In my role as Head of Redress, I have the benefit of seeing a wide range of disputes across the private rented sector. That perspective gives a broader view of the challenges landlords and agents face, many of which only become visible when something has already gone wrong. By sharing real examples from our casework, the aim is not to criticise, but to help landlords and agents understand how issues arise and how similar situations can be avoided.

Refurbishment work is one of the areas where misunderstandings between landlords and agents can arise. Once a tenancy ends and a property needs attention, the focus is usually on getting works underway quickly so it can be re-let. In that process, it is easy for assumptions to be made about who is responsible for what.

We recently looked at a case involving a landlord who asked their agent to oversee refurbishment works following a tenancy. The agent sourced contractors, obtained quotations and coordinated the project. The landlord selected one of the proposed contractors and the works began in two agreed stages, with the first stage paid upfront and the second to be funded from rental income once the property was producing rent again.

Difficulties arose when the first stage was completed to what the landlord believed was an unsatisfactory standard, and the contractor then withdrew before the second stage commenced. Despite that, deductions continued from rental income for works that had not been carried out, and disagreement followed about who should bear the loss. The key issue in a situation like this is who instructed the contractor?

Where an agent manages the refurbishment, sources the contractor, issues instructions and makes payment to that contractor, the legal relationship will usually sit between the agent and the contractor. That has important consequences.

Under the law of agency, an agent who appoints a contractor on behalf of a landlord can be responsible for that contractor’s actions. If the work is not completed or is carried out poorly, the landlord’s recourse is generally against the agent. The agent may then pursue the contractor separately, but that is not something the landlord has to resolve directly.

In this particular case, it was clear that the agent had taken on the role of managing and instructing the contractor. As a result, responsibility for incomplete works and elements that fell below standard sat with the agent. Deductions for works that were never carried out were not justified and had to be repaid.

Where the quality of work was disputed, the position was less straightforward. Much of the work had been undertaken, but questions remained over quality. Without an independent expert view, it is difficult for a redress scheme to judge the finer details of workmanship. However, where specifications, photographs and records clearly show that certain elements are incomplete or substandard, an appropriate financial adjustment can be made.

There are practical lessons here for landlords.

First, be absolutely clear about who is appointing contractors. If your agent is taking responsibility for sourcing, instructing and paying them, then in most cases that responsibility carries legal consequences.

Second, ensure there is a clear written framework for refurbishment management. That should cover scope of works, payment stages, quality expectations and what happens if a contractor fails to complete the job.

Third, link payments to progress and verification. Agree in advance how completion will be assessed before further payments are made or deducted from rent.

Fourth, make sure proper contractual arrangements are in place with subcontractors. If something goes wrong, the party that appointed the contractor must be in a position to enforce the agreement.

Finally, keep detailed records. Specifications, approvals, invoices, inspection notes and photographs all provide clarity if matters are later questioned.

A dispute like this is rarely about deliberate wrongdoing but they often arise because roles were not clearly defined or assumptions were made about who would carry the risk if a contractor failed to deliver.

For landlords looking to make improvements to their properties, it is worth pausing before works begin to ensure that responsibilities are clearly understood. Doing so can prevent significant cost and disagreement further down the line.

‍