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

In a David and Goliath battle, Hamptons International has threatened an online agent with legal action unless it removes a comment from its website.

eMoov founder Russell Quirk has refused to take it down and told Hamptons – part of Countrywide – to lay off its “meritless, intimidating tactics”.

The unresolved encounter could be seen to underline the growing tensions between high street and online agents.

The threat, from Hamptons’ legal department, centres around a testimonial on the eMoov site in which a Richard Davies, of Bloxham, Oxfordshire, says he saved £8,000 by using eMoov.

The testimonial adds: “Not bad when Hamptons valued my house at less than £500,000 and wanted to charge me £7,500 plus VAT in marketing fees. eMoov sold it for £540,000 and charged me just £395 plus VAT.”

In its letter, Hamptons lawyers say that the service provided by Hamptons differs vastly from that provided by eMoov, and that “the comment made on your website is clearly misleading as it fails to take account of the different levels of service between Hamptons and eMoov.”

The letter lists some of the services Hamptons provides, such as high street offices, accompanied viewings, and staff who have had professional training, plus who have experience and local knowledge.

The letter, which points out that Hamptons won the Sunday Times Gold award for best large agent, also “reminds” eMoov of their responsibilities under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 not to engage in unfair commercial practices.

It goes on: “We consider that your conduct, which appears to have been intended to encourage the property owner to instruct you … clearly had the potential to be an unfair commercial practice.

“We therefore require you to immediately remove the comment and/or reference to Hamptons and cease and desist from publishing further statements about Hamptons on your website, and to provide us with an undertaking to this effect. Please be advised that failure to do so will result in further action against you.”

In response, Quirk told Hamptons that the testimonial from Mr Davies is genuine, and that it was only after his own research that Mr Davies approached and instructed eMoov, which then swiftly and successfully sold the property.

Quirk says in his response: “eMoov have not questioned the ability or the range of services that Hamptons may or may not offer. In any case, such a comparison would seem wholly academic given that eMoov were indeed successful in selling the property in question, in spite of the features that you attribute to Hamptons … and that you incorrectly argue gain some advantage over eMoov.

“For the avoidance of doubt, you should be aware that eMoov offer a comparable service to Hamptons and we would caution you as to attempting to contend otherwise, as to do so would amount to a defamatory suggestion which may be actionable in law.”

Quirk also drew the Hamptons’ lawyer’s attention to the recent ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority which went in favour of another online agent, Hatched.

Quick also said that eMoov’s marketing material is not false or misleading, and he concluded: “I should make it clear that I believe it to be wholly improper to attempt to censor competitors in the way that you are seeking … Our industry is changing albeit that it remains a level playing field. Hamptons must try to keep up by fair means alone.

“Kindly resort to competing on equal terms and not by employing such meritless, intimidating tactics that frankly I had previously thought were beneath a firm of your standing.”

Quirk told EAT that he considered the legal letter from Hamptons to be incredibly pompous. He added: “However, they clearly regard us as a threat, so I suppose we should be flattered.”

“This is no doubt one of many forthcoming David and Goliath moments that eMoov can expect as we take more and more market share from traditional agents.

“Gaining the attention of the UK’s largest estate agency group in this way has put a constant smile on my face since I received the letter last Wednesday.”

Hamptons International was invited by EAT to comment but declined.

Comments

  • icon

    Ray- US agency styles tend to fail over here, C21, Remax, multi list etc and tend to be only the worst agents that use it and thats no way to go!

    Works the other way round, your mates Tesco failed over the pond.............

    • 15 August 2013 14:31 PM
  • icon

    The way forward?

    Could be Sales/Appraisal Agents with local knowledge BASED at home - technology allows this now. This does not mean fully working from a home office - but through a large central office which provides all the back-up. It's already the way in the USA and has been for years?

    • 14 August 2013 10:36 AM
  • icon

    Smacks of a legal team poorly advising . Typical of legal firms to aggravate the situation because we'll get paid anyway. Anyone with commercial nous would have left this alone rather than put it on a pedastal.
    Best free advertising anyone could have wished for.

    • 14 August 2013 09:30 AM
  • icon

    Mive? *Move

    • 13 August 2013 17:54 PM
  • icon

    Why don't we ignore the fact that its a High Street vs Online Agent situation here for a moment. If, say, Your Mive had got a testimonial basically saying "Hamptons suck, but Your Move are fantastic" would there still be the huge uproar?

    Personally I try never to openly denigrate a competitor, subtlety works just as well, and I would always omit names, simply as I think it reflects badly on me, plus they would probably turn around and try and do the same thing.

    But this client is also entitled to give his opinion, some common sense and professional courtesy could have been good though...

    • 13 August 2013 17:53 PM
  • icon

    Come on! This is a massive PR exercise and all part of Emoov's smart manipulation of social media, review sites and anything media related.

    Don't forget it wasn't that long ago that we all read an article not to long ago on estate agent today regarding a meeting with Countrywide and Emoov that took place regarding potential investment!

    It's all a BIG PR EXERCISE!!!

    • 12 August 2013 21:17 PM
  • icon

    Dear Edward,

    Thoughts…………………………… I don’t come across them around here really, saying that there is a chap that works from home locally and charges very little and I assume makes a living from it, but my opinions are only based on articles posted on EAT normally about hatched.co.uk and emoov.

    Based on this narrow section of the online world it seems they both had founders that opened up and did a sort of national DIY thing and did okay at taking a decent salary for themselves then started opening offices, having lots of staff, cars, and all the rest of the flim flam you need to run and estate agents – this emoov franchise in Milton Keynes has three blokes to feed?!

    So, based on very little knowledge my view is that its getting expensive to run an online operation because the customer still wants a human, there might be less rent on a first floor office over and A2 unit I suppose

    Jonnie

    • 12 August 2013 18:28 PM
  • icon

    Hmmm...

    Several things to consider here, methinks.

    1. Is it a genuine 'testimonial'? If it is - and it is 100% factually correct - then it SHOULD be allowable... BUT...

    2. Why the chuff didn't the Agent simply **** out the others' name - like any reasonable competitor would do?

    3. H******s (there - see how easy it is?) gave an appraisal figure to the vendor - did the other Agent? Or did they simply stick it on at whatever the vendor wanted? Would H******s have been prepared to do the same - and maybe even achieved a better result?

    4. Is this REALLY an example of 'ANY publicity is good publicity'? To me, whilst H******s are coming out as sore losers, the other Agent is not faring any better - especially when publishing statements such as "For the avoidance of doubt, you should be aware that e***v offer a comparable service to H******s and we would caution you as to attempting to contend otherwise, as to do so would amount to a defamatory suggestion which may be actionable in law" Oh, dear - the PR version of sticking ones thumbs in ears and waggling fingers whilst making a crude f@rty noise, methinks. And one based on VERY thin ice to boot. Despite the recent "win" with the ASA, I doubt whether online Agents can continue to claim a "comparable service" for too long before someone with a bigger, more savvy lawyer gets the bit well between their teeth and pulls the ropes.

    No doubt this company can claim successes - and should rightly be allowed to do so. WE all do it.

    But there's a way, chaps. Those that do it most successfully, do it PROFESSIONALLY.

    And if you want traditional Agents to accept you - and respect you - for what you are and do, then don't run in and poop in the stew, as you'll have to swallow some of it yourselves someday...

    • 12 August 2013 17:19 PM
  • icon

    See the next story-Hmm , would an online cheapo have spotted this?

    • 12 August 2013 17:02 PM
  • icon

    Spin it how you like but both fees in the same sentence is not a good look, come on Hamptons do you really want to pull that thread?

    Maybe eMoov are the only one’s who can see the matrix or maybe they’re our Wailing Wall, maybe if their genesis wasn’t our failings we might better handle this?

    Our industry isn’t immune from change and the shift online will only increase so unless we need cathartic intervention there’s no point holding on to ‘traditional’ and ‘high street’ just because it has a nice ring to it; we’re already down the rabbit hole.

    This isn’t first contact so lets stop with the BS. Get smart and find a strategy that’s a bit more age appropriate because Hamptons can’t put claim to any USP that justifies that fee. Think about it (because a growing number of vendors are), If we give Impeccable service, regardless of the property then how about a fixed fee…regardless of the property? Instead we get all tumescent on a % that only feeds greed and last time I checked avarice wasn’t a food group.

    • 12 August 2013 16:37 PM
  • icon

    Surely the testimonial contained facts, the completion price and the fee paid, the only bit hamptons could query as misleading is their fee. Did they quote 1.5% on £500,000 or not?

    • 12 August 2013 16:10 PM
  • icon

    Jonnie, the property in John F's post looks very much like the type of property Hamptons would like.

    Trevor, Not that argument again so if I start a brand new agency, I will not have funded the development of any portal in any way. Surely its up to me what fee model I adopt.
    If the portals choose to accept or decline my business that is up to them.

    However, with the portals being so dominant (as the advertising medium) and clearly influenced by the corporate EA's, I would think Edward perhaps has a point re: competition law.

    • 12 August 2013 14:32 PM
  • icon

    @Edward RM £400, what year are you in? Its about £640 or something now isnt it?

    • 12 August 2013 14:31 PM
  • icon

    @Jonnie, OK...

    If a small Online agent with 200 properties get's hit with the Rightmove fee of £400 x 4 branches (based on Uk average of 47 properties per branch) which therefore = £1,600+vat. Then mulitply that by 2 to take into account Zoopla doing the same = £3,200 + vat.

    This compared to a big chain who's usual local office size is 200 properties yet they are only being charged £400 in total for those 200 properties (because they're only charged for 1 branch). Multiply this by 2 (to include Zoopla) = a total cost of £800 + vat.

    So YES - I would say this does add to the undue and unfair pressure on small Online agents, to be charged an extra £2,400 + vat for no good reason. It is clearly a breach in competition regulations.

    Your thoughts?

    • 12 August 2013 12:36 PM
  • icon

    FUNNY REALLY

    I don't agree with budget models as who is to say even the £540k was the right price.

    But whats funny is that Hamptons are part of Countrywide and Countrywide along with other corporates funded rightmove and have interests in zoopla.

    rightmove and zoopla allow budget agents on. So I think Hamptons upper group directors at Countrywide have simply had their arse bit by the platform they created.

    If rightmove and zoopla allow budget models in then this clear example shows at times vendors can pay little to get on main portals that have been funded by traditional office and traditional nline comm fee agents for years.

    • 12 August 2013 12:00 PM
  • icon

    First off Hamptons need to be quite sure they will win this one as loosing will make them look a bit daft although I don’t think typical Hamptons clients would be in a hurry to use emoov, certainly not in great numbers. Be interesting to see how deep the pockets are of emoov when it comes to getting a solicitor on the job though, might be better to remove the reference to Hamptons with ‘traditional’ or something?

    Anyway………………@Edward Connolly, are you saying online estate agents are going out of business because once they have 200 odd listings they can’t afford the portal fees?

    Jonnie

    • 12 August 2013 11:46 AM
  • icon

    John F - So I doubt there is much difference between Savills and Your Move fees. So what point are you trying to make.

    • 12 August 2013 11:28 AM
  • icon

    I am not taking sides but as an agent of many years, readers should be aware of the colossal amount of work and effort that should at least be going into selling a home for a client by any agent - Readers should always of course research closely what they are getting for their money. I feel name awareness is as crucial as the online world, at least for the time being. Indeed it is not just a matter of sticking a home on the internet and sitting back or is it? I think not.

    • 12 August 2013 11:23 AM
  • icon

    Happy chappy - yes I did.

    Just to goes to show you get what you pay for!!

    • 12 August 2013 11:09 AM
  • icon

    John F - Did you see the other article regarding photos and a high street agent?

    • 12 August 2013 10:57 AM
  • icon

    Emoov's stunning photograhy and attention to detail is truly setting the standard. I'm sure that Hamptons, Savills Knight Frank etc are quaking in their boots!!

    http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-27489849.html#

    • 12 August 2013 10:11 AM
  • icon

    So a local agent agrees and puts a property on at £ 500k and an online agent - who presumably only acts on the vendors instruction - then takes to advertise it at £ 540 k ? (or higher to achieve £ 540 k ?).

    The local agent presumably works on a success fee whilst the onine agent just sits back and take the money upfront.

    We live in interesting time.

    I bet the purchaser at £ 540k will be feeling a bit miffed and suspect that they will be looking closely at their valuation report (if there was one).

    • 12 August 2013 09:49 AM
  • icon

    A Home-Agent can only answer one call - undertake one viewing apt - one appraisal at a time; as the business grows - perhaps husband & wife team - then as more clients you need staff - expand out of spare living-room - you need an office!
    Have to be very disciplined to keep a manageable number of clients and work from home.

    • 12 August 2013 09:38 AM
  • icon

    @Steve Cass.

    You Nobby, most Online agents use home agents already!

    • 12 August 2013 09:09 AM
  • icon

    Online estate agency is being hit left right and centre by an industry desperate to stay in the past and yet it continues on to grow and grow. It is bringing fair competition via innovation to a market that has been closed to all of these things for too long.

    The public may not be aware but property websites such as Rightmove & Zoopla are already adding a disadvantage to Online agents by charging them based on the the average stock of High street shops across the UK (47 properties) meaning that for many of these bigger brand offices who are only charged once per office and have more like 150 - 200 properties in their branches are therefore being charged only 1/3 - 1/4 of the price that a small online agency is. Amazing considering they're charging 10 times the amount!

    There's no wonder so many smaller Online estate agents are folding under this pressure. No doubt the intention. It's something the OFT / Competitions commission should and no doubt will be looking into.

    The last thing Online agents then need is bully boy tactics from the likes of Hamptons trying to state a high street office as a service and that their agents are more professional and they have access to more local knowledge. Not only do online agents have more experience because they have to deal with 10 times the properties per employee but you and I know that all local knowledge is now gathered online.

    Hamptons, this comes across like a sad and desperate death row argument. Why not just try to compete by fair means? Or improve your service to justify your fees.

    • 12 August 2013 08:55 AM
  • icon

    Yes, these large agents take the micky. The clients comment was presumably posted accurately. As such, eMoov have done nothing wrong.

    Within 15 years, probably sooner, there will be hardly any High Street agents left.
    With the internet dominant and becoming more so, the high street shop has little to do with selling the client's house for them. It's just a relic of a past business model and yes, it's great permanent brand advertising for the agent.

    However, clients are becoming wise to the fact that it's the colossal cost of running a shop that makes up 50 %(?) of the fee they are charged.
    What for?

    The majority of buyers find the property to view on the internet, not by dragging around all the agents shops anymore, so the high fee is no longer justifiable.

    But overwhelmingly, sellers still like to use a local agent rather than a faceless internet agent.

    The answer? Home Agents.
    Agents that work from home or an 'off street' office to reduce the costs - passing the saving to their clients BUT still being local and available to see clients and conduct viewings in the traditional way.

    • 12 August 2013 08:42 AM
  • icon

    These greedy estate agents need to understand that taking a photo of a property, sticking it on a portal and then charging someone tens of thousands of pounds for a property that really can sell itself, is money for old rope.

    I hope eMoov don't get bullied into giving up. That testimonial is a simple, clear honest fact. If someone is stupid enough to want to pay thousands in commission to an estate agent - let them, but don't knock the clever ones who manage to do it with eMoov - a brilliant concept and idea.

    Hamptons don't need this kind of publicity - people will want to try out eMoov so just goes to show how thick Hamptons really are.

    • 12 August 2013 08:37 AM
  • icon

    Stick to your guns Russell and hope they pursue it further, the publicity would be priceless.

    • 12 August 2013 07:29 AM
MovePal MovePal MovePal