Five property businesses have been expelled from The Property Ombudsman scheme after failing to pay compensation awards, according to a report published on 18 June 2026.
The firms named were Devon Block Management Limited, Pro Investment Properties Ltd, RPS Estates, Samuel Francis & Co and We Sell Lets. The Property Ombudsman scheme can remove members where they do not comply with Ombudsman decisions, and its public expelled-members list says businesses on that list are reported to Trading Standards and relevant professional bodies.
For landlords, the headline is not only that firms were expelled. It is what the cases reveal about everyday risks when an agent, block manager or property-sourcing business handles money, complaints, maintenance communication or tenancy-related administration. These are the areas where small gaps in paperwork can become expensive and time-consuming disputes.
What the cases involved
The largest award reported was against Pro Investment Properties Ltd, which was ordered to pay £7,400 after a complaint involving a property sourcing agreement and a purchase that did not complete. The award included the finder’s fee and a further sum for aggravation, distress and inconvenience.
RPS Estates, registered as Property Management Services Limited, was ordered to pay £1,871.25 after a landlord complained about unpaid rent, communication failures and poor complaint handling. Samuel Francis & Co was ordered to pay £350 after tenants complained about mould report handling, communication and complaint handling. We Sell Lets was required to pay £150 after a complaint about a property sourcing service. Devon Block Management Limited was ordered to pay £75 after communication shortcomings connected with a residents’ management company request.
The amounts vary, but the pattern is familiar: rent or client money, clarity of terms, complaint handling, repair or mould communication, and evidence of what was agreed. Those are core operational issues for any landlord who outsources part of the rental process.
Why landlords should pay attention
Many landlords rely on agents because they want distance from day-to-day management. That can be sensible, but it does not remove the need to understand who is handling money, how complaints are escalated and what records will be available if something goes wrong.
A landlord can be affected even when the complaint is not made directly against them. Poor communication by an agent can damage the tenant relationship. Weak rent-account records can make arrears harder to track. Delayed responses to damp, mould or repair reports can feed into wider property-condition disputes. An unclear sourcing agreement can leave a buyer or investor arguing about fees, fairness and what service was actually promised.
This is also a useful moment to revisit how outsourced work is recorded. Our recent article on pest infestation cases and Ombudsman learning made a similar point: problems often escalate when nobody owns the case, contractor notes are thin, or follow-up is not recorded.
Checks before appointing or renewing an agent
Before appointing a letting agent, managing agent or property-sourcing business, landlords should check the basics and keep evidence of the checks. This is general information, not legal advice, but a practical review should usually include the firm’s redress membership, client money protection where relevant, complaint procedure, fee schedule, service terms, data-handling arrangements and the named person responsible for account queries.
It is also worth checking whether the firm appears on The Property Ombudsman expelled-members list, or whether it belongs to another redress scheme. Membership alone is not a guarantee that service will be perfect, but the absence of a current route for redress should prompt careful questions before any instruction is signed.
For managed lets, ask how rent statements are produced, how often client account reconciliations are completed, what happens when rent is late, and how quickly the landlord is told about arrears. If deductions are made from rent before payment, the agreement should explain what can be deducted, when and on whose authority.
Complaint handling matters
Several of the reported awards involved communication or complaint-handling failures. That matters because a complaint process is often where a manageable problem either gets resolved or becomes a formal dispute.
Landlords should know how the agent logs complaints, what response times apply, who can authorise a remedy, and how documents are preserved. A short written audit trail is usually better than a long chain of informal calls. If a tenant reports mould, disrepair, pest activity, missing rent payments or a breach of agreement, the landlord should be able to see what was reported, what response was given, and what happened next.
That also links with wider compliance preparation. Landlords already reviewing tenancy paperwork may find it useful to revisit our guide to Renters’ Rights Act compliance dates, because clearer records and service routes will matter more as the regulatory environment tightens.
What to do with existing arrangements
Existing agency relationships should not be ignored just because they feel familiar. A light annual review can pick up problems before they become disputes. Check that the agreement still reflects the service actually being provided, that rent and repair records are easy to obtain, and that emergency or urgent repair processes are current.
If an agent is handling repairs, the landlord should understand whether the agent can instruct contractors directly, what spending limits apply, how quotes are approved, and how completion is evidenced. If the agent is handling tenant complaints, make sure the landlord is told about serious or repeated issues rather than only seeing the final invoice or settlement.
Where a landlord owns flats or leasehold property, block management communication can be just as important. Requests about funds, communal repairs, insurance, service charges or building safety should be tracked carefully, particularly where delays could affect tenants or leaseholders.
The practical takeaway
The latest expulsions are a reminder that redress decisions are not just technical industry news. They point to the controls landlords need when other businesses are acting on their behalf.
Check redress membership before instructing a firm. Keep copies of terms and fee agreements. Make sure rent-account records are clear. Ask how complaints and repair reports are escalated. Review existing agents periodically, especially where communication has slipped or records are hard to obtain.
Most agency relationships will not end in a formal Ombudsman award. The point is to make sure that if a problem does arise, the landlord has enough information, documentation and escalation routes to deal with it quickly and fairly.
Sources
- Property Industry Eye, Five property firms expelled from The Property Ombudsman, published 18 June 2026
- The Property Ombudsman, TPO expelled members, accessed 18 June 2026
