both united to screw the individual investor in the UK, especially if that investor is based overseas and unable to come around and lay down some discipline on the spot.

My next stop should be the courts and I might take that option, but given that a case as obvious as this one took over 6 months with TPO, my sense is it may take even longer in the courts and in the end it will be another laughable decision.

I was advised by a District Judge that I have a worthy court case about damp, disrepair, unfair contracts, being mislead about property conditions etc. I was asked if I wanted to take it forward (the cost would be thousands of pounds, which at the time I was not in a financial position to provide). I opted for TPO services believing they could help. To be clear, TPO's default settings are to throw out your case immediately, unless you can contest it has worth. Adjudicators treat Complainants as bringing problems. Summarising the process, I have major concerns with TPO's service and do not find it fit for purpose. The evidence review process was biased and ineffective as a vehicle of justice. As these reviews (collectively) confirm, it's an Ombudsman that rarely looks after tenant/consumer interests. They like to describe themselves as impartial, in practice they are nowhere close to being. Their decisions fail tenants - enabling Letting Agents continuing scope to offer poor services, unfair terms and dodgy practices. They don't hold agents accountable. Many initial decisions have been made without looking at Tenant evidence. This consumer went on to appeal and waited further time. The responses I got were so ridiculously weighted towards estate agent narrative (which is non-sensical with evidence to the contrary). I felt there was little effort to understand my concerns (most of which weren't itemised in reviews). This leaves no doubt where TPO's main concerns lie - with those who pay them. TPO do not follow their own platitudes detailed online. They make people wait extraordinary amounts of time just to be assigned. Then adjudicators make decisions as quickly as possible and ask for Complainant's to agree in a narrow timeframe. Corners are cut - e.g. cherry-picking what they want to respond to (if you have a large evidence file, expect them to pick one/two areas out of it and ignore the rest), major areas where there is a call for justice are not responded to, your evidence can be clear, but watch everything become reduced. There have been points where I have felt thoroughly gaslit. After being at Senior Adjudication level, the vast majority of my complaints raised with Letting Agent in-house remain unanswered/uninvestigated. The first adjudicator made it clear that TPO's (condescending) stance is that you have little right to complain if you have had a response to in-house complaints (I think the idea is that you should blindly accept, even if you are living in building about to be condemned by env. health; whilst the Letting Agent is still playing games). There are additional, limiting factors that are introduced mid-process that are not made transparent from the outset- these made legitimate concerns appear irrelevant. I feel that the company should be honest with Tenants upfront about limiting the scope of complaints, what they can/can't do (so that people can make an informed decision whether to apply for/wait for service or take directly to legal/other bodies). The main intent in my case was to defend the initial review; and to only look at the evidence that could confirm that. It's a miscarriage of service.

To repeat, the ethical message behind decisions made gives Letting Agents full scope to deliver poor quality, illegal or unfair services. TPO bias actively enables that. TPO frequently stated the limitations in their authority to affect change

How many more generic responses are TPO going to send to Consumers before they start being honest with themselves about systemic issues?