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

Open warfare between two local estate agents in Bushey, Hertfordshire, erupted for a second time within weeks.

The result is that a newspaper advertisement in which one estate agent attacked another for reporting it to the Advertising Standards Authority has been banned – by the Advertising Standards Authority.

Imagine Estate Agents were reported by Clarets Estate Agents, who complained that the advert was detrimental to their business.

It was the second time that Clarets, an NAEA member, had successfully complained to the advertising watchdog about Imagine. The first complaint was upheld in November.  

Imagine – which won Silver for the Best Small Agency in last month’s Estate Agency of the Year awards – was reported for a mailshot headed: ‘Already officially Number 1 agent’. It said it already sold twice as many properties as its nearest rival and suggested that the rival did not accompany viewings or advertise as much.

Charters challenged the claims, and the ASA agreed.

Imagine followed up by running a newspaper advert under the headline ‘ADVERTISING STANDARDS’.

Clarets complained about this as well, resulting in the offending advert being published – again and in full – by the ASA.

The Imagine advert said: “We have had the delight of dealing with the fallout after one of our less amiable competitors complained we had created a leaflet that contravened ASA regulations and reported us accordingly.

“In fact, let’s not pull any punches, this wasn’t one of our less amiable competitors, this was by some distance the most unpleasant little reptile I have ever had the misfortune to cross swords with since plying this trade.”

The advert went on to call its rival a “horrible weasel” and said: “The problem arose out of frustration that the guy was claiming service standards that we knew he simply didn't deliver in reality. Following yet another discovery of dubious business practice by this business, one of my staff took it upon themselves to design a leaflet highlighting the service failings we knew of. Unfortunately this was pretty much lowering our standards to his level.

“Plus we hadn't taken the time to collate the evidence of all the wrong doing.

“As a result, when the guy had the audacity to take the leaflet to the higher authorities (I say audacity because he knows damn well they were all true!!) I didn’t have a leg to stand on and had to concede we shouldn’t have sent it. However galling the experience to back-track was, as ever it has provided some useful lessons.

“Firstly, my staff now know they can’t produce a leaflet with my company name on it without having had it authorised. This is a pretty worthwhile safety net to have in place going forward.

“Secondly, the public would rather see us highlight our qualities than undermine another’s failings.

“Finally, my staff are also now aware that as the saying says: ‘revenge is a dish best served cold!’ Letting your emotions get the better of you in the heat of the moment rarely results in an educated, intelligent or constructive response.

“This is a dilemma for both us the competitor and you the client. How do you know if one person is giving you a genuine commitment to what service you receive and another is spouting sweet nothings purely to win your business??? Do not sign tie-in agreements!! That way, if you do make a wrong judgement you can pull out immediately.”

Clarets challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:

1. “... claiming service standards that we knew he simply didn’t deliver ...”; and
2. “Following yet another discovery of dubious business practice by this business ...”
3. They also challenged whether the ad was denigratory of their business.

Imagine Estate Agents told the ASA they disagreed with the complainant’s contention that the ad was misleading or denigratory; they said it made no mention of the complainant’s company name.

They also pointed out that the ad made clear that, in reference to the previous ASA adjudication, they accepted their wrongdoing in making claims they could not substantiate.

However, the ASA nevertheless considered that it would not be difficult for interested readers to deduce the complainant’s identity, simply through a search on the ASA website, and considered that Clarets were identifiable from the ad.

The ASA also noted the ad’s acknowledgement that Imagine did not have evidence in support of their beliefs about Clarets’ business practices.

However, the ASA considered that the overall impression of the ad, particularly the claims “... claiming service standards that we knew he simply didn’t deliver ...” and “Following yet another discovery of dubious business practice by this business ...” contradicted that and implied that the complainants were unable to deliver the service standards they claimed and also had dubious business practices.

The ASA concluded that the claims were misleading.

The ASA felt that other claims were likely to suggest to readers that the complainant’s business was unprofessional and untrustworthy, and said the claims were unfairly denigratory to the complainant’s business.

Comments

  • icon

    It would seem that Imagine may have shot themselves in the foot by mentioning the ASA in their ad but who, other than a paranoid, jealous competitor, would bother to search the adjudication section of the ASA website to identify the complainant?
    No doubt former customers of Clarets will have deduced to whom the ad was referring, however the 'horrible little reptile' has now ensured that potential future clients will be circumspect in their dealings with him.
    Perhaps the retaliatory comment: 'don't Imagine your next move- see it happen with Clarets' will spark round 3.

    • 17 January 2011 10:39 AM
  • icon

    The only interesting aspect of this otherwise trivial spat is the statement "Do not sign tie-in agreements!!" Any agent who doesn't hide behind lenghy (often obscenely lenghy) contracts HAS to live up to their service claims.

    I suspect it's probably bad form to brag on this kind of forum but henleys colchester operated with just 10 days notice throuhout 2010 and will continue to do so in 2011. The question is how to educate the public as to the importance or value of this practice without appearing petty like messrs imagine.

    On a less constructive note "imagine" is a pretty trite (to put it mildly) name.

    • 15 January 2011 00:13 AM
  • icon

    As Bushey is down the road from me, i have a little insight into it. Clarets have been around a long time, and have an ok business going forward. Imagine are the new upstarts in the area, doing ok, but probably not as good as they would like to think they are. As far as comments have reported that the area is there for the taking, they are quite right. I am 10m miles away from Bushey, but have picked up a number of instructions off the back of their fall out, and it is a big ol area, so may have to look at another office there. Lets see if both the agents like an agent, who does not get involved and just enjoys selling houses gets on - strange it may seem in Bushey, but an agent selling houses - wow!

    • 14 January 2011 21:03 PM
  • icon

    My favourite part is the ASA deduced someone could go onto their website, look up the original dispute, and identify Clarets. Who? Really? Idiotic!

    • 14 January 2011 14:01 PM
  • icon

    Throw them in a pit with some mud and let em fight it out

    • 14 January 2011 12:48 PM
  • icon

    I would think that locals in their area must have a fairly low opinion of these two businesses?
    The real losers here is the image of the profession of estate agency (I still prefer 'profession' and not 'industry' although for how long is debatable if these sort of activities continue!).

    • 14 January 2011 12:36 PM
  • icon

    This scenario could for the basis of quite an amusing one-off TV spy on the wall show....

    • 14 January 2011 12:25 PM
  • icon

    From Personal experience the NAEA simply refuse to get involved in disputes between members.

    The wronged party can have full documentary evidence of mal practice but they simply dis-regard the matter as competitor griping.

    • 14 January 2011 12:09 PM
  • icon

    Oh the Irony! a story about mis- leading advertising.

    What an abhorrent practice!

    I feel sorry for the poor advertiser who gets stuck in the middle.

    What I don't understand is the fundamental dishonesty and motivation behind the practice.

    • 14 January 2011 12:05 PM
  • icon

    If Imagine were doing so well why did they need to resort to such pathetic practise and not even in a subtle way?
    Made both look like proper Charlies.

    • 14 January 2011 11:48 AM
  • icon

    Clarets must be right they are "members of the NAEA" ! I blame rightmove, not sure why but just blame them like most others.......

    • 14 January 2011 11:31 AM
  • icon

    Are these agents 7 years old selling Wendy Houses? Pathetic.

    • 14 January 2011 11:11 AM
  • icon

    When I learned about advertising, there were two maxims - firstly, comparative advertising simply doesn't work - you encourage some people but the more reserved think you are bitchy and they stay away, fearing you spend more time watching the competition and trying to get an edge over them rather than selling their house or letting it, and the other maxim is "ANY publicity is good publicity. You have put your name on here, for instance, Imagine, but you have also put Claret's name on the same forum. One or other might have been invisible until then......

    However "right" either one of you may be, it's done neither of you any good and your clients can genuinely say that you have wasted good selling or letting time on this fight. Stop it and get back to your core job, or both businesses will suffer more than any benefit you may think you gained in the fight.

    • 14 January 2011 10:51 AM
  • icon

    "unpleasant little reptile" “horrible weasel” - I think you will find that Imagine would be in breach of the misdescriptions act here, unless of course Bushey is now cross breeding mammals and reptiles !!

    • 14 January 2011 10:48 AM
  • icon

    IDIOTS...Both parties.I bet the local public have really raised their opinions of our industry.Well done.
    I've got some dirty clothes that could do with some airing...perhaps I'll pop in the car and head off to Bushey!

    • 14 January 2011 10:44 AM
  • icon

    Well, one thing is for sure - the other agents will be rubbing their hands and picking up instructions as both of these companies will lose any credibility

    • 14 January 2011 09:45 AM
  • icon

    Looks like Bushy is for the taking as these two agents seem to spending more slatting each other off rather than selling houses. Pistols at dawn me thinks! Get over it !

    • 14 January 2011 09:45 AM
  • icon

    Methinks it's time to concentrate on selling!

    • 14 January 2011 09:41 AM
  • icon

    That's quite funny actually. There must be other reasons why these guys don't get on, probably of a persoanl nature. The irony being is that every other agent in the town is probably making headway whilst they bicker.

    • 14 January 2011 09:37 AM
  • icon

    Bushy must be a 'tumbleweed' town. Too much time on your hands.

    • 14 January 2011 09:26 AM
  • icon

    Childish

    • 14 January 2011 09:14 AM
  • icon

    I read the head line and I got a bit excited...how wrong of me!

    Put your handbags away guys and get over yourselves.

    • 14 January 2011 08:51 AM
MovePal MovePal MovePal