Peter Bolton King, chief executive of NFoPP, has responded to criticisms as rumblings of discontent continue over NAEA licensing.
He said he was ‘disappointed’ in many of the criticisms that have been made and he insisted: “This is being done for the good of the consumer and we have strong government backing on this.
“I am also baffled as to why some people seem to think it is a waste of time when members have been saying for years that they want licensing.”
He said it was all about raising consumer awareness of the importance of the brand: “I want it to get to the stage whereby the first thing a consumer asks an agent is, ‘Are you a member of ARLA or the NAEA, and if not, I don’t want you to have anything to do with my house’.”
He added that he did not begin to understand why some NAEA members would not want to become licensed members.
“Why not?” he said. “If they are partners, principals or directors working in a single office and who are already members of the NAEA, it will cost them nothing extra. Job done.”
But anger remains that individual members who do not sign up to be licensed will no longer be able to use the NAEA logo in connection with their firms.
Eric Walker, boss of London agents Bushells, said: “They seem hell bent on a quest to become the property answer to the freemasons rather than a force to drive up standards and protect consumers.
“You are permitted to be a member, but you can’t tell anyone.”
He said that the NAEA had become “self-serving, self-important and deluded”.
Another member, Terry Lovett, of Lovett Residential in Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, said he was angry at the timing of the email about the change.
He said: “Perhaps it is no coincidence that this email has been sent within days of my paying for my membership renewal and £432 Client Money Protection levy.”
He said that with the rising cost of membership, he was now questioning its value to his firm.
He has written to the NAEA asking it to confirm that it will make a pro-rata refund of his annual membership fee and CMP levy should he decide not to proceed to licensed status.
Agents have told EAT that the scheme has simply not been thought through. They are worried about the extra costs of signing up extra members of staff to the NAEA to ensure that there is one NAEA member in each of their offices, at a cost of £150 each.
They say they have also not been able to get clear answers as to what happens to their licensed status when that member goes on holiday or moves on.
Bolton King said: “The idea that we will somehow be screaming at agents because they don’t have a qualified member in on a particular day is absurd, and clearly if there is a gap between someone leaving and another qualified member joining, we will be understanding.
“But we would want to know that the agent is making efforts to resolve the situation. Clearly, if nothing was being done, that would be unacceptable.”
He also said that it would not be right for a joint sales and lettings office run by an ARLA member, to achieve NAEA licensed status. “Lettings and sales are different specialisms,” he said.
Agents have also queried the true value of CPD, with licensed agents having to commit to 12 hours per year.
But some have told EAT that it is sufficient to say they have spent 30 minutes reading an article in EAT, or even a non-existent article elsewhere, with no checks made.
Bolton King said: “Probably, these sort of things did get through. We might not have challenged it if someone had said they had read a story about Donald Duck.
“However, we are shortly going to be launching an online CPD facility that will ensure members keep their CPD properly up to date.”
Members are required to do 12 hours a year to maintain licensed status. Eight out of 12 of these must involve attending ‘a relevant event’, said Bolton King. “For example, a branch meeting in London that I went to this week was well attended and members would have picked up useful CPD points.
“Or, of course, there are training courses. ARLA is well ahead of the NAEA on licensing and there has been excellent take-up of training.”
%20(002).png)
Comments
Richard - How are they rectifying anything?
Consider this - a firm where the Directors / Partners are members, yet managers in Branches are not, can no longer display the logo despite complying with membership, CMP and being responsible for their staff.
A company where the Directors or Partners are NOT members, yet all the managers are, can allow a logo in the offices covered on personal stationery but dont have to comply with auditing, PI insurance and CMP.
Confusing for customers or what?
It’s ironic that the NAEA membership is often considered a joke and simply exists to try to con the public it means the guy giving them a business card has better standards, then the NAEA make attempts to rectify this crass error and the idea gets murdered.
Great analogy Jonnie. Only difference is that Highway Officers are hi-viz and NAEA are low-viz. Especially as this Scheme is forcing a number of members to withdraw the logo. All very misguided and regrettable.
I found myself thinking about this over the weekend,
Bundled the kids a pooch into the car and went off to the coast – on motorway I passed one of those traffic womble / highways agency 4x4’s, you know em, couple of puffed up wannabe plod in high vis jackets that sort of look like coppers if you squint
……..anyway I was doing about 80mph, did I slow down? – Course not, did anyone?, no. but a bit later there was a Police car trundling along the inside lane – supported by law and government legislation to nick / fine / punish me and enforce the law of the land, did anyone slow down? Of course, everyone did.
So the NAEA / NoFFPP thingy lot are the industry equivalent of the traffic wombles, jumped up, shouty, over inflated view of themselves but powerless and whist they seemed like a good idea a while ago a bit of a waste of money now……………and everyone knows it so passes them at over the limit knowing there is nothing they can do.
Jonnie
And speaking of insulting people, that's not very nice is it? Considering the people on here posting on here with their name.
It's not so much for people to know who you are, more that they can refer to 'your' views in their debates, or ask you to clarify a point. Call yourself Garfield for all we care, you don't have to give out who you really are.
Without a name, Eric is unsure whether I am; A customer, Fellow Director, staff, investor etc
Eric has made public comment to the faceless millions without caring or thinking who would receive or interpret his statement. All he needed to do was understand that at least one of his audiences didn't like it.
Eric has done the right thing now and I doubt he will make that mistake again.
Those who splash their own identity all over the Internet are simply naïve or egotists.
I support licensing in principle but it needs to be open to all agents and not policed by the NAEA. When I joined the NAEA many years ago it was at the time of the HIPs fiasco where the members wanted one thing and Hugh DH wanted another. I should have learnt my lesson then, instead of which I not only continued to pay my subscription every year, I actually joined ARLA as well as I clearly felt obliged to pay for the creation of the NFoPP and the salaries of everyone in Warwick.
I attend the odd branch meeting and skim through the magazine when it arrives, yet the first time I knew of this licensing proposal was when I attended a branch meeting the day after PBK had cosied up to Grant Shapps and announced it.
The NAEA have forgotten who they represent and are abysmal at building public awareness of their brand. I would far rather my subscriptions were spent on employing a marketing guru to create brand awareness than publishing a magazine that never gets read, or for that matter, a property portal from which I have never had a single enquiry!
I have met PBK and he seems a thoroughly decent bloke and no mug but if all he ever does is listen to the people in head office with a vested interest in protecting the status quo we will never see the NAEA fulfil its potential .
To Noname:
Using a name, preferably ones own unless there is a very good reason not to, is not necessarily blowing ones own trumpet, it means that you can be held to account for your opinions.
Whether your comments are good or not so good, if it is anonymous it is not worth as much consideration as if you stand up and be counted.
If we have to have a licemce to practice we all need to have clear guidelines.
This has been talked about for years and will continue to be talked about. If it goes ahead as HIPS did then who will have faith? Not me thats for sure.
Regulation must have teeth or its a complete waste of time and up to now this is all a lot of hot air so count me out.
Hiya Donald! Fancy a pint sometime? Maybe PBK can join us. Quack. Quack.
Thank you Eric, I know a lot about both organisations and to put one in the same sentance as the other IS offensive. One organisation does good in the world the other has denegrated into a boys club.
As for a threat it is nothing of the sort and that post displays the same level of ignorance.
Just because an organisation or an individual values their privacy and has no desire to blow their respective trumpets, people like you can't seem to deal with that.
Educate yourself!
Sorry but you do get the feeling that NAEA has become a consumer organisation not a members one.
No doubt licensing will stand or fail by the uptake but what about a campaign to have all members withdraw their stock from Rightmove until they stop taking private/low fixed fee advertising?
HAHAHAH - just got home and caught up with posts. Funny stuff. So Eric makes a comment openly, using hs REAL NAME and likens secrecy to the masons - some idiot replies with not even a user name like an ultra secret threat and suggests "you will be sorry" GET A LIFE
What a fool. IF you are unhappy - say so - Instead you are totally anonymous.... Eric - watch out for a horses head in your garden! Oooooooooo Scary
"A lot of his current/future vendors could be very upset by those two lines and he would do well to consider an immediate apology"
Sorry - but I am not denigrating Freemasons - I know the great work they do - perhaps more than you may imagine. If you were offended - I apologise. The point was about being a member of an organisation and hiding your membership stands. Historically Freemasons were secretive - its a parallel - nothing more. I can't see how that is in anyway derogatory. No need to get all 'Mozart Conspiracy" ..... just give me a call and shout at me in person!!
Timothy Garrett FRICS said " I think that the NAEA should concentrate on persuading the Government to introduce Statutory Licencing rather than pursuing Membership licencing which will help no-one" - They've been doing this for years but the governmenbt have turned a blind eye, so the Membership - yes the Membership of NAEA voted to introduce licensing, as did ARLA. This is meant to shame the government into doing something about it, but HMG is beyond shame for some strange reason.
I can hear several of you NAEA members now saying they didn't even know about licensing. Well each of you belongs to a branch and that branch (if funtional) has a MAF Rep to convery the collective branch members' wishes to the Executive by voting for or against certain issues. Licensing has been seriously discussed for the best part of 2/3 years so members can't plead ignorance.
As only about 8-9% of members even bother to participate in their branch activities it's small wonder that their opinions do not get heard - they're too lazy to get involved. There is too much of 'what can NAEA do for me' rather than 'what can I do to get involved in NAEA' which would solve a problem very quickly if the latter attitude was adopted.
I'm afraid something like 60% of all members have never been to a branch meeting, a conference, or similar.
PBK comes in for a lot of flack that is nothing to do with him. He's the messenger so don't shoot him!
I've been a long-standing NAEA member and get involed a lot. I've never been on Executive nor any of the other Committees and my involvement has purely been at branch level. I've learnt a lot and improved my knowledge by getting involved, and not by sitting on the sidelines.
The NAEA of course has its faults I know but some of the comment is ill-informed and OTT.
A Ratner moment is when someone who should know better says something they have no place saying and give no thought to the consequences.
To compare Freemasonry with the farce that NFOPP has become is disgraceful.
Eric Walker has in two lines displayed ignorance beyond Tabloid journalism.
If NFOPP were the property answer to Freemasons then there would be nothing BUT honesty, respect and standards.
A lot of his current/future vendors could be very upset by those two lines and he would do well to consider an immediate apology.
Ratner: We also do cut-glass sherry decanters complete with six glasses on a silver-plated tray that your butler can serve you drinks on, all for £4.95. People say, "How can you sell this for such a low price?", I say, "because it's total crap"
Walker: They seem hell bent on a quest to become the property answer to the freemasons rather than a force to drive up standards and protect consumers.
The only link - they are both accurate.
Eric Walker's Ratner moment?
Dont get that - Ratner was joking about his own brand!! More like PBK's Ratner moment. In fairness Eric is right about this.
Not much support for Licensing this way apart from single branch agencies who it doesn't affect in the slightest.
'Confused' commented about the lack of information on the NAEA website.
Ten days ago I asked this question on Letting Agent Today re the hike in CMP costs:
'PBK says: “During the past year we have made no secret of the fact that unfortunately we have been experiencing unprecedented levels of claims against our policy..."
In all the magazines, newsletters, Annual Report, blogs and endless Twittering, can PBK please clarify how this impending problem was communicated to members, other than the statement by the chairman of the Board at the AGM, which no doubt was not the best attended event of 2010.'
I have spent hours (CPD qualified?) trying to find an answer to my question as to how this impending problem has been communicated to members, given that the NAEA "made no secret etc..."
I have come to the conclusion that the NAEA did not communicate this problem to members.
Therefore, the comment by PBK that it made "no secret of the fact" may not be altogether correct.
But chapter and verse will help to clarify this issue.
Please, anyone?
Eric Walker, boss of London agents Bushells, said: “They seem hell bent on a quest to become the property answer to the freemasons rather than a force to drive up standards and protect consumers.
Eric Walker's Ratner moment?
Peter - Its a sad truth.
BUT what NAEA believe is that people will ask whether you are a member or not. In 23 years I am yet to hear that happen
Just to let you know I have just asked a customer who popped into the office if they have heard of ARLA. Imagine a dog twisting its head in bemusement, and you will know what the answer was.
Confused, I'm not i called the NAEA
The article doesnt mention CMP. It was Lyndon Baker who raised it about a separate issue.
"I am a sales agent and do not handle any Client Money," - fair enough - but you are still registered for Money Laundering where as lettings agents dealing in cash are not.
Its impossible for a multi branch firm to deal with the logistics of licensing - its good for professional single office outfits such as yourself.
Nevertheless, it appears that professional development by a proud NAEA member is being confused by the term licensing. Its pointless where you only license your own members as it lacks independent credibility of say an Exam Board.
CPD is a joke as it doesn't even have to be evidenced. I know of several 'members' who only time spent of CPD is the 30 minutes making up up what to write on the form!
"Read Negotiator Mag" 1 Hour
"Read OEA report" 2 hours
"Met conveyancing solictors" 4 hours (ok, it was bowling - but who checks?)
I have no issues with Licensing and agree with the principle of protecting funds via a CMP policy, although not happy with the very basic way of allocating cost to members. Being a one office company who protects deposits via the DPS, I see no reason why my CMP costs should not reflect the lower risk.
The issue I am now considering is whether I should continue with ARLA Membership.
It would appear from fellow posters that there is a question mark over customer awareness of NAEA and ARLA. So I have a suggestion - Over the next week, ask every single customer you visit or pops into the office one simple question; HAVE YOU HEARD OF ARLA or NAEA?
I have a good idea what the outcome will be, simply based on the "your point being" faces I encounter when advising customers of our membership of ARLA. But I am going to ask none the less to satisfy my curiosity as to what percentage customers are indeed aware.
There is a lot of incorrect and ill infromed responses & opinions on here. Initial i too was confused, rather than read the "gossip" on here i called the NAEA directly and got the answers.
Licensing and CMP are to differnet issues. I am a sales agent and do not handle any Client Money, so if the "gossip mongerers" on here had there way i could never be Licesned. Why not?, i have a member present at my offices and they all undertake CPD. I am proud that they are doing CPD and keeping up to date with standards, who dosent want there staff to be up to date!
The lady at the NFoPP said that you do not need to go on NAEA courses to achieve CPD. So we are not giving the Assocaition any more money.
People should get the facts correct first. . . . .
Why is there no mention of this initiative on the NAEA website?
I logged in as a non member to find out their side of the story to get a balanced view - perhaps even to see if it was worth joining. Very odd.
Walker is right - Simple unavoidable FACT - This only affects people who are members of NAEA.
People who aren't will care no more than before - if they did, they would have been members.
The incentive to join for multi branch companies has just vanished. Insane business decision which may spell the end of the NAEA
Ray Evans - spot on as always. The issue you raise is indeed key and we believe we have that in hand.
Had the NAEA insisted than only members with CMP could display their logo and promoted the fact - they could have killed 2 birds with one stone to the benefit of the consumer.
As it is, a manager in an office CAN have the NAEA on his business card, yet work for an uninsured company with no guarantees as to the sate of their finances.
But the licensing itself IS a good idea. Just not this way. This is making it far too exclusive, as long as people can prove they are competant in the industry, there is no reason they should not be allowed to practise.
I would suggest possibly exams? Could we not to it similar to the NAEA technical award (but a bit better) to gain your licence and then yearly 'refresher' exams to make sure you are still going it properly. Possibly with the full exam every 5years?
Maybe with a slightly more beefy Obudsman to keep tabs on the licensing and spot-checks?
What does everyone else think?
I usually, though not always agree with what Eric Walker says - but at least he stands up and makes his point rather than snipe at others opinions. .
In this case he is absolutely right. We have already deleted the NAEA logo and have told our printers to discontinue its use. Funnily enough, Bushells are one of the few companies who actually put the NAEA logo on their website - we looked at loads to see if we were being rash. No one else seems to bother.
NAEA is a failing brand - PBK is fiddling whilst Rome burns.
To those who are missing my point I will try again.
NALS should be promoting NALS and the benefits of its members INCLUDING the benefit of CMP. That is one of the things I pay my membership fees for.
Similarly NAEA/NFoPP should be promoting their brand for their members - that is what THEY pay membership fees for.
CMP Kitemark:
It would seem that this is an "umbrella" logo that can be used by those who have CMP from a bone-fide source that do their own policing? There should be no conflict of interest because those sources do not have a logo specific to CMP? Should make a big difference to public awareness. Cost should be minimal, the only downside would be making sure that those using the new logo are in fact covered.
Lyndon Baker - "the latest NALS wheeze"
Errr -that not what the Ombudsman said - or the boss of NLA. In fact - its just you matey.
So, article read nearly 1000 times, 17 comments, loads more comments elsewhere - NOT ONE COMMENT SAYING - "NOW THERE'S A GOOD IDEA!!"
NAEA take note - you are on your own with this one.
Of course Govt welcome it - it takes the focus off them for not forcing the issue and they can say "Well, we told them to get their own house in order, but the industry failed"
And the reason that the Gov dont want to force the issue is because they are scared to death how many firms will be exposed as having dipped their fingers in the till. Not only that, imagine the number of company closures, job losses etc for firms who couldnt meet the criteria.
I support the comments of Eric Walker & Terry Lovett.
James: "....borderline condescending....! Having read the article several times it IS condescending and even dictatorial.
Returning to PBK's response:
“Lettings and sales are different specialisms,” he said.
True, then why not promote that fact PBK? NFoPP was supposed to be 'silent', instead it confuses.
“This is being done for the good of the consumer"
Other organisations also do this. When are you going to do more things for the overall good of the membership, who pay for everything at Warwick, PBK?
In my opinion the Association is losing its way. Its prime responsibility is to the members.
.
Mr Baker - its not a NALS 'wheeze'- they have simply endorsed the idea which seems pretty good. Free to join - its true - I emailed them and its confirmed. £10 is for logo's, stickers etc. Free would require investment. As the idea was started by Foxtons, Winkworth etc, were you expecting other companies to foot the cost to promote their competitors?
Dont be so cynical. I am surprised that Foxtons et all aren't whacking in a membership fee and turning it into a commercial opportunity...... I would! Just £50 each - say 10,000 members - if it caught on, that's £500k a year for a good idea!
Lyndon - you really are a doughnut. 5 schemes offer CMP of which NALS is one. Why would ARLA or RICS members join NALS?
How is a landlord supposed to know who does what unless ALL these regulatory bodies spend shed loads promoting their brand - then it becomes a competition and the customers get even more confused.
One kitemark clears it up.
Likewise, how is the consumer to differentiate ARLA licence from NALS Licence from NAEA licence? They wont care until there is ONE independent mandatory licence rather than 'club' perceived to be endorsing it own members who pay the issuers salaries.
This reminds me of the latest NALS wheeze regarding CMP. All NALS members have to have CMP and PII. The latest idea is a "logo" to show that we have CMP. Free except for a £10 contribution to "marketing".
Excuse me for pointing out that we already have a "CMP logo" - it is the NALS logo. All that NALS need to do is raise their corporate heads above the parapet and PROMOTE the NALS logo as a guarantee of CMP.
Similarly NAEA should promote the NAEA or NFoPP brand. Surely that is what their membership fees partly pay for?
Until the politicians decide that we need to license agents, everyone is wasting their time. The NAEA are in cloud cuckoo land if they think their voluntary scheme will make any difference.
However, the politicians are unlikely to ever give us licensing because they know that will put fees up and they do not want to be accused of that!
Goodbye NAEA, nice knowing you, but you have no teeth and the politicians have no respect for you, so why do you exist?
Surely having a qualified member of staff in each office shows the public a level of competency.
Agents want licensing to show we are better than the unlicensed agent, surely this is a step towards this? Americans have to pass an exam to become a licensed broker. Thats all, not just one per office!
I understand the cost implications and the cost of CPD, but again this is about maintaing professional development and being the better agent.
Yes I do not deny there is a major lack of public awareness, but it is not all down to NFOPP, we have to plug it too, scream it from the rooftops, then hopefully the clients will be asking other agents if they are members.
If you can be licensed immediately tell everyone!
But to PBK, major work needs to be put in prior to the scheme launching in June so the public are aware! Get in touch with those property show producers! "If its on TV it must be true" we need to use that to our advantage!!
If we want some kind of legal requirement to be licensed surely making the NAEA one work is our step in that direction!
I am pro Mr Bolton King, but against this idea as licensing is only of value to the customer when it is independent. The number of people asking to consult a member is roughly the same as the number of unicorns.
NAEA fail to understand the issue and have not consulted with those on the front line. Visit the NAEA website – try and find any reference to CMP insurance. That's what customers care about. TPOS have a code of practice and complaints procedure. A customer has more confidence in an independent redress scheme that a trade association.
An individual can use a the logo if they are a member, but the firm for whom they work may be insolvent, have a clients account deficit, no CMP - a false impression?
In a nutshell the concept of licensing is to raise standards. Raising standards is for the benefit of customers yet the single most important part of this has been omitted.
The dream "Are you a member of ARLA or the NAEA, and if not, I don’t want you to have anything to do with my house’ - is a noble one - but in reality, how do you sell that to someone who has been buying and selling houses for say, 30 years without sounding patronising?
A joint office where an experienced manager oversees Sales and Lettings and who had MARLA is no longer sufficiently qualified.
How many of the leading agents actually have NAEA on their websites? How many Multi Branch agencies will be able to maintain a presence in every branch?
I will have to fork out and extra 8 x £150 and pray no one leaves. Its hard enough to find good staff without applying a filter for NAEA members only.
I sincerely understand what they want to achieve - but this is so far off the mark it is clear that members views are not represented. Sadly, I think this will prove a huge commercial misjudgment and very damaging for the NAEA brand as the logo will become more scarce.
Mr. Bolton King's problem is that the members he meets pay lip service to the principle of more regulation but when it comes to having to pay for it (and please don't suggest that licensing is "free". It must have cost members a lot in terms of salaries alone at Warwick), they don't like it quite so much. Add that to the silly idea that to encourage the success of the licensing scheme, you de-bar established stalwarts from even advertising they are members and you get a right old muddle. The NAEA comments in response to the understandable concerns about staffing implications especially at this point in the market, kind of say don't worry we don't really plan to enforce the rules (it is extremely doubtful that resources exist to do this in any case). Where does that leave us? With another half-baked idea not properly thought through resulting in even more irate members. Time for change of direction?
Gordon Brown had a penchant of not listening to the populace and look what happened to him.
I lost faith 15 years ago and resigned.
Not being a member of NAEA perhaps I should not be commenting. However, Licncing as a membership requirement is not the same thing as a National Statutory Licence to practice as an Estate Agent, which is what the industry really needs and which is the only safeguard against the "Rogue" agent that blights all our professional lives. I think that the NAEA should concentrate on persuading the Government to introduce Statutory Licencing rather than pursuing Membership licencing which will help no-one.
We have the same trouble, as members, with the RICS!
Don't bring me into this mess. Quack. Quack.
“I want it to get to the stage whereby the first thing a consumer asks an agent is, ‘Are you a member of ARLA or the NAEA, and if not, I don’t want you to have anything to do with my house’.” - Dream on.....Ombudsman maybe, but never NAEA.
No one outside the industry has ever heard of the NAEA.
Sorry Peter your responses do not cut it, and are borderline condescending.
Agents like me with a multi-branch practise and a policy of encouraging staff to enrol, are being pushed around by an organisation that has lost touch I'm afraid.
To demand that I have a member in every branch is not workable, practical or frankly affordable at the moment.
I think it's less that people don't want licensing, and more that they don't want NAEA licensing.
I think some sort of Industry recognised licence would be a great idea, separates the Estate Agents from the Sales Negotiators. At the moment, it's basically the same thing, which means you end up with spotty 18 year olds (without driving licence/car) passing themselves off as Agents.
There will be problems with bringing in licencing, and many people complaining, but the idea clearly works, as the US has it, so there is no reason it can't work here too!
Time for a vote of confidence.
It reminds me of the NAEA not listening to the members when they encouraged the Government to introduce HIPs even though the members were totally against them. It was a different President but the same single mindedness and deafness to the membership.
These Presidents get intoxicated by being chummy with politicians instead of their members.
Why not concentrate on brand awareness and delivering a valuable property portal instead of losing membership and the logo being taken off the shopfronts?
Completely bonkers if you ask me!
People who run organisations like this must get a sort of 'head office fever' and start living in a fantasy world far removed from the needs of the front line. At branch meetings the NAEA head office people turn up, shake a few hands, give a talk but tend not to listen to the members.
Okay,
There we are, PBK doing a fine impression of someone that’s not listening.
An organisation run like a ‘Nu Labour’ Quango and just as shameless and over egotistical about its own place in the world.
Now if PBK and the merry bunch at Warwick spent so of their time promoting the brand to the public so they actually stood for something to the man on the street then that would be nice / clever / wise / worthwhile.
Time for some direct debits to be cancelled?
Jonnie