An independent mortgage broker claims he was forced to use an internal mortgage adviser at a Countrywide estate agency, despite having already found a deal separately.
The case, reported by the FT, involves Tim Johnson who was seeking to buy a home through the Beresford Adams agency.
The frontline staff at the branch told me I had no choice and that my offer would not be accepted if I refused. So I sat down and wasted 25 minutes with the broker. The broker I saw was very embarrassed about this situation claims Johnson.
A statement by Countrywide Financial Services says: Our customer policy is clear and we treat all our buyers the same irrespective which lender their mortgage comes from and if their mortgage is not through our brokerage, it does not change or impact how we treat offers to our vendors.
Comments
Personally as an agent who has never referred to FA of any sort and as a current buyer who has been encouraged by Barnard Marcus to talk to their FA I agree this certainly is a problem. Especially in this market. And the solution as hound says is v simple. Dont allow FA's of any sort to be connected with selling property. Of course the other issue of only selling if we sell / let through same agency is more difficult to stop. And equally pernicious.
Keith - "Due to practices of this nature, the general public will never trust agent, ever again Therefore any decent agent who truly acts for their client is p*****g in the wind trying to convince otherwise"
You ARE being serious here, I take it If EVERY Agent is destined to be mistrusted in the way you suggest, then why carry on Just join the ranks of those that you say have destroyed the reputation of responsible Agents. Become one of them - wouldn't that be the easy path to follow
I am sorry, Keith - it is YOU that has misinterpreted the reason behind the publishing of this 'story'. You haven't got your finger on the pulse here - you're not even in the same room as the patient in that respect.
EAT have changed direction in recent weeks - choosing now to poke a sharpened stick at their readership in order to provoke a reaction. The writing style and content has degenerated to such a point that, in order to demonstrate to their sponsors that we still actually visit the site, they enrage in order to get posts on non-news items that Ms Renshaw would have left on the cutting room floor where they belong.
Never mind "the corporates" not giving a fuppeny tuck about those that actually pay their wages - I would suggest that many Owners, Principals, Partners and Directors of Independent Estate Agencies can be tarred with exactly the same brush. And I speak as someone who has worked with them on BOTH sides of that particular line, so am more than qualified to make that statement.
Do what you do best, Keith.
Ronnie Barker summed it up perfectly in a classic episode of Porridge:
"Don't let the b@$t@rd$ grind you down, my son..."
Pee Bee, you & and many others are simply missing the point of why I believe this has article has been issued. Due to practices of this nature, the general public will never trust agent, ever again. Therefore any decent agent who truly acts for their client is pissing in the wind trying to convince otherwise. It's a damn shame that this industry was high jacked in the eighties by car sales people & barrow boys and has never recovered.
We all know that the corporates could not give a sh....t about their clients, just squeeze as much as they can from all who chooses to use them. Hopefully one day they will implode on themselves, when saturation point of bad service has been reached.
Crooks in respectable clothing.
It's NOT "a big porky", Stonehenge - it's their "customer policy". ;o)
Their STAFF POLICY is what REALLY matters, dunnit...!
'MW'
I doubt you will consider my response as 'colourful' - however I do feel that a response is warranted, and I am going to make it as balanced as I can.
To get straight to your main point - you seem to think that the 'onlines' are going to have a field day on this. Interesting, then, that NOT ONE of those who love to chuck their oar in wherever they think a ripple can be created have done so. Maybe you are just too quick for their thought processes to have got round the issue yet.
You should be their PR Manager.
Back to the story. Firstly, the story is poorly reported. Now you may not be accustomed to this - but regular readers of EAT are quickly becoming anaesthetised to this 'bright, new' style of hackery.
Take the opening paragraph - "An independent mortgage broker claims he was forced to use an internal mortgage adviser..." USE Or simply to speak to, in order for the Agent to fully qualify the offer on behalf of their client, the vendor From what ridiculously little information this 'story' contains, it is impossible to say. Make your own mind up - my jury is out on the matter and will probably declare they are unable to reach a verdict due to lack of evidence.
THEN... what has been done about this alleged offence (which, let's face it, is what it IS, if proved...) The 'injured party' is in THE best position to make waves of biblical proportions with the relevant authorities, is he not - yet what we are seeing is simply a regurgitation of a story from the FT
IF the 'frontline staff' did in fact say what he claims, then there is music to face - and this should be EXTERNAL, not an in-house at the Agency. Maybe a prosecution IS needed to make over-zealous employees wind their necks in a bit before playing dirty tricks to make commissions.
Of course, you have the second, interlinked, issue of 'targets'. Look - we are an industry where 'selling' is what we do - whether it be actual houses, or related services. It is HOW those 'products' are 'sold' that is the issue - not that we 'sell' them.
Now - back to your secondary issues...
"...all [traditional Estate Agents] can do is grumble on forums, instead of doing their professional and moral duty and reporting these crooks to the relevant authorities." You ARE being serious here, right
EVERYONE knows SOMEONE who is doing something 'wrong'. Whether it be guvvy jobs; fiddling taxes or benefits; 'bending' rules and regulations; texting while driving... you know the list is endless. HOW MANY of these offenders get shopped One percent More like one percent of one percent, I would suggest.
In our industry, we 'HEAR' of dodgy practice by others. We 'KNOW' that "Ripoff & Co" bend/break/ignore rules, regulations and Legislation. We 'THINK' that others MUST be doing certain things that they shouldn't. We VERY rarely get cast-iron evidence. And WE are not in the best position to take these 'maybe's, 'could be's and suspicions to the authorities - that is down to those it actually happens to and affects.
To the best of my understanding, Chinese whispers have NEVER resulted in a prosecution - or even a case being raised. Even the BBC/Channel 4's incessant hammering of Estate Agents/Mortgage Advisers/Car Dealers only bring the occasional 'tut-tut' from the audiences and a couple of column inches for a day or so after screening.
Which basically means that the authorities don't give a shizzle, MW - even when they have VIDEO EVIDENCE.
So, if we Estate Agents turned whistleblower to every alleged transgression of every 'regulation' we encounter,
a) we wouldn't get any of our own work done, and
b) we would be wizzing against the wind - and the copious sprayback would stain our shiny suits and ruin our gelled hair far too much - never mind take the paint off our liveried Minis...! ;o)
Back to you, MW...
A statement by Countrywide Financial Services says: Our customer policy is clear and we treat all our buyers the same irrespective which lender their mortgage comes from and if their mortgage is not through our brokerage, it does not change or impact how we treat offers to our vendors.
Well, they would say that wouldn't they, and from the other comments posted appears to be a big porky!
so much for MW and his hopes of trolling some colourful comments.
They are not the only agents "at it." I worked for a large national estate agency as the mortgage manager and was told by the area managers (both mortgage and house sales) to tell a buyer he couldn't buy the house unless he took one of our mortgages! Oddly neither manager would write an email confirming what they had told me to say.
@ Michael, Good on you, been there, done that myself a few years ago, Spicerhaart in my case.
I've long held the view that agents should be prohibited by law from having a mortgage arranger in their offices, and should only be allowed to make referrals to a completely independent firm of financial advisers. Of course, we all know it will never happen as the all powerful corporates make a huge income from bullying prospective purchasers into using their advisers.
I ran an area for a corporate. Exchanges & lettings income no matter how good was often dismissed and a rollocking was received for not doing enough mortgage referrals. I remember being told that staff were 'choosing' not to refer mortgage appointments and that they needed to be placed on disciplinary action. If they didn't get a sign up - it affected the commission for doing their job - ie selling. FS staff cant receive incentives, but sales staff are penalised if they dont meet ridiculous targets. And what can a neg do Stand up and be counted on principle - and have being sacked for poor performance on their reference
[i]And across the country the online agent community silently selects another nail and hammers it, un-noticed, into the coffin of the not-quite-dead but soon-to-be-if they-don't-buck-up traditionalists[/i]
What utter tripe. Most online agents are just wannabe agents without the resources to start a proper business. In fact, our web rank is higher than any online agent in any of our areas - they cant even beat us at their own game.
I detest the forcing of staff to refer to in house FS departments and we simply refer them to an independent broker if asked or to start with their bank. Its the same with many 'conveyancing' products.
@ Keith. Yes this practice was one of several that eventually caused me to resign from a Countrywide chain. There were around half a dozen other practices or requests from my area manager that I said I felt were unethical but I was told to like it or lump it. But on the other hand the group is highly successful. Funny old world isn't it The only practice that I reported them for was listing 'NAEA' after the names of staff on business cards when they were not MNAEA so should not claim NAEA either. Don't know what was done about that but think it stopped.
Those connected with the bank of England who have now decided not to put up interest rates when unemployment hits the tranparently obvious 7% electing instead to chosose some arbitarily random yardstick to hike up interest rates once their investors mates have milked Jonny Foreigner for every penny in the London housing market.
"Oh shit unemployment is down to the target level before the 2014 spring market kicks in, let's stick another 12 months on so we can all max out our profits by October leaving the thickos high and dry and paying through the nose for the pleasure"
Mate grumbling on the internet is the only voice most of us have in an openly corrupt world!
It is due diligence all round to ensure that someone making an offer has the finances, but clearly it is unethical to insist that all offers have been ratified by a talk with a Countrywide FS person .... but Countrywide staff are targeted on how many FS appointments they book (and at times have even been targetted on how many MA's which can be very counter productive in terms of best use of valuers time).
We are of course ALL subject to the law below (yet I know that many agents do not obey it in full) summarised by the TPO in 2011 para 7a "By law, you must tell sellers as soon as is reasonably possible about all offers that you receive at any time until contracts have been exchanged (in Scotland, missives have been concluded) unless the offer is an amount or type which the seller has specifically instructed you, in writing, not to pass on. You must confirm each offer in writing to the seller, and to the buyer who made it, within 2 working days."
And across the country the online agent community silently selects another nail and hammers it, un-noticed, into the coffin of the not-quite-dead but soon-to-be-if they-don't-buck-up traditionalists.
The online agents will of course recall how, over the years, the traditionalists have taken them to task on any point of law possible, yet when their own are blatantly breaking laws all they can do is grumble on forums, instead of doing their professional and moral duty and reporting these crooks to the relevant authorities.
I appreciate this post may stir up some colourful responses but sometimes it takes an outsider (investor actually) to point out that what you see as a 'bit of an issue' is seen as totally unacceptable by your future customers who are mote likely to think along the lines of 'if one's doing it they probably all are.' Sometimes grumbling on forums isn't enough to protect your interests.
Your Move, Spicer Haart, Countrywide, Sequence - they all place so much pressure in appointment targets for mortgages often linking staff commission to whether the buyer is getting a mortgage. Agents should sell houses, not finance.
This is rife within the corporates in particular, especially countrywide. Have had many prospective buyers share their experiences just like that which has been reported here. These agents also use their stock to all but demand that they use them to sell as well. The industry is in denial if it believes this does not exist. Its a damn disgrace if you ask me and the type of practice which will continue to blight any chance of professionalism.
This is because the countrywide management place so much pressure on regional managers who then pass that pressure down to managers who push the negs.
When I worked for that god awful company if we didn't have 6 mortgage appointments TAKE PLACE in a week per neg then we had to go and see the divisional director and the Financial services director and explain why.
All this leads to is underhand tactics by the negs to avoid a very unpleasant experience.
What a surprise. I have a member of the Sequence chain locally who do the same....in fact, they have refused viewings unless the applicants use their own FA.
When is this industry going to even begin to start being professional Talk about a conflict of interests....