Furious agents will be counting the cost of having to remove all traces of the OFT from their marketing after shock news that authorisation is being withdrawn from March 31.
The Property Ombudsman has told all sales member firms that their right to use the OFT Approved Code logo will abruptly cease in two months.
A previous offer of a year’s period of grace has been withdrawn by the OFT’s successor body.
As a result, agents will have to remove the OFT logo from all marketing material, website advertising and windows. Estate agents are affected, but not letting agents. The Ombudsman scheme had secured approval for its lettings code, but this was a stage one approval and was in the process of being lifted to full approval, an Ombudsman spokesman said this morning.
The OFT is ceasing its Consumer Codes Approval scheme from April 1. The Trading Standards Institute will be running a similar scheme, but has yet to produce a logo.
In any case, the Property Ombudsman has not yet decided whether to join, saying it has had insufficient information.
One agent, Michael Saville, of cmSALES in Essex, said he had just ordered 1,000 new folders plus business cards, all with the OFT logo, at a cost of £720 plus VAT.
He said: “On top of this, we obviously have costs to remove the logo from our website and brochure design templates, and our stock of letterheads with the logo on will go out date from March 31 and can’t be used.
“What a joke, when this government is meant to be helping businesses get through this economic climate!”
The Property Ombudsman has made it clear that the situation is completely unsatisfactory and that it is trying to negotiate an acceptable transition.
Gerry Fitzjohn, the chief operating officer of TPO, said: “The Trading Standards Institute is the new body appointed to take over from OFT to run a similar scheme.
“I have been considering whether or not to participate in the new scheme on the basis of cost, the recognition of the new brand and whether it has meaning for consumers and member agents.
“As yet I have not had sufficient information to make a decision and TSI has not yet confirmed what their logo for the scheme will be.
“TSI initially advised me that sales agents would have had a period of grace of up to one year within which to remove references to OFT, but now says that the OFT logos must be removed from April 1, 2013, and that a handover period is not possible.
“I fully appreciate it will be a difficult and potentially costly task to remove the logo and references to the OFT at short notice.
“I am urgently seeking to negotiate a satisfactory transition, but until I achieve a successful outcome, sales agents have no alternative but to remove OFT logos and references to the OFT across their businesses with effect from April 1.
“In preparation for the changeover, we will supply all member agents with a ‘The Property Ombudsman’ logo (without the attached Approved Code logo belonging to the OFT) and will be making stocks of this generic logo available at no cost to replace existing window stickers.”
.jpg)
Comments
Where does this leave the TPOS if it doesn't join the trading standards institute ?
Does that mean that its not a requirement to join them anymore or that we have to use someone else?
Does this also mean that other firms can come in as ombudsman ???
A shame, OFT say we still have to pay OFT AML registration fees:
"The information in your email below refers to the Office of Fair Trading Consumer Codes Approval Scheme (CCAS) which approved the Property Ombudsman’s (TPO) code (permitting members to display the OFT’s approved code logo alongside the TPO code logo) which is closing at the end of March 2013. This means the OFT will no longer be monitoring the TPO code. As a result Estate Agents will no longer be able to display the OFT approved code logo. Please contact the Property Ombudsman directly for further information regarding this.
There is no change to the requirement of Estate Agents to register with the OFT under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007."
AML subs?
I have just written to the AML Team, who appear to be a subset of OFT, seeking confirmation that now we are to leave OFT I assume we need not pay the £49 AML registration subscription. I await the answer.
The value of your opinion is self evident in its explanation geezer. To use an insulting phrase as 'some never learn' and then balk at the insulting response is a paradox of your own making, think about it...
Too much time wasted chasing our tails to conform with all the rules and regs that are changed and chopped at the drop of a hat. Whatever happened to simplicity and doing business without someone pointing a gun at you or pulling your strings?
Furious agents... Shock news.... frankly switched off after the second paragragh....
@The rainman cometh on 2013-01-30 14:32:53
Whoever you are.
Rudeness is not necessary to make a point .
Is my opinion worth less than your own?
Please broaden your thinkiing. Look around you. My comment "Some never learn - never ask governments to control you" is based on experience of more than just the property industry.
Ends.
@nw6 agent
This will never Happen. Allagents is a review website for customers to have a moan at their agent. These reviews are not factually correct and would simply open up a wave of unnessessary critisim from in educated people that don't understand that there is a legal process We have to follow
With each Ray Evans post and I'm reminded that “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
Quit while you're behind fella!
This is the first I have heard this as well. The TPOS should partner with Allagents and their transparent agent scheme.
You know - I could give a flying fig.
We subscribe to a code which was approved by the OFT. If the OFT no longer exist, then they cant still approve it - but as a statement of history - they did.
And really, who will care? Its not a lie - its just out of date.
Doesn't sound like 'fair trading' to me.
Does this also mean we can now decline to pay £49 pa to the OFT authorised anti money laundering administrators (so they can register our agreement that yes, remarkably for a business we DO handle money).
My 3rd subscription is now up for renewal and I have been offered payment choices of cheque or postal order! I have pointed out that cheques are archaic, were almost abolished and cost me much more than paying by BACS. between bank charges, postage, photocopying & admin time I estimate it costs an extra £2 for me to issue a cheque than to pay by BACS which I pointed out, requesting their sort code & account No & promising to quote their ref no when I use it. They have decline to release that info to me, saying they are 'looking into receiving electronic payment in the future'. AML admin costs would also be lower taking BACS rather than cheques, but as WE pay for their admin too, I guess they don't care. Pathetic.
What about LAUTRO, FSA etc? Some people on here could start a fight over anything
Its a logo - no one cares - TSI wont. As said below - get some stickers and move on. These thanks happen.
When CORGI changed to GSR - was there an outcry? No.
Don't use it myself as I thought it was less important than displaying RICS, NAEA, ARLA & ARMA - which I do display.
But I am somewhat unimpressed.
We seem to be going through an enormous amount of change for the sake of change, rather than any benefit to the public or the industry.
I suppose the government needs to prove that it is doing SOMETHING, rather than nothing.
Nothing, by the way, is all they actually need to do as far as I can tell - LEAVE IT ALONE (please?)
I fail to see how any criticism can be levied at TPOS.
They fought hard for recognised codes of practice for the benefit of agents and consumers. It's good that these watchdogs combine but ridiculous that they are withdrawing that which was previously approved when the codes haven't changed.
I don't believe anyone will be punished in the event old stock is used up - at worse they may get a warning letter, but frankly even that is unlikely.
Displaying accreditation to which are are not entitled is an offence - using an old logo is little more than an oversight.
Agents who are worried needn't waste stock - rather invest in a few high quality stickers,
we pay tpo so when we do things wrong they referee then fine us and this is supposed to give us more credibility on the high street!! beyond this, this lot do nothing for us and now they are considering joining in with a new group who must build credibility to give us some credibilty!! this just amazes me that we have someone who hasn't even got control of his own (tpo) body and he is deciding for us whether to join or not and as usual we will have no choice beyond his decision and any and all costs will be passed on to us along with his wage bill, bloody brilliant, I wish I had a load of mugs paying my wages even after I was involved in such a cock up that will cost most of us a lot of money.
Another mess!
To those advocating yet more government legislation...
Some never learn - never ask governments to control you.
If you have that much stock, you have either over ordered or aren't doing enough business!
Agents being treated with utter contempt as usual.
Government have reduced Qango's apparently to save costs but thought they'd add 1 more (TSI) and add costs to us Estate Agents just in case we weren't feeling the pinch enough!!... Incredible
They haven't police EPC's or the myriad of rogue agents so why worry?
Oddly, EPC's are to help the environment - unlike destroying perfectly good paper.
They wont fine anyone using stock in a reasonable period, they would look even dafter than they do now.
Who are the "The Trading Standards Institute"? surely not another QANGO - im sure i remember this govenment saying they were getting rid QANGO'S.
What is wrong with the OFT?
Are there going to be new rules and guidlines from this new lot?
Still its not as if we have anything better to do!
“I have been considering whether or not to participate in the new scheme on the basis of cost, the recognition of the new brand and whether it has meaning for consumers and member agents.
I faced a similar decision when deciding to use the ombudsman for 'redress only' rather than 'full membership' and having seen no advantage, proceeded on the 'redress only basis'. They don't charge me any less though!!
Had the email yesterday and had a moment of panic going back through the approved proof for the 2,500 brochures we're awaiting delivery on!
I was fortunate, I'm sure many won't be. An absolute farce, they must give companies a years grace on this!
this is the first ill have heard of it, ill have had no notifications from anyone. ill make afew phone calls today and report back later