As a business owner we have a right to reply and put the full facts of this so called complaint from Mr Adam Bowen. Mr Bowen has chosen to make it personal in stating that Haydn Yemm is unprofessional, unreasonable and agreesive. Which the TPOS has thrown out after reading all the subsequent emails. I have been an estate agent over 35 years and dealt with thousands of clients in variuous different property tranactions. Mr Bowen wasnt happy with the length of time it took for the transction to go through which as most people know is down to solicitors. He contstantly called my staff and my self liars which as a business owner I was not standing for. Our role as Estate Agents is to act in our clients best interest at all times which we did. The owner has also posted a 5 star review on All agents for the service recieved by my staff and myself during the sale process. What he missed out on his petty complaint is that my staff negotiated with the owner to store his furniture whilst the sale was going through to save money on storage costs. This was arranged but Mr Bowen was still not happy and demanded the heating be put on to protect his furniture all at the owners expense. Mr Bowen came into our office to borrow the keys to check his furniture and whispered to one of my staff that he will be renegotiating the price due to the delay with probate. I then notified Mr Bowen that the owner will definatley renegotiate but unfourtunately wants the price to increase which he thought i was unprofessional and aggressive. I was taking my clients instructions that if he was to mess about with the price she would remarket at a higher figure. For me passing on this information he didnt like the response. Mr Bowen contstantly threatened to pull out of the transaction which I replied that he can do that at any time throughout the transaction and if he could please cinfirm which he obviously didnt. Part of his complaint which you can see below was key collection day no one from my sales team were in the office that afternoon ( Friday ) as they were all on appointments and the keys were dealt with by my Lettings department which is a basic handing over once ID is confirmed. Bearing in mind we manage over 350 rented properties this is something they are more than qualified to handle. Mr Bowen was still not happy. He was awarded £150 to be paid by 11th October which a payment was set up to be actioned for that day as I was away on annual leave out of the country. This little keyboard warririor was still not satisfied with that so chose to post his 1 star review on all agents to try and damage my business. As you can see from our presence on allagents we have hundreds of 5 star reviews from very satisfied clients and have recently won awards across all three of our offices. We are currently liasing with our company solicitors regarding the content of Mr Bowens slanderous comments and preparing a case which I will post the findings here. Regards Haydn Yemm MNAEA Managing Director AGAINST COMPLETE ESTATE AGENTS (RUGBY) LTD (USING A TRADING STYLE OF COMPLETE ESTATE AGENTS) 2 3 Reference: 74805TPO050422 8 August 2022 COMPLAINT BY MR ADAM BOWEN AGAINST COMPLETE ESTATE AGENTS (RUGBY) LTD (USING A TRADING STYLE OF COMPLETE ESTATE AGENTS) BACKGROUND This case concerns the complaint by Mr Bowen (the Buyer and Complainant) against Complete Estate Agents (CEA), raised in connection with the performance of their branch in Rugby, whilst buying * (the Property). I have considered the specific complaints within the TPO Complaints Form and, where relevant, the information in the Case History (although I may not necessarily comment on it in my Review). The Complainant has already been sent a copy of the Agent’s undated submission letter and his response, dated 18 April 2022, has been taken into account in reaching my findings. I note from the evidence provided that both Mr Bowen and Miss Ashleigh Adams were purchasing the Property. However, I also note that Mr Bowen took the lead in correspondence with CEA in relation to the complaint and is the only Complainant who has completed the Complaints Form. For the avoidance of doubt, I will not accept a separate complaint from Miss Adams relating to the same issues as listed on Mr Bowen’s Complaints Form. As such, any award I may make in relation to financial loss and/or aggravation, distress and inconvenience will be in Full and Final Settlement of those issues. THE ISSUES The issues that I have been asked to examine concern: A. Probate B. Sales progression C. Keys D. Complaints handling OMBUDSMAN’S FINDINGS A. Probate The Complainant has said that CEA provided misleading information regarding the timescales under which Probate would be granted for the Property, to allow the sale to complete. The Complainant says that he was informed at his viewing of the Property that it takes 10 to 12 weeks for Probate to be obtained and that it was applied for in April 2021. The Complainant has said that his solicitor has subsequently advised that they doubted the information provided by CEA was true, as the Probate Office do not give timescales out as to when they will issue a Grant of Probate. CEA’s response is that all information that they relayed to the Complainant was received from the Seller. CEA say that they were given information from the Seller’s solicitor and 4 the Seller regarding the Probate. CEA have said that it was not a straightforward process for the Seller to obtain the Probate but say that they kept all parties updated throughout. Under Paragraph 7i of the TPO Code of Practice, effective from 1 June 2019 (the Code), where CEA gave information to the Complainant, it was required to be accurate and not misleading. In accordance with their obligations under Paragraph 12a of the Code, after acceptance of the Complainant’s offer, CEA were required to report information deemed helpful to bringing the transaction to fruition. Within their response of 7 February 2022, CEA said that the Seller informed them prior to the commencement of marketing that she had applied for the Grant of Probate to be issued. However, I have not been provided with any contemporaneous written evidence to allow me to establish the exact information provided by the Seller, nor have I been provided with any evidence of CEA’s communication with the Complainant in relation to the Probate, or the timescales in which this was expected to be obtained. I am critical of CEA for not providing written records of their communication with the Seller and the Complainant regarding the Probate being required, as I am unable to determine whether CEA relayed information that the Seller provided, or if they provided approximate timescales to the Complainant, based on their previous experience of selling properties which required Probate to be issued before completion. I support the complaint, due to the lack of evidence provided to show that CEA communicated the information they were provided with in the first instance, in accordance with their obligations under Paragraph 7i of the Code. I consider that the lack of evidence to show that the information relayed to the Complainant verbally was as that received from the Seller has caused the Complainant avoidable aggravation, distress and inconvenience which merits an award of compensation. It is CEA’s obligation to provide sufficient evidence to show that they communicated appropriately, to which they have not disputed providing the Complainant with a timescale in which they expected the Probate to be issued, and I support the complaint as I am unable to establish where the timescale came from. I will not, however, hold CEA responsible for the length of time it took for the Seller to obtain the Probate, in order to progress the sale; CEA had no control over this process and could only relay updates provided by the Seller and her solicitor during the conveyancing process. Having considered the contemporaneous written evidence provided by both parties, I am satisfied that, throughout the conveyancing process, CEA sought updates from the Seller and her solicitor in relation to the application for Probate, which was relayed to the Complainant promptly. This is all CEA could do in the circumstances. I appreciate that the Complainant was frustrated by the time it took for the Probate to be issued, and that the timescales he was provided with initially were exceeded, but this was out of CEA’s control. In some cases, Probate can be issued in a matter of weeks, but there are many factors which can cause this timeframe to be longer, to which CEA could only relay the updates provided to them. I support the complaint for the reasons explained and consider that the Complainant has been caused avoidable aggravation, distress and inconvenience, which merits an award of compensation. B. Sales progression 5 The Complainant has said that CEA advised that solicitors were using the cyber-attack as an excuse for not communicating with clients, which he found to be unprofessional. The Complainant has also said that, when he tried to renegotiate the purchase price of the Property, CEA informed him that the Seller would remove the Property from the market if he attempted this, without speaking to the Seller in the first instance. CEA’s response is that the Seller was using Premier Property Lawyers, who were affected by the cyber-attack. CEA say that they had a conversation with the Seller regarding the market conditions shortly before the Complainant contacted them regarding his wish to renegotiate on the purchase price. Under Paragraph 1e of the Code, CEA were required to communicate with the Complainant consistent with fairness, integrity and best practice, for which I would expect CEA to remain professional within their communication. I would also expect CEA to provide accurate information that had been provided by the Seller, in relation to the transaction. With regard to the information provided in relation to the Seller’s solicitor, I have been provided with a news article from 19 November 2021, which states that Premier Property Lawyers had been unable to access their IT systems following an incident on 7 November 2021, which was causing delays in completing sales. I note that this was the Seller’s solicitor and CEA’s file note of 11 November 2021 states that they made the Complainant aware that the Seller’s solicitor had not been able to work for the past week due to a system issue. CEA’s subsequent file note of 25 November 2021 states that the Seller informed CEA that there were still issues going on with her solicitor. On 1 December 2021, the Complainant said that it was disappointing that CEA had not heard back from the Seller’s solicitors regarding the Probate, to which CEA advised that they were experiencing a high volume of solicitors informing them that they had been unable to get hold of the Seller’s solicitor, but advised that they were fully operational and that they had not experienced issues in contacting the Seller’s solicitor. CEA mentioned that some other solicitors may be using the cyber-attack from the Seller’s solicitor as an excuse for giving them time to work on their cases, but it does not appear that this comment related to either the Seller’s solicitor or the Complainant’s solicitor. The Complainant’s solicitor responded the following day, advising that they had not heard from the Seller’s solicitor to confirm relevant information for the sale, despite being aware that they now had access to their systems again. I acknowledge that the Complainant considers CEA’s comment to have been unprofessional, but I will not criticise CEA for relaying information provided to them by other solicitors, in relation to the IT issue the Seller’s solicitor faced, as well as relaying their own experience in contacting them. It is apparent that CEA and the Complainant’s solicitor had different experiences in attempting to contact the Seller’s solicitor, to which the Complainant’s solicitor’s comment is in line with CEA’s comment regarding what other solicitors had informed them of. The Complainant also said in his email to the Seller of 4 January 2022 that he was aware of a clear communication issue between the solicitors in progressing the sale. I will not hold CEA responsible for the Seller’s solicitor communicating with CEA but not other solicitors, including the Complainant’s solicitor, and I do not consider that CEA made any inappropriate comments regarding the parties of the sale to the Complainant in relation to the cyber-attack and subsequent issues solicitors were facing. 6 With respect to the Complainant’s comment that he wished to renegotiate on the purchase price of the Property, but was informed of the Seller’s stance without CEA contacting the Seller to confirm this, I have been provided with CEA’s file note of 10 December 2021, which shows that they had spoken to the Seller regarding the progression of the sale. Within the file note, CEA stated that the Seller had informed CEA that if the Complainant threatened to withdraw from the sale, she would withdraw from the transaction and request that he remove his belongings that were being stored in the Property pending completion of the sale. CEA’s subsequent file note of 4 January 2022 states that the Complainant went to CEA’s office and mentioned that he may be looking to reduce his offer or withdraw from the sale, due to the time it has taken to progress. Given the Seller’s communication with CEA just over three weeks previously, CEA informed the Complainant that the Seller had already informed them that, if the Complainant tried to negotiate, the Seller would withdraw and remarket the Property. I do not take issue with CEA’s communication in this regard. It is apparent that the Complainant was not satisfied with CEA’s response and he contacted the Seller directly the same day to ask if the information provided by CEA was correct. The Seller responded to the Complainant, confirming that she would not renegotiate on the price and would indeed remarket the Property to achieve a higher sale price if the Complainant attempted this, as nothing was now holding up the sale. From this, I am satisfied that CEA communicated the Seller’s intentions with the Complainant appropriately and accurately, which was confirmed by the Seller directly. I do not take issue with CEA’s communication and, as explained previously, they could only relay what the Seller had informed them of. For the reasons explained, I am satisfied that CEA communicated appropriately with the Complainant and I do not, therefore, support the complaint. C. Keys The Complainant has said that CEA called him to confirm that the sale had completed, but that this staff member then left the office in order to avoid giving him the keys to the Property. CEA’s response is that the keys for the Property were labelled in the office and the keys were collected by the Complainant after completion took place. Under Paragraph 13c of the Code, at completion, CEA were required to offer to assist with the handover of keys during their office working hours. I note that, prior to the completion of the sale, the Complainant stored some of his belongings in the Property with the permission of the Seller and, when he required access to the Property in this regard, he was able to pick up the keys from CEA and return them the same day. Both parties were therefore aware that the Complainant was able to attend CEA’s office to obtain keys for the Property during the conveyancing process. CEA’s file notes state that exchange of contracts took place on 21 January 2022 and completion was set for 28 January 2022. CEA’s file note, made at 11.11 hrs on 28 January 2022 states that the Seller’s solicitors had informed them that the sale had 7 completed and the keys could be released to the Complainant. CEA noted that both the Complainant and the Seller were aware of this. I have not been provided with any further notes to show the events that took place in relation to releasing the keys to the Complainant. The Complainant has said that, when he went to pick up the keys, despite being called by the Sales team to advise that he could pick up the keys, none of the Sales team were at the office when he attended, and he was simply handed an envelope, which he said was an unpleasant experience. I cannot dictate to CEA how to run their business and it is unfortunate if the staff members that the Complainant had been in communication with during the sales process were not in the office to handover the keys upon completion. However, it is apparent that the Complainant was able to obtain the keys in order to access the Property after completion and there were staff in the office to facilitate the handover. I have not been provided with any evidence to indicate that CEA acted inappropriately or that any staff members purposefully left the office so as not to meet with the Complainant when he was collecting the keys. I consider that CEA ensured that the Complainant was provided with the keys promptly upon completion of the sale. I do not support the complaint. D. Complaints handling The Complainant has said that he received aggressive and intimidating emails from CEA in response to his complaint. The Complainant also says that he received an email from the Seller which indicates that CEA had disclosed his complaint to her, causing the Seller to retaliate to him via email. CEA’s response is that they promptly responded to the Complainant’s complaint in order to respond to the issues raised, which they do not consider was aggressive or intimidating, but professional. CEA say that the Complainant emailed the Seller directly, which she was not impressed with, and that their communication was in January 2022, with the Complainant not raising his complaint until 6 February 2022. In accordance with their obligations under best practice (Paragraph 1e of the Code), CEA were required to communicate appropriately and professionally with the Complainant. I would not expect CEA to be aggressive or intimidating within their responses to the complaint raised. I would also not expect CEA to discuss the Complainant’s complaint with the Seller. The Complainant requested CEA’s in-house complaints procedure on 11 January 2022, which was provided to him the next day. The Complainant then raised his complaint on 6 February 2022 and CEA promptly provided their response the following day. The Complainant stated that he was not satisfied with this and would refer the matter to this Office, which CEA acknowledged, advising that they were happy to provide this Office with the evidence they held of their actions during the sale. The Complainant responded, saying that CEA’s intimidation techniques would not work on him. Having examined the content of CEA’s emails of 12 January and 7 and 8 February 2022, I am satisfied that CEA responded to the Complainant in accordance with their obligations under best practice. I do not consider that CEA were aggressive in their response, nor that CEA attempted to intimidate the Complainant in response to being 8 informed that he would contact this Office to escalate his complaint. I am of the view that CEA responded with their view of the issues raised and informed the Complainant of his option to contact this Office, to which they are required to provide this Office with their company file upon request. With regard to the Seller being aware of the complaint, the Complainant says that the Seller said in her email to him of 13 January 2022 that she was happy with CEA’s service, which indicated to him that his threat of a formal complaint was disclosed to her. As explained above, I note that the Complainant requested CEA’s complaint procedure on 11 January 2022, which CEA responded to the following day. However, I have not been provided with any contemporaneous evidence to show that CEA informed the Seller that the Complainant was not satisfied with their service during the transaction. I note that the Complainant emailed the Seller directly on 12 and 13 January 2022, where he said that he was not receiving assurances from CEA that they had spoken to the Seller regarding the signing of the contract and outstanding replies to enquiries made by his solicitor. The Complainant asked the Seller to provide an update, as CEA had not responded to him. Within the Seller’s response of 13 January 2022, she stated that it was not CEA’s job to chase the solicitors and that she was happy with the service they had provided to her in selling the Property. With the context of the Complainant’s emails to the Seller which prompted her response, I am of the view that the Seller was responding to the comments the Complainant had made about CEA’s service. I do not consider that the Seller’s response is sufficient to allow me to conclude that CEA discussed the Complainant having asked for CEA’s complaints procedure with the Seller. From the evidence provided, I am satisfied that CEA communicated appropriately in relation to the Complainant’s complaint. I do not, therefore, support the complaint. CONCLUSION I have supported one of the complaints that have been made and consider that the circumstances merit an award of compensation. My award has been set at the level I consider to be fair, in order to compensate for the avoidable aggravation, distress and inconvenience caused to the Complainant as a result of the shortcomings I have identified in CEA’s service. The Complainant has requested an apology from CEA and would like CEA to change their practices, as well as receiving compensation for the issues raised. My role is to provide a decision in Full and Final Settlement of a complaint, and letters of apology have the potential to give rise to additional dissatisfaction. This is a pertinent point in light of the absence of an expression of empathy within CEA’s submission letter, despite the Complainant requesting this. As such, I consider it unlikely that an apology from CEA would meet the Complainant’s expectations. I do not consider that further communication between the Complainant and CEA is conducive to resolving the complaint. In addition, I am not a regulator of the sales industry and cannot dictate how an agent runs their business. However, I find it 9 important to highlight that I expect CEA to take on board the highlighted shortcomings in service as outlined in the Review, in order to improve their standard of service. I will also make an award of compensation to reflect the avoidable aggravation, distress and inconvenience incurred by the Complainant, as a result of CEA’s shortcomings in this regard. I consider CEA’s acceptance and subsequent payment of the award to the Complainant (should he accept) to be sufficient acknowledgement of the shortcomings identified in their provision of service. Both parties will be informed by my Office of the opportunity to represent against my decision and it may be helpful if I advise that I will only reconsider the case if it can be shown that either my decision was based on a significant error in fact that fundamentally alters a material part of the decision, or significant new evidence has been produced that was not previously available that would have a material effect on my decision. If it were simply the case that either party considers the amount of the award made by me to be unsuitable, this does not alone constitute grounds for Representation. I will also make clear that any Representation must be in writing, sent by letter or email, to allow a proper consideration of the matter. This Office cannot accept representations by telephone. PROPOSED DECISION For the reasons stated in my Review, I have supported one of the complaints that have been made. Accordingly, I make an award of £150 in compensation. This is in full and final settlement of this dispute. Property Ombudsman

As a business owner we have a right to reply and put the full facts of this so called complaint from Mr Adam Bowen. Mr Bowen has chosen to make it personal in stating that Haydn Yemm is unprofessional, unreasonable and agreesive. Which the TPOS has thrown out after reading all the subsequent emails and correspondence . I have been an estate agent over 35 years and dealt with thousands of clients in variuous different property tranactions. Mr Bowen wasnt happy with the length of time it took for the transction to go through which as most people know is down to solicitors. He contstantly called my staff and my self liars which as a business owner I was not standing for. Our role as Estate Agents is to act in our clients best interest at all times which we did. The owner has also posted a 5 star review on All agents for the service recieved by my staff and myself during the sale process. What he missed out on his petty complaint is that my staff negotiated with the owner to store his furniture whilst the sale was going through to save money on storage costs. This was arranged but Mr Bowen was still not happy and demanded the heating be put on to protect his furniture all at the owners expense. Mr Bowen came into our office to borrow the keys to check his furniture and whispered to one of my staff that he will be renegotiating the price due to the delay with probate. I then notified Mr Bowen that the owner will definatley renegotiate but unfourtunately wants the price to increase which he thought i was unprofessional and aggressive. I was taking my clients instructions that if he was to mess about with the price she would remarket at a higher figure. For me passing on this information he didnt like the response. Mr Bowen contstantly threatened to pull out of the transaction which I replied that he can do that at any time throughout the transaction and if he could please cinfirm which he obviously didnt. Part of his complaint which you can see below was key collection day no one from my sales team were in the office that afternoon ( Friday ) as they were all on appointments and the keys were dealt with by my Lettings department which is a basic handing over once ID is confirmed. Bearing in mund we manage over 350 rented properties this is something they are more than qualified to handle. Mr Bowen was still not happy. He was awarded £150 to be paid by 11th October which a payment was set up to be actioned for that day as I was away on annual leave out of the country. This little keyboard warririor was still not satisfied with that so chose to post his 1 star review on all agents to try and damage my business. As you can see from our presence on allagents we have hundreds of 5 star reviews from very satisfied clients and have recently won awards across all three of our offices. We are currently liasing with our company solicitors regarding the content of Mr Bowens slanderous comments and preparing a case which I will post the findings here. Regards Haydn Yemm MNAEA Managing Director AGAINST COMPLETE ESTATE AGENTS (RUGBY) LTD (USING A TRADING STYLE OF COMPLETE ESTATE AGENTS) 2 3 Reference: 74805TPO050422 8 August 2022 COMPLAINT BY MR ADAM BOWEN AGAINST COMPLETE ESTATE AGENTS (RUGBY) LTD (USING A TRADING STYLE OF COMPLETE ESTATE AGENTS) BACKGROUND This case concerns the complaint by Mr Bowen (the Buyer and Complainant) against Complete Estate Agents (CEA), raised in connection with the performance of their branch in Rugby, whilst buying 3 Brookside Avenue, Rugby, Warwickshire (the Property). I have considered the specific complaints within the TPO Complaints Form and, where relevant, the information in the Case History (although I may not necessarily comment on it in my Review). The Complainant has already been sent a copy of the Agent’s undated submission letter and his response, dated 18 April 2022, has been taken into account in reaching my findings. I note from the evidence provided that both Mr Bowen and Miss Ashleigh Adams were purchasing the Property. However, I also note that Mr Bowen took the lead in correspondence with CEA in relation to the complaint and is the only Complainant who has completed the Complaints Form. For the avoidance of doubt, I will not accept a separate complaint from Miss Adams relating to the same issues as listed on Mr Bowen’s Complaints Form. As such, any award I may make in relation to financial loss and/or aggravation, distress and inconvenience will be in Full and Final Settlement of those issues. THE ISSUES The issues that I have been asked to examine concern: A. Probate B. Sales progression C. Keys D. Complaints handling OMBUDSMAN’S FINDINGS A. Probate The Complainant has said that CEA provided misleading information regarding the timescales under which Probate would be granted for the Property, to allow the sale to complete. The Complainant says that he was informed at his viewing of the Property that it takes 10 to 12 weeks for Probate to be obtained and that it was applied for in April 2021. The Complainant has said that his solicitor has subsequently advised that they doubted the information provided by CEA was true, as the Probate Office do not give timescales out as to when they will issue a Grant of Probate. CEA’s response is that all information that they relayed to the Complainant was received from the Seller. CEA say that they were given information from the Seller’s solicitor and 4 the Seller regarding the Probate. CEA have said that it was not a straightforward process for the Seller to obtain the Probate but say that they kept all parties updated throughout. Under Paragraph 7i of the TPO Code of Practice, effective from 1 June 2019 (the Code), where CEA gave information to the Complainant, it was required to be accurate and not misleading. In accordance with their obligations under Paragraph 12a of the Code, after acceptance of the Complainant’s offer, CEA were required to report information deemed helpful to bringing the transaction to fruition. Within their response of 7 February 2022, CEA said that the Seller informed them prior to the commencement of marketing that she had applied for the Grant of Probate to be issued. However, I have not been provided with any contemporaneous written evidence to allow me to establish the exact information provided by the Seller, nor have I been provided with any evidence of CEA’s communication with the Complainant in relation to the Probate, or the timescales in which this was expected to be obtained. I am critical of CEA for not providing written records of their communication with the Seller and the Complainant regarding the Probate being required, as I am unable to determine whether CEA relayed information that the Seller provided, or if they provided approximate timescales to the Complainant, based on their previous experience of selling properties which required Probate to be issued before completion. I support the complaint, due to the lack of evidence provided to show that CEA communicated the information they were provided with in the first instance, in accordance with their obligations under Paragraph 7i of the Code. I consider that the lack of evidence to show that the information relayed to the Complainant verbally was as that received from the Seller has caused the Complainant avoidable aggravation, distress and inconvenience which merits an award of compensation. It is CEA’s obligation to provide sufficient evidence to show that they communicated appropriately, to which they have not disputed providing the Complainant with a timescale in which they expected the Probate to be issued, and I support the complaint as I am unable to establish where the timescale came from. I will not, however, hold CEA responsible for the length of time it took for the Seller to obtain the Probate, in order to progress the sale; CEA had no control over this process and could only relay updates provided by the Seller and her solicitor during the conveyancing process. Having considered the contemporaneous written evidence provided by both parties, I am satisfied that, throughout the conveyancing process, CEA sought updates from the Seller and her solicitor in relation to the application for Probate, which was relayed to the Complainant promptly. This is all CEA could do in the circumstances. I appreciate that the Complainant was frustrated by the time it took for the Probate to be issued, and that the timescales he was provided with initially were exceeded, but this was out of CEA’s control. In some cases, Probate can be issued in a matter of weeks, but there are many factors which can cause this timeframe to be longer, to which CEA could only relay the updates provided to them. I support the complaint for the reasons explained and consider that the Complainant has been caused avoidable aggravation, distress and inconvenience, which merits an award of compensation. B. Sales progression 5 The Complainant has said that CEA advised that solicitors were using the cyber-attack as an excuse for not communicating with clients, which he found to be unprofessional. The Complainant has also said that, when he tried to renegotiate the purchase price of the Property, CEA informed him that the Seller would remove the Property from the market if he attempted this, without speaking to the Seller in the first instance. CEA’s response is that the Seller was using Premier Property Lawyers, who were affected by the cyber-attack. CEA say that they had a conversation with the Seller regarding the market conditions shortly before the Complainant contacted them regarding his wish to renegotiate on the purchase price. Under Paragraph 1e of the Code, CEA were required to communicate with the Complainant consistent with fairness, integrity and best practice, for which I would expect CEA to remain professional within their communication. I would also expect CEA to provide accurate information that had been provided by the Seller, in relation to the transaction. With regard to the information provided in relation to the Seller’s solicitor, I have been provided with a news article from 19 November 2021, which states that Premier Property Lawyers had been unable to access their IT systems following an incident on 7 November 2021, which was causing delays in completing sales. I note that this was the Seller’s solicitor and CEA’s file note of 11 November 2021 states that they made the Complainant aware that the Seller’s solicitor had not been able to work for the past week due to a system issue. CEA’s subsequent file note of 25 November 2021 states that the Seller informed CEA that there were still issues going on with her solicitor. On 1 December 2021, the Complainant said that it was disappointing that CEA had not heard back from the Seller’s solicitors regarding the Probate, to which CEA advised that they were experiencing a high volume of solicitors informing them that they had been unable to get hold of the Seller’s solicitor, but advised that they were fully operational and that they had not experienced issues in contacting the Seller’s solicitor. CEA mentioned that some other solicitors may be using the cyber-attack from the Seller’s solicitor as an excuse for giving them time to work on their cases, but it does not appear that this comment related to either the Seller’s solicitor or the Complainant’s solicitor. The Complainant’s solicitor responded the following day, advising that they had not heard from the Seller’s solicitor to confirm relevant information for the sale, despite being aware that they now had access to their systems again. I acknowledge that the Complainant considers CEA’s comment to have been unprofessional, but I will not criticise CEA for relaying information provided to them by other solicitors, in relation to the IT issue the Seller’s solicitor faced, as well as relaying their own experience in contacting them. It is apparent that CEA and the Complainant’s solicitor had different experiences in attempting to contact the Seller’s solicitor, to which the Complainant’s solicitor’s comment is in line with CEA’s comment regarding what other solicitors had informed them of. The Complainant also said in his email to the Seller of 4 January 2022 that he was aware of a clear communication issue between the solicitors in progressing the sale. I will not hold CEA responsible for the Seller’s solicitor communicating with CEA but not other solicitors, including the Complainant’s solicitor, and I do not consider that CEA made any inappropriate comments regarding the parties of the sale to the Complainant in relation to the cyber-attack and subsequent issues solicitors were facing. 6 With respect to the Complainant’s comment that he wished to renegotiate on the purchase price of the Property, but was informed of the Seller’s stance without CEA contacting the Seller to confirm this, I have been provided with CEA’s file note of 10 December 2021, which shows that they had spoken to the Seller regarding the progression of the sale. Within the file note, CEA stated that the Seller had informed CEA that if the Complainant threatened to withdraw from the sale, she would withdraw from the transaction and request that he remove his belongings that were being stored in the Property pending completion of the sale. CEA’s subsequent file note of 4 January 2022 states that the Complainant went to CEA’s office and mentioned that he may be looking to reduce his offer or withdraw from the sale, due to the time it has taken to progress. Given the Seller’s communication with CEA just over three weeks previously, CEA informed the Complainant that the Seller had already informed them that, if the Complainant tried to negotiate, the Seller would withdraw and remarket the Property. I do not take issue with CEA’s communication in this regard. It is apparent that the Complainant was not satisfied with CEA’s response and he contacted the Seller directly the same day to ask if the information provided by CEA was correct. The Seller responded to the Complainant, confirming that she would not renegotiate on the price and would indeed remarket the Property to achieve a higher sale price if the Complainant attempted this, as nothing was now holding up the sale. From this, I am satisfied that CEA communicated the Seller’s intentions with the Complainant appropriately and accurately, which was confirmed by the Seller directly. I do not take issue with CEA’s communication and, as explained previously, they could only relay what the Seller had informed them of. For the reasons explained, I am satisfied that CEA communicated appropriately with the Complainant and I do not, therefore, support the complaint. C. Keys The Complainant has said that CEA called him to confirm that the sale had completed, but that this staff member then left the office in order to avoid giving him the keys to the Property. CEA’s response is that the keys for the Property were labelled in the office and the keys were collected by the Complainant after completion took place. Under Paragraph 13c of the Code, at completion, CEA were required to offer to assist with the handover of keys during their office working hours. I note that, prior to the completion of the sale, the Complainant stored some of his belongings in the Property with the permission of the Seller and, when he required access to the Property in this regard, he was able to pick up the keys from CEA and return them the same day. Both parties were therefore aware that the Complainant was able to attend CEA’s office to obtain keys for the Property during the conveyancing process. CEA’s file notes state that exchange of contracts took place on 21 January 2022 and completion was set for 28 January 2022. CEA’s file note, made at 11.11 hrs on 28 January 2022 states that the Seller’s solicitors had informed them that the sale had 7 completed and the keys could be released to the Complainant. CEA noted that both the Complainant and the Seller were aware of this. I have not been provided with any further notes to show the events that took place in relation to releasing the keys to the Complainant. The Complainant has said that, when he went to pick up the keys, despite being called by the Sales team to advise that he could pick up the keys, none of the Sales team were at the office when he attended, and he was simply handed an envelope, which he said was an unpleasant experience. I cannot dictate to CEA how to run their business and it is unfortunate if the staff members that the Complainant had been in communication with during the sales process were not in the office to handover the keys upon completion. However, it is apparent that the Complainant was able to obtain the keys in order to access the Property after completion and there were staff in the office to facilitate the handover. I have not been provided with any evidence to indicate that CEA acted inappropriately or that any staff members purposefully left the office so as not to meet with the Complainant when he was collecting the keys. I consider that CEA ensured that the Complainant was provided with the keys promptly upon completion of the sale. I do not support the complaint. D. Complaints handling The Complainant has said that he received aggressive and intimidating emails from CEA in response to his complaint. The Complainant also says that he received an email from the Seller which indicates that CEA had disclosed his complaint to her, causing the Seller to retaliate to him via email. CEA’s response is that they promptly responded to the Complainant’s complaint in order to respond to the issues raised, which they do not consider was aggressive or intimidating, but professional. CEA say that the Complainant emailed the Seller directly, which she was not impressed with, and that their communication was in January 2022, with the Complainant not raising his complaint until 6 February 2022. In accordance with their obligations under best practice (Paragraph 1e of the Code), CEA were required to communicate appropriately and professionally with the Complainant. I would not expect CEA to be aggressive or intimidating within their responses to the complaint raised. I would also not expect CEA to discuss the Complainant’s complaint with the Seller. The Complainant requested CEA’s in-house complaints procedure on 11 January 2022, which was provided to him the next day. The Complainant then raised his complaint on 6 February 2022 and CEA promptly provided their response the following day. The Complainant stated that he was not satisfied with this and would refer the matter to this Office, which CEA acknowledged, advising that they were happy to provide this Office with the evidence they held of their actions during the sale. The Complainant responded, saying that CEA’s intimidation techniques would not work on him. Having examined the content of CEA’s emails of 12 January and 7 and 8 February 2022, I am satisfied that CEA responded to the Complainant in accordance with their obligations under best practice. I do not consider that CEA were aggressive in their response, nor that CEA attempted to intimidate the Complainant in response to being 8 informed that he would contact this Office to escalate his complaint. I am of the view that CEA responded with their view of the issues raised and informed the Complainant of his option to contact this Office, to which they are required to provide this Office with their company file upon request. With regard to the Seller being aware of the complaint, the Complainant says that the Seller said in her email to him of 13 January 2022 that she was happy with CEA’s service, which indicated to him that his threat of a formal complaint was disclosed to her. As explained above, I note that the Complainant requested CEA’s complaint procedure on 11 January 2022, which CEA responded to the following day. However, I have not been provided with any contemporaneous evidence to show that CEA informed the Seller that the Complainant was not satisfied with their service during the transaction. I note that the Complainant emailed the Seller directly on 12 and 13 January 2022, where he said that he was not receiving assurances from CEA that they had spoken to the Seller regarding the signing of the contract and outstanding replies to enquiries made by his solicitor. The Complainant asked the Seller to provide an update, as CEA had not responded to him. Within the Seller’s response of 13 January 2022, she stated that it was not CEA’s job to chase the solicitors and that she was happy with the service they had provided to her in selling the Property. With the context of the Complainant’s emails to the Seller which prompted her response, I am of the view that the Seller was responding to the comments the Complainant had made about CEA’s service. I do not consider that the Seller’s response is sufficient to allow me to conclude that CEA discussed the Complainant having asked for CEA’s complaints procedure with the Seller. From the evidence provided, I am satisfied that CEA communicated appropriately in relation to the Complainant’s complaint. I do not, therefore, support the complaint. CONCLUSION I have supported one of the complaints that have been made and consider that the circumstances merit an award of compensation. My award has been set at the level I consider to be fair, in order to compensate for the avoidable aggravation, distress and inconvenience caused to the Complainant as a result of the shortcomings I have identified in CEA’s service. The Complainant has requested an apology from CEA and would like CEA to change their practices, as well as receiving compensation for the issues raised. My role is to provide a decision in Full and Final Settlement of a complaint, and letters of apology have the potential to give rise to additional dissatisfaction. This is a pertinent point in light of the absence of an expression of empathy within CEA’s submission letter, despite the Complainant requesting this. As such, I consider it unlikely that an apology from CEA would meet the Complainant’s expectations. I do not consider that further communication between the Complainant and CEA is conducive to resolving the complaint. In addition, I am not a regulator of the sales industry and cannot dictate how an agent runs their business. However, I find it 9 important to highlight that I expect CEA to take on board the highlighted shortcomings in service as outlined in the Review, in order to improve their standard of service. I will also make an award of compensation to reflect the avoidable aggravation, distress and inconvenience incurred by the Complainant, as a result of CEA’s shortcomings in this regard. I consider CEA’s acceptance and subsequent payment of the award to the Complainant (should he accept) to be sufficient acknowledgement of the shortcomings identified in their provision of service. Both parties will be informed by my Office of the opportunity to represent against my decision and it may be helpful if I advise that I will only reconsider the case if it can be shown that either my decision was based on a significant error in fact that fundamentally alters a material part of the decision, or significant new evidence has been produced that was not previously available that would have a material effect on my decision. If it were simply the case that either party considers the amount of the award made by me to be unsuitable, this does not alone constitute grounds for Representation. I will also make clear that any Representation must be in writing, sent by letter or email, to allow a proper consideration of the matter. This Office cannot accept representations by telephone. PROPOSED DECISION For the reasons stated in my Review, I have supported one of the complaints that have been made. Accordingly, I make an award of £150 in compensation. This is in full and final settlement of this dispute. Property Ombudsman

Screenshots taken and reported to the ICO, as this is a breach of GDPR law.