Jackson-Stops & Staff and Douglas & Gordon have joined rival high-end agencies Strutt & Parker, Knight Frank and Savills in dropping Zoopla and joining OnTheMarket, the Agents' Mutual portal which launches on January 26.
JS&S has 44 offices nationwide, including seven in London, and says that when OnTheMarket launches neither Rightmove nor Zoopla will be able to claim their property listings cover the entire market.
In a statement issued jointly by the estate agency and Agents' Mutual, Jackson-Stops & Staff spokesman Tim Dansie says the new portal will rapidly grow to become a major player in the portal market because it will provide a clean, crisp and simple search function and a highly effective platform for our vendor and landlord clients.
Christmas week it may be, but agents who have to give up using one or more existing portals to conform with Agents' Mutual's one other portal' rule will have only until the end of this week to give 30 days' notice if they want to be on the new website from day one.
The JS&S statement says the one other portal' rule is essential in enabling the business to disrupt the duopoly which currently exists in the property website market.
In an uncharacteristically low-key announcement on Twitter, the London agency Douglas & Gordon - one of the founding companies behind OnTheMarket - declared that it, too, was dropping Zoopla.
.jpg)
Comments
'We will defeat the evil Rightmove monopoly by mildly wounding their only credible competition and marginalisng our businesses by compromising our values and bringing our industry into disrepute'
Classic
@Ray
OTM are creating their own rules rather than running between the tra ks potentially of agent legislation. They also have a chap called IS who has before created a worthy portal to then offload it. Things move on though and many OTM agents dont appear impressed with OTM web designs. The bullseye is very British but I think way off the mark.
Ray, Pepsico bought the brand and shut it down in favour of Walkers. Lots of the Smiths stuff got rebranded Walkers.
It hasn't launched yet and it has a 3 day delay already
Just a thought.
What is the OTM's USP
Years ago, as a member of the Chartered Institute of Marketing I attended many regional meetings and remember that Smiths Crisps were always held up as an example, wrongly as it turned out, of a brand one should never challenge. Then along came Golden Wonder followed by Walkers with their USP of flavours. What ever happened to Smiths
Mark have a look at the below
http://www.visum-sales.co.uk/ - they do the viewings - clients post their images in. 75 for the first 4 weeks
This site Open Rent (https://www.openrent.co.uk/advertise-property-for-rent) shows first rental ad for free on RM and Z within 1 business day. Thats private ads to appear faster than AM's 3 day delay.
Bit naughty. People seem up for dropping one of the Big Two in theory, but don't seem so keen in practice.
As a landlord, I've seen the importance of property portals. They are far from perfect, and I appreciate that some of their pricing is questionable and damaging to agents, but I'm just not convinced that Agents' Mutual is the answer. I've never been convinced by them. I just don't think they will have the pull of RM or Z and their ant-online stance is foolish in the extreme.
This continual thread of "news" articles are.
So I come for balance. How are your portal wages / shares doing
Really
http://old.estateagenttoday.co.uk/news_features/Big-portals-react-to-change-in-Estate-Agents-Act
"We do not accept advertising on any of our websites from either private sellers directly or indirectly from intermediaries for private sellers, and the changes to the Estate Agents Act will not alter this.
In order to list properties with us, members need to operate and be instructed by the vendor as the agent for the property and be responsible for, amongst other things, preparing the marketing details, conducting viewings and intermediating negotiations.""
You're like a broken record.
Do you really think they will just crash and burn A genuine question, because they are a big, established brand and it would be a surprise to see them just lay down and make way for AM/OTM. I know agents are dropping Zoopla like hotcakes, but I doubt they are hitting the panic buttons just yet.
Turning the duopoly into a monopoly, I see. Nice one Agents' Mutual. Although, as I've said before, Zoopla still have a big advantage of having a very well-recognised name and brand. They are not easy things to replicate.
@ Mark - [i]you said: "Aren't R a cartel for only allowing agent listings on the biggest property portal on the internet at the expense of private listers[/i]"
No. RM is a web window /portal - geared to allow 2 types of businesses in it.
1. Estate Agents advertise there under the definition of the 79 EAA. of what an agent is. The EA lawful definition excludes portals from EA regulation.
2. Passive models: these may look like agents but are NOT - they are NOT even allowed to provide ancillary services such as photo's or EPCs. They can provide branded FS boards where local councils allow boards under planning, but the tel no. on the board has to link the applicant enquiring directly to the seller.
As such FSBO's do have a route to RM and Z already - Passive Intermediaries. One of the models that I guess has upset OTM agents. A move to gain those extra listings and subscriptions that now In sure Z and RM may feel they should have excluded over defined 'estate agency' work.
I pity all these "estate agents" who seem to work under the illusion that the only way property sells is through portals that generate zero leads.
The below was highlighted to us. We then decided that OTM was not a way we wished to risk operating. TPOS show in their code 'under any other codes of practice'
TPOS code:
Duty of care. An estate agent MUST ALWAYS work in the BEST interests of the client, that is to say the person who is paying for the estate agency services (usually the seller).
Estate agents must meet all their legal obligations when conducting their business. This includes BIS/Treasury, HMRC and Trading Standards gov legislation. CPRs, BPRs, EAA79, other. ..............
http://www.tpos.co.uk/consumer_guide_sales.htm
What complaints can the Ombudsman consider
Your complaint may be considered by the Ombudsman, if you believe that the agent has:
infringed your legal rights; or
failed to follow the rules and obligations set for agents under any code of practice to which they may subscribe; or
treated you unfairly; or
been guilty of maladministration (including inefficiency or undue delay);
in a way that results in you losing money or suffering avoidable aggravation, distress and/or inconvenience.
It was a response to a response from you which you have been ducking since yesterday, namely:
You said "I would be extemely cautious about joining a cartel where the agenda doesnt comply with consumers who agents serve best interest."
To which my response was:
"Aren't R a cartel for only allowing agent listings on the biggest property portal on the internet at the expense of private listers"
@ PeeBee
Im not assuming :-)
@ how desperate are zpg
Im not a ZPG fan, I don't work there. I do feel RM and Z are very expensive and lack features that would provide better agent and consumer platforms. Equally, I fear that the OTM team have introduced rules that many engaging agents will later regret. If you research CPR's and BPR's and the 79 EA Act plus other related legislation, you will see that UK government 'rules' first introduced by OFT and taken over by Trading Standards to carry on and improve - conflict with some of the cartels rules. My statements are factual.
@ you heard it hear first.
Its not a case of it being zoopla. But how an agent may have attracted business on the understanding of what the client expected would happen and follow through. If an agent chooses to leave Z or RM or even take an advert from a parish mag, bus stop, taxi or whatever, then if the whatever was a key reason for instructing that agent then vendors have to be told why things are altering which in this case is mainly to break the main portals stronghold to save agents expenditure. Will agents gain clients same interest as the weeks or months before when OTM is adopted. No. Thats your situation. What you do is up to you.
@ Mark Walker
Mark your question doesnt appear in this discussion trail.
@ Harree - yes, changing what was offered without mention of a factor that the consumer may consider key, not having a break or termination clause is one of the issues.
The last two posters totally miss the point - AM agents have continued to advertise RM and Z logos on their sites AFTER they have signed up to AM, in my area for 6 months or more and well into the sole agency period covered up to and beyond the 25th Jan.
This no different to, say, a car dealer advertising leather upholstery and taking orders when they know that deliveries after a certain date will be cloth without the option of leather.
What part of this misleading practice to AM agents not get
@One of the "experts" - still not answering my question :)
NO AGENT WILL EVER BE IN TROUBLE WITH ANY AUTHORITY, INDUSTRY OR OTHERWISE, FOR NOT LISTING A PROPERTY ON ZOOPLA (or any other portal for that matter ) unless of course their terms of business EXPLICITLY state that they will do so - and I've yet to see an agent stupid enough to have done that !
Zoopla's desperate death throws really are are pathetic - what sort of company seriously thinks it will succeed by trying to scare it's clients that by NOT continuing to use them would be falling foul of some spurious law or industry rules ! This ascertion is probably the most desperate throw of the dice I've ever witnessed from a listed company - ZPG is doomed and it's share price is going to plumb new depths in the coming weeks and if only for this nasty and ridiculous tactic they deserve to lose the battle of the portals
"Away from typo's my main message is don't breach UK law." But your posts are assuming that UK Law IS being breached.
@ Harree
Best advice is to be 'Fair and Honest'
Will the actions you do today mislead a consumer Will your conditions in your contract change in the tie in period. If so did clients know Will changes that you know will happen likely to alter a clients want to use you or your services
Verbally/ - hard to prove in court especially if you have nothing to show, yet the client has gone to Trading Standards saying the agent isn't doing as their instruction letter showed, or portal logo's implied.
Written is the way, BUT it could be seen as misleading if the agent doesn't clearly state that the main reason is to move away from what they feel is high portal costs, basically into a black hole.
If clients are happy to remain with their agent then so long as the notification was 'fair and honest' then the agent has been upfront.
Equally, this could be extended to other services that the agent offered to secure the choice of the seller or landlord.
@ PeeBee - smart phones aren't the best gadgets for me to type on. Away from typo's my main message is don't breach UK law.
'One of the Experts'... not in the use of the written word, apparently.
Shame, really - look past the errors and SOME of what you say touches base.
@Neil
Neil you can't have a contract worded against CPR statute. CPRs and BPRs and the Estate Agents Act should be your base to constuct your B2C cient contracts from.
Don't forget disclaimers and omisions don't create a *Get out of jail card.
If you are cbanging where your marketing and why for the good of your agency, Then are the reasons at the time of doing justified as being 'best interest for your client'.
Equally all new instructions shouldnt imply a prospective client would get RM or Z or other advertising if in the tie in period it will be withdrawn.
A client needs a cair and honest view of what you are AND what you will or will NOT be offering. They then have a fair understanding to make their transactional choice.
Trading Standards also have 31 banned practices - one of concern is 'bait and switch' where a customer may assume tbey are getting one product or service, to then find it switched by the trader. As such a lock in is unfair.
@ OOTE, how do AM agents prove that all clients were fully informed
How many clients know that RM is one of the UK's most visited websites and that Z is in the top 40 How many clients have been made fully aware that their choice is to stay with their current agent and come of brand name sites generating millions of visits to go onto an untried, unproven site - or dis-instruct and move to a non AM agent
Verbally informing clients or sending a simple one sided email may not be construed as full disclosure. I forecast many months ago that this non disclosure issue would pose major problems for AM agents once the implications are fully understood by sellers.
So Jackson-Stops Staff, Douglas & Gordon, Strutt & Parker, Knight Frank and Savills clients may be able to break their tie ins. Coooooooool, Maybe we should write and tell them. Chrimbo come early.
All these comments are assuming that the Agent does not have a contract stating they can use any form of advertising they deem to be appropriate. I doubt the CPR would be able to intervene......what is the difference in putting ads into papers
@Harree
Correct. But also the 'WHY' to save on what they feel is high costs. To simply imply to vendors that OTM 'may' be better is misleading.
Under CPRs the test must be the information given to the average member of the public. So for agents moving to OTM they should have taken down logo's of portals they are leaving or made very clear to in contract clients or coming on clients whose tie ins pass Jan 26th that exposure there would be dropped.
Failure to do so is misleading and something that the average Joe should be informed of as it forms part of their rights as to how, where and when their property is marketed.
MDs are not just putting their own necks on the block but also their staff who carry out HQ instuctions to operate this way.
Correction - beyond 26th January.
As for breaching CPRs - AM agents should imo have told any client on a sole agency agreement who overlapped the OTM launch date that they were dropping either RM or Z.
AM agents in my area were still advertising RM and Z at the start of December taking new instruction well beyond the 26th December. Why didn't they drop the advertising 90 days prior to OTM launch
If these agents try and hold disgruntled clients to a 90 day sole agreement they leave themselves, quite rightly, open to a TS hammering.
If the agents are members of TPOS and delay uploads then they will be breaking code via MALADMINISTRATION. Check TPOS code.
Maladministration is the actions which can be seen as causing an injustice. The law in the United Kingdom says Ombudsman must investigate 'maladministration'. The definition of maladministration is wide and can include: Delay.
Lets hope they tell their clients that from day 1 OTM won't start as a main player compromising their clients property exposure into a non known void in the aim of saving agents high subscriptions.
If they don't, we'll be witnessing many larger independents breaching CPRs.
For agents not giving up both main portalS exposure its a great opportunity to suggest to AM agents vendors that they cancel tie in periods which agents joining OTM with its exclusion in many cases will be operating aginst regulation.
No should make part of their membership anti government consumer regulation.