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

So, what do the new changes actually mean? This story refers to the repeal of the Property Misdescriptions Act, and the next to the amendment of the Estate Agents Act.

Following its decision to ditch the PMA – a move strongly criticised by the NAEA –  the OFT has published new guidance to help estate agents and ‘others involved in property sales’ understand their responsibilities under consumer and business protection regulations.

The OFT’s new guidance is ‘aimed at all property sales businesses, from estate agents and property developers to intermediate websites that facilitate contact between buyers and sellers’.

The guidance identifies examples of trading practices that could breach the regulations and includes practical steps that property sales businesses can take to comply with the law.

The guidance spells out that property descriptions must be accurate, whether written or oral. Pictures must also be accurate. Vitally, ‘important information’ must not be left out.

The guidance specifically covers two pieces of existing legislation: Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs) and the Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008 (BPRs).

The OFT warns that non-compliance with the CPRs and BPRs may lead to enforcement action which could in turn lead to criminal action, an unlimited fine and up to two years’ imprisonment for a conviction.

Mark Hayward, NAEA president, said: “We are concerned and disappointed that the Government has pushed forth with its plan to repeal the Property Misdescriptions Act.

“It is a decision we feel will lead to reduced levels of consumer protection for home buyers as they make what may be one of the biggest transactions of their life.
 
“This legislation is key in the unregulated world of estate agency, and there is little to be gained from its repeal. Instead, Government is effectively giving rogue, unprofessional agents an opportunity to mislead consumers.

“Many potential home buyers are already struggling to buy a home, and it would be remiss for them to be further penalised due to lack of protection.
 
“We welcome the guidance document on compliance with Consumer Protection Regulation but we believe that the unique and important nature of property purchase means consumers deserve further, stronger protection.

“We have long advised that both pieces of legislation could exist concurrently to the benefit of the consumer.”

The new OFT guidance is here:

https://www.oft.gov.uk/OFTwork/estate-agents/guidance-overview

Comments

  • icon

    I am afraid the comments about the repeal of PMA are ill thought out. The Consumer Protection Regulations are in force and having PMA as well did not increase consumer protection it simply meant agents had double jeopardy if they made an error. The repeal was logical and the best of 3 announcement on a bad day for estate agents.

    Mark my words the OFT guidance starts the most radical change for agents since PMA was introduced.

    Caveat Emptor is dead and agent/client relationships are changed forever - There is now a duty on agents to provide ALL the 'material information' that the average consumer needs to make an informed transactional decision. That means the good the bad and the ugly regardless of the interests of the seller.

    For agents, “Acting in the best interests of the client” is now replaced with “Acting in the best interests of the buyer”

    One might say it was good practice to be up front with sellers to avoid delays and failed sales, but now the choice is gone - there is just a risk of a £5000 fine if you miss something the buyer views as important.

    • 18 September 2012 22:00 PM
  • icon

    It is only estate agents that believe that they are the only ones able to accurately describe a property. The rest of the population, well, that's why they hold estate agents in such low regard, it is common knowledge that they bull$hit, embellish, glaze over and come out with flowery twaddle (and then cop out with a disclaimer). The very thing they are here now, not just denying, but accusing the public of.

    I welcome these changes because I think they will help good estate agents, with whom I have no problem. The ones who will suffer are the duffers ... those agents who are order takers, not salespeople, shelf stackers not merchandisers, wimps not negotiators but still hold vendors to exorbitant fees.

    The new business models will evolve will have the duffers share as their target market not the good agents share.

    • 15 September 2012 20:41 PM
  • icon

    everyone was so up in arms that they turned up and nearly filled the venue for an NAEA regional meeting! Those were the days!

    Will David Perkins write another book, Living without PMA?

    • 14 September 2012 17:36 PM
  • icon

    So,

    Vince Cable has set it in motion that all private seller sites current and new will be a tangle of seller written details containing anything they fancy putting in completely un checked, viewings being set up direct with the potential buyer, all negotiations done direct / face to face (lord, the public let loose on each other?!) then the deal being progressed by the owner who will also be working with the rest of the chains agents, other private sellers and everyone’s solicitors to get it done, re neg down valuations, agree dates and have the normal aggro with that and the usual fixtures and fittings fall out where everyone gets a sulk on about the value of their bog roll holder…………………….what could go wrong with that?

    It will be just like dealing with one of the million cretinous EA’s the rest of us have to work with now where as the best EA in the chain you end up dealing with the whole thing for every other pleb to stupid to do it themselves.

    So, private sale sites – just like dealing with a crap EA but with more cobblers in the sales particulars and 1.5% cheaper for the poor punter whos cocked up the negotiations and under sold for several time more than what he saved himself by doing it himself.

    Jonnie

    • 14 September 2012 17:36 PM
  • icon

    So If this is to help Tesco, they will be a threat to online agents not traditional. If they offer any EA service at all they will be covered by EA act

    • 14 September 2012 17:11 PM
  • icon

    Yet again this seems to be to develop Tesco's business.
    They will be able to promote properties without having to be responsible for checking the accuracy of the vendors description or photos.
    This is what they have been trying to achieve since their entry into this marketplace was halted when the PMA was brought to their attention.

    • 14 September 2012 16:57 PM
  • icon

    Jay - The only people who can condemn the repeal of the PMA are the people it was devised to protect. Do you see or hear anyone of them doing that?

    Stevo - Some regulation of the banks would have a purpose for customers and the greater society the PMA has none.

    • 14 September 2012 15:02 PM
  • icon

    @Jimmy ‘stop lobbying for your own interests’

    Who’s interests do you expect us to lobby for?

    • 14 September 2012 14:45 PM
  • icon

    @sad ole git of course I can see the pylons when i view that is why the PMA was and is pointless.

    • 14 September 2012 13:24 PM
  • icon

    Just another observation!
    .......but perhaps some of the commentators on here would like to see less regulation of the banks???!!!
    Like Vince/BIS I thought not!

    • 14 September 2012 12:40 PM
  • icon

    Oh dear Slappy how sad you are, can you not see the pylons when you view or perhaps you could look on google or street view which is linked to every property on rightmove, bet you can moan about anything, too many wingers in this world.

    • 14 September 2012 11:55 AM
  • icon

    More stupid ill thought through interference by a generally ineffective coalition 'government' with little knowledge of the real world occupied by real people .

    • 14 September 2012 10:24 AM
  • icon

    Estate Agents only want regulation hoping it will reduce the numbers of competition. It won't, so that hypothesis is deluded anyway.

    The public have never been concerned about misdescriptions because they don't believe a word you say anyway. You all think you "sell" houses but you don't. People "buy" houses. Again, pretty much disregarding any of your flowery patter.

    I commend any Government that seeks to reduce regulation. Regulation makes Government, not the other way around. This whole concept is a breath of fresh air, so stop lobbying for your own interests. It's selfish.

    • 14 September 2012 10:03 AM
  • icon

    I have no issue with other operators entering the market!
    .......but who benefits by lowering the entry standard?
    The consumer or another?

    • 14 September 2012 09:47 AM
  • icon

    Will each property now have to have a £/sqm figure clearly shown so that buyers can compare it with other homes they have seen?

    If I don't like a bit of fish I bought at tesco I can take it back and get a full refund, will that extend to properties?

    • 14 September 2012 09:46 AM
  • icon

    Exactly the industry has been asking for more regulation the buyers and vendors haven't.

    If the BIS is about removing red tape and providing more choice lete hope it does!

    If vendors can and want to pay a monthly marketing fee to an intermediary while doing all the other work an EA normally does they should be able to do so outside of the EA act this makes perfect sense to some vendors.

    Of course others will still want a full traditional EA service which should and still is covered by the EA act..

    • 14 September 2012 09:37 AM
  • icon

    Ok before anyone spots it

    Government not Govermnent!
    need to brush up on keyboard skills

    • 14 September 2012 09:30 AM
  • icon

    For years the industry has been asking for more regulation to protect the public!
    .......But the govermnent does the opposite!
    The aim of the BIS is to make business easier by less red tape and more/better consumer choice.
    The reality cheaper on line fees/other providers paid generally upfront as opposed to when sold !
    Which will probably end up costing the consumer more when they realise an internet site alone does not generally sell property.
    ......Probable short term result BIS does the oposite that it is meant to do
    i.e. create jobs and get the economy moving!

    • 14 September 2012 09:23 AM
  • icon

    It seems the only people that want the PMA in place are estate agents. Strange could it be that rather than being used to protect the buyers (it is never enforced and largely ignored) it is used to protect the industry from new methods of marketing properties.

    So all property marketing now falls under CPR's and BPR's sounds very similar to the PMA eh

    "The guidance spells out that property descriptions must be accurate, whether written or oral. Pictures must also be accurate. Vitally, ‘important information’ must not be left out. "The guidance specifically covers two pieces of existing legislation: Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs) and the Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008 (BPRs)".

    It will be interesting to see if some of the descriptions and photos on Rightmove are updated to show the pylons or railway line running along the back of the garden? Or if this legislation can also be used to prevent the introduction of the much dreaded (by EA's) but wanted (by vendors) intermediaries.

    I hope not buyers expect descriptions and photos that leave out important negative information, marketing info gets a buyer to view a property perhaps but it does not get them to buy it!

    • 14 September 2012 09:05 AM
MovePal MovePal MovePal