The Property Ombudsman Avis 

★☆☆☆☆

My experience with The Property Ombudsman was extremely disappointing.

I complained as a landlord about serious failings by my managing agent, Leaders Estate Agents, including an unsafe boiler cabinet installation that obstructed a boiler flue and caused a gas safety inspection failure. At the same time, a smoke detector that I had paid to have replaced was allowed to expire without being replaced, potentially leaving my tenants at risk.

Despite the seriousness of these issues, I found the Ombudsman process to be slow, bureaucratic and largely ineffective. It took over six months to receive a decision, and throughout the process I felt that important evidence was either overlooked or not given proper weight.

My complaint also included concerns about maintenance works being carried out without my authorisation, records apparently being altered or misrepresented to suggest approval had been given, and a disputed £2,900 exit fee that did not appear anywhere in my signed contracts or the terms and conditions supplied to me.

I entered the process expecting an independent investigation of the evidence. Instead, I was disappointed to find that many of the concerns I raised appeared to be dismissed or accepted at face value in favour of the agent's position, despite the documentary evidence I had provided. The result was a process that felt more concerned with procedure than with establishing the facts and holding the agent accountable for its actions.

The process required a substantial investment of my time, effort and energy, yet provided very little confidence that the facts had been thoroughly examined. The experience was so poor that I have since written to my Member of Parliament to raise concerns about the effectiveness and accountability of the Property Ombudsman scheme.

While other people's experiences may differ, my own view is that I would likely have been better served pursuing the matter through the courts rather than relying on the Ombudsman process.

Overall, I found the service excessively slow, overly bureaucratic and ineffective at providing meaningful redress for serious complaints.

really poor.
Slow communication and was clearly not impartial.
How can anyone support First Port who provide no customer service.

i claimed 3000 euro not paid back to me by andalucia4you. Then this corrupt organization picked up the claim, and awarded me my 3000 euro plus costs; then because their decision mail went to my spam folder; i received a mail saying the 14 days to respond were over and they would not pay me the 3000 euro owed me. Obviously these are maffia tricks, anyhwere in the world when you are owed money and been awarded money you receive it. Not with this crooked organization.Disgraceful and misleading

TPO Case Reference: 121006/TPO

My experience with the TPO process was deeply disappointing and, ultimately, of very limited practical value despite the enormous amount of time, evidence, and emotional energy required.

The process lasted around six months and involved extensive submissions, supporting evidence, representations, and detailed chronology. Despite this, the final outcome appeared heavily focused on protecting what was technically permissible for the agent and landlord rather than properly addressing fairness, consumer expectations, or the real-world impact on the tenant.

In my case, key aspects of the chronology and disruption were acknowledged, including admitted errors by the agent, yet no compensation was awarded.

What I found most frustrating was the apparent imbalance within the process. As a consumer, it often felt as though the burden placed on complainants was extremely high, while the explanations provided by the agent were given considerable weight even where the overall sequence of events raised obvious concerns.

I appreciate that Ombudsman schemes must remain impartial, but my experience left me with very little confidence that the process meaningfully levels the playing field between tenants and professional estate agencies.

By the end of the process, I was left feeling that I had invested six months pursuing accountability through a system that, in practice, offered very limited consumer protection or practical resolution.

Others considering the process should manage expectations carefully and consider obtaining independent legal advice early, including whether the Small Claims Court may provide a more effective route for resolving disputes involving financial loss and poor tenancy handling.

UPDATE- MAY 14, 2026.

Thank you for your response.

I am extremely disappointed by both the outcome and the overall handling of this process. After months of detailed submissions, documentary evidence, representations, and acknowledged tenancy management errors, the process ultimately felt weighted in favour of protecting the position of the agent and landlord rather than delivering meaningful consumer protection or accountability.

While the decision repeatedly relied on what was technically permissible, very limited weight appeared to be given to fairness, consumer reliance, avoidable disruption, or the practical impact the events had on me as a tenant during a period of documented vulnerability.

The experience left me with very little confidence that the scheme provides an effective or balanced route for consumers seeking fair resolution in tenancy disputes involving professional letting agencies.

I’m struggling to understand what the point of this organisation is? They’re completely useless, incompetent and never actually address complaint points. Their emails are incredibly long, make no sense and hiding behind T&C’s. Save yourself the hassle and don’t bother with this organisation as it’s a complete waste of time!

Wow, I should have checked Trustpilot before I bothered. I contacted the ombudsman over Rosetree my service provider who had used a section 20 to steal £350 from 24 owners and not provide the gates they had promised or a refund, was told I needed a final outcome from RT before I could submit a complaint. RT have sent a joint letter to all the owners, but will not give individual outcomes to the complainants as they obviously know without it we cannot go to the ombudsman. So basically any complaint you take up with your service provider cannot be escalated to the ombudsman as long as your service provider ignores you. What a joke these people are.

A fantastic service! I pulled out of a sale in August 2025 due to important material information not being disclosed by the estate agents, after complaining to their in house complaints department I felt like I was left with nowhere to turn and I was out of pocket by nearly £1k, a friend suggested I raise my complaint with The Property Ombudsman and I’m so glad I did. I did have a long wait however my expectations were managed early on with an email stating there would be a delay and I wasn’t in any hurry so this didn’t bother me. It took 6/7 months but I finally got my money back from the estate agents that failed to disclose non standard construction, Elinor Iles was very understanding when I misread an email and the report issued was fair and took into consideration both sides of the complaint. If you have a genuine complaint and have the time, I would 100% recommend The Property Ombudsman and can’t thank them enough!

They get paid by the companies to make a decision on their behalf!

do not use this company, they are paid by the member and even though they see failure they will take no action. Consider legal action against all these companies to get justice.
You will waste 6 - 9 months of your life trying to get answers from these companies who are not there for justice and fairness.

I submitted my complaint with full supporting evidence, including the agent’s substantive written response. TPO’s assessment team declined to proceed on the basis that the response did not carry the exact phrase “Final Viewpoint Letter” - a label not strictly required by their own Terms of Reference. The instruction was to start the entire process from scratch.

The same email pre-judged the substance of the complaint, asserting that the agent could not be at fault because their role was limited to rent collection. That is a question for the Ombudsman to determine on evidence, not for the assessment team to dispose of in a templated rejection.

This is a process that exists to filter complainants out, not to resolve disputes. Independent in name. Procedural attrition in practice. Consumers expecting impartial redress should set their expectations accordingly.

Does not understand the law and exists to protect its members, i.e. estate agents

Following the apalling service I received from TPO with my complaint, I have decided to help with the huge number of others, who are, much as myself - deeply disappointed, dissatisfied and frustrated by the inactive, lack of support and incompetence of TPO.

Please do as I have done, remain strong and continuous in bringing this to the attention of your Trading Standards. Complain to CTSI, highlight the areas and failures of the Property Ombudsman, as they are part of the Alternative Dispute Resolution service that the CTSI oversee and regulate.

Take this up with your local MP as I did, who has made a written complaint to the Secretary of State for Housing - Steve Reed OBE. Mr Reed's PA has replied to assure me that they will investigate.

We all have to be a part of bringing far more light and attention to this total pile of cr@p, that is evidently unfit for purpose.

Make a NOISE!!

I am disappointed with how my case was handled. Despite the agent admitting that they had not informed the landlord of ongoing issues, this was not recognised as a breach of the TPO Code of Practice. In particular, this appears contrary to Paragraph 1f (duty to act in the best interests of the client) and Paragraph 5a, which requires agents to take reasonable steps to ensure that all relevant information is communicated to their client.
In addition, statements made by the agent were accepted without any supporting evidence, including allegations that were never substantiated by the police or the council!
This, combined with the structure of the scheme and its close association with the industry it oversees, raises concerns regarding the independence and consistency of the assessment process.
Overall, the decision did not appear to fully reflect the available evidence or properly assess the agent’s responsibilities under the Code, including their duty to communicate significant issues and act with due diligence.
If you experience a similar issue or lack of proper consideration, a complaint should first be made through The Property Ombudsman’s process and, if concerns remain, escalated to the ADR relevant redress scheme oversight body.

Solely there to protect estate agents. Just look; NOT a gov.uk address, for a reason.

If you have witnessed TPOS's fraud for yourself, Google "The Property Ombudsman UK Warning Blogspot", write to / email your MP (Google "who is my MP?"), set out you complaint succinctly and link to the above blog.

Response to TPOS's reply

You are a membership club and you solely protect your members. You only have to see and read all the one star reviews here to see that. You are NOT ombudsmen, you are frauds!

I had a disappointing experience with The Property Ombudsman. I raised a complaint in January and recently received a response closing the case under Paragraph 12a (“no reasonable prospect of success”).
This was surprising given the amount of evidence I had already provided, and the fact that I had indicated I could supply further supporting information if required, in case something was not clear.

I also felt that key aspects of my complaint, including the conduct of the agent and complaint handling, were not fully addressed in the outcome.
While I understand the Ombudsman has limits to its remit, the process felt very brief and did not give the impression of a full assessment.
I spent a significant amount of time and effort preparing my complaint and feel it was dismissed without proper consideration.

27/04/2026-Update on my original review:

I have contacted TPO as prompted below. I hope the issue I raised can be looked at again. I'll be updating here for any developments.

27/04/2026 - Second update

Following my original review, I requested a reconsideration of the decision. I have now received a final response, which confirms that the case will not be reopened and the original outcome stands.

I was also advised that while I can raise a service complaint, this is limited strictly to issues such as communication or delays, and explicitly excludes any review of how my complaint was assessed, how evidence was considered, or how the decision was reached.

In effect, this means there is no mechanism to challenge or meaningfully review the substance of the decision, even where concerns are raised about how the complaint was characterised or assessed.

This has been particularly disappointing. My concern was not simply the outcome, but that key aspects of my complaint were not properly addressed. The response I received reinforces the impression of a very narrow and inflexible process, where once a decision is made, there is little scope for meaningful reconsideration.

While I appreciate that all schemes must have limits, the overall experience has left me feeling that my complaint was not fully or fairly examined.

Unfortunately, I cannot recommend choosing a letting agent because they are a member the of the property ombudsman. If you raise a complaint against the Letring agent with the ombudsman, they are very quick to close a ticket without contacting you to truly understand what the core issue is. In my case the letting agent was abusing the contract terms but the ombudsman closed my ticket on a technicality and no one actually directly spoke to me to find out what the core issue was. And clearly being a member of the ombudsman and abiding by their code of conduct doesn't mean anything if the ombudsman doesn't enforce those rules. Very disappointed.

Take my advice and go direct to small claims / the true legal route.

This "company" is not a government body. They are funded by and work in the vested interests of their members (allegedly). They do not seem to care if their own members have broken the law or misrepresented / obfuscated facts, all they will do is disagree and then (quite rudely) dismiss the claims of the case.

The worst part of this is that they continuously extend deadlines and keep VICTIMS waiting in exactly the same manner as the offending parties. They delayed my case for months which was seemingly purposeful to wear me down (allegedly). Their remediation and appeals process is also a joke and every written response was negative and dismissive in tone. This is not like a government operated ombudsman, but it needs to be and we will push for it in parliament.

William H Brown and I Am Sold diddled me out of my LIFE SAVINGS and they would not offer even a penny of recompense - even with 3rd party evidence. The whole thing is an exercise in psychological manipulation, TORTURE and time wasting.

What an appalling process to go through, from a huge lack of timescale, communication, knowledge and genuinely a poor experience after reporting such a straight forward problem.

TPO decided to take the information that the agent relayed to them which was factually inaccurate relating to removal of goods the day before completion, the agent advised it was the day before exchange, hence they based their decision on this information.

This has taken 6 months to get to this point.

After a poor repose email from my following up it's juts left a very poor taste in my mouth and what is the point of this service in the first place if they don't listen or accept the factual evidence provided!!

It's shocking, absolutely shocking!

As others have said, this is a totally corrupt service that is biased in favour of its paying member agents. I was surprised to be given a peanuts award by the adjudicator and her reasoning made no sense so I asked to see the emails the agent had sent her. Firstly the TPO let the agent send in WORD documents instead of original emails and secondly, and much more seriously, the agents emails had deliberately ADDED one whole new email from them and DELETED one whole original email from us, the complainant. This is FRAUD and a deliberate attempt to corrupt the complaints process. I told TPO this but they have repeatedly and laughably denied the agent's emails have been faked, despite the fact that any monkey can see that this is true :D It is beyond a joke. I'm writing to the government department responsible for this corrupt organisation. and KEYWEST in LEICESTER are the agents committing this FRAUD. Avoid them at all costs.

Polygon Management Company Limited’s experience of The Property Ombudsman Service was deeply troubling.

This was a business complaint concerning serious management and complaint-handling failures by one of its member agents. The complaint raised substantive issues about missing records, unsupported assertions, continuing non-response, ongoing prejudice, and a failure to deal properly with formal complaints. TPO reduced that complaint to something far narrower and safer, then treated a token £100 offer as “fair and reasonable” without giving any proper or transparent explanation of how that conclusion had been reached.

What followed was worse. When the reasoning was challenged and the basic decision-record material was requested so the outcome could be properly understood and tested, TPO refused to engage in any meaningful way. When formal pre-action correspondence was then sent, the response was effectively that there would be no further engagement unless proceedings were issued.

That is not the conduct of a body that inspires confidence as an independent ombudsman. It is the conduct of an organisation acting as a buffer between member businesses and proper scrutiny.

In PMC’s experience, TPO was opaque, dismissive, evasive and institutionally unwilling to examine either the member’s failings or its own. It presented the appearance of accountability without delivering the substance of it.

Businesses and consumers alike should think very carefully before placing reliance on this private company as a genuine route to redress. In PMC’s experience, this is not a body fit to hold itself out as an effective ombudsman service and should not exist.