ARLA has failed to support the SAFEagent scheme, suggesting that it is just another window sticker.
The SAFE scheme, which counts ARLA members among its 1,500 sign-ups, has responded by offering ARLA what can only be called a peace initiative – whilst hinting that there could now be a battle of logos.
In a statement, ARLA claims that many of its members “see no benefit in another kitemark” but are free to decide for themselves whether to put “another badge in their window”.
The stance contrasts with the positive support given by a raft of consumer bodies, the Residential Landlords Association and the Government itself, which has backed the initiative by publishing new guidance to landlords and tenants specifically advising them to seek out a SAFE agent.
The ARLA statement says: “ARLA completely agrees that the public should be aware that they should only use lettings agents who have Client Money Protection. Without this, the consumer runs a real risk of losing money should the agent default.
“ARLA also strongly believes that, as an organisation, it has set the standard that all lettings and managing agents should meet and has worked hard over the years to continue raising these standards within the industry to the benefit of agents and the consumer.
“We believe that the licensed ARLA logo symbolises the minimum standard the consumer should be encouraged to expect.
“This includes qualifications, CMP, PI, the checking of detailed accountants’ report, compulsory membership of a redress scheme and the requirement for Continued Professional Development.
“We know many of our members see no benefit in another kitemark and accordingly we believe our members should be free to make their own commercial decision concerning putting another badge in their window.
“We would hope that agents, regardless of the scheme to which they belong, can be encouraged to make the consumer aware of the benefit that their relevant organisation’s consumer protection benefits provide.”
John Midgley, managing director of Touchstone and a lead member of the SAFEagent steering group, said: “We welcome ARLA’s ‘complete agreement’ that landlords and tenants should only use letting agents who are covered by Client Money Protection Insurance to avoid the risk of losing money if an agent defaults.
“The lines of communication are open between the SAFEagent steering group and ARLA to discuss how we can work to the common goal of raising consumer awareness and standards in the industry. As part of this dialogue, the SAFEagent steering group is offering special terms to ARLA for including their members in SAFEagent.
“The crucial minimum protection of CMP required to be a SAFEagent must be in place for the consumer to be secure alongside any benefits of professional regulation.
“Created by agents for agents, SAFEagent is a mark by which landlords and tenants can instantly spot an agent who is covered by a client money protection scheme that guarantees that their money is safe.
“The fact that SAFEagent has seen more than 1,500 sign-ups within its first three months of operation shows conclusively that its benefits are widely recognised.
“As well as government backing, a number of key consumer bodies, including Shelter, NUS, Trading Standards Institute, Council of Mortgage Lenders, The Property Ombudsman and the British Property Federation, support the SAFEagent campaign.
“Ultimately, SAFEagent stands for consumer protection with ongoing support from the Government, consumer-focused bodies and professional letting agents.
“As such, it will become the mark that consumers look for.”
%20(002).png)
Comments
I think SAFE has done well without ARLAs support so ask why anyone cares what they say now?
Their release was hardly damning - in fact I had to read it twice to try and see what their stance actually was - if it weren't for the headline, it would be totally anaemic.
Sounds to me like they dont actually have a view at all - either that or they can't agree amongst themselves.
Either way - it matters little.
I can understand why agents slag rightmove but have to use them, why oh why do the NAEA get slagged and still get used?
Its adds Zero, save some con of initials after your name on a business card, just save your money and be honest!
We are based in prime London and ARLA is essential for us and works extremely well. Having said that, I see no reason why they can't support SAFE. All seems like they are on the same side after all. I do however accept the point which perhaps we illustrate, that ARLA is rather London focussed and at best, South centred.
I am sure ARLA could be a bit more positive as SAFE seem to have done a good job in getting known so quickly. SAFEagent does what it says.
I am not an ARLA member so wont comment on their internal politics - but I am an NAEA member still fuming at the manner in which their new licensing initiative intends to dissuade landlords form using me and agents regulated by others. This further confuses consumers for what appears purely selfish reasons.
When SAFE started, they were knocked by some demanding to know how they would get their voices heard. Requests for financial details, budgets for PR etc.
All I can say is that they have stuffed ARLA and RICS in the PR stakes and have done more to highlight this issue in a few months that the others have achieved in the last decade.
SAFE has done bloody well in focussing a debate and forcing ARLA to revisit this important issue. Had ARLA simply endorsed them, they could have boosted their profile enormously and effectly obtained vicarious support from all those consumer groups who have backed SAFEagent
Instead they dismiss the concept as a 'badge'. How narrow minded, patronising and ill advised.
NOTE: ARLA HAS SHAFTED NAEA MEMBERS WITH LICENSING. SAFEAGENT OFFERS US SUPPORT AND ENDORSEMENT.
ARLA's decisions are made by their board. When was the last time Ian Potter or PBK went out on a valuation up against plausible competition? Not this century that's for sure.
The real world is a very competitive one. Safe is a benefit and should have been embraced. In fact I believe if a majority of front line agents had been on the board, it most certainly would have been.
Someone below was offended by the phrase "A missed opportunity" - I say again - IT IS A MISSED OPPORTUNITY which ARLA may well regret.
ARLA is a good regulator but they have lulled themselves into the misapprehension that everyone knows who they are. They dont. The reason is precisely that which Industry Observer mentions - anyone who is not a member can dismiss them by stating, accurately, that they are a trade association.
I had a complaint from a lawyer and suggested he directed his unfounded niggles to ARLA - he replied "Why would I report you to a body run by people like you?"
Why we can't all pull together, God only knows.
This article is now where as Ray Evans has said on LAT it should have been originally which is on LAT as it is all about ARLA.
May I just update as follows:-
@SE1 agent
sadly yes the politics is all correct no matter who may try to deny any of it. NALS in effect was formed by ARLA, NAEA and RICS (and a few others0 and was their lap dog until it bit back. Good for NALS I say.
@Ann Patey
You are correct and this is where ARLA really wants to sit up and listen because as Lettings Guru also alludes to ARLA seems to think all that has to happen s mention its name and Landlords fall over themselves to sign up. This is far from the truth and the other sad statistic is that ARLA is very much a southern based organisation.
The further north you go, and once past the Midlands, and members are much thinner on the ground as is ARLA activity. We have offices who say that no-one has ever commented on ARLA when it is mentioned to them ("Oh in that case I must have some"). In 20 years I have only ever known one of our offices questioned at a take on interview about ARLA membership. And that was by an Army Colonel who was running an agents beauty parade like an invasion plan!!!
The sad truth is that non member competitors can easily deflect such questions simply by saying "Well it's only a trade association and actually acts for agents so really you are better off without it" or similar.
@Lettings Guru
Very interesting point. ARLA is in theory run by the members for the members at least in terms of non employees and admin etc staff. Maybe the regional councillors etc when they go on take ons get Landlords throwing themselves at them in awe of their ARLA connection.
But how many actually go out on take-ons at the sharp end and really see what is happening?
I attended the NALS conference recently and took huge encouragement from the positive, lettings-focused message that came from the organizers and all the speakers. SafeAgent tells the public instantly what ARLA have failed to do in all the years they have been in existence, despite members urging them to do more to get the message across. Since the formation of the NFOPP this has been even further diluted, and like other commentators here have said, we have also been wondering whether we need to belong to both organizations when one (NALS) is speaking LOUDLY on behalf of Letting Agents and the rental market.
@ Ann Patey - you are of course correct.
Many landlords favour low fees over low risk as they assume that all agents have some form of basic regulation.
ARLA see themselves through rose tinted lenses and I think that if they actually went out and did a few valuations, they would be stunned at the public perception.
At least ARLA has made a statement - one up on RICS who still don't realise that some of their members do lettings!
Joking aside - I am pleased that RICS have chosen not to comment.
"Better to be thought a fool than to issue a press release and remove all doubt"
I am actually grateful to SAFE as finally, I can wave a lettings Flag to landlords with them saying "Um - I don't want a survey"
What really annoys me about ARLAs stance is that they assume the public recognise their logo and what it stands for. Very few landlords have heard of ARLA and the bottom line for most is the fees, so they'll willingly take a chance with non ARLA agents even thought the benefits are fully explained. This is often raised at the regional meetings I attend but ARLA just don't seem to take it on board.
Safeagent stickers get the message across to all and sundry without expensive advertising. The name Safeagent says it all.
ARLA really needs to do it's members the service of heavy promotion of what it stands for and why landlords should use ARLA agents.
What really annoys me about ARLAs stance is that they assume the public recognise their logo and what it stands for. Very few landlords have heard of ARLA and the bottom line for most is the fees, so they'll willingly take a chance with non ARLA agents even thought the benefits are fully explained. This is often raised at the regional meetings I attend but ARLA just don't seem to take it on board.
Safeagent stickers get the message across to all and sundry without expensive advertising. The name Safeagent says it all.
ARLA really needs to do it's members the service of heavy promotion of what it stands for and why landlords should use ARLA agents.
We have a couple of agents who aren't members of anything and they seem to do pretty well despite the rumours of their finances being a bit 'dodgy'.
They still get business because they play the TPOS card as a psuedo-accreditation scheme and it works. Safe has at least allowed us to point out that this would not allow them to gain the SAFE kitemark without being seen as undermining TPOS.
Its not about ARLA more about highlighting which agents have CMP and which just give the impression they are regulated when they aren't. To me, this actually allows us to fly the ARLA flag with independent verification rather than just blowing our own trumpet. Why can't ARLA see the benefits?
I didn't know about all the politics and, if true, find it unbelievable that members interests are less important than some old feud. Get over it.
Interesting thread. I have admit, I was expecting a bit more from ARLA - but it was all a bit of a damp squib. The release seemed almost 'neutered' - even cautious. Odd from the people who rounded on Grant Shapps without restraint.
I suspect that this is because that opposing SAFE would be an imprudent stance to take bearing in mind its purpose and the support generated. Likewise, overt support would stick in the throat due to NALS involvement and further, many non licensed ARLA members wouldnt qualify to be SAFE agents. This would nor go down well.
Most contributors here seem supportive - a few analytical, hardly any against. Have ARLA misread members views or is it that ARLA agents just dont read this site.?
Perhaps they do - but don't have any strong views or simply don't care. Considering the anonymous status of most who contribute - I was expecting a storm of opposing views and heated debate - but no - its all seems very civil and informative.
Perhaps this scheme has at least made people think about the issue in hand - something SAFE group should be very pleased about and perhaps an opportunity ARLA could do well to grasp for mutual benefit.
I continue to watch developments with great interest.
@get on with your work now!
"Get behind ARLA and start protecting consumers by doing your job right! "
Just remind us - how many claims against ARLA agents have been brought?
If you are correct, CMP premiums would be going down - not up!
That said - I at least I can get a discount at Thorpe Park and really be taken for a ride.
Dear SAFE - please don't think ARLA PR represents the views of all members. It does not.
ARLA state many of its members “see no benefit in another kitemark”
Conversely - many do and our firm is one of these.
I have nothing derogatory to say about ARLA - far from it; but I am sure even the most hardened member will agree that they have not been great in getting the message out there.
My point is about raising customer awareness of an issue - not of just the profile of one Regulator.
At regional meeting the discussion over SAFE were mixed - little negative - at worst dismissive in terms of "We already do all that" It was obvious that many hadn't really looked into the initiative and perhaps you need to explain this better.
A membership drive is entirely different from a consumer initiative. I support SAFE but also maintain ARLA is the body to protect landlords and tenants.
The two can work well together without anyone compromising. Its called symbiosis and works well.
Does it really matter if ARLA supports SAFE as long as they are not against it?
@Industry Observer on 2011-10-24 11:39:49
Many of your thoughts are my thoughts too.
SAFE is an organization that will CHECK ( I hope regularly because that is where this will succeed or fail) that a firm is a current member of a bone-fide CMP scheme (ARLA or any other), it does not usurp individual schemes. It will collate the various schemes (who have singularly failed to promote their protection to the public) under one ‘kite-mark’. This should be a good thing because at present there is much confusion over what is what but its ultimate success will be in the hands of the agents.
Confusion reigns in the ranks of estate & letting agents – mainly caused since the formation of the NFoPP (one poster here says he is “considering his membership of the NFoPP” – he is not a member of that, but is a member of one or more of its ‘divisions’) and also the general public (they do not know on earth what is what!).
However it should be remembered that the NAEA, ARLA etc. are not consumer organizations, they are members Trade Associations that also have major consideration for the publics protection from wrong doing.
Safe is, on balance, a good idea and certainly not a bad one - at present.
BUT - The day that Lettings is regulated - it will be unnecessary. I suspect this is why it was never set up as a commercial venture.
When that happens - and every agent has to hold CMP and PI and all agents have to join a redress scheme - it will be a commercial opportunity for someone - be it insurers, trade bodies, deposit scheme providers, local authorities etc to seize an opportunity. Many will be invited to discuss with Govt before we have any idea what is happening.
It may seem insane - but rather like TDS et al - a number of licensed regulators will emerge offering far more attractive deals than ARLA.
I would imagine that when it happens, these mandatory licenses will cost money and as such the will to pay more to ARLA, NALS, NAEA will ebb away as their raison d'etre will diminish in the same way. A level playing field will be created and membership of a 'club' will not offer something unique - other than the opportunity to buy courses at discounted rates.
As such, these organisations should see that there is safety in numbers and organise with SAFE to be the ones pulling together NOW.
I may sound like George Orwell, but I can see it happening and am not alone.
I am an ARLA member and an active supporter of the organisation. I always promote it - but am often met with "Yes yes yes - I know" and eyes glaze over.
I was against joining SAFE but was out voted. However - SAFE has provided an interesting talking point with landlords. Before, they assumed that, say, TPOS protected them. Now, SAFE allows me to demonstrate why ARLA is so important by using their website as validation without being seen to 'rubbish' others.
Its not a solution - it doesn't replace ARLA - but it does endorse us and allows us to get landlords to realise that CMP is not common place as many assume it would be. In fact some are stunned that there is NO stat regulation in force. For us - SAFE hasn't changed things - but it has been a valuable consumer education tool.
That is a good thing in my book.
From the sound bites here it seems few support ARLA's stance.
Maybe ARLA members don't read this forum, but one thing I have noticed as an impartial advisor (lawyer specialising in L&T) there hasn't been ONE convincing argument against SAFEagent in the myriad of articles and posts on the subject since launch. Even ARLA's press release says nothing of substance.
There have been misinformed assumptions but nothing which leads me to believe SAFE is anything other than a good idea in that a coordinated, single message in a confusing fractured industry can be anything other than good. Good for consumers, and good for the reputation of the industry.
I deal with many problem agent issues and again and again clients plead "But they were members of..... [insert guild, association, body here] yet in truth in meant nothing.
ARLA is a good organisation - but there are others who offer similar and many who appear to offer something yet do not.
Industry Observer seems to have found the issue.
ARLA board dislikes NALS. It seems an old grudge that wont go away.
At the NALS conference, I was very surprised at the unsolicited support for SAFE - not just from members, but from the speakers - especially those speaking for the Housing minister and the Mayor of London.
Surely they can't all be wrong?
As a landlord of several - I think safe is an excellent idea. I have read their website and it seems that they actively promote ARLA.
Whilst I am aware of ARLA's benefits - I have to admit that I was unaware of who the other regulators were. I didnt know that NAEA offered protection or indeed Law society.
I fail to see why Safe raises such emotions as from my understanding - they are not a competing regulator.
I cant see why any organisation would be so negative about an idea that promotes them.
The RLA has supported SAFE and I will be guided by them - I am sure they wouldnt be so keen if it were just a badge
"In a statement, ARLA claims that many of its members “see no benefit in another kitemark” but are free to decide for themselves whether to put “another badge in their window”.
After weeks of ARLAs Board debating this - is that really all they can come up with?
Ok - SAFE wont be another window sticker - why? Because I have just removed the ARLA one and now SAFE is our ONLY window sticker.
If you want to know who is getting the message out there - try this.
Google 'ARLA' and then Google 'Safeagent'
The results are amazing when one considers that ARLA was going before Google and SAFE was only launched in June.
I cant comment on concepts as I deal with the tech side - but thought it worth a mention.
HPC dorks where are you? You must have some rubbish to post or have you finally grown up?
@Get on with your work now
"ARLA nor any of its agents are missing any opportunity. THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED. Safeagent is a NON STARTER"
We are ARLA licensed members and have joined SAFE. We did so as we were fed up with people claiming to be members of various bodies which sounded good - but offered no protection. Our landlords seem to embrace the idea.
Who are you to know the minds of ALL your members and how does this square with the number of ARLA members who have joined up?
For a 'non starter' - it hasn't done badly and seems to have started well.
Come on - you want to know peoples names and request this from behind a pseudonym!
Industry Observer and KBG - many thanks for your kind words.
For the record, like other 'external' observers, I was utterly appalled at the behaviour of ARLA, particularly during its directorship of NALS (together with NAEA & RICS). When I first became involved, I thought that the ODPM - now CLG had funded NALS with the specific intention of creating a basic 'gateway' into the industry. In particular that the ability to hold tenants deposits would be denied to any agent who didn't comply with the basic NALS standard. Naively, I thought that as ARLA members could be automatically accredited by NALS, that they (ARLA) would see that as the ideal recruitement opportunity to widen their membership. Sadly they arrogantly adopted the attitude that, in their view, ARLA was the only acceptable basic industry standard and treated NALS with utter contempt.
What goes round, comes around?
Its simple. Industry Observer is correct.
ARLA will never support anything to do with NALS.
ARLA will never support anything that wasn't their idea.
ARLA will support flawed ideas that were theirs despite them being ill thought out i.e: Licensing
If the SAFE team expected an endorsement, I would be surprised as frankly, I suspect they know better. I don't know why they would care what ARLA thinks anyway - they are a trade body looking after their members so, in fairness, their objectives differ.
Time for the respective supporters to just get on with it - spats achieve nothing.
I wonder who writes ARLA's gripping tweets... eg:
Peter Bolton King appeared on BBC Coventry & Warwickshire Radio this morning debating whether buying is better than renting or vice versa
Peter Bolton King just given a talk to the Norwegian Association of Agents about the state of the market. #arla #naea
Bookings now being taken for the @icba_uk Forum 1 Nov London.
@get on with your work now!...... "A few people that were once respected in the industry are going to end up with “egg on their face”
Why - for trying to do something for the good of the consumer?
Really, the ARLA stance is simply astonishing and yes, it is a missed opportunity.
SAFE is a good idea - will it succeed ? - sadly probably not because of people such as you and your ARLA cohorts who have no interest in the consumer.
@ get on with your work now!
You obviously do not know many agents then. I used to be very anti-SAFEagent believing them to be another way to take money from us. I was (and still am) very sceptical of the NALS involvement since all NALS seem to excel at is increasing charges every year!
I then took the time to learn more about the scheme and now support it. Most people know that CORGI was the gas kitemark and are learning that it is now GASSAFE. Similarly in a very short time, landlords and tenants are learning that their money is protected. Is it a perfect schem, no it isn't and I cannot that of one that is 100% perfect, but it is better than ARLA sitting in their ivory tower thumbing their noses at it and by implication, its own members who support it.
Surely a scheme that attempts to restore public confidence in agents has to be supported.
@ get on with your work now!
why do you claim its a non starter? I joined SAFE and use the CLG advice to landlords which features SAFE. I think you will find that support is growing as is the membership - Its easy - take it or leave it - no need to get so angry.
In a few short months, they have generated a lot of support. I left ARLA for reasons that are becoming more and more clear - draconian and out of touch. Most seem to agree.
@IndustryObserver - excellent post - says it all really.
"As I do not know a single agent that is interested what so ever in joining. "
http://www.safeagents.co.uk/agents/search?k=
Here's a few
Industry Observer - you are absolutely spot on.
Its all past politics and grudges at the expense of the consumer which is small minded and petty.
I agree with the question "What makes ARLA thing its right?"
I cant believe that a partisan members only club effectively says that everyone else is wrong. Not just industry, but consumer groups and government.
They seem hell bent on distancing themselves from that which really matters - customers and their money. An endorsement could have been seen as support for raising standards in the industry - instead they are perpetuating the fragmented message which they in part were responsible for creating.
Is it the same person that writes these replies about safeagent?? As I do not know a single agent that is interested what so ever in joining.
Also who writes the tweets from safe agents?? Please will you let us know on this forum who writes them.
This was Safeagent on Friday
“ARLA issuing press release regarding SAFE as I type. Lines of communication remain open and constructive! Have a good weekend
”“Good exchange of emails with ARLA today. Also, great work going on behind the scenes with key supporters - very productive
”
Today they are
“Discussion with ARLA remain open and amicable. We respect their view but feel that perhaps they have perhaps missed an opportunity.”
ARLA nor any of its agents are missing any opportunity. THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED. Safeagent is a NON STARTER.
A few people that were once respected in the industry are going to end up with “egg on their face”
Get behind ARLA and start protecting consumers by doing your job right!
A lot of very sensible and understandably predictable comments in this thread and I'd like to follow on from Eromallid after agreeing 100% with what he says.
One of ARLA's biggest faults over the years apart from an undying belief that what they say must be right and goes, has been a tendency to forget what they were originally formed for and what they are meant to represent. Which is the members and their interests.
Yes they have to be a champion for the consumer, and have to act in a responsible and largely impartial manner. But it does seem to me that ARLA has lost track of its roots. It was not formed, for example, to:-
1. Invent and develop Buy to Let (largely to the benefit of several long standing and founder members firms)
2. Champion for an unnecessary TDP scheme and be an integral part of it
3. Set itself up as the self appointed licensing vehicle for the Govt for the industry
4. Almost unneringly when handling its own complaints internally almost always find for the Landlord or tenant and against the member no matter how blindingly obvious the evidence was to the contrary.
and so on.
There are several benefits to ARLA that other bodies such as NALS cannot provide, such as the training and qualifications. I would have added cmp but now NALS provides that and one wonders how much longer it will be before they provide other services and benefits that until now only ARLA has provided, or has until now best provided.
The angle I would follow on from Eromallid with and explain as no-one else has mentioned it so far is why ARLA cannot bring itself to endorse SAFEagent. The reason is simple and that is NALS heavy involvement.
ARLA dislikes NALS, always has done since it became the enfant terrible ARLA regards it as and stood on its own feet and also stood up to ARLA.
They (NALS) have never been forgiven for that by ARLA, and it is a combination of sour grapes and dislike that causes this foolish inability of ARLA to endorse the SAFE scheme.
"ARLA doesn't believe..." - really? And what makes ARLA always think it is right then?
@eromallid
An exceptionally succinct and erudite post which really says it all. Well put.
I just cant see what ARLA were thinking of in further alienating themselves from what could have been a golden opportunity to reassert themselves and use the PR of SAFE to promote themselves.
As an outsider with a great deal of understanding of the industry wide CMP issues, I would say that ARLA made three highly significant decisions which have profoundly compromised their position:-
1) By merging into NFoPP and blurring the distinction between letting and sales.
2) Having merged, then abandoning their original CMP policy of 'first resort' (the main plank of their PR initiative for more than a decade) and thus significantly reducing consumer protection to that 'last resort', which was that which was always been provided by NAEA.
3) Introducing a self appointed 'licensing' concept which allows certain categories of 'members' to use the ARLA logo without the equirement of CMP participation.
Combining all that with an ineffective PR function and 'creeks and paddles' seem to be the order of the day.
@ARLA member - that has to be a wind up?
ARLA is the best regulator and best for the public. Nothing else compares in terms of landlord awareness.
All these so called 'consumer' bodies incl. TPOS, Shapps etc just issue sound bites.
ARLA were quite right in bringing licensing and telling the public to only use an ARLA agent. NAEA do sales, RICS do surveys.
Cant see what all the fuss is about really. If you do lettings and dont belong to ARLA, then you obviously don't take your business or your customers seriously.
ARLA place themselves in isolation from the public. Are we surprised? No.
Will I renew my membership - unlikely to be honest. After 22 years, I feel that they have again failed to support the industry as whole inn terms of public perception.
Had they, they could have made great capital from taking a consumer protection lead rather than being left behind.
They didn't have to join SAFE - just endorse the concept rather than patronisingly reduce it down to a sticker.
What message does this send to SAFE supporters? Effectively, ARLA is telling Ombudsman, Housing Minister, Trading standards etc that they are wrong and ARLA knows better.
Its frankly embarrassing
Funny isn't it. CMP fees are going up because of ARLA members going down and so many claims against the bastions of good practice.
Would someone show me the last public PR from ARLA? Even the silly licensing idea only managed to roll out ONE leaflet per company!!
United they stand - divided they fall.
This was a great chance for the industry to unite and show the public that it cares about professional standards.
ARLAs response is pathetic and petty and achieves nothing other than to perpetuate the impression that the 'council' of elders is out of touch and only interested in their membership and freebies.
No wonder they get such a bad image.
Arse from Elbow springs to mind.
Fact is - ARLAs plans are to rubbish the other regulators including NAEA for their own interests and let unlicensed members use their logo without having CMP, PI, etc
Its like they have sat down and thought "Ok, how can we really confuse the public?" ....
Is this another club with no teeth?
Went to the asa and they did zip.
Went to the naea and they did zip.
Whats the point of being a member in an organisation that is like a headless chicken?
I am going to keep the fifty quid in my pocket.
ARLA refuses to back 'another kitemark'?
What a stupid statement - what other kitemarks are there?
There are memberships of one of the 5 regulators - but to my certain knowledge only ONE kitemark which does what safe does.
“We believe that the licensed ARLA logo symbolises the minimum standard the consumer should be encouraged to expect.
Classy, very classy.
I was at the NALS conference and not one person had anything other than positives to say about SAFE - including a number of ARLA members, Government, TPOS, Rightmove, Landlord Groups, lenders and many others.
Why is ARLA so disconnected with everyone else?
What threat is SAFE? Its only a kitemark - not a competitor - and in fact as someone said - SAFE is effectively a recruitment tool for ARLA.
I am not sure the headline accurately reflect the article - they say:
"We would hope that agents, regardless of the scheme to which they belong, can be encouraged to make the consumer aware of the benefit that their relevant organisation’s consumer protection benefits provide"
Sounds like they aren't against it - but just cant bring themselves to admit its a good idea.
Arrogant Residential Letting Agency !
Who cares? The ONLY place ARLA press releases appear is on this website and everyone here knows what they are like.
SAFE is supported by consumer groups and government.
ARLA is only supported by themselves.
"We believe that the licensed ARLA logo symbolises the minimum standard"
But they are happy to let individuals use the ARLA logo and offer none of these minimum benefits?
You couldn't make this up.
I doubt Mr Hayatt is too bothered: "Knight Frank partners share £73m bonus pot"
@ money making scheme
ARLA: Kerching £2000 and you are in. Next year will be more - and they wont do anything for your business or listen to your views, but hey.
Is it me?
ARLA "This includes qualifications, CMP, PI, the checking of detailed accountants’ report, compulsory membership of a redress scheme"
Er - that's what a SAFE logo means as well. You cant be guaranteed that with the ARLA logo if an individual is a member but the firm is not.
Surely SAFE repairs the gaping hole in ARLAs ill thought out licensing scheme,
I am embarrassed at ARLA's response. Why on earth couldn't they be positive whilst fighting their own corner?
All this has achieved is to illustrate that they are a self interested members 'club' - nothing more than a trade association who dont appear to care about the public or the industry. I wouldn't mind if they had managed one single useful press release - but no. They just do nothing and snipe at those who do.
It would have been a great message to the public that the industry was trying to address much publicised issues simply by endorsing the concept.
I am proud to be a member of SAFE but am wondering more and more about my membership of NFoPP.
@money making scheme - yep. Its that easy - NOT - another person who doesn't understand its about consumers - not money. I am sure all the consumer groups went our of their way to back a commercial enterprise.
Kerching £50 and your in!!