An outspoken online agent wants MPs and the new regulatory guardians at Powys County Council to consider legislation to create greater transparency within the industry.
Russell Quirk, chief executive of eMoov, says all agents should be obliged to make more efforts to disclose all fees as part of what he calls a 'transparency mandate'.
Quirk's letter to Powys says an NHS-style annual audit of the industry should take place to curb cowboy practises which he says dominate the sector.
Under Quirk's proposals, all estate agents should be forced to:
- reveal fee structures, which are often hidden, and to guard against sellers being hit with unexpected fees later;
- relinquish the sole agency concept in a bid to free sellers to adopt a more competitive approach to instructing agents; and
- undertake an annual publication of data of interest to sellers such as fall through rates, the average time taken from date of an offer made to deal completion, the average difference between asking price and sale price, and the firm's annual turnover.
A spokesman for Powys council told EAT that all ideas from agents would be considered but that it was up to parliament to decide on changes in laws affecting agents.
Quirke cites the recent 25 per cent surge in complaints about agents to the Property Ombudsman. Yet information released under the Freedom of Information Act found that just 12 prohibition or warning orders for breaches of the Estate Agents Act were issued last year, and just 100 over the past nine years he says.
He also describes the traditional agency model in terms which will be familiar to those following the apparently-inexhaustible debate between online and high street agents.
Estate agents' traditional approach to customer service has been dreadful. The standard model seems to be secrecy about fees and conditions, which means people often get stung later Quirke says in his letter.
.png)
Comments
I for one love these pearls of wisdom handed out by our online proprietors. May the first one that has ever run a successful proper estate agency come forward and take a bow!
Agents do have to quote their fees. Also budget agents with less fee in the pot are UNABLE to offer main agency where they broker a listing out which can result in greater through the door footfall. As such budget agents compromise being able to provide best client service.
Any agent who can only attract business by being CHEAP must be questioned to their ability to achieve best offers for clients. There is more to traditional agency than it appears Russell understands.
And just a footnote, if a marketing fee up front was not agreed, then a withdrawal fee was.
@ Ray Evans
It was certainly the norm in this part of the world, I started in agency in 1983, and although we then worked on no sale-no fee, several competitors were still charging a marketing fee.
@ Guest (guest)
In my view your 'facts' are inaccurate.
Certainly in the early1970's, when I became involved in estate agency and firms were mainly RICS controlled, commission was based on a 'stepped' percentage system. I believe it started as 5% of the first 500 of the eventual selling price and 2.5% of the next 2500 then a further reduction in percentage on the residue. Of course one could then buy a 3 bed semi. for less than 10,000.
@ Elisabeth Freeman.
Never assume, you know the rest.... Actually I do, and it works very well!
At Guest (guest).
"If agency went back to the real 'traditional' model and charged a marketing fee up front, there would be huge advantages to the industry as a whole, the best would survive, and those not able to offer a quality service would fall by the wayside. Because agency fees would be considerably cheaper as you would earn out of every property marketed, it would provide a far better deal for the client, and would have obvious advantages for cash flow, and tying in customer loyalty."
So you practice this do you or just preach it thought so, not in the ideal world are we.
Strange this list of demands when Emoov add VAT into there fees AFTER you've clicked on there options.
There is NO mention of VAT on there home page so they're hardly transparent themselves!
Smacks of double standards
At least everyone resisited the debate about sole v multi agency!
His idea of publishing stats has millage, the rest hes just an attention seeking burke but he get lot of free ad time with such nonsence!
@Elizabeth Freeman.
'The scandalous practice of charging up front fees before selling a property'
A little estate agency history for you. 'No sale-no fee' is not the 'traditional' model, but has only been the norm since the beginning of the eighties, when Owen Oyston started offering it is a marketing ploy across his chain in Lancashire. The real 'Traditional' model is that an agent would agree an up front marketing fee and a commission on completion of a successful sale.
No sale- no fee works against vendors, as you well know, NO agent sells everything they market, so those that do sell pay the abortive costs for those that don't. Would YOU pay for abortive work done for someone else in any other service industry, no, of course you would not! but you expect your sellers to do just that.
If agency went back to the real 'traditional' model and charged a marketing fee up front, there would be huge advantages to the industry as a whole, the best would survive, and those not able to offer a quality service would fall by the wayside. Because agency fees would be considerably cheaper as you would earn out of every property marketed, it would provide a far better deal for the client, and would have obvious advantages for cash flow, and tying in customer loyalty.
Think about it, perhaos charging an up front fee is not so scandalous!
It's a really odd set of demands.
1. reveal fee structures, which are often hidden. Really I have rarely heard of any agent ever charging more than the agreed % or fixed fee. What vendors really care about is sale price.
2. relinquish the sole agency concept - a great way to ensure vendors pay more. Agents would end up turning away instructions and service levels would fall.
3. undertake an annual publication of data of interest to sellers - you cant compare stats between huge companies & small independents. Turnover has no relevance, but there is always DueDil or Companies house
He obviously believes he is more intelligent than he actually is. I personally believe his ideas are excellent. They will make it almost impossible to set up a new agency, restrict new office openings, mean that if there were no sole agency, we would be charging prior to commencement of marketing and the whole scheme would lead to an increase of costs to the consumer and reduced competition. He obviously thinks the politicians ARE actually as stupid as they sometime appear!
I recently sat in a presentation by this chap and in the question time he was asked about the new Consumer Protection Regulations. He had never heard of these so just proves the professionalism of the company in question!!
Basically the owner of this awful online site wants the whole industry geared to make him more money, what an idiot Quirk is
Russell is a tool, a dragons tool.
I may write to them also, asking that they outlaw the scandalous practice of charging fees upfront before / without actually selling a property.