x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.

The Guardian - which last month ran a piece mocking estate agents' use of language - now says lazy agents think they can get away with a few shoddy snapshots when advertising homes for sale on Rightmove and Zoopla.

However, the newspaper's piece - which goes on to cite high quality photographs to accompany property details on the online service Tepilo.com - makes a broader point when it interviews professional photographer Paul Clarke about the risk of mainstream agents seeking to reduce costs to compete with budget online competitors.

"Many agents no longer use professionals, they just send somebody from the office with an SLR camera, or sometimes even a smartphone. There is a feeling that good pictures don't matter, that this is only the internet, it isn't a six-page glossy brochure. But that's wrong" Clarke is quoted as saying.

A statement from the NAEA says images must be representative of the property exactly as it is at the time of sale, without omitting aspects that may not be aesthetically pleasing" - in other words, do not crop the tattoo parlour next door.

Last week The Property Ombudsman - one of three redress schemes for the sales sector - issued new codes of practice which includes reference to photographs. This issue becomes more important under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (2008) which now govern the industry.

When reviewing complaints, I will look for evidence that the consumer has taken a different transactional decision as a direct result of the agent's actions. Clear examples of inappropriately manipulated photographs include the removal of closely located factories, motorways, pubs or similar facilities" says TPO Christopher Hamer.

Although The Guardian's piece is cynical towards agents, it may be difficult to deny there is a problem with the photography used by Kent estate agent Geering & Colyer of a £247,000 bungalow for sale at Dungeness.

The only picture was taken from the side - completely missing, of course, the power stations which were immediately behind the property.

Comments

  • icon

    It's not in an agent's best interest to take poor quality photographs as its less chance of viewings and ultimately a sale which is the agent and vendors' joint goal. Why some agents feel they can or should cut corners is beyond me. I've been quite lucky with my property photographs but if I received bad ones, I'd have something to say!

    • 06 August 2014 17:00 PM
  • icon

    Photographs = first impressions. Crappy photographs = crappy first impressions = fewer viewings = smaller chance of a sale.
    The larger problem I witness isn't agents trying to deliberately deceive by omitting the neighboring gas tower etc but rather an unintentional deception by putting out such dire quality images that the property appears worse than it really is.
    As for cutting this corner to "compete" with cheap online agents. Thats the point they are cheap, we are better, we do the job professionally, that is supposed to be our edge. Quality is our edge.

    • 06 August 2014 07:20 AM
MovePal MovePal MovePal