When dealing with an agent responsible for disrepair, it’s crucial to address the situation promptly.

Clearly communicate your concerns to the agent in writing, documenting any previous communications and providing evidence of the disrepair. If the agent fails to take appropriate action, you may need to seek legal advice to enforce your rights.

REDACTED CASE SUMMARY

  1. 1st stage complaint to the Agent who had been managing the property for 10 years, not a single inspection visit was noted on file.  This neglect allowed the property to fall into steep disrepair.
  • The tenant  developed asthma as a result of the unsafe living conditions
  • Court proceedings issued against the Managing Letting Agent.

Dear Sir/Madam

Registered complaint – Ref XXXX

Further to my telephone conversation with the Complaints Section I would like to formally register my client’s complaint against (Agent) in respect of contractor commissioned work at (Address).

A brief summary of events follows:

I was commissioned to independently inspect my Clients’ portfolio in May 2017.  The complaint we are asking the Ombudsman to consider centres on rendering carried out at (Address) whilst under the management of (Agent).

The purpose of having the property rendered was to remedy the various damp issues which were occurring within the building. (Agent) was the managing agents and duly supplied my clients with two quotations provided by builders from their approved contractors list.

My clients selected the best value quotation and on Agent’s advice paid the builder a part payment of £3905.  When they were assured by Agent that the job had been inspected and satisfactorily completed a final payment of £3905 was paid.

Unfortunately, the rendering was far from satisfactory and had been applied in substandard and slipshod manner using unsuitable material and leaving drains, gutters and window mechanisms blocked with waste render. This was apparent to even an untrained eye. These events left my Clients in the situation that the poor rendering made the damp within the house considerably worse and on the advice of experts it has been hacked off to allow the fabric of the house to breath and dry out, this necessitated my clients spending a further sum of approximately £8000.

The total spent, just to return the house back to the condition it was in before the botched rendering job is £16000. This is the amount we wish to reclaim from Agent. 

We contend that the builder who carried out the work was suggested to my client by Agent from their approved contractor list and subsequently the job was signed off by them as satisfactory, when it manifestly was not. We also contend that the ‘Agent’ has clearly failed in their duty of care to my clients and must bear the responsibility for the correction of the botched job. It is on this contention we are asking you to adjudicate. A brief timeline follows, I have also included various attachments which include professional opinions which illustrate the problems with the rendering and Agent’s attitude to them.

We have engaged fully with the Agent’s complaint procedure however have been unsuccessful in securing a remedy to the issue.

We then accelerated the complaint and authorised our solicitor, (Name), to discuss the issue with their Legal Department further.

Please see to follow a series of photograph links confirming the condition of the render and photos of the building at removal of the render together with the attached independent expert statement confirming the state of the rendering.

  1. 2016                X email confirming list of contractors to be used.
  2. 11/11/16           Rendering completed at the property by X
  3. 16/11/17          Anne Marie Taylor submits the first level complaint to X
    1. X quote
    2. Email from X confirming all in good state.
  4. 20/12/17         X responds for Agent
  5. 14/02/18        Anne Marie Taylor submits the second level complaint to X – email submission.
  6. 07/03/18        X responds for Countrywide
  7. 04/04/18       X – Correspondence – X

Dear Sirs

Re:     name (“the Property”)

           Our Clients – name

           (“the Contractor”)

We refer to your letter of 23rd April 2018 and we apologise for the delay in replying thereto.

Our clients maintain their claim against you as set out in the pre-action protocol letter of 5th April 2018.

Subsequent to your letter, it has come to our clients’ attention via a contractor known them, name, that you had sought independent advice from an exterior wall expert.  Our clients are aware that your commissioned expert holds the view that the work undertaken by your recommended contractor, name, was “atrocious”.

Our clients are aware that the exterior wall expert has provided a quote to undertake the work.

Unfortunately, there being a concern that the inadequate rendering was exposing the building to water penetration, our clients instructed name to carry out an inspection on the 2nd November 2018.   The report identifies and confirms that the ground floor saturation levels were 99.9% as at that day with humidity at 73% and mould present in all the bedrooms.  In view of the afore mentioned developments we have advised our clients to instruct immediate removal of the worst affected areas of render at far right hand side of the flank wall to alleviate the moisture within the ground floor property so as to limit the disrepair within the properties.

Our clients have been advised that a temporary repair is not an option and that as a priority the existing rendering needs to be stripped away and the job redone. 

In the circumstances, so as to afford you a final opportunity to inspect the works undertaken by your approved contractor whilst preliminary steps will be taken to appoint a contractor etc. no work will be undertaken before Monday 26th November.

Our clients therefore maintain that you owed them a duty of care, and that you are in breach of that duty.

At that time, you managed our clients’ portfolio.

That included – where the need arose – to inspect and draw to our clients’ attention any works you considered needing undertaking.

With regard to this specific dispute, you recommended two contractors.  The reliance our clients had was that both quotations were presented by suitably qualified contractors, known to your company and able to complete the work to a professional standard.  That fell clearly within your competence.

Taking into account that as agents specialising in property with an obligation to bring matters of disrepair to our clients’ attention, our clients were entitled to rely upon your advice that works had been properly undertaken.

It is quite apparent that a visual inspection by somebody acting as a property agent with that responsibility would have identified that this work was poorly undertaken (indeed atrocious). 

Had the inadequate work been reported to our clients, they would not have paid for the work and would have required the work to be undertaken properly.

Please therefore urgently reconsider this matter with your Professional Indemnity Insurers, and we look forward to hearing from you.


If you are in need of advice regarding disrepair then please contact us by completing this simple form here

Alternatively you make obtain advice the the UK Government website by clicking here.


  • A building in disrepair with scaffold around
  • A building in disrepair with scaffold around
  • A window showing damp around due to disrepair
  • A wall in disrepair with scaffold around
  • A building in disrepair
  • A building in disrepair
  • A building in disrepair
  • A building in disrepair
  • A building in disrepair
  • A building in disrepair
  • A building in disrepair
  • A building in disrepair
  • A building in disrepair
  • A building in disrepair
  • A building in disrepair
  • A building in disrepair
  • A building in disrepair
  • A building in disrepair
  • A building in disrepair
  • A building in disrepair
  • A building in disrepair
  • A building in disrepair

0 Comments

Leave a Reply

Skip to content