The Property Ombudsman Anmeldelser 

Although the process with TPO was lengthy, Sebastian Towers promptly reviewed my case and assisted with my claim against the estate agent.

I am pleased with the outcome and the discretion applied by Sebastian for my case - everything was taken into consideration including the distress I had suffered as a result of the estate agent.

TPO dragged on our complaint for years then closed our case under Paragraph 12(c), saying we had failed to engage with its process. When asked to identify the information allegedly requested, the dates, deadlines, reminders, warnings, and what was supposedly missing, TPO did not provide an answer.

We then complained about TPO’s own service: non-response, unsupported closure reasoning, failure to operate its complaints route, and failure to explain why a manager appeared to respond to a complaint concerning his own handling.

TPO then said the matter was not a service complaint. The Independent Reviewer said he had no remit because TPO had chosen not to accept it as a service complaint.

That creates a closed loop: TPO decides whether criticism of TPO counts as a service complaint; if TPO says no, there is no Stage 1, no Stage 2, and no Independent Reviewer.

In our experience, that is not meaningful redress. It is a self-protecting process which allows TPO to avoid answering basic factual questions about its own conduct.

A redress body should be transparent, accountable, and willing to explain its decisions. Our experience was the opposite. We consider this a deeply unsatisfactory service, and I do not believe an organisation operating in this way should be described as an effective ombudsman service. It should not exist and the employees are unpleasant.

I am extremely disappointed with my experience with The Property Ombudsman.
I approached TPO expecting an independent, impartial and thorough investigation. Instead, I found the process frustrating, rigid and, in my view, seriously lacking in proper investigation.
My biggest concern is not simply that I disagreed with the outcome. It is the way my complaint was handled. Important points and inconsistencies were raised, yet I felt they were dismissed rather than properly investigated.
I was initially told that TPO would come back to me with the next steps. Instead, without any proper explanation or meaningful opportunity to address the outstanding issues, I was informed that my case had been closed.
This was particularly disappointing because I had been advised by several letting agents and my solicitor that the conduct I was complaining about was potentially unlawful. I therefore expected TPO to take those concerns seriously and investigate them properly rather than simply closing the matter.
Even more concerning, I was not provided with the evidence that TPO relied upon to reach its conclusions. I raised serious concerns about the accuracy and authenticity of documents and information supplied by the other party, as I believed some of the material appeared to have been fabricated or manipulated to support their position. Rather than properly addressing those concerns or allowing me to see and challenge the evidence being relied upon, I felt they were simply dismissed.
When information provided by the other party appeared inconsistent with my evidence, I expected TPO to ask questions, investigate the discrepancies and establish the facts. Instead, I felt that the process largely accepted one side's information without sufficiently challenging it.
I also found the communication extremely disappointing. Despite repeatedly asking to speak to someone to explain the issues, I was effectively dealt with through written responses and told that the matter was closed.
Surely, if an Ombudsman service is genuinely impartial, when a complainant raises credible concerns about the evidence, the appropriate response should be to investigate those concerns, not simply find reasons why they cannot be considered.
The overall impression I was left with was that the process was more focused on closing the case than properly resolving the dispute.
Being told there is effectively no further internal escalation when you believe the investigation itself has been inadequate is extremely frustrating.
An Ombudsman service should be somewhere consumers can have confidence that their concerns will be properly heard, investigated and challenged where necessary. Unfortunately, that was not my experience with TPO.
Very disappointing. I felt the service was neither sufficiently thorough nor genuinely engaging. I would not recommend TPO to anyone expecting a robust and impartial investigation. Follow up the team did not provide anything and it did not fall out of scope, evidence has been fabricated by the other side which is clear. Farce of an investigation now trying to justify with this response. Continuing to allow rogue letting agents to act underhanded.

A poor and frustrating experience overall, and the process took several months. The ombudsman appeared to accept the lettings agent's response without question, and simply paraphrased the majority of it in their response. I appreciate that the ombudsman has a difficult task here: the apparently unchallengeable content of the lettings agent's "final view point" means that the ombudsman appears to be left trying to make a decision based on hearsay.

I raised a complaint with the Property Ombudsman regarding a dispute I had with a letting agent and submitted clear evidence in support of my case. Despite this, the Ombudsman investigated my complaint but rejected it on the basis of what they considered to be “reasonable,” rather than addressing the facts and evidence presented.
I then challenged the process for reaching this decision, particularly given the Ombudsman’s stated commitment to impartiality. In my view, impartiality should mean reaching a decision based on the evidence, facts and applicable rules, rather than subjective interpretations of what is deemed “reasonable.” However, despite this, my challenge was rejected without any meaningful response to the concern I had raised about the impartiality of their decision-making process.
This gave me the distinct impression that the evidence I provided was not given the objective consideration I would expect from an organisation whose role is to provide an impartial assessment of disputes.

Very disappointing experience. Despite providing detailed evidence of significant defects and financial loss, TPO closed the complaint as having “no reasonable prospect of success” without meaningfully addressing the central issue we raised: whether the survey adequately communicated the relative severity and financial significance of the risks identified. The process felt superficial and provided little meaningful consumer redress.

Frustrating interaction- TPO seem to exist to protect its members NOT consumers. contacted them last year AFTER a few call before to understand the process. After submitting a detailed complaint, an advisor replied that I had not referred to Formal Complaint. this was not highlighted in my conversations with them.

I know from the many negative reviews about the company in question that they have gone to the TPO.

Also, TPO do not publish upheld complaints . Why not?

When I called today, I learned that they can only investigate complaints within 1 year - again a point not made clear in my communications. even though I had made the complaint within a year I was not assured in any way by their response.

I also learned today that the company in question is no longer a member of TPO, they have moved to the Property Redress Scheme

Re TPO21844. I tried to submit the same data a third time on reading your latest pusillanimous emails but your tedious website will not let me. But then you don't actually read my emails. I did not ask you to turn anyone into the police. I suggested you ask PPM to turn themselves into the police. You say you cannot take on the role of the police but the police are the public and the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence or so was Sir Robert Peel's original concept of Policing by Consent. Your concept of it seems to be that on perceiving criminal corruption and conspiracies you just let them go by as they are not part of your purview. I would remind you that hiding evidence to protect a suspect can lead to a charge of perverting the course of justice or assisting an offender but of course that can't happen to you and I am "unprofessional" for mentioning it ... even though I was not on wages to start with. So anyway if you could sort out your form so I can go through the tedious process of re-entering all the same data for a fourth time... because your terms of reference are so narrow even paper doll man couldn't get through them...

this property ombudsman is a joke these estate agents get away with a lot of things

I would like to thank Louise, Initial Enquiries Advisor, for her outstanding support. Louise is professional, and provided clear guidance and real customer service. A real credit to The Property Ombudsman.

I had an excellent experience with the TPO team who handled my disputed rental payment. They were professional, responsive, and supportive throughout the process, keeping me informed every step of the way. While the process can take some time due to the high volume of complaints the TPO handles, I always felt my case was handled fairly and the outcome reflected that. In particular, many thanks to Mrs KR’s dedication, my case was successfully resolved. I truly appreciate the outstanding service and highly recommend the TPO team.

I have proven to the property ombudsman (TPO) that my previous estate agent broke 5 or 6 articles on the code of practice and/or the landlord and tenants act and the TPO could not progress my claim.

The estate agent broke the following rules:
- failed to provide the landlord contract details after 21 days of a written request (they failed this law twice)
- they published an advert that states that there is no asbestos in a property and they have no proof that there is no asbestos in the property (asbestos certificate) and the property was build well before the asbestos ban.
- they have falsified the date on a letter with specific information that they did not receive until 10 days after the date of the letter they sent me.

So if the issue you have is more a legal issue rather than a simple dispute in the service you receive, the TPO cannot do anything.

If this is the case for you bypass the TPO and go directly to court.

Totally Biased results after 3 months of investigation

Why does this organization even exist? My apartment was severely abused and damaged, and the managing estate agents failed in their duties. After spending weeks meticulously compiling my evidence, TPO rejected my case without even reading the timeline correctly.

They threw my file back at me, claiming the agent needs 8 weeks to respond. The agent has had my formal complaint for 15 weeks. TPO didn't even bother to look at the dates on my submission. Instead of actually reviewing the evidence or holding agents accountable, they act as a bureaucratic shield to protect bad estate agents. Looking at the sea of 1-star reviews here, it's entirely obvious I am not the only one experiencing this. They are a useless buffer, not a genuine ombudsman. An absolute shambles of an organization.

There is a very clear reason why The Property Ombudsman (TPO) sits at a miserable 1.3-star rating on Trustpilot. They are not a genuine avenue for justice; they are an administrative gatekeeping exercise designed to close cases as quickly as possible for their own convenience.

My experience proved that TPO staff do not listen to consumers. When my complaint was handled, staff completely mischaracterized the core issue, ignored critical evidence of an agent's statutory default, and misapplied their own jurisdictional rules. When I provided written clarifications, they were ignored.

The worst part of this scheme is the deliberate "Catch-22" loophole they have engineered to avoid accountability:

If you tell the Resolution Team they made a mistake or ignored evidence, they block you by saying their decision is final.

If you then use the Service Complaint route to report that staff failed to follow their own mandatory processes and Terms of Reference, the Administration Team immediately rejects it by re-labeling those process failures as unreviewable "substantive decisions."

By operating this broken loop, TPO has insulated itself from its own service standards. They can broker settlements with agents behind your back without your involvement, rubber-stamp "reviews" of complex evidence in under 24 hours, and then completely refuse to look at their own staff's mistakes.

If you think this ombudsman is there to protect consumers and uphold fairness, save your time and energy. They are toothless, bureaucratic, and entirely unfit for purpose. Reject any insulting "goodwill" gestures they offer and take your case straight to the First-tier Tribunal or legal channels where actual rules apply.

Appalling. I have no idea why this entity even exists. They side purely with the big businesses that scam small people and work in their favour only. Our agent cost us thousands of pounds in losses and stole from us but this ombudsman favoured that they had done nothing wrong.a complete waste of time then they end up sending responses saying to contact them for any further help. Do not entertain them

I’ve waited patiently for nearly 7 to hear back from someone with regards to my letting agent complaint only to now be given a 3 day deadline to provide all the information once more for the third time. The system is completely broken and I guess they have zero intention in helping me in the first place. Feel seriously let down they were my only hope.

I used this scheme to complain about a managing agent and found the process disappointing.

The Ombudsman identified service failings and made a small compensation award. However, the key issues I raised were never meaningfully addressed. The focus appeared to be on whether the agent's communication met expected standards rather than whether the underlying concerns were properly investigated.

I provided extensive documentary evidence, including correspondence and supporting documents, yet several points were either dismissed as not affecting the outcome or treated as outside the scope of the review.

I was particularly surprised that the process did not operate in the way many people would expect from an independent adjudication service. It felt more like a review of complaint handling than a detailed examination of the substance of the dispute.

Leaseholders considering this route should carefully understand its limitations before investing significant time and effort. In my case, after many months of correspondence, I did not feel the process provided meaningful resolution.

Nothing but delays - Should be ZERO stars
Non profit organisation or not is there excuse for a waste of space lengthy delay 6 MONTHS started this year on a case.
These numpties have NO regard for anyone apart from paid MEMBERS- fact.
Adjudicators - more like overpaid actors
Jennifer Harris - the usual consensus typical response for someone who has worked over 20 yrs.

Landlord and Tenants this is a corrupt biased organisation only there to protect the PAID members- BEWARE

Any replies from TPO go and run off a cliff. You bunch of Hyporcrites

Funded by its members - that tells you everything that you need to know.

Although they claim to be independent, they appear disappointingly biased towards their fee-paying members. They do not take an objective view of any complaints against those who fund them. They ask for lots of information, and then even more information, but simply ignore any evidence that they do not want to acknowledge.

The over-long, repetitive emails from TPO take months to arrive and are, quite frankly, not worth the wait.

Unfortunately this organisation does not provide the fair, equitable service that it claims. Taking a ridiculous amount of time to deliver disingenuous 'resolutions' appears to be the norm, as the overwhelming number of one star reviews confirms.