By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
Graham Awards


Landlord complaint leads to agency being expelled from Ombudsman scheme

A London lettings agency has been expelled from The Property Ombudsman for not paying compensation to a landlord following a failure return a property with vacant possession. 

TPO ordered Monsoon Properties Ltd to pay £2,000 to a landlord after it failed to return vacant possession of a property as requested at the end of a guaranteed rent agreement.

As a result, the landlord was left with a tenant in situ, paying a sum below market rate, that stayed over 14 months beyond the end of the fixed term of the rent guarantee agreement.  


Monsoon Properties Ltd had not issued possession proceedings that were expressly referred to in its Terms of Business.

Monsoon Properties Ltd set up a payment plan to the landlord but only two of the eight instalments were made to the landlord. 

TPO says it is believed that Monsoon Properties is no longer trading as there is no online presence nor a trading address.

Separately TPO has also expelled Prinsegate Chartered Surveyors in Kingston Upon Thames.

The Ombudsman supported five complaints raised by a consumer who had instructed a survey prior to purchasing a property, and awarded the cost of the survey back to the complainant by making an award of £890.

The Ombudsman found the survey report presented several significant issues. Firstly, the surveyor neglected to assign condition ratings to individual elements, thereby leaving their opinions on the condition of each element unclear. 

Additionally, Prinsegate consistently recommended further investigations or confirmation of findings for nearly all elements, even in the absence of identified issues. 

The report caused unnecessary confusion by inconsistently describing windows as timber framed and later referring to them as metal-lined, without adequately clarifying the full construction details.

Furthermore, the inclusion of costings for injecting a damp-proof course, despite it being an unviable option for a listed property, indicated a lack of awareness on the surveyor's part. 

Lastly, Prinsegate failed to explain the difference in costings given for the installation of a fire break, with one email stating this would be £2,000 and the costing report identifying this as £30,000.

It is believed that Prinsegate Chartered Surveyors may still be trading despite failing to communicate with The Property Ombudsman throughout this investigation.

As part of TPO’s compliance process, notification of these two agency expulsions has been shared with all relevant bodies, including both local and national Trading Standards for further investigation, as well as all property portals.

Want to comment on this story? Our focus is on providing a platform for you to share your insights and views and we welcome contributions.
If any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.
Please help us by reporting comments you consider to be unduly offensive so we can review and take action if necessary. Thank you.

  • icon

    No longer trading? Well, expulsion will really punish them. What is to stop the directors opening under a different name? Nothing as far as I can see.

  • Richard LeFrak

    Another redress scheme with no teeth.

  • icon

    Can you imagine how big the fine would have been if it was the landlords fault?

  • Franklin I

    The case of Monsoon Properties Ltd and Prinsegate Chartered Surveyors highlights a concerning trend of letting agents and surveyors failing to meet their obligations. However, it is encouraging to see that in this instance, accountability was upheld, with the Property Ombudsman taking action. This serves as a reminder of the importance of consumer vigilance and the pursuit of recourse when faced with inadequate service.

  • icon
    • A JR
    • 18 December 2023 10:00 AM

    2k seems a tad miserly given the losses the landlord must have had. Poor justice I reckon.

  • Franklin I

    I totally agree with A JR!


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up