x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
Written by rosalind renshaw

NAEA members continue to be divided about the body’s licensing scheme, as the NAEA tries to boost recruitment.

Over the last couple of weeks, members have been receiving emails aimed at persuading them to become an NAEA licensed agent. The emails claim there are now 2,000 NAEA licensed agents in the scheme, launched just under a year ago.

But several members have been in touch with EAT to voice their concerns, with calls for a debate on our forum.

One independent agent said: “It is a divisive scheme. How are non-licensed members meant to feel when, whilst paying the same subscription as  licensed members, they see the NAEA advertising to the public to ‘only use an NAEA licensed member’?”
 
The agent said it would be costly to become a licensed NAEA agent, with reprinting and IT changes, the requirement to have an NAEA licensed member in each office, plus attendance at CPD courses and loss of work time.

Another long-standing member said that the licensing scheme was an attempt to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic in a bid to gain some PR and credibility.

He said: “There is no value in licensing unless backed by some form of robust control, and the Government is not interested. It adds nothing but cost and red tape. The public aren’t interested and the NAEA represents only a fraction of people in the industry.

“The NAEA wants to be seen as a professional body, but I think they should be a trade body and promote their members’ interests.”

A third agent said he resented the push by the NAEA to convert its members to ‘licensed’ status.

He said that the CPD courses were expensive and difficult to get to for rurally located agents. He said the NAEA should produce computer-based CPD courses, instead of its current programme, which he described as a bit of a joke: “You turn up, fill your tummy, try to stay awake and go home with a certificate that you have paid for – with no attempt made to test or prove your knowledge.”  

He added: “Furthermore, NAEA is brandishing a stick by saying that if NAEA members don’t also get licensed, then ‘in order not to confuse the public’ we will be asked to stop using the NAEA logo! 

“I’m not too sure of their legal right to say that, seeing that using their logo was amongst the reasons for joining in the first place, to differentiate ourselves from unqualified agents.

“It seems wrong that the NAEA should threaten to make us remove their logo from our stationery and marketing materials, at further expense, if we don’t buy into the licensing scheme.”
 
He added: “The NAEA is meant to serve the public and its members, not sting us with fat fees for compulsory seminars. What do other members think?”

NAEA chief executive Peter Bolton King said: “Licensing is something that members have discussed for many years.

“With the Government deciding that they were not prepared to move on this issue, we decided to go it alone to show what minimum standards should look like.
 
“As far as CPD is concerned, most members of professional bodies accept that this is an essential part of ensuring that they are up to date and providing the best possible service. Indeed, in an increasingly litigious society, one way of being able to show due diligence is surely through CPD.
 
“CPD has of course been compulsory for all new members for something like the last ten years.
 
“There are a variety of ways that a member can meet the CPD requirements and it is up to individuals to decide how they wish to do this. However, the current rules do say that at least 12 hours CPD activity per year must be undertaken. At least eight of these hours must be obtained by attendance at relevant educational events and up to four hours by relevant private study (except for those studying for an NFoPP qualification).
 
“This does not mean necessarily attending our own courses, although many do. Many members, including myself, attend numerous events and discussions organised by local lawyers, planners etc. Providing you can record the learning outcome and that it is relevant, we do not mind what course or event it is.
 
“The Association does offer many hundreds of short courses a year. The cost of these range from £80 for a half day and £150 for a full day plus VAT. There is a single course on management standards that lasts three days and costs £459 plus VAT. However, I repeat that in order to meet CPD requirements, attendance at one of our courses is not in any way compulsory.
 
“Interestingly, some members tell me that 12 hours CPD is insufficient in this day and age and that we should be asking for more!”
 
Bolton King also defended the decision to prevent non-licensed NAEA members using the logo on their firm’s advertising.

He said: “It is intended, at some stage, to restrict public display to the licensing logo. This is to reduce any confusion in the public’s eye. No date has been agreed for this as yet. Non-licensed agents will be able to continue using the normal logo on their personal stationery.
 
“As you know, we do constantly monitor members’ thoughts and I will be interested to read any debate following this article.”

Comments

  • icon

    PBK and the NFoPP should be fighting the members corner against ANY additional un-necessary legislation that costs the members time or money.

    • 23 September 2011 15:43 PM
  • icon

    As an example of things PBK does: ' Changes to EPC display requirements ....
    " Peter Bolton King is attending a meeting at DCLG at which we should be receiving an update. As soon as we have any further news we will send this to you."

    Lets not have an EPC discussion in this thread please, but it must be very hard for him to attend a conference on such a matter knowing that the Govt are now committed to EPC's but most of the industry realise they are currently an undervalued burden.

    Good luck PBK, just make sure we don't have to double our printing & postage costs in order to comply with providing an unwanted product.

    • 23 September 2011 13:39 PM
  • icon

    Er, yes. I believe that most decent estate agents do indeed support a body such as NAEA lobbying for us and assisting with accreditation, and offering legal advice where needed. And should likewise support PBK.

    Whinging about it is just a way to show we are alive ... as we said in the Army, "if a soldier isn't complaining, check his pulse".

    BUT whilst it is fair enough for us to give money to a body such as NAEA we can't afford, in the current climate, to throw too much at it. Far as I can see the Licensing/CPD deal is indeed a cash cow ... though it will cost us far more than NAEA take in.

    As yet I've had no reply from my Q over 24 hrs ago to the NAEA membership lady Shelley Brown asking for details of these alternatives to formal CPD training, yet she has asked me why I'm not licensed yet. I can't find any mention on their website either, but can't get in too far having forgotten my password (also asked for a new one over 24 hrs ago, no reply yet).

    Anyhow, yes I believe that NAEA/PBK are supported but msutn't cost us too much.

    • 23 September 2011 13:31 PM
  • icon

    No

    • 23 September 2011 11:51 AM
  • icon

    A change of direction

    Does anyone actually SUPPORT Peter Bolton King and NAEA?

    • 22 September 2011 18:17 PM
  • icon

    The NAEA have created a 'caste' system that, at it's core is financially motivated. If they really think the only way forward is to licence then why keep members that aren't.

    This is a cash cow so of course they won't expel anyone, but not doing so means any source of 'confusion in the public eye' is created by NAEA themselves!

    Why not make membership licensed only, give every current member an automatic 'licenced' status and only charge a modest increase to cover the admin?

    If the NAEA are to move forward and be a real force in the industry then they need to ensure the fundamental backing of their members. Way to go about it guys!!

    • 22 September 2011 13:14 PM
  • icon

    The NFoPP has failed to educate the pubic of any benifits that the members of the various divisions can offer.

    The general public is almost completely unaware and those that have even the slightest inclination are totally confused.

    Suggestion: (will need some working on)
    The NAEA initials (National Association of Estate Agents) at least stand a chance of meaning something in plain English.

    Why not consider getting rid of NFoPP, ARLA, NAVA, ICBA and just use NAEA and its logo as the lead organisation and attach to the logo etc. what these divisoins actually do..
    along the lines of say
    Propertyl Sales
    Property Lettings
    Property Auctions
    Business Transfers
    or whatever.

    Members designatory letters similar
    F/MNAEA (Sales) (Lettings) (Auctioneering) etc.

    This is just a suggestion - not on any way thought out in detail - but something needs to be done!

    • 22 September 2011 13:05 PM
  • icon

    Unfortunately the decision taken to withdraw the use of the NAEA logo from members not taking up the offer of licensing was one that appears to have been made by the Secretariate without having been properly thought through. Our CEO should urgently review the wisdom of this with a view to adopting a more reasonable and less confrontational approach to what could be a declining membership base. Swallowing one's pride and admitting to making a mistake can't be all that unpalatable can it?

    • 22 September 2011 12:57 PM
  • icon

    ...and being as their only form of advertising is by posting on EAT, I doubt that the public will ever know they existed.

    • 22 September 2011 12:11 PM
  • icon

    The key is not whether ARLA / NAEA licensing is a good idea or not any more than whether SAFE is.

    The key is any idea will only prevail if it is at the forefront of the consumers mind. Whilst people choose agents based upon the fee they charge or the valuation suggested, then any scheme will have issues.

    Sales is a regulated discipline so NAEA licensing may be questioned. ARLA licensing is easier to sell to the risks involved as lettings is often an ongoing service where as the sales service ends at exchange or completion.

    Nevertheless - unless the public are properly informed all the debate in the world wont change anything.

    • 22 September 2011 11:36 AM
  • icon

    CPD is an utter farce frankly. I know people who fill it out with entries like "Read TPOS annual review - 2 hours"

    or "Attended conveyancing talk - 3 hours" - which in that case meant lunch with local law firm. (oh - that was me) We may have discussed the technical side of conveyancing - its just that my memory failed after the 4th bottle of Chablis...

    • 22 September 2011 11:09 AM
  • icon

    In what parallel universe does anyone think that any prospective vendor, looking for an estate agents, cares less what trade or professional associations an agent belongs to?

    I want the most successful agent in the town to sell my house. If he is a member of the NAEA - I do wonder if he has a sports jacket with leather elbow patches.

    • 22 September 2011 10:28 AM
  • icon

    PBK:
    “Interestingly, some members tell me that 12 hours CPD is insufficient in this day and age and that we should be asking for more!”
    How many is 'some'?
    Once again not eneough info for members to make a judgement - even if they wanted to on such a 'throwaway' comment..

    • 22 September 2011 10:04 AM
  • icon

    PBK: "“As you know, we do constantly monitor members’ thoughts and I will be interested to read any debate following this article.”

    Ok - read this. Its the single most stupid idea ever. You stopped having corporate membership - focussed on the individual - we support NAEA often from our own pockets - and now our use of the logo may be dependent upon the actions of those who employ us!

    If this happens - I will not remain a member and vote with my feet.

    • 22 September 2011 08:52 AM
  • icon

    “It is intended, at some stage, to restrict public display to the licensing logo. This is to reduce any confusion in the public’s eye. No date has been agreed for this as yet. Non-licensed agents will be able to continue using the normal logo on their personal stationery."

    Hang on - I am in an unlicensed firm but have been a member of NAEA for years - a staunch supporter in fact.

    The thanks I get is this????

    Sod them. If this is correct - I will NOT be renewing my membership and I will encourage others to do the same.

    UTTER DISGRACE - PBK should be ASHAMED.

    • 21 September 2011 20:03 PM
  • icon

    Shapps supports the licensing initiative by the NAEA - he wont support them exclusively as that would be to undermine RICS et al and be seen as an endorsement of NFoPP which then leads into ARLA / NALS etc debate.

    He wont offer input into any scheme - rather he will comment upon it. He has said he wont regulate and to get together with NAEA could be misconstrued.

    Attacks by NFoPP members wont endear themselves to the minister.

    I cant say how I know this and you are free to dismiss it - but its true.

    I will add that NAEA / ARLA members are quick to embrace this endorsement - but dismiss the endorsement he gave SAFE agent where he went a lot further and published it on his factsheets.

    • 21 September 2011 16:46 PM
  • icon

    I think public perception will be that a licensed estate agent, whatever that means, is better than being in the NAEA (which means little to the average person).

    If Schapps supports the NAEA licensing scheme, and he & PBK can agree as to what we agents must do to be licensed (ie don't change the goalposts in 2012) then that is surely good too.

    But the sheer cost to well intentioned agents complying with all the related memberships & conditions is too high & I particularly object to paying a lot of money to attend CPD courses of dubious merit at a great distance from me. So I asked NAEA membership a few hours ago to clarify all of these alternatives to CPD seminars that PBK has now mentioned. As yet they have not done so, but I have asked that they either steer me to where these options are on their website or, as I can't find them mentioned, that they put them on the site as an alternative to their expensive/inconvenient seminars.

    If I can do CPD cheaply online, I guess I reluctantly will, just for an easy life & to comply with licensing.

    • 21 September 2011 16:37 PM
  • icon

    Dave@CW: Spot on. As West Country regional exec I shall get this put onto the agenda for the div council meeting next month. We need to milk this endorsement, not sit on it.

    • 21 September 2011 16:12 PM
  • icon

    The fact is, the public don't give a tos about what alphabet organisaton you belong too. If you belong to these organisations and your a shit agent, your not going to get any business.

    If you don't belong to these organisations and you sell lots of houses in your area and deliver good customer service, you will win listings.

    These organisations are for the dinosaurs of the estate agency world who think the only way to win listings is to belong to a useless body that nobody knows about.

    The succesful estate agents spend their efforts on creating a USP which actually resides with the public and helps them get the edge.

    • 21 September 2011 15:54 PM
  • icon

    ARLA - NAEA - NFOPP ..... RIP

    • 21 September 2011 15:48 PM
  • icon

    @Ray Evans.

    "The NAEA was formed (still is?) for INDIVIDUAL Membership "

    Great observation - corporate membership was abolished - now it appears it is being 'recycled' or 'reincarnated'

    What is going on?

    • 21 September 2011 15:44 PM
  • icon

    @Ray Evans

    You are so right, as is EW. This is serious. What I find amazing is both your comments are supportive of the NAEA in principle and your observations are well, obvious really. I cant believe it hasn't been addressed.

    The key issue will be policing - and this is where it will fail. An agent may be properly licensed - but when a staff member leaves its hard enough to find a replacement without adding the additional criteria of NAEA membership. Is the firm expected to 'fess up' and change their stationery and website?

    I find this whole thing very unsettling and wonder whether I wish to renew next year. That saddens me.

    • 21 September 2011 15:40 PM
  • icon

    Mr Bolton King.

    THIS IS SERIOUS!

    Just sticking to NAEA - which is the association for estate (sales) agents, leaving ARLA to one side for the time being.

    The NAEA was formed (still is?) for INDIVIDUAL Membership

    A suggestion. if you wish to licence why not give consideration along the lines of having 'LICENCED OFFICES' where a principal/partner/director/member is present 70% of the time with an ENHANCED NAEA logo on display and in that offices advertising? Individual members could continue with the normal logo on their cards.

    The underlying threat that individuals will lose their logo on business cards along with the status for which they studied, is real, even if retaining the desgnatory letters. If the matter is not clarified finally and quickly I am of the view that membership will plumit together with what status the association retains

    • 21 September 2011 15:24 PM
  • icon

    Well, I am an ARLA licensed member and broadly agree with the principle. I see no need to be a NAEA licensed member as well as we are members of TPOS and sales is regulated whilst lettings is not.

    I feel that non licensed members who have an individual who can use their ARLA / NAEA logo on business cards will confuse customers as it would be very hard for them to differentiate. They will understandably assume that the manager with whom they are dealing being a member of ARLA / NAEA offers the same high level of protection afforded by licensed members.

    The cynics claim this is a drive to increase membership - but I can see a time when non licensed members cannot advertise their accreditation.

    A two tier system may follow where membership is less dependent upon the individual, but rather the company by whom the are employed.

    Why would a member want to remain a member if they cant advertise the fact?

    How will the difference between licensed and non licensed ARLA staff be conveyed to the public as I am yet to meet anyone who is aware of it. In fact, it seems few agents are aware of it.

    Or will they require all members, licensed or not, to only show accreditation if the employer has CMP, PI and Audits?

    Simply - the concept is good - but has the plan been thought through fully?

    • 21 September 2011 14:40 PM
  • icon

    I have been a memeber of NAEA for 11 years now and an agent for 23 years,, but I am becoming increasing disapointed by the actions NAEA. Acting for the member is a joke, licensed membership is a complete joke. I am a principal partner of a 2 office company and I take the full responsiblity for my company and staff .
    Of all the property I have dealt with over the years, not one member of the public knew what NAEA stands for.
    NAEA need to take a long hard look at the systems and act for the member and promote the Assosiation to the general public, perhaps then the Government might take more of an interest in licensing.
    I am seriously considering option for January re-newal.

    • 21 September 2011 14:18 PM
  • icon

    The licensing scheme is a farce to keep the NAEA coffers topped up.
    Slight tangent - My company have paid the NAEA for this 'luxury' and have an NAEA member present in the relevant offices but why are some other rival companies 'licensed' in my town just because they have a principal or director, in another county usually, in membership and a member of a redress scheme ? How does this make that office without ANY member present of the NAEA 'responsible' ? The '70% rule' is a joke and have to agree that experience and honesty are the best attributes an agent can display but if the NAEA get their way I'd rather be in it than not.

    • 21 September 2011 13:48 PM
  • icon

    Dear All

    Please be clear on this: Licensing is a very obvious ploy to increase membership. Period.

    Before, a Principal Partner or Director who was a member was responsible for all staff. To me that was an incentive to ensure my staff were compliant as if not - I carried the can.

    NOW - To be licensed, you must have a NAEA member in EACH office.

    In the extremem, every member of your staff could be a member, but if a PPD were not - you cant be licensed.

    Gradually, they will withdraw the right of individual members who are not in licensed firms to have any pride in what will become a secret membership as it cant be advertised.

    This is the BIGGEST own goal in the history of this dwindling organisation.

    • 21 September 2011 13:11 PM
  • icon

    Michael ‘spot on’ re PC training – This is 2011 after all

    ABOVE QUOTE:
    Bolton King also defended the decision to prevent non-licensed NAEA members using the logo on their firm’s advertising.

    He said: “It is intended, at some stage, to restrict public display to the licensing logo. This is to reduce any confusion in the public’s eye. No date has been agreed for this as yet. Non-licensed agents will be able to continue using the normal logo on their personal stationery.

    “As you know, we do constantly monitor members’ thoughts and I will be interested to read any debate following this article.”

    COMMENT:
    Mr Bolton King – Sir, Would it be correct for us honest, professional, independent estate agents, to deduce from this that we best sever our connections with the NAEA and dump the logos now, to save having public egg on our faces later? Please take this opportunity to reply in order that we may consider whether to renew association memberships in good time before they come up for renewal in January.

    I guess we better think twice about Property Live too. How long will it be before we have to be licensed to advertise our properties?

    Me think NAEA has just shot itself in foot.

    P I Insurance £
    NAEA etc £
    OFT £
    Ombudsman £
    CPD Courses etc £
    [Cost of being away from office, petrol, overnight accommodation etc Hello - Yes – there are agents who operate in the North] £
    Licensing £

    TOTAL PER OFFICE PER ANNUM £ BEFORE rent, rates, services, staff, marketing etc AND BEFORE WE ACTUALLY EARN ANYTHING.

    How many more people do we need to keep employed in the name of improving standards? Tail wagging dog comes to mind. Most of us just want to make an honest living.

    • 21 September 2011 12:52 PM
  • icon

    As an MNAEA I already have PI insurance. Naturally I have an accountant so am not sure what the accountant audit may do that is not already done.

    This comment from PBK that wew are already expected to take part in CPD puzzles me, I don't believe we are. His remark that almost any old training will count as CPD, not just NAEA CPD training surprises me. As yet I have not found that sort of advice on the NAEA website, simply the requirement that we must do it and they offer the appropriate training ... mainly in London.

    I would reluctantly get licensed if I can see something clearer re just what is acceptable to NAEA/PBK as CPD training. I too have attended enough of these types of seminar to know that they are a bit of a time & money wasting jolly ... rock up, consume insipid coffee & chewy mints, have a break-out group perhaps, snore a bit, fill out a questionnaire to say the facilitator was jolly good & go home. A certificate because you attended. Not impressive. I'd rather see NAEA produce some PC based training so both members & non-member staff in the office can learn and be tested. I know that some corporate agencies (eg Palmer Snell Countrywide) have arranged something like this direct with NFOPP so it can be done. Now that WOULD be sensible, to my mind, as a CPD component ... these seminars are usually tosh. And expensive. And inconvenient/time consuming to get to if you are based in the sticks.

    Come on NAEA, set up & sell us a PC based course as NFOPP can provide, and I'll use that instead of CPD please.

    • 21 September 2011 11:58 AM
  • icon

    @Richard Copus - and Shapps is right - but the key ingredient missing is that it should be better sold to the general public.

    • 21 September 2011 11:43 AM
  • icon

    The Housing Minister, Grant Shapps, is on record in the national press as saying: "The house buying and selling public should use an NAEA licensed estate agent". A stamp of approval which is positive recognition of a well thought out scheme which could be better sold to member agents.

    • 21 September 2011 11:40 AM
  • icon

    The RICS and the NAEA are two different animals.
    Until the 60's the RICS did what it says on the tin, 'surveys' and estate management etc., it only dabbled in residential sales - and made a very poor job of it, poor window displays, poor advertising, no training, no photo's etc. etc. I know this because i became involved as a junior in my early days.
    Then along came the entrepreneurs with free marketing, appraisals (opinions, popularly called 'valuations' ), sales advertising and people skills etc. In my opinion the majority did, and still do, a better job than a lot of pure RICS firms. Eventually the NAEA was formed SPECIFICALLY for the benifit of these people - it did a good job 'fighting the corner' for its members for years - it was not and should not be primarilly a 'consumer' organisation.
    Unfortunately in recent years it does seem to have lost its way and indulged in many non core activities.,

    • 21 September 2011 11:40 AM
  • icon

    22 years of estate agency under my belt, thousands of transactions and not one purchaser or vendor has asked if I'm a member of the NAEA - speaks for itself really.

    • 21 September 2011 11:25 AM
  • icon

    Confused is SPOT ON.

    Its utter madness to have a logo which claims so much but in real terms, potentially delivers so little.

    Not only that - paying fees to the NAEA who actively discourage customers to use unlicensed members at the cost of their own members!!

    • 21 September 2011 11:06 AM
  • icon

    Fact: Licensed members must have CMP, audits. PI etc.

    Individual members who are not in licensed firms can use logo on their own business cards.

    On a valuation - even an erudite vendor could make a wrong assumption regarding protection - same goes for ARLA.
    Therein lies the fundamental problem.

    Poor consumer awareness and communication

    • 21 September 2011 10:59 AM
  • icon

    I was a member for many years until the "licensing" scheme was forced on me. I resigned.

    • 21 September 2011 10:27 AM
  • icon

    The NAEA (from personal experience) is bloody useless.

    I got a reprimand withouth them even talking to me for choosing the buyer who offered the most money.

    I was fair to everyone and looked after the vendor - which I believe is my job.

    Not once did they phone me.

    I quit.

    I am trying to join the RICS but that is proving to be harder than I expected. Way harder than the NAEA.

    Of course, so it should be as it is a much more professional organisation.

    And that in the end is my point.

    If we are going to go for a professional registration/ licensing scheme I would very much prefer it to be with a hard to get in to top flight group like the RICS than the NAEA.

    The NAEA brand is strong but it has obviously been horrendously mismanaged in the last decade or so.

    • 21 September 2011 10:14 AM
  • icon

    By Who's Authority? License???

    Will I be able to get an 'alternative' NAEA driving LICENSE.

    Who are these people ??????????????

    or who do THEY think they are ????????????

    It is MEMBERSHIP ........ do not give it any other name.

    • 21 September 2011 09:46 AM
  • icon

    Stonehenge

    Good point - but only 2 -

    spot check audits should be conducted - nothing else would do in my opinion

    • 21 September 2011 09:25 AM
  • icon

    The NAEA have clearly decided that membership and compliance are not sufficient in the public eye so they have created 'licensing'.Non licensed will have to stop public promotion of membership !If there was an alternative Body they would be guaranteed significant membership -This is a joke !

    • 21 September 2011 09:16 AM
  • icon

    James. NAEA keeps tabs on misuse of clients accounts and are taking legal action against 2 firms of accountants for signing off such accounts as approved. NAEA relies on accountants to do their job properly otherwise how do you think they can to police this?

    • 21 September 2011 09:10 AM
  • icon

    The tone of some of their emails leaves a lot to be desired.

    The organisation has done very little for years. Perhaps they should start by investigating which of their agents are using their client accounts to prop up their businesses in these trying times - I would think that there may be one or two..........perhaps!!

    • 21 September 2011 08:48 AM
  • icon

    Prefer RICS

    More professional, less self promoting.

    NAEA must not be allowed to advertise to the public 'not to use' non NAEA members. NAEA is a Quango. This advertising should be illegal and be outlawed as it is their opinion and theirs alone, not a fact. Such advertising is as nasty and vindictive as some of the Spicerhaart adverts that have been outlawed by TSO.

    • 21 September 2011 08:29 AM
MovePal MovePal MovePal