“Having had the request for a sub agency viewing of a property in SW7 with this particular agent, I was subsequently warned by another source that there would be a strong likelihood of them trying to use the viewing as an attempt to swoop in on an instruction. However, naively wanting to believe the best in people, I continued with the viewing as requested” says our contact.
He continues: “Arriving at the property and expecting to meet said agent and their buyer, I was informed that – last minute – their buyer had had to cancel, but they would be ‘taking videos and photos’ of the property in their absence.”
He says the usual kinds of questions were asked and the viewing took place with the vendor in situ.
“However, in the back of my mind I had the warning, and so rather than heading back to the office I rounded the corner, watched back to the front door of the building and to my (somewhat small) surprise this agent headed back, rang the bell and went into the property…
“I went back, rang the bell and went in, asking this agent to please leave and then had to explain to a rather confused and rattled client why this person had come back by themselves. A week or so later, I had a call from the client saying she had received a letter from this agent pushing for instruction which was subsequently binned.”
The second concerns a client who had been marketing their property to let through our legitimate agent and two other local firms.
However, at the end of last week the agent received a call from the client saying they had seen their £1,500 per week flat marketed by another company they had never heard of and had not spoken with.
“This is obviously an agent who, having few instructions, is chancing their arm by cropping photographs online, mocking up their own details and then (without their own access to the flat) pushing the property out on a sub agency basis and gaining access via fully instructed agents” says our informant.
He says this is not only frustrating and disconcerting to the client but more worryingly the practice raises concern as to whether the rogue agent who mocks up their own details undertakes appropriate due diligence and anti-money laundering checks.
Our legitimate agent contact says that although these two incidents had critical differences, one common factor was that, if caught, the culprits might receive no more than a tap on the wrist and a telling off not to do it again.
“It’s so easy for someone (an instructed agent or indeed a client) to find out that it’s a scam, and it makes me wonder whether the risk of being caught is worth the attempt to gain a small fee” he says.
“Regardless of what I feel, I am sure that there would be a number of other agents - the one who warned me in the first place demonstrating this - who would have a similar situation occur with their clients and properties” says our contact.
And he concludes: “Perhaps it’s indicative of the market that people are pushed to lie and deceive, but I personally feel there’s no place for actions like these.”
Our thanks to the agent who gave us the details of these incidents - and we look forward to hearing readers’ comments on these tactics.