The start of a new year is always a useful moment for me to take stock of how disputes are being handled across the private rented sector, what more we can do to support agents to improve, and what that tells us about where the industry is heading. Increasingly, dispute resolution is no longer something that sits in the background. It is shaping regulation, professionalism and consumer confidence.
From our vantage point at Property Redress, the nature of complaints coming through the system has remained broadly consistent. Issues around poor service, property management failures, rent collection and tenancy-related disputes continue to dominate. What has changed, however, is the regulatory expectation around how these issues are handled and how quickly.
Too often, disputes escalate not because of serious wrongdoing, but because early complaints are not managed effectively. Delays in response, unclear explanations, inconsistent processes, and poor record-keeping remain common themes. Once trust breaks down, even relatively minor issues can harden into formal disputes.
This places renewed emphasis on the role of redress, not as a last resort, but as part of a wider framework that supports good agents and landlords in resolving problems early and fairly.
The evolving role of redress
Redress exists first and foremost to support landlords and agents. It provides an independent, evidence-based mechanism for resolving disputes where internal processes have failed to deliver an outcome. Crucially, it also acts as a benchmark for professionalism, highlighting what good complaint handling should look like in practice.
For agents, redress should not be treated as just another compliance requirement to be ticked off. It is a safeguard that protects businesses from reputational damage, inconsistent decision-making and unnecessary legal escalation. When used properly, redress reinforces good practice rather than undermining it.
As regulatory oversight increases, the role of redress schemes will inevitably expand. This is not about catching agents outbut rather about raising standards across the sector and ensuring that disputes are resolved proportionately, transparently and consistently.
As I sit here on a wet January day, I find myself thinking about a recent case involving a leaking roof that remained unresolved for nine months. The issue had been reported, correspondence had taken place and the problem was known, yet meaningful action was repeatedly delayed. During that time, water continued to enter the property, causing damage to walls and personal belongings.
Putting myself in the position of the occupier, I ask a simple question. How long would I be prepared to accept water leaking through my roof before expecting a proper response? In reality, very few of us would tolerate that situation for long. This is exactly how manageable maintenance issues become formal disputes. Not through bad intent, but through delay, drift and a failure to recognise the impact of inaction.
Cases like this underline why timely engagement and effective complaint handling matter. They are not just about meeting procedural requirements. They go to the heart of trust, responsibility and the standards that agents are expected to uphold.
How the new Private Rented Sector Ombudsman will change the landscape
The introduction of the new Private Rented Sector Ombudsman under the Renters’ Rights Act represents a significant shift in dispute resolution. For the first time, all private landlords in England, including those who do not use agents, will be required to register with an Ombudsman scheme.
This expansion is designed to address a long-standing gap in the system, particularly where disputes relate directly to landlord conduct rather than agent actions. It also aims to divert cases away from the courts by providing quicker, cheaper and binding resolutions, supported by mediation where appropriate.
For agents, this development matters. A wider redress net will inevitably increase scrutiny of how disputes are handled at every stage. Agents will increasingly find their internal complaint handling examined not just by redress schemes, but within a broader ecosystem of ombudsman oversight, landlord registration and consumer accountability.
Why in house complaint handling must improve
Against this backdrop, robust in-house complaint handling is essential. Agents who fail to resolve complaints early are more likely to see issues escalate externally, with greater cost, greater exposure and less control over outcomes.
Effective complaint handling requires more than a written procedure. It demands trained staff, clear escalation routes, consistent record-keeping and a culture that treats complaints as opportunities to resolve issues, not as administrative irritations.
In our experience, many disputes referred to redress schemes could have been avoided entirely if agents had stronger internal processes and clearer communication from the outset. As the regulatory framework tightens, those weaknesses will become harder to defend.
A moment of opportunity for the sector
There has been understandable concern about the potential for consumer confusion where multiple ombudsman schemes exist. However, the principle of accessible, affordable and effective dispute resolution is not in question. What matters now is how well the system is joined up, and how prepared agents are to operate within it.
For agents, 2026 should be seen as a moment of opportunity to strengthen complaint handling, demonstrate professionalism and embed dispute resolution as part of everyday business practice. Redress should not be viewed as something imposed on the sector, but as something that supports it.
Disputes will always arise. The difference now is that expectations around how they are handled are higher than ever. Agents who understand this, invest in better processes and engage constructively with redress will be far better placed to navigate the changes ahead.
