Consumer watchdog Which? says it would back the identification of estate agent and letting firms that have had complaints upheld against them by the Ombudsman..
Public affairs officer Mark McLaren was speaking after the Finance Ombudsman named and shamed, for the first time, banks with bad track records.
McLaren said: “In principle, we would support greater publication of details from the Property Ombudsman, just as we would from any Ombudsman. Naming and shaming of some kind of data is in line with making sure that Ombudsman schemes are effective.
“If the Property Ombudsman were to propose this, we would very much support it, and would want to see it do it. In fact, the Property Ombudsman has got a lot better about the data it publishes, but the next stage would be naming and shaming.
“This should be the direction of travel for all of the Ombudsman schemes. The reason we would like to see greater publication is that it is good for consumers, but also for the industry. It acts as a deterrent to the few bad apples.”
McLaren also said that Which? broadly supported the efforts of the Property Standards Board, which on Wednesday announced its call on the Government to license both lettings and estate agents, by law if necessary.
McLaren said: “We are happy to go along with it, as long as it delivers in terms of enforcement and monitoring. As an initiative, we think it might require a statutory framework.”
%20-%20IMAGE%20Client%20Accounting%20%E2%80%93%20what%20are%20your%20options.jpg)
%20A%20property%20tale%20for%20our%20times.png)
Comments
Very nice site!
I see no problem with name and shame, until your on the receiving end of a hoax compalint, just the sort of thing that does happen. Look at the complaints that weren't upheld!
This country has gone mad with consumer protection, although one cannot argue against it. There is so much legislation and codes of conduct already regulating the industry, so why do people keep on harking on about what is infact a very small manority, which happens in all walks of life. A balanced approach is called for, something this government lacks and other peole feed off.
I gave up my ombudsman membership about a year ago because the ombudsman refused to name and shame.
I had been a member of the scheme for many years and never had a single complaint referred to the OEA, yet I knew that others in the area were coming under scrutiny. In my view the ombudsman does absolutely nothing for the honest agent and gives protection to the dodgy.
It is a truly appalling situation and I am not prepared to pay good money to an organisation that fails to support anything which is good about our profession.
I have said it before but the Ombudsman should either name or shame or stand down.
i support this 100% -- i had an agent call me an A-hole and told me he would tell the vendor not to sell the property to me. this was all becuase i was trying to negotiate the price --isnt that what the whole buying and selling process is about???
i was informed of this agents bad reputation when i decided to search for property with other agents in the area -- aparently he has a really bad attitude with a lot of people.
this is why the ombudsmon needs to ensure that those who are treating buyers and sellers unfair are held accountable for their actions.
i got £25 quid from the ombudsmon but what is stopping this agent from doing it to someone else and how can other potentialy customers of his check to see whether he is credible???
name and shame the bad ones!!!!! i support it
Dear 'Not more grief'. I quite agree with you, but you must understand that these dratted people are generating work and income for themselves. Unfortunately, we agents are perceived by the general public as being less than honourable (until they experience the normally high service), so we are easy targets. Provided McClaren also publicises the good news i.e "we have upheld complaints against x number of agents which represents y% of all agents" (probably less than 2%), it might actually do the majority a favour. What we need is an Ombudsman for Ombudsmen - any volunteers?
The whole business is disgraceful. Self publicising egoists with nothing better to do than leech off a minority whilst bleeting about "consumer protection". Don't they realise that we deal with adults? They are a load of namby pandy do- gooders who just make a very fundemental job (ours) far more complicated than it need be. Most buyers and sellers already have access to solicitors durring a transaction - a very useful level of consumer protection.
But these people do not have the guts to stand on their own two feet. If they think it is such a grand idea they should be able to create an organisation that agents and the public think is a good idea and warmly welcomed by everybody. It should be voluntary and the government should subsidise it. If it were to be such, these poeple wouldn't have to hide behind the threat of legislation.
But then I suppose I had better get back to the depressing, nauseous, control freak reality of the real world of our sad times.
I was once villified by a young lad from the Ombudsman scheme who bought with him to my office a member of the Trading Standards Office because he had received an anonymous call from someone who had seen a marketing add for a property that they knew and reported it as misleading as it didn't show the derelict property next door. I threw them out and didn't hear from them again. What could they have done to my business taking that type of crass attitude and for what reason. Anyone else had this type of experience?
And so the persecussion of Estate Agents continues..is there any other industry so vilified and hated as ours? Why is there none of this legislation aimed at car dealers, double glazing sellers etc. etc.