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

Calls are mounting for Vince Cable’s Department for Business Innovation & Skills to defer the closing date of the consultation on changing the Estate Agents Act because so few people knew anything about it.

However, as things stand, the consultation is set to close tomorrow, and the industry is strongly urged to make its views known on this crucial issue (see the links at the end of this story).

But while individual agents and firms have been in the dark over plans to allow new entrants into the estate agency business who will not have to comply with the Estate Agents Act – for example, they will not have to offer redress via an Ombudsman scheme – it has emerged that stakeholders DID know.

The Property Ombudsman, RICS and NAEA have all attended meetings at the department.

The Property Ombudsman told EAT yesterday in a statement that as a redress scheme and not a trade body, it was not its place to let the industry know what was going on. It said that this was for the trade bodies to do.

TPO expects to make a robust response to the consultation by tomorrow’s deadline. You can read the full TPO statement made to EAT in the next story.

Mark Hayward, president of the NAEA, said: “The NAEA are of course submitting a response to the Government’s consultation on the Estate Agent Act.

“We strongly oppose any measure that erodes vital consumer protection, which we believe these proposals will do.

“We would be disappointed to see any government recommendations following this consultation which undermine consumer protection, and which do not take into account important issues for consumers such as including the lettings industry within the definition of the Estate Agents Act. We will be making this point very strongly in our submission.”

Peter Bolton King, global residential director of RICS, last night said: “The RICS are aware of these proposals and have had meetings with the relevant government department.
 
“Our balanced, yet robust, response has been submitted to the department, which will no doubt be made available by them in due course.
 
“Whilst we acknowledge that it is necessary to change the legislation, as it is out of date and produced before the advent of the internet, we are concerned about the way the Government are going about this and have expressed these concerns in our response.

“These centre particularly on potential consumer detriment from a growth of unregulated on line agents, operating outside of the Estate Agents Act, with no requirement to provide redress arrangements
 
“We would prefer a more holistic approach and continue to influence the UK Government to bring about wider reform.”

One person who knew nothing of the move to change the Estate Agents Act until EAT broke the story yesterday was Nick Salmon FNAEA, managing director of Harrison Murray and ex-SPLINTA campaigner.

He said: “Regrettably, I was completely unaware of the proposal to change the EA Act and therefore also unaware of the consultation.

“Although it is not CLG handling these proposals, having seen at first hand with HIPs how government departments can botch a consultation, I am not at all surprised that this has not registered on the property industry radar.

“It has all the hallmarks of a change that has not been thought through and which will be enacted in haste. Rushed legislation is very rarely good legislation.

“The department should acknowledge that they have not sufficiently publicised the proposals or the consultation and start the process afresh.”

Another agent who knew nothing about it was Trevor Kent, who said: “I would have expected (and indeed suffered) such underhand skulduggery from the last administration, particularly on HIPs of course, but I had hoped to see the much-vaunted ‘openness’ from the Conservatives – but hollow promises as always.

“The politicians have, no doubt, been wound up by their civil servants too (HIPs again) but, most likely, this relaxing of the Act has been proposed, researched and directed by donor-friends such as Tesco.

“Don’t forget, too, it’s always government policy to issue an anti estate agent initiative whenever their own stock is low.”

Rightmove also expressed its concerns to EAT. Last night, a spokesman said: “The Estate Agents Act provides a definition of the role of estate agents, which we support, which provides legislative protection for consumers.

“We strongly feel that any changes to the legislation must maintain a suitable level of protection for the home-moving public.”

Views can be emailed to: marcelle.janssis@bis.gsi.gov.uk

The consultation can be seen link here

Comments

  • icon

    W, don't you think it's a bit complacent of you to assume that criminals only come out of the "shadows" to commit their crimes.

    W says:
    "Do you really think a criminal's associates and criminals will go after a target house where they have to speak to me on the phone"

    Why would a "criminal's associates" have to speak to you on the phone?

    W says:
    "I really don't think 'casing the joint by booking a viewing with an estate agent' is how criminals operate, frankly"

    The criminals told you that did they?

    W says:
    "and then - having booked the appointment, come along and spend up to 45 mins talking to me face-to-face, have me look them in the eye, shake them by the hand, and then they return to rob the place a few days later ????
    "

    Umm well they are criminals after all, that's what they do. Normal folk probably wouldn't be able to look you in the eye and then do it.

    With such a complacent attitude you are really not helping the estate agents' cause to convince the public that they are the safer option. Any vendor with a more healthy cynicism will question it.

    Like said before:
    "A vendor who values their possessions and family's safety more than you clearly do would do well to dispense with your services and do it themselves. It's as if you've already decided ahead of each viewing that there won't be any issue because nobody will be interested in the toaster. Genius!!"

    • 10 August 2012 17:42 PM
  • icon

    INEA = Independent Network of Estate Agents.

    Who they?

    • 10 August 2012 14:18 PM
  • icon

    So, online agent - 15 years in total, then?.

    I have some agencies in my area who've been on the go since the 1950s or earlier, albeit in modified form, and with changes of name when they changed hands as folk retired. My organisation has been active since the 1970s. I haven't found any of the above who were consuited by the Govt dept concerned.

    • 10 August 2012 13:15 PM
  • icon

    'W'

    Over 6 years - one of the first online agents to open. And an estate agent on the high street for 9 years previous to opening.

    (I am waiting for someone to come back and say "6 years is hardly experience, try 25 years, bla, bla, bla"

    However, any numpty thinking of making this comment, please bear in mind that Rightmove have only been around for about 10 years, so it would have only been possible for any online agent to survive from about 6/7 years ago onwards...)

    • 10 August 2012 12:10 PM
  • icon

    Online Agent on 2012-08-10 11:14:23

    " I think because we are one of the leading online agents - we've been going for a long time "

    How long is a 'long time' ???

    • 10 August 2012 12:02 PM
  • icon

    Paul on 2012-08-09 23:33:18

    " Hold on there a minute W do you realise what in effect you're saying? Do you really think criminals won't have any interest in a house that's on the market unless that is they have a Picasso on the wall???"


    I really don't think 'casing the joint by booking a viewing with an estate agent' is how criminals operate, frankly.


    " An estate agent with your mentality is an accident waiting to happen. "


    Do you really think a criminal's associates and criminals will go after a target house where they have to speak to me on the phone, give me a mobile/landline/email, convince me of where they're living at present, whether or not they have a house on the market, and then - having booked the appointment, come along and spend up to 45 mins talking to me face-to-face, have me look them in the eye, shake them by the hand, and then they return to rob the place a few days later ????

    Do you really think that's the way that robbers operate? Or would they rather stay in the shadows and not be seen?

    • 10 August 2012 12:00 PM
  • icon

    'W'

    I think because we are one of the leading online agents - we've been going for a long time and we are making an impact by doing things properly. We are not one of these fly-by-night onliners who just want to make a quick buck and cut corners. We genuinely do things properly...

    To be honest, when I did the telephone interview with the Department, they were surprised with the answers that I gave. I think they expected me to answer 'in their favour'. They obviously want this change badly, which is why I think they were surprised with my answers and why they haven't let others know about it.

    As per my post on the most recent story, rest assured I will be your 'man on the inside' and I will be fighting the estate agents corner...

    • 10 August 2012 11:14 AM
  • icon

    Online Agent on 2012-08-10 09:36:48

    " As one of the leading online agents in the UK, I am kept informed of all this sort of thing by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and asked for our comment.

    I was involved in a telephone consultation with a couple of guys from this department regarding this back at the start of 2012 and have been told that I will be invited to 'round table meetings' regarding this in the future...

    We were also big contributors to the OFT report in 2010, which I guess is why we were asked to contribute again. "



    Great. The first I heard was on this site two days ago. Nobody else in my org'n, right up to the top, had heard anything. As you can see from the comments here, many agents were in the dark until two days ago.

    How come you have the inside track?

    • 10 August 2012 10:05 AM
  • icon

    This is just awful and very de-motivating. It's not as if there is too much to be happy about in any event. Clearly the powers that be have much more to gain than the years we have all being paying subscriptions for absolutely nothing! Any foul play we have experienced is batted from NAEA, TPO & OFT, each suggest it falls under the umbrella of one of the others!! There is no real redress left for the side of the agent. However, if a totally unjustified complaint is made, boy do you have to prove your innocence, big time. As for Sole Agency Contracts, ours are approved by a QC, and still cannot be enforced. The whole thing just stinks, we won't be the last industry to suffer, we are certainly sure of that. Please ask anyone that you can to try to fight this shambles. We are trying Richard Rawlings - Estate Agency Trainer & Simon Brown - of The Estas right now.

    • 10 August 2012 09:52 AM
  • icon

    'W'

    As one of the leading online agents in the UK, I am kept informed of all this sort of thing by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and asked for our comment.

    I was involved in a telephone consultation with a couple of guys from this department regarding this back at the start of 2012 and have been told that I will be invited to 'round table meetings' regarding this in the future...

    We were also big contributors to the OFT report in 2010, which I guess is why we were asked to contribute again.

    Hopefully, even though you believe we are the scourge of estate agents(!), I will be able to represent estate agency and its values.

    For what it's worth, I believe that estate agency should be MORE regulated. However, I also think that estate agency in its current form, is outdated and doesn't offer value for money in its high street form, hence I think online estate agency is the future...

    • 10 August 2012 09:36 AM
  • icon

    Trevor, you see this is where using your real name is imprudent because your silly views tarnish your reputation to the public. You say:

    "If a buyer is lied to by an agent. the agent gets in trouble. If a private seller lies and the buyer instructs solicitors, surveyors and starts spending £100's then its simply tough."

    I think we both know that if a seller is determined to lie then it doesn't make one jot of difference whether they are with an agent or are selling privately. For example if a seller converted a listed barn without planning permission but neglected to mention it then it would likely only get caught at the solicitor stage and not by the estate agent. Agents will only prevent the most glaringly obvious lies and as we well know a lot of people lie very sneakily. An agent may well get stung if they blatantly lie but they won't get in any trouble for failing to discover things that are outside their responsibilities but are nevertheless relevant to the sale.

    For example if there is structural problem lurking beneath the surface that the seller is hiding then a only thorough surveyor's report may uncover that lie not an estate agent. If a bypass is scheduled to be built next to house then the solicitor's searches will uncover it not an estate agent. But that's okay because the agent's main role is to match buyers and sellers, a role that could possibly also be filled by a supermarket operation.

    Also by bringing up Suzi Lamplugh what are you trying to convince us of exactly?? That an estate agent couldn't even protect herself from danger let alone protecting the vendor or their property? To somehow suggest that estate agents are like a security service is just plain hogwash! Just like in Rachael's case an extra person(s) would be easily as secure as a lone estate agent if not more so according to your Suzi example. Heck I could hire an ex-army security guard for far less money than an estate agent to provide peace of mind during viewings and they would be dressed more dapper and be less slimey than some salesman desperate for their commission.

    I think the takeaway point here is that an estate agent is by far not the only option for secure viewings and they are definitely not the cheapest for that either! Also I agree with Rachael when she perfectly sums up your attitude as being totally over the top. You are being very alarmist but can only quote a handful of cases where private sellers, vendors or agents have fallen foul of dangerous viewings. Statistically you're more likely to get hit by a bus or have a regular break in. I can see no reason why someone who takes the same sensible precautions as they would normally do for everyday living can't conduct their own viewings should they choose to do so. I don't think your scaremongering makes a difference there.

    Yes and I too would like to know what the proverbial letters after your name stand for and why you find it necessary to write them each and every time you make a comment as if to make believe that what you say is somehow superior. Whatever!!

    • 10 August 2012 07:17 AM
  • icon

    Rachel - with all due respect you need to understand agent law and regulations. The fact is that if supermarkets are allowed in, a board in someones garden could allow a 0% fee which is great for sellers but not for the 50,000 -100,000 who could be out of work.

    Private sellers do not come under redress or property misdescription so how would it be if a private seller said the attic was a third bedroom and no planning or building regs were in place. Or it could be another 101 wrong facts. Agents tend to check information as fines stand at £5k

    Trading Standards are seeing an increase in muggings and assaults where people turn up to see cars and mug the owner. I'm sorry that you were mugged in the street, but an attack behind 4 walls where no one could hear you or see you could leave you hurt and unable to get help or be heard. Good agents have protocol for making sure clients who are elderly or vulnerable.

    Suzi Lamplugh was a 25 year old agent in 1986. She went on a viewing and was never seen again. Allowing bogus buyers directly through owners doors can be best avoided with the system we have today.

    The law makes good agents job harder and means that supermarket style agencies would gain from free advertising, yet unfairly sit outside the EAA1979 avoiding recourse for providing private sellers details that could mislead innocent consumers.

    If a buyer is lied to by an agent. the agent gets in trouble. If a private seller lies and the buyer instructs solicitors, surveyors and starts spending £100's then its simply tough. Good agents want standards and be it private seller, super market or agent, misleading to others expense should carry the same regulation, fines and rules.

    • 10 August 2012 03:42 AM
  • icon

    There will always be a need for a traditional estate agent to take care of the customer that wants a high quality service and is willing to pay for it, but as things currently stand, the industry is unable to evolve with the times constrained by legislation drawn up decades ago.

    I accept that the public could initially be at risk through cowboy agencies who don't care about customer security and making the neccessary checks, but these agents will soon fall by the wayside as word gets out. Before long, educating the public will come about and customers will start asking agents about their procedures before taking them on so they know the risks.

    I like to see estate agency like accountancy. You can use an accountant who should advise where you could be more financially efficient and save you enough money to cover his fees and then some or you could do your own finances, save money not paying an accountant, but worse off in the long run. People should have a choice though and anything that moves us away from the nanny state is right by me.

    • 10 August 2012 02:06 AM
  • icon

    Let’s face facts people, the internet has changed everything. High street agents of the past are doomed and this is a fact worth waking up to. Why do you need a shop to sell property? You don't, period. High street agents are full of photos and brochures, which could be run from an office building or business park address.

    I run a very successful Traditional/ Internet hybrid estate agency and have done so since 2004. While we operate in a village on the main road with a big sign outside, we do in fact work from home out of the properties large Study. I still go out and value property, take the photos & measurements and even accompany many of the viewings, but I don't have a proper shop front, so my overheads are much lower. This enables me to keep my fees competitive and undercut other agents.

    I pay to be part of the TPO and have expensive indemnity insurance, though no one has ever claimed against us or gone to the TPO for anything. We are registered with the Money Laundering & Data Protection schemes, but what really annoys me is that I am forced to be with the TPO.
    My customers use us through recommendations not the fact that I am with the TPO. Why can't I have the choice of being part of a redress scheme or not. Shops don't need to be part of a redress scheme, so why should we?
    Trading Standards are meant to police businesses in the UK, so why should we suffer with more people like the TPO demanding an annual income from us? We were forced to join them when HIPs came into force, but HIPs are gone and those that were forced to join, should now be free to leave!

    Also, we are meant to measure every property and take the photos ourselves!!! People can advertise their car or caravan on ebay taking their own photos, so why can't home owners do the same for their house and email them over to Tesco's?

    People living in the UK should be able to choose an online agent like Tesco’s if they want. Tesco’s can probably afford to sell properties for a few hundred pounds and that’s good news for the general public isn’t it? Money is tight for everyone and agent’s changing between £2000 & £5000 to sell a property is just silly money. We undercut the traditional agents and I still earn 6-figures each year!!

    All I am hearing from estate agents are screams because they know that their lucrative high street businesses will soon lose their edge and perhaps be forced to lower fees, or retreat to business units/ office blocks away from the high street.

    I could compete with the likes of Tesco's so I'm not worried, but most traditional agents couldn't. Bye bye guys!!

    • 10 August 2012 01:52 AM
  • icon

    Hold on there a minute W do you realise what in effect you're saying? Do you really think criminals won't have any interest in a house that's on the market unless that is they have a Picasso on the wall???

    Wow! You'd better print out a Rightmove report of houses on the market and send it to the police telling them that they need not bother protecting those residents. Just because you're not smart enough to think like a criminal doesn't mean that someone else won't find some dirty evil interest in a property or its owners.

    Do vendors really need a naïve and blasé agent like you to show strangers around their houses? A vendor who values their possessions and family's safety more than you clearly do would do well to dispense with your services and do it themselves. It's as if you've already decided ahead of each viewing that there won't be any issue because nobody will be interested in the toaster. Genius!!

    An estate agent with your mentality is an accident waiting to happen.

    • 09 August 2012 23:33 PM
  • icon

    Unless you have a palace, with a multitude of valuable works of art, it's hardly an issue.

    My standard advice to clients is that, whilst the viewing process is generally secure, they might not want to leave the family jewellery or similar out on display.....

    The viewer/apprentice burglar will likely see a pair of sofas or a three-piece suite. A TV, perhaps a Sky box and DVD recorder. A coffee table, perhaps a nest of tables. Hardly earth-shattering stuff.

    The kitchen will have a kettle, a toaster, perhaps a wine rack. Wow.

    They'll see a bed in each bedroom, perhaps a dressing table or a wardrobe.

    Beginning to get the idea?

    • 09 August 2012 22:43 PM
  • icon

    W more bunkem. Some vendors specifically want to be there for ALL viewings. Some do not want 2 strangers in there house when they are not there. What prevents a bogus potential buyer or the EA passing information of the contents of my home to criminals regardless of agent accompanying them

    • 09 August 2012 18:00 PM
  • icon

    Martin H on 2012-08-09 17:31:59

    " I suppose what I'm trying to ask is what specifically can a good agent do to "safeguard consumers" that a good friend or family member can't? "

    In my case, my clients, whether elderly or not, are never present at viewings. I do them all, so if the rogue viewer is going to assault anyone, it'll be me.

    Most of the time, they won't be at the viewing until after I've spoken with them on the phone and made it clear that I'll be meeting them at the property for the viewing

    The occasional one is booked through e-mail or through the office, and I may meet them 'blind' at the property

    Is that enough for a 'starter for 10' ?

    • 09 August 2012 17:45 PM
  • icon

    Hi Trevor Mealham, what do the letters "INEA" after your name stand for? (I just thought I'd make it clear that I'm not being sarcastic as I know text can sometimes be taken the wrong way).

    Also, apart from physically being there while a viewing takes place what else can an agent do to like you say "create a buffer to bad viewers" or "qualify applicants"? After all criminals don't tend to go around wearing black and white stripes with sacks labelled "swag".

    I suppose what I'm trying to ask is what specifically can a good agent do to "safeguard consumers" that a good friend or family member can't? A robust and specific answer to this question is what's required to qualify Trevor's claim that estate agents are safeguards. A good answer would help the public decide whether there is a true benefit to choosing an estate agent for safety reasons. This could help agents if answered properly.

    • 09 August 2012 17:31 PM
  • icon

    The best estate agent I ever went with did not offer accompanied viewings because they didn't have enough staff. So my daughter came to visit whenever I had arranged a viewing and when she couldn't make it she paid her children's old baby sitter to come round and sit in with me.

    To a normal member of the public like me, Trevor Mealham seems to be acting a little bit over the top. I am quite frail and seven years ago I was mugged (not violently I must quickly add) on my way to the shops. I think it would be silly to suggest that I should only shop online instead or alternatively only do business with shops that are prepared to send out someone to escort me to their shop. There are always going to be bad people out there so everyone has to do their own bit to ensure personal safety.

    • 09 August 2012 16:48 PM
  • icon

    What rubbish and fear mongering those that want accompanied viewings and a buffer will instruct an agent that accompanies potential buyers.

    • 09 August 2012 16:01 PM
  • icon

    BOGUS VIEWERS

    And if web based services did send a person to accompany a viewer and opened their mouth to answer a question. If not agency trained they could fall foul of verbal PMA (Property Misdescription).

    If the coalition let this through I sincerely hope Mr Cable can get a job shelf stacking at TESCO, ASDA, or some other like store as he'll have outlived his welcome in Business.

    • 09 August 2012 14:39 PM
  • icon

    If the proposal goes ahead, wait for the first headline reading:

    BOGUS BUYER BEATS VULNERABLE ELDERLY HOME SELLER.

    A web connecting site for buyers and sellers direct does not safeguard lone vulnerable home sellers from bogus pretend buyers. Would you want your granny alone with a thug in her own home? But then she could have sold cheaply :-)

    Good agents value the well-being of their customers and create a buffer to bad viewers and put in place systems to qualify applicants such as accompanying viewings to safeguard consumers.

    If the current proposal to change the 1979 Estate Agents Act goes to parliament after tomorrow (Friday 10th August) with the recommendation from BIS (The Department of Business, Innovation and Skills), then the housing market opens the door to put anyone in touch with innocent sellers .

    Agents TODAY provide a true personal service including accompanied viewings. To make a system where bogus callers could pose as buyers BIS would be opening thugs and criminals through the door of innocent elderly and vulnerable home sellers

    Beyond cash saving, such new web models compromise Joe Publics well being.

    • 09 August 2012 14:33 PM
  • icon

    Online Agent on 2012-08-09 09:08:21

    "As an online agent, I was made aware of the consultation a few months ago. I answered all the questions and returned them last week "

    Made aware of... by whom? by what means?

    • 09 August 2012 12:39 PM
  • icon

    Spot on Rooster.

    TPO = useless old farts retirement charrideee home.

    • 09 August 2012 11:10 AM
  • icon

    If anyone is still writing in I would suggest pointing out that, aside from thousands of industry and related jobs at risk, if these changes lead to the closure of high street agencies it would increase shop vacancy rates - a huge step backwards in terms of the government's goals for the Portas review and subsequent initiaves.

    The review itself may not have made a big impact, but the issues it aimed to tackle are real ones. Good high street agencies are a part of the community: they create jobs and lower shop vacancies; their presence indicates demand for living in the area; and many agents live in their area of work, so are members of the community. Jeopardising their existence in any way will only stand to weaken our communities and our economy.

    • 09 August 2012 10:33 AM
  • icon

    The Ombudsman is supposed to be championing higher standards. What a perfect opportunity he has wasted to encourage the responsible agents amongst us to respond to a consultation to ensure that standards are driven up, not down.

    The Ombudsman should also be fully aware of how many agents are not members of NAEA (and we all know why we're not). He has, at the very least,a duty of care to spread the word around the industry.

    TPO believes "it was not its place to let the industry know what was going on", yet they regularly spam us with emails for charitable events, etc.

    Perhaps TPO should take a poll from its members to determine whether we'd like to be informed of events with horses, charity runs, etc. or crucial government consultations which have the potential to devstate our indusrty and dramatically lower consumer protection. Just a thought.

    • 09 August 2012 10:18 AM
  • icon

    The last time I dealt with civil service/quango wallers at a meeting in London 2012 (sorry London, the 2012 bit is pure habit!), virtually none of them owned their own properties (renting in Pimlico don'tya know).

    Yet here they are bringing in yet another misconceived piece of legislation costing us all money and that will cost us even more when the sharpest tool in what is a very blunt box realises it flies in the face of putting the consumer first and has to change it.

    Wouldn't mind betting they are the same people that persisted with HIPs as they obviously have a real take on how the porperty sector works.

    Long ago, the 'gifted amateur' principle applied in the civll service. They have obviously been the subject of government cuts, now they are just AMATEURS.

    • 09 August 2012 10:01 AM
  • icon

    As an online agent, I was made aware of the consultation a few months ago. I answered all the questions and returned them last week

    Just to let you all know, that I answered them in a way to ask for MORE legislation to regulate estate agents.

    The proposed changes would NOT benefit online estate agents, only a model like Tesco, therefore, we have replied with our answers vehemently against any proposed changes to allow, effectively, less regulation

    • 09 August 2012 09:08 AM
  • icon

    NAEA, TPO, RICS what a load of dingbats. These pratts have no idea how lobbying works.

    It's the VOLUME of opposition that forces change - not toad faced bufton tufton types sat round a table with CLG FFS.

    Morons.

    • 09 August 2012 08:08 AM
MovePal MovePal MovePal