The Property Ombudsman has cast doubts over the clarity of the Consumer Protection Regulations, on which the OFT’s new guidance to estate agents focuses.
As the OFT consultation on the guidance gets under way, as reported by EAT yesterday, Christopher Hamer said the Regulations could be ambiguous.
He said: “Whilst I have not yet had the opportunity to fully consider the OFT consultation paper, anything that helps clarify new responsibilities and ensures that agents operate within the law must be considered as positive.
“The consequences of good guidance for agents are that buyers, sellers, landlords and tenants will be better served, thereby avoiding disputes.
“I am keen to see the results of the Department for Business Innovation and Skills consultation on the potential repeal of the Property Misdescriptions Act (PMA) 1991 – that repeal being a possibility because BIS has suggested that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Regulations cover the same aspects of the PMA.
“Although the guidance that is now being consulted on is obviously helpful, it remains that the PMA is very specific in its requirements, whilst the CPRs, I believe, remain open to differing interpretations.”
Bill McClintock, chairman of the operating company for The Property Ombudsman scheme, will be taking part in the latest OFT consultation.
He said: “I am sure we have a contribution to make, and if the process helps focus estate agents on better business practice, then it has to be good for both the industry and consumers. “If the consultation identifies problems that can be solved through better laws, or better application of existing laws, then such moves should be made.”
Comments
So with all the legislation surrounding agent honesty, will there be anything in place to ensure the honesty of buyers & sellers?
No?
What a surprise.
And when they don't get their way through lying what will they do? Well blame the agent, of course, haha. Always the same.
Personally, I am delighted that TPOS comment on such issues and offer a pragmatic, independent comment and feel able to challenge the OFT as necessary.
In the event the NAEA comment - it may still be seen as a bias towards its members whose interests they represent.
The guidelines are flawed and hard to enforce - but will they listen to agents? No. They will say we are trying to serve our own interests.
Will they listen to TPOS - who knows - but the odds are far better.
License, License, License. Stop fiddling around the edges. License, or enforce the laws we already have.
....or the OFT could police what we already have better and stop turning a blind eye to firms breaking the law left right and centre
What is the problem?
What are they trying to fix?
The PMA is crystal clear, no problems there then.
They can fiddle with the Ombudsman's code as much as they wish (if it makes them happy).
Bill McClintock, chairman of the operating company for The Property Ombudsman scheme, will be taking part in the latest OFT consultation, he said: “I am sure we have a contribution to make.
Sure you have Bill, it's that little bit of glory in your life that will allow you to retire feeling that you 'contributed' something to the world.
Nothing wrong with what we have, eave it alone please.