NAEA members who either do not want to join the association’s voluntary licensing scheme or are unable to, will no longer be allowed to advertise their membership other than on personal stationery such as business cards.
They will not be able to use the NAEA logo in correspondence or advertising, for example on their firm’s websites.
The change kicks in on June 30.
Licensed firms will have to have a partner, principal or director who is an NAEA member, plus an NAEA member in each of its branches.
Licensed members must also agree to undertake 12 hours of CPD (continuous professional development) each year.
Firms wanting to apply to be licensed must return declaration forms to the NAEA by March 28 – and firms that do not wish to become licensed must also complete forms by that date.
But one NAEA member, who asked not to be named, said he was angered by the licensing scheme.
He said: “I am a long-standing NAEA member and have one office. But I do not wish to become licensed, partly because I think it is meaningless, and partly because CPD is expensive and time-consuming.
“I do not understand why the NAEA should wish to punish members who do not want to become licensed.
“I don’t understand why the board has voted for this licensing scheme. They must realise that it is divisive and that they will lose more members. Another exodus of members is the last thing that the NAEA needs at the moment.”
The agent said he was also angry that the NAEA has said it will become solely concerned with residential sales.
He said: “The large majority of NAEA members also handle lettings, but by no means all of them wish to join ARLA as well, or to transfer their membership.”
The NAEA says that it has introduced its licensing scheme to enhance professionalism in estate agency and to raise the profile of NAEA members.
Comments
This simply frees up a bit more room in the window.
Down comes the PropertyLive sticker along wioth the NAEA Sticker.
A bit more advertising space in the paper and bobs yer uncle, job done.
Mr Bolton King and co simply have no idea what a Professional body is. Somehow it is horribly confused with a commercial business.
Jobs for the boys and cash to boot.
Well said Chris. My understanding is that only Data Protection, Anti-Money Laundering and more recently the Ombudsman Scheme (Sales) require compulsory registration by estate agents, despite Mr McClintoch's best efforts to persuade the government to include the Lettings industry under his expanding umbrella.
I don't get it? What is the point of having anything to do with NAEA? Serious question! As an experienced Estate Agent with approaching 20-years behind me and having done all the courses in a past life working for a corporate agency, I fully understand the industry and my responsibilities, yet we simply joined The Property Ombudsman when the HIPs came in.
We have joined the Data Protection register and the Money Laundering register. We have professional indemnity insurance etc. so are fully compliant and can place the OFT & The Property Ombusman logos on our stationary and other forms of advertising etc. so Joe Public can see that we are a regulated business and this is their primary concern.
What Joe Public doesn't know anything about is if an agent is displaying the NAEA or The Property Ombudsman, which is better or if they even care!
I guess, to stop another Rightmove type industry taking over, it's great that there is a choice and hopefully they will both feel the need to keep their prices low.
Before HIP's, there was no legal requirement to be part of a regulatory body, which apparently came in once HIP's arrived, but since HIP's have been scrapped, there seems to be the notion that we are still legally obligated to be in a scheme.
Personally I'm not bothered about being in one as most of our new business is driven by customer recommendations and not by some logo on our advertising, but hey, while it is reletively inexpensive in the scheme of things, (No pun intended) I'll stick with it for now.
Someone should check into whether sales agents really need to be in a scheme and where this is documented other than on these schemes own websites of course!!
PS. We have never had a complaint against us since we started in 2004 and long may that continue. :-)
Call me an old cynic if you will, but is it just a coincidence that the NFoPP email directive was issued just a week or so after the annual subscription and outrageously increased CMP levy was collected from my bank?
Yesterday I emailed NFoPP asking if I would receive a pro-rata refund when I am forced to leave on June 30th.
You've guessed it - no reply so far.
I would urge all disgruntled members to make their views known by emailing membership@naea.co.uk
NFoPP is made up of ARLA, ICBA, NAEA & NAVA - surely the membership requirements for each constituent body should be exactly the same. The two tier system proposed by NAEA is a nonsense as my understanding is that you belong to a professional body to indicate that you are properly trained in whatever profession you are operating in. The sooner ARLA parts company with NFoPP the better!
Richard. Seems to me the real issues began with the inception of the NFoPP - too many eggs in one money grabbing basket?
Reference comment by ElTel below regarding Hugh Dunsmore-Hardy. I wrote to him several times with my salient concerns (most of which came to pass!) over the utterly useless HIP to be told by him that I was consumed by cynicism. I'd like to actually meet him now. Just about sums this fiasco up as well I suppose?
I asked the NAEA on four occasions now to investigate a new member MNAEA with a recent fraud conviction and lengthy jail sentence why they has accepted him and his company as members. No reply! Says it all doesnt it!
@ concerned, why not vote with your feet, leave?
Trust me vendors are not impressed with your paid for “qualification and initials” after your name.
Face it you did not get qualified, did not pass any meaningful exam, do not do CPD, so start being honest with yourself and the public you seek to con. Just be you, change your life for good, the first step is to that is admit you have a problem....
This despicable and underhand development smacks of some of the utter nonsense this Country has to endure from the non-elected bureaucrats in Brussels. There was a time when I firmly believed that being a member of the NAEA actually meant something. I'm not so sure now. To the powers that be - reconsider.
I posted this beneath yesterday but it appears not to have prompted a reply from ANY Board member of NAEA/ARLA's NFoPP. It must be true - they don't keep up to date with their members' grass-roots voice - this site. Come on, lets hear from someone on high at Arbon House.
" It would be really good if the Chairman and Board members of the NFoPP (NAEA & ARLA holding company - you remember, the one we were promised would be 'next to invisible') would post on here that they actually bother to read their members' comments on this site and are, at least, re-thinking. One gets the distinct impression that they have no idea of grass root opinions - perhaps because they are insulated from them by Arbon House. They might even care to clear up the point about single office non-licensed members 'not being able to use the logo' - I am sure this is incorrect under our current rules. "
Given we are supposed to live in a democracy why were NAEA members not asked to vote of this inane and churlish idea. Probably because it would have been kicked into the long grass. After all the present Government have abandoned the idea. At least common sense sometimes prevails?
I fail to see what being licensed has to do with actually being a member of the NAEA. Moreover blackmail is a cowardly way to address issues! Yet another pointless addition to the plethora of ill conceived rules and regulations that plague our industry. By the way Mr Coyote has been trying crackpot ideas for years and he has never succeeded either.
To hell with them - register@safe.gb.com - thats what our customers want. NALS is cheaper anyway....
Crikey - Rosalind seems to have lit a fire under what could be the biggest membership revolt since Hugh Dunsmore-Hardy supported HIPS against the members wishes.
It is time for all members not wishing to be bullied by this toothless organisation to email membership@naea.co.uk and remind them of what happens if members are not consulted on an issue as important as this - or vote with their feet.
So sad after 28 years membership, but if a u-turn is not implemented before June 30th, I'm off!
Its like the worlds worst blackmail attempt.
"Give us more money or else....."
"Or else what?"
"Errrr - we wont let you play with us anymore"
"Ok - goodbye er, um - sorry, what was your name again?"
EW@Bushells is right. Its self serving
Clearly this is about their membership and boosting it in a way that which WILL backfire. Toothless, useless and pompous. They are detached from the real world - have NO idea what customers want.
Also - where was the consultation? We are meant to members after all. We have already removed our window stickers. Looks less cluttered actually.
Either I pay an extra £150 x 8 or I can't use a logo no one is interested in. Tough call. Apparently ARLA membership is not sufficient. So offices where the manager perhaps oversees both disciplines requires another certificate.
There are naea members who can use the logo on business cards yet their company may be insolvent and may have misappropriated clients money
In a nutshell the concept of licensing is to supposedly to raise standards. Raising standards is for the benefit of customers yet the single most important part of this has been omitted.
Visit their 'News' page on the website - customers must be impressed - A 2 WEEK OLD self serving article about the virtues of a firm on the Isle of Man passing NAEA exams, how to make your house green and the state of the market in mid Feb.
No mention of licensing.
Right, let’s have a look at this.
The NAEA has popped up again, swinging its alarmingly small and shrinking tackle about the place and turning on its own loyal members?
I was once a member and for many years as well but it brought little benefit to me or my clients except a bit of bog reading in the form of the magazine which would loose out to a dog eared Autotrader any day and invites to astonishingly poorly turned out meetings.
Meanwhile the public doesn’t have a clue what they are or what they stand for and a growing number of agents (Mr Kurtz excluded) couldn’t give a flying rats wotsit.
……………….so, a group of pompous, magazine and training course salesmen being the self proclaimed industry regulator, have as much in the way of teeth as my Nan just after she gets into bed a night.
Best they go off, get properly recognised by the relevant authorities and given the power to police the industry (which it does need) and come back once they have both the tackle and the teeth to be effective and widely respected. – In fairness they are the right people to do it if they actually got the power.
And one last thing Neil Kuntz – clam down fella you sound like you are going to burst a vein, or at least make you NAEA tie pin pop off.
Jonnie
Amoeba? - I see you are back to pondlife again, Mr Kurz. IF you remember, I took up the challenge on behalf of ALL pondlife the last time you uttered that phrase - looks like we're back to the same spot again!
If i remember rightly, you peeled off and didn't re-engage the enemy. BAD Maverick - they'll never make Top Gun II if you keep that up...
By the way... it's amoebae if you are talking plural - amoebas at a push but that is the lazy way. Or AN amoeba, in singular. At least get our names right!
What price do you think Licensing will command? Add it ALL up - the actual process; the add-ons; the obligatory 'training' that everyone will no doubt require to staple the paperwork in the correct manner as to not upset the Assessor; yada yada yada...
HOWEVER MUCH it is, it is 'expensive', if the benefit does not outweigh the cost. I cannot see a benefit. JUST a cost.
Prove me wrong, please. Just don't run off the way you did last time...
Complaints, sorry ;-)
Nothing so subtle unfortunately, was called Captain CeeBee!
Did you notice 'our friend' sticking his head up earlier? On the 'Copmlaints' story.
Back to this one though, I've never really seen any benefit to me from NAEA, I took the exam, and the ARLA one, as the corporate I used to work for sent me a letter telling me I had been submitted for them. Nice to be given the choice...
"Saw a horse whose name reminded me of you..."
Why do I just KNOW that has opened the floodgates for abuse...
Thanks, CL - anyways, if I can't take it, I shouldn't give it, eh? ;0)
Let me start with horsey names that might sum me up:
Knackers Yard Awaits...
Hoof Hearted...
Tomorrow's Dogmeat...
I like this one the best, though:
Stallion? More Like Galleon...
Any agent thinking Licensing, ICO, NFOPP membership or any other statutory requirement is "a big, nasty, EXPENSIVE stick. " shouldn't be in the sector.
It's astonishing there is so much room for gifted amateurs to flourish, but then the non-existent barrier to entry has ensured that even amoeba can flourish in the murky property pond.
On a completely random topic PeeBee, I won a bet because of you!
Saw a horse whose name reminded me of you and thought I'd join in with the lettings 'crew' and have a bit of a flutter. You came 3rd!
Mr Kurz: You don't upset me. Sorry to p33 on your firework... I don't 'do' upset. I simply debate/argue/call it what you like.
We have similar but very differing views. That is not a bad thing. Perhaps, somewhere, there is a middle ground we could meet - but that would spoil the fun ;0)
"I don't think Licensing is the answer to the ills (not alleged, they are real) of the industry, but it won't do any harm and may just deter a fraction of the crooks who enter the industry." That's a LOT of people's money you are committing away there, with only a "may" and a "fraction" as carrots to sweeten what is otherwise a big, nasty, EXPENSIVE stick.
What is more disappointing is that, in my opinion, you have, in that one sentence, completely blown you own often-aired argument. Which is a shame, as you fought your corner steadfastly (a corner which, in complete fairness, has some actual merit...) and I admire you for that.
Keep it up - but don't blow it again! I will ignore this little episode... ;0)
PeeBee said ----> "Mr Kurz: HOW, Sir, can it be that you have NO OPINION to share of ANY OTHER MATTER relating to Estate Agency other than LICENSING? "
Got bad news for you Peebee, I have plenty of opinions to go round. I wouldn't like to restrict the sharing of my wisdom to one specific area. I note that I upset you though. That's nice.
PeeBee said ---->The sad thing, is that in part, I agree with your comment - but I just feel that I have to argue with you for the sole reason of my firm belief that Licensing is NOT the answer to the alleged ills of the industry, as you so obviously believe it is. In order to ensure that Members 'hit' the 12 hours a year, they could provide additional Meetings with guest speakers (which turn up FoC anyway...). The Members would then be BETTER informed; BETTER equipped: and BETTER armed to do the job. FAR BETTER than a License... don't you think, Mr Kurz? ;0)
1. I don't think Licensing is the answer to the ills (not alleged, they are real) of the industry, but it won't do any harm and may just deter a fraction of the crooks who enter the industry.
2. Licensing and CPD- I'd prefer to see both actually. I can't see it happening though, and self-regulation is rarely effective.
Simon: "I was an NAEA member for a year but gained almost nothing from it other than the ability to put letters after my name."
Sir - I regurgitate an often-used phrase:
The effort you put is directly proportional to the result you get.
What did YOU bring to the table? Did you attend Branch Meetings? Did you regularly speak to Branch Members or Committee?
Did you know there WAS a Branch?
I look forward to your response.
Dear Ros
"NAEA cracks down on non-licensed members" is a tad harsh as we were all unlicensed until they invented this new idea.
"Crack down" implies something illicit in that members were doing something wrong. We aren't.
They would have been better spending resources on consumer education and the benefits of using an NAEA member - mentioning that Clients Money Protection Insurance was mandatory for all PPD's. As it is, good companies will simply stop using the logo rather than worry about the logistics of having a member in every branch.
They really know how to destroy a brand. Really, they should try working on the front line and see what the public actually ask! Never has it been "Is there a member of the NAEA I can consult in here?"
Come clean, stop paying for silliy initials, withdraw membership, no loss, job done. The NAEA are so weak they will go back on this and then you can con the public again with paid for initials.
Mr Kurz: HOW, Sir, can it be that you have NO OPINION to share of ANY OTHER MATTER relating to Estate Agency other than LICENSING?
The sad thing, is that in part, I agree with your comment - but I just feel that I have to argue with you for the sole reason of my firm belief that Licensing is NOT the answer to the alleged ills of the industry, as you so obviously believe it is.
BUT, putting that aside (for a moment...), the nameless Agent may well have been paraphrased or taken out of context. ALL NAEA Members have a requirement for CPD anyway. Mine was home study - reading and digesting trade journals etc, as well as attending Branch Meetings which were usually CPD material. THOSE who join the NAEA simply "for the letters on their business cards" are easily spottable and should therefore be easily weeded out. Of course, as I believe there is a reasonable percentage who belong solely for that purpose (you see, we DO agree sometimes...), then the loss of revenue to the Association would be substantial.
OR WOULD IT? I go on (and on...) about Fees - charge more for a better standard of service. It is MY personal gripe, as you all know. IF the Association could market themselves - and their Members - as the Elite of the industry, then they should be able to charge more to their Members, as the Members should be able to secure Premium Fees over the non-Member competition. As it is, the NAEA is NOT a USP. I doubt if it even enters the average Valuers' Appraisal presentation...
CPD does not necessarily have to cost money. It DOES cost time - but surely time well spent. 12 hours out of a working year of say 1680 hours - 0.7%. One hour a month - H3ll, I could read Trade Journals for TWENTY HOURS a month without breaking into a sweat! Most of them at home, at night!
In order to ensure that Members 'hit' the 12 hours a year, they could provide additional Meetings with guest speakers (which turn up FoC anyway...). The Members would then be BETTER informed; BETTER equipped: and BETTER armed to do the job.
FAR BETTER than a License... don't you think, Mr Kurz? ;0)
Why this website wont do a most rated / not rated option so i dont have to read through the absolute rubbish and stupidly long messages on here i dont know.
How times change!
I believe the NAEA was formed at a time that the RICS was lobbying for a 'closed shop' for the sale of all property, controlled by themselves.
Full circle - time for naea mark 2? ;-0)
Time to join the RICS I think. Mind you I quite the NAEA in 2003 because I just didn't see the value in it...
If ever this was a back of the fag packet idea, this is it. I think we can see now that these are all self serving organisations and certainly of no real benefit to agents and the public alike.
I think they have shot themselves in the foot on this and have not taken the time to properly consider the implications. They obviously didnt speak to their membership beforehand. Firstly they saw an opportunity for themelves by lobbying government to make licensing compulsory, it failed, they then sent out forms to members, suggesting it was compulsory to become a licensed NAEA member, while doubing the CMP, that has backfired. Meanwhile agents have taken the initiative to sort things out for themselves with regard to protecting client's money - although that needs a bit more work because it's present structure is unfair to smaller agents - whats wrong with a fee relevant to the average amount of client money held per annnum by each branch for the year before as per their client account records.
This heavy handed approach only serves to put corporates at an advantage and blurring the edges with the public suggesting that only big is beautiful (and professional) and that you need to have a lot of worthless letters and logos attached to your website to be considered competent to sell/rent property.
It would be really good if the Chairman and Board members of the NFoPP (NAEA & ARLA holding company - you remember, the one we were promised would be 'next to invisible') would post on here that they actually bother to read their members' comments on this site and are, at least, re-thinking. One gets the distinct impression that they have no idea of grass root opinions - perhaps because they are insulated from them by Arbon House. They might even care to clear up the point about single office non-licensed members 'not being able to use logo' - I am sure this is incorrect under our current rules.
Duncan
That is useful
but what do you do when you have lots of offices and move staff around through promotion etc???
Also, do the NAEA have the resources to come to every office to enforce their "one office - one resident member" rule?
I could have thirty members across my network and not guarantee that I would have a member in each branch!!!! This is stupid.
I have just come off the phone to NAEA and they confirmed that CPD can be done in house, you do not need to attend NAEA courses, of which 4 hours can be dedicated relevant reading.
Likewise in single branch companies, providing the partner/director is working in the business, no one else needs to be a member of the NAEA.
In my view the NFoPP has been engaged in 'empire building' at the expense of acting in the NAEA and ARLA paying members best interests since its inception. I believe that having seperate divisions for sales and lettings is defendable because of the different skills and qualifications required and agree that individual memberships should be brought to the attention of the public much more forceably.
This new 'initiative' will obviously reduce the individual membership substantially. What then? Cosy up to the large corporates?
I hope not, but this would seem to be a step too far and could be the end.
this is clearly a case of extortion.
if agent have to be licensed it should be enshrined in law and everyone has to do it, or have nothing at all.
I was an NAEA member for a year but gained almost nothing from it other than the ability to put letters after my name. It's a ridiculous organisation that only seems to exist for itself.
The point is simple as far as I am concerned
I have a multi-practise firm with over a dozen residential offices
The NAEA rules are so strict that it does not allow me to move staff around from office to office and not be in breach of their rules.
I do not have NAEA qualified staff in every office (although I have several across the firm), and even if I could afford to in the present climate, I don't think I could keep up with the conditions of licensing especially as the rules stipulate you have to have one NAEA member per branch.
This is a sinister set of rules designed to boost membership and revenue.
There are so many ways of demonstrating that you care about service - Ombudsman schemes etc, that the cumbersome, out of date practises of the NAEA are not as necessary or appropriate as they used to be (training asside).
Sorry, but I have told them that I will happily remove all marketing material and just remain a member with my existing staff who are already qualified.
I am happy though to encourage as many staff who want to go through the training to do so (as this is worthwhile), but this heavy handed approach to licensing is not for me.
When they've suffered a loss of membership and made a financial loss last year, how have they come up with the idea of discouraging their members from displaying their logo?
Once agents remove the logo from their window and advert, they'll be even more likely to question what they actually get for their membership fee.
Maybe the Board at NFOPP want NAEA to become a secret society. They might run a competition for a secret handshake, any ideas out there?
If they lost members and money last year, how do you think this new initiative will impact on their future?
This licensing stinks. I am NAEA & Ombudsman scheme, as a small independent, and use it on some literature. I don't put either logo in my window, despite requests from them & heaps of websites to spread their brand, as I think it looks tacky/messy/untidy and (when Iused to have a load of stickers showing) didn't appear to me to make any difference to anything.
I object to the extra cost of CPD compliance & time out of office. I work in Somerset and rarely, almost never, find courses offered close enough that I can avoid using a hotel.
I really don't think the public give a damn most of the time. They may regard Lettings deposits but don't seem to otherwise, its just 'how much, what''s your fee' and perhaps 'what websites do you use or are you in the local papers'
I'll stay in NAEA for now but won't pay up to license unless & until it proves to be cost effective. I don't put NAEA or Ombudsman logos on my website anyway.
I truly believe its just a way to get more £ into NAEA coffers.
Since the NAEA took the decision making power from their Council of Members, they've made some very odd and unpopular decisions, like this one.
I despair really, they have missed so many opportunities to lead the way. Imagine where they'd be today if they'd got their portal strategy right long before rightmove even existed.
As for the confusion over the name, the damage to awareness of NAEA brand since they're called NFoPP or whatever their American sounding National Federation is called.
I used to be proud to be a member of NAEA, even though I found their dynamism very pedestrian, now I'm quite pleased to be on the outside. i'd certainly share the view of the loyal member who is being forced to license or be marginalised by an organisation he's supported financially for years. If the Council still had voting power, this would never happen.
Since I left the NAEA, I've realised how little it matters to the public and those letters after your name make up for limited ability or lack of experience.
Can someone please explain...Why. any. agency. wishes. to. be. a. member. of. the. NAEA?
Ditto 'expensive and time consuming' comment ref CPD.
If nothing else, this agent should be protecting himself and his company. I attended a money laundering course recently. One afternoon, not ridiculously expensive, discovered gap in our AML procedures and got 3.5 hours CPD. That to me is b****y good value!
Trust me mystery estate agent, 'I couldn't be bothered' doesn't go down too well as a defence with most judges!!
As a Director, I am responsible for the conduct of my staff. If there is a complaint, it is directed towards me and I am answerable.
Now, I have to have an NAEA member in every branch. This will cost additional money and seems solely a misguided attempt to boost membership and indeed revenue.
Why misguided? Simply, because vendors don't care about the NAEA. Sadly, they never ask if we are members and in the event we point out that another firm is not, we are met by a perplexed 'so?'
Vendors look for TPOS membership as they believe the TPO has teeth and is independent.
What happens in the event my NAEA member leaves their branch? How long have I got to find a replacement before I am breaking the rules? I am restricted on who I can employ - and lets be honest, good staff are at a premium.
Simply, I will remove the logo as instructed with regret after 2 decades of membership - but with little disappointment. I wont be so churlish as to resign as I believe in standards in the industry.
I have looked at the websites of our best and most respected competitors this morning - guess how many display the NAEA logo? Just us.
After 35 years as a NAEA member, I don't think 12 hours CPD is going to have a great impact on knowledge and experience. There is always something to learn, but this is just a sop to the public. The ban on using the logo, which may end up applying to many supportive and loyal members, is ridiculous. If the logo can't be used, membership must be called into question.
I have been an Estate Agent for over 22 years and a MNAEA for 16 years however I am not going to be bullied into paying a fortune for insurance bearing in mind I already have huge prof indemnity cover. I run a tight ship and am a small 1 office outfit and do not hold huge amounts of clients money unlike some of the multiples however the NFOPP exepct me to poay the same as a multi office outfit who hold a vastly larger amount of client money! There was no consultation...merely pay up or you will be struck off....well strike me out then as there are plenty of Agenmts who are not regulated who seem quite happy with their lot!
I applaud the NAEA, but will they follow it through? They are largely considered a joke by most but a good marketing ploy to con the public who are ignorant at the lack of any meaningful standards to be able to put those letters after your name.
Such shameful practices actually damage the industry, perhaps at long last the NAEA have finally realised the error of their ways. The RICS they are not, but even the worst organisation can aspire to be better. Well done.
"because CPD is expensive and time-consuming." which does rather sum up the professionalism and commitment to self-improvement that many agents demonstrate. These agents should be grateful the public are so ignorant they are prepared to instruct agents that continue to know so little.
Ve ave Vways Of Makin you Vwerk.