With a keen eye for the structural integrity of both buildings and business practices, Luca Calaraili has built a reputation for dissecting the complexities of the construction and property management industries. His passion for technology and innovation is matched only by his deep understanding of the regulatory frameworks that hold the sector together. Today, we explore the critical role of ombudsman schemes and the real-world consequences for firms that fall out of compliance.
Considering the case where a letting agent failed to return £725 in rent, an additional £150 was awarded for “aggravation.” How does the ombudsman quantify such non-monetary damages, and what specific actions by a firm typically lead to these kinds of penalties?
That’s an excellent question because it gets to the heart of consumer protection. Quantifying something like “aggravation” isn’t an exact science, but it’s based on the tangible impact of a firm’s failure on a person’s life. In the case of Noble Living, the firm didn’t just make a mistake with the £725; their specific failure was a complete refusal to rectify it. They passed the money to the landlord and then washed their hands of the situation, ignoring the tenant’s pleas. This inaction creates significant distress and inconvenience. The ombudsman looks at the level of disregard shown, the time and energy the consumer had to waste chasing a resolution, and the emotional toll. That £150 penalty is a clear signal that a firm’s duty doesn’t end with a transaction; it extends to professional and ethical conduct, and actively avoiding a resolution is a breach that carries a quantifiable cost.
One firm was ordered to pay £875 for a financial error, while another faced a £50 award for poor communication. What does this disparity reveal about how the ombudsman weighs financial harm versus service failures? Please walk me through the process of assessing these different complaints.
The disparity you’re pointing out is quite revealing and highlights a very deliberate methodology. The ombudsman’s process is fundamentally about making the complainant whole. In the Noble Living case, the core of the award, £725, was a direct reimbursement of a financial loss. The additional £150 was for the associated trouble. With Blocsphere Property Management, the issue was poor communication. While frustrating, it didn’t result in a direct, quantifiable financial loss for the tenant in the same way. The £50 award serves as a formal acknowledgment of the service failure and the inconvenience it caused, essentially a penalty for not meeting acceptable standards of conduct. The process starts by identifying the core harm: Is it a direct financial loss, a service lapse, or both? The financial loss is addressed first, and then a value is assigned to the service failure based on its severity and impact, which is why you see such a significant difference between the two awards.
Since the ombudsman is not a regulator and expulsion is a last resort, what are the immediate practical consequences for an expelled firm? Could you detail the steps involved when a non-compliant business is referred to enforcement authorities and what that process entails for the firm?
This is a critical distinction to understand. While The Property Ombudsman (TPO) isn’t a regulator with powers to, say, legally shut a business down, expulsion is far from a slap on the wrist. The most immediate consequence is a massive loss of credibility. A firm needs to be part of an approved redress scheme to trade legally, so expulsion effectively makes them an industry pariah. When TPO refers a non-compliant firm to an authority like Trading Standards, it’s a serious escalation. The authority then has the power to investigate and pursue legal action, which can lead to hefty fines or even prosecution. The firm is no longer dealing with an industry body but a government enforcement agency. It’s a move from a process of resolution to one of legal enforcement, which is a much more perilous and costly situation for any business to find itself in.
With over 99% of members complying with ombudsman awards, what drives this high adherence rate across the industry? Given that firms can be readmitted after paying, what specific steps must an expelled business take to regain its standing, and how common is this path to reinstatement?
The incredibly high compliance rate—over 99%—is driven by a blend of professional integrity and pure business sense. For the vast majority of the over 19,000 registered businesses, complying with a TPO decision is simply part of doing business correctly and maintaining their reputation. The threat of expulsion and referral to enforcement authorities is a powerful deterrent. For the tiny fraction that are expelled, like the 13 businesses in 2025, the path back is straightforward but requires humility. The first and non-negotiable step is to pay the outstanding award in full. After that, they must reapply for membership and demonstrate that they have addressed the issues that led to the complaint. The fact that two firms were readmitted in 2025 shows it’s a viable path, but it’s not a common one because most firms never let it get that far. It’s far easier and cheaper to just pay the initial award.
Do you have any advice for our readers?
Absolutely. Whether you are a tenant, landlord, or property owner, my advice is to always verify that the property business you are dealing with is a member of a redress scheme like The Property Ombudsman. It’s your single most important safety net. This high compliance rate, with over 99% of members paying their awards, shows that the system works. It ensures that if something does go wrong, you have a clear, binding, and effective path to resolution without having to resort to costly legal battles. Don’t just assume a firm is compliant; check their credentials. It’s a simple step that provides immense peace of mind.
