Property Redress, an independent organisation dedicated to resolving disputes between consumers and property agents in the UK, expelled 48 letting and estate agents from its scheme between May and October 2024, it has announced.
The government approved firm said these expulsions followed unresolved consumer complaints, unpaid awards, and non-cooperation with the complaints process. While 12 of those agents were reinstated after complying with the scheme’s requirements, a significant number remain barred from redress membership due to ongoing non-compliance.
The six cases outlined below are examples of agents who remain expelled, highlighting the failings that led to their removal. In each case, consumers were left out of pocket, exposed to risk, or experienced unacceptable levels of service. The agents failed to engage with the complaints process, settle awards, or meet their professional obligations.
The Fountayne Group Ltd – block management repair issue
Expelled after not engaging in the complaint process about a leaking roof, poor block management, and inflammatory communication. The case resulted in a £600 award for distress and inconvenience. The company has gone into liquidation.
Renta Properties Ltd – rent collection and poor communication
Expelled despite agreeing to an early resolution. The company did not pay a £100 award for poor communication and provided insufficient evidence about the missing rent payments. The company, based in Reading, appears active.
Genesis City Ltd – Rent collection, tenancy deposits, poor communication
Expelled following a complaint from a landlord who had terminated the agent’s management of five flats due to poor service. The agent did not transfer outstanding rent collected on the landlord’s behalf, withheld tenancy deposits, and did not provide valid deposit protection certificates. As the agent did not engage in the complaints process, the decision was based solely on the complainant’s evidence. A compensation award of £4,202.06 was made for unpaid rent, along with an additional £500 for distress and inconvenience. The agent was also instructed to provide all deposit protection certificates and to cooperate in transferring the deposits to the landlord’s own protection account, as required under tenancy deposit regulations. The company status is active proposal to strike off.
Jigsaw Lettings (based in Spalding, Lincolnshire) – poor management
Expelled after poor management of 15 rental properties in line with expected standards. The agent neglected routine inspections and did not provide essential handover documents when the complainant appointed a new agent. Despite repeated chasers, including from the new agent, key documents such as tenancy agreements, gas and electrical safety certificates, and tenant contact details remained outstanding. A £1,775 payment also remained unexplained. The agent did not engage with the process, and while deposit-related claims were not upheld due to lack of evidence, the complaint was upheld based on poor service and non-compliance. An award of £3,000 was made for distress, inconvenience and missing documentation, with instructions to provide all outstanding records and confirm payment.
YourGaff Ltd – Rent collection
Expelled for not passing on two months of rent (£1,100) and ignoring requests for rent arrears proceedings and handover documents. An additional £100 compensation was also unpaid. The company status is active proposal to strike off.
APX Estate Agents Ltd – tenancy deposit
Expelled after not releasing a £1,700 tenancy deposit, despite acknowledging the request and agreeing to pay. The award remains unsettled and company appears still active.
The cases referenced in this report relate to complaints concluded during the period from May to October 2024, though the underlying issues may date back further. This reflects Property Redress’s commitment to providing agents with a reasonable opportunity to comply with decisions before formal expulsion is confirmed and then an additional amount of time to rectify the situation before the names of expelled agents are published. In a significant number of cases, agents who initially do not comply with their responsibilities later return to settle awards, provide non-financial information and pay any outstanding penalty fees, at which point they may be reinstated. Allowing this period makes sure that expulsions are only recorded where there has been sustained non-compliance. The reasons for delays in compliance can be complex, and the scheme’s approach is designed to balance consumer protection with a fair and proportionate process.
Sean Hooker, head of redress at Property Redress, commented: “Agents who do not engage in the complaints process, ignore their professional responsibilities, or withhold client money are not only breaking trust, they fall short of the service they owe the people their business is there to serve. These expulsions reflect our zero-tolerance approach to non-compliance. Our aim is not only to protect consumers but to raise standards in the industry. We urge landlords, tenants, and homeowners to check that their agents remain members of a government-approved redress scheme and to report any misconduct immediately.”
Property Redress continues to work closely with enforcement bodies and industry regulators to make sure that expelled agents are prevented from re-entering the market without settling their responsibilities.
The organisation’s disciplinary process includes opportunities for resolution, but expulsion is a necessary last resort when agents refuse to comply.
