A landlord was awarded compensation and received a formal apology after a managing agent's handling of a complaint was found to have fallen below the standards expected of a professional property management business.

The dispute centred not on the original issue that prompted the complaint, but on how the agent responded once concerns had been formally raised.

The landlord argued that the agent failed to acknowledge the complaint promptly, did not explain the complaints process clearly and provided little information about who was investigating the matter or when a full response would be issued.

According to the complaint, repeated chasing was required before any meaningful response was received. The landlord also said the replies that were eventually provided were incomplete, defensive in tone and failed to address all the concerns raised.

As a result, the landlord claimed the poor complaint handling prolonged the dispute and caused unnecessary inconvenience, frustration and wasted time. They sought a formal apology, an explanation of what had gone wrong and compensation for the inconvenience caused.

Agent admits communication could have been better

The managing agent denied ignoring the complaint or deliberately obstructing the process but accepted that communication could have been improved and acknowledged delays in issuing a full response.

The firm said staffing pressures and the need to gather information internally had affected its response times. It also maintained that some of the landlord's concerns had already been addressed in previous correspondence.

Evidence considered included the formal complaint, email exchanges, responses issued by the agent, records of contact and details of the firm's internal complaints procedure.

Lack of transparency identified

The complaint was resolved at the early resolution stage, an informal process designed to help parties reach an agreement before a formal decision becomes necessary.

The review found that while the landlord had attempted to follow the agent's complaints procedure and the agent had engaged with the complaint, the matter was not handled in a clear, structured or timely manner.

Correspondence showed no clear evidence that the complaint had been formally logged, fully investigated and responded to as a single complaint. The assessor also found that the landlord had not been given sufficient information about who was handling the complaint, what stage it had reached or when a final response could be expected.

In addition, several points raised by the landlord were not fully addressed.

The assessor concluded that the agent's complaint handling fell below the standard reasonably expected and that poor communication had caused avoidable inconvenience and frustration.

Apology and compensation

As part of the resolution, the agent agreed to provide a written apology acknowledging delays in responding, a lack of transparency within its complaints process and shortcomings in the responses provided.

The apology was also required to recognise that these failings had caused the landlord avoidable stress and had contributed to the escalation of the dispute.

The agent was further required to pay £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused.

Sean Hooker, Head of Redress at Property Redress said:

Your complaint’s process as an agent is essential and you and your staff should be aware of it and stick rigidly to the procedure and the deadlines. We at Property Redress, ask you to have a complaints policy in place, in writing and easily accessible for people to raise concerns over your service. Always ensure that you fully understand what the complaint is about, what the complainant wants as a resolution and do not underestimate the power of an apology!

Key lesson for landlords and agents

The case highlights the importance of effective complaint handling, regardless of the underlying dispute.

Landlords who raise formal concerns should expect clear communication, timely updates and a comprehensive final response that addresses every material point. Equally, agents should make sure complaints are properly logged, investigated and managed through a transparent process.

The outcome also serves as a reminder that even where there is no diredect financial loss, poor complaint handling can result in compensation awards where unnecessary delay, frustration and inconvenience have been caused.

‍