x

Trevor Mealham

CEO - founder

5914 Profile Views

About Me

Click to edit summaryReal Estate Radicalist - with near 30 years in UK estate agency and near 10 years in real estate technology. BIG Data is the future of UK estate agency (portals as we know them will become less important)

I also attend many UK estate agency regulation consultations giving input to BIS, Trading Standards, NTSEAT HMRC AML, Treasury, CMA. Contributor to NTSEAT's latest Property sales guidance

my expertise in the industry

I am the CEO of INEA (The Independent Network of Estate Agents). But my estate agency career began back in 1986 in traditional agency practices that dealt in res sales, lettings and commercial. Often I would go out in field with surveyors and later joined a farming/auctioneer agency.

Today I daily help agents bring their listings into a central shared property hub where main agents can gain viewers, offers, sales and lets from choice sub agents. MLS is the biggest threat to UK corporate agents and maybe even the main portals. With a prize IT team together we bring MLS (multi-list) mainstream to UK and overseas agents in a new and exciting estate agency and lettings platform. The last thing corporate agents or portals want is agents working together.

Trevor is responsible for making the standard UK property data feed MLS enabled creating a multi~directional feed that allows agents using different softwares to network their listings under main/sub agent relationships.

With the correct mindset; the agents who can trust and work with their fellow agents will achieve so much more than the overprotective agent who works alone and operates high portal costs (alone).

Today Trevor is undoubtedly one of the UK’s foremost authorities on MLS and often speaks at exhibitions and is often invited to consult on UK property matters.

Trevor's Recent Activity

OTM WANT TO CHARGE AGENTS £1,000 PCM Has anyone read page 76 of the OTM trial bundle: http://www.catribunal.org.uk/files/1262_Agents_Mutual_Judgment_CAT_15_050717.pdf OTM want to charge you £1,000 pcm end game. Reads: 107B All members remain OTM + 1 and this gets us past tipping point 1 towards tipping point 2 where we are seen as strong enough for agents to begin withdrawing from Rightmove. 108B End game – 15,000 branches at an avg monthly fee of say £1000 with no real need to list anywhere else. £118M income before any other revenue sources.

From: Trevor Mealham 07 July 2017 14:53 PM

Hafsid. I do make very good homemade farm style cider. But o one has ever claimed it to be vinegar :-) Im also liking the OOPr as it means smaller portals could use it and we may see OTM not being able to use it against smaller or new start portals. If the judges say its allowed against bigger portals. It could be a big hole OTM has just dug for itself against smaller players.

From: Trevor Mealham 07 July 2017 11:56 AM

Smile stop hiding. Show yourself. OTM won on various points. The main being an agency vehicle which changed ownership then pulling from a contract the judges felt it should hoour. The case also sided that a smaller portal could use a semi block as its main growth was limited by Z and RM. What the smaller portal claimed it has also used against other new entrants and existing smaller portals. Now judges have either not looked at the bigger picture (and they do state Competition law is greater than what was looked at in this case). So OTM placing embargoes on smaller portals isn't anti-competitive. If you think that. You really are being naive. Personal insults also do nothing for you.

From: Trevor Mealham 07 July 2017 09:10 AM

Ignorance is far worse. ... By the way have you just had adoptions in the latest estate agency AML regulations. Guess not. I have :-)

From: Trevor Mealham 07 July 2017 08:52 AM

The judges also failed to look at the wider effect on new entrant portals under the one other portal rule that IS Anti-Competitive. Likely the biggest mistake was to have Zoopla (a bigger portal) fighting opposite, when its interest was to keep OTM down. It would have been better having smaller portals showing evidence of Springetts lynch mobs letters placing and threatening embargos on other smaller portals. Or did the case have bent judges. For sure OTM is anti-competitive to some others in the industry.

From: Trevor Mealham 07 July 2017 08:19 AM

Agents should understand that the OTM vs Connells case is very very different and as such outcome may be very different. If there has been a wrong doing. Defend your rights. OTM have won a battle of Connells leaving a contract that sadly the former bosses of GH entered in to. The expert witness also failed to highlight various industry concerns and played better the case could have been won Im sure.

From: Trevor Mealham 07 July 2017 08:15 AM

http://www.catribunal.org.uk/238-9912/Judgment.html

From: Trevor Mealham 05 July 2017 18:21 PM

@Smile - this case centred on the restraints as to GH and Zoopla, not other wider issues. I'm sure many of us will be reading closer as indicated above the not infringe and infringe bits. It looks as though there's more to things in the wider picture. Simon - is there a link to the 168 page CMA finding.

From: Trevor Mealham 05 July 2017 18:20 PM

Why would Rightmove want to be an agent. If it did it then opens up to all the legislation of CPRs and BPRs and AML and potential fines. It would also alienate agent subscribers. To even take a stake in a budget agency would be foolish and compromise a vested interest in its agent users.

From: Trevor Mealham 03 July 2017 12:14 PM

In 2016 the CMA concluded that traditional bricks-and-mortar estate agents were a separate market and that online estate agents exercised “only relatively weak competitive pressure” by Michael Grenfell, CMA Executive Director

From: Trevor Mealham 07 March 2017 16:00 PM

It's not easy Michael. For agents it comes under vertical agreements and price fixing, especially in geographical areas. 'Hardcore restrictions' Supermarkets did get hit a few years back £50m for pricing fixing on dairy products: https://www.ft.com/content/e1d14c9a-c338-11e0-9109-00144feabdc0

From: Trevor Mealham 07 March 2017 14:08 PM

Good luck Helen. Now that's two ladies at the top running this crazy thing we call a property market.

From: Trevor Mealham 03 February 2017 12:20 PM

Correct, Yes Paul - as in Completed and not just Sold/stc (in areas where boards are allowed) The 14 days post completion has been in many years. The £100-120 fine is quite reduced on some past cases that councils have pushed elsewhere.

From: Trevor Mealham 23 January 2017 12:02 PM

I worry when all new disruptors say their model can 'do the same' when such models can't. Equally automation has its place, but again can't do everything. There's reasons why some parts of agency haven't changed for 100 plus years. Wheels 500 /2,000 years on still work pretty well for the sake they are round.

From: Trevor Mealham 25 November 2016 11:04 AM

And slap of the week from the ASA goes to. ......... The ASA appears to do little

From: Trevor Mealham 16 November 2016 07:45 AM

Gosh, can agency news get more exciting. Come on EAT

From: Trevor Mealham 10 November 2016 00:47 AM

Trump, like him or loath him has built his fortune on property deals. It's a Shame the UK doesn't have MPs who understand the market in the way the Yanks new leader does. The only market likely to suffer will be the Cuban one where Obama built relations which will likely move backwards which Trump said a few months back. Will Trump getting in affect the UK property market. Unlikely.

From: Trevor Mealham 10 November 2016 00:44 AM

The ASA told HouseSimple the ad must not appear again - That makes it Okay then. And for tomorrow's joke. ...... Come on ASA. You make it hard to reach you. And when others do. You appear to do squat diddly nothing.

From: Trevor Mealham 09 November 2016 07:40 AM

It sounds like many of the observations are missing front line agency understanding. The game has and will always be a people's game. Sadly tech is still driving much of what agents do. Rather than tech supporting more the flow of what agents do and could be doing. How many have systems that don't do as they'd really like to do in running their estate agency? If so agency is compromising best performances

From: Trevor Mealham 09 November 2016 07:35 AM

Thanks EAT. Its important agents get a response in that best helps their agency models and the way they work. Otherwise government may go either way on some Money Laundering issues which may increase agents running costs and responsibilities. Agents may also feel that private landlords should come under same regulations which may encourage more work back to agents from private landlords. We have created a 5-10 minute survey with 12 questions based on the 80+ page consultation: http://www.inea.co.uk/a/INEA-SURVEY-ON-ANTI-MONEY-LAUNDERING to help agents have a collective voice

From: Trevor Mealham 03 November 2016 08:08 AM

Portals have reached their peak. There is little more they can bring to the game other than to continue achieving 4 in 10 solds. Agencies should be encouraging the next data evolution in this 'big data' 'sharing economy' Sharing adopted nationally between agents B2B could be the downfall of the £500-£1000 budget agents, leaving higher fee models joining in the collaborative models and budget reducing to list only £49-99 models

From: Trevor Mealham 02 November 2016 07:31 AM

The fight shouldn't be independents vs say corps. But a 'fight to unite' good agents to open the market. Accept, budgets have their race to the bottom, and that the rest could embrace collaboration and better B2B revenues

From: Trevor Mealham 02 November 2016 07:25 AM

Its great. The race to ground zero is just £99 away. Now lets wait for the jokers at £75, then £49. Love it. Were nearing buyer representation models becoming more common place to screw vendors who use low cost models. The winners will be vendors using higher priced traditional agents who likely collaborate at higher fees to make seller clients more. Those who wnter the race to the bottom really dont get what people really want. The biggest threat is to the Purples. YOPAs, emoovs, Tepilo, HouseSimple and easys as now they are up against the 'we can save you hundreds' The low cost agents are simply highlighting main portals are over priced when entry to them is less than a round of drinks for a group of friends at the pub

From: Trevor Mealham 28 October 2016 09:53 AM

Its great. The race to ground zero is just £99 away. Now lets wait for the jokers at £75, then £49. Love it. Were nearing buyer representation models becoming more common place to screw vendors who use low cost models. The winners will be vendors using higher priced traditional agents who likely collaborate at higher fees to make seller clients more. Those who wnter the race to the bottom really dont get what people really want. The biggest threat is to the Purples. YOPAs, emoovs, Tepilo, HouseSimple and easys as now they are up against the 'we can save you hundreds' The low cost agents are simply highlighting main portals are over priced when entry to them is less than a round of drinks for a group of friends at the pub

From: Trevor Mealham 28 October 2016 09:52 AM

Even if they do Hafsid, its hardly an average. Average in a persons postcode or at least agents in neighbouring postcodes should be a more realistic bench mark.

From: Trevor Mealham 26 October 2016 15:53 PM

Pointless. On their website fees page it shows the calculator still at 2% + VAT. And they also say on the same page: Hg St/Traditionals: Charge a percentage of the property's sale price which, according to Which?, can be as high as 3.5% Surely the ASA should check everything follows through.

From: Trevor Mealham 26 October 2016 05:28 AM

Bad news for all 'average' lone/sole agency models Chris. Models now need something to increase take on's and sales over their competitors, OR a angle to up lever fees from each take on. And how will the traditional annual portal fee hikes be taken. The budget fixed fee models £499-799 may have to drop lower whilst increasing marketing spend. But will their VC backers want to keep pouring funds in. we'll likely see the first big budget fall in the coming 6-12 months.

From: Trevor Mealham 25 October 2016 08:03 AM

What DelPrete isn't seeing is the now lower cost models £49-99 coming in saying 'we can save you £hundreds' for listing your home on RM and Z compared to local PurpleClicks, Twopillows, easyfellowproperties and other budgets charging £500-£1,000 As such bigger budgets now need to raise their marketing spend and likely reduce ther charges in the race to ground zero agency fees. Agents: SELL ON SERVICE - IT REWARDS ON HIGHER FEES. YOUR BEST WAY FORWARD IS GREATER COLLABORATION WITH OTHER LOCAL AGENTS WHICH LOW FEES CAN'T ACHIEVE.

From: Trevor Mealham 18 October 2016 09:00 AM

PSG, ZPG, Uswitch - thats a lot of collective consumer data in data flow systems. As fees for agents get knocked by budget entrants, portals seem to be doing very well. Appears agents collect data and digital platforms make much more via data handling. looks like agents are in the right game, just on the wrong side of the fence.

From: Trevor Mealham 18 October 2016 08:32 AM

I think OTM: OnTheMarket, could abbreviate to OTM OffTheMarket come Feb next year when the Connells court case happens

From: Trevor Mealham 13 October 2016 15:58 PM

tagline could be ‘Whatever you need, you can find it at Zoopla.’” aprt from the no.1 position. With many main holders off loading shares in Z this year, have they given up on being no. portal and instead becoming Jack of all. ..... Could leave open a no.2 attack

From: Trevor Mealham 13 October 2016 08:58 AM

What a load of rubbish. Check out their costs: FS board £60 Floor plans and pics £144 EPC £120 Considering WHICH claim only 4 in 10 buy through main portals. Their model will miss over 1/2 of buyers. Now that could be a very expensive way to try and sell. If an agent can't get a decent fee and has to charge upfront. Sellers are best to run a mile as most such agents struggle to negotiate clients a best price.

From: Trevor Mealham 11 October 2016 00:20 AM

Licencing isn't needed as there is already heavy legislation in place what with the 79 EA Act. CPRs and BPRs. AML etc etc etc. But in consumer best interest it was interesting that recent WHICH research showed only 4 in 10 homes sell via portals. Thus lone online only agents are not acting in consumers best interest in reaching all buyers

From: Trevor Mealham 10 October 2016 00:06 AM

SELLERS MARKETS ARE GOOD FOR BUDGET AGENTS But spin the coin to a buyers market and WHICH's report showing only 4 in 10 homes sell as a result of main portals is tragic research for online only agents who may not have the skills to tackle harder times. Only four in 10 find new homes on property portals Most discover the property they buy through 'traditional' means. Over half (55%) used traditional methods such as looking in an estate agent's window or the local newspaper Read more: http://www.which.co.uk/news/2016/08/only-four-in-10-find-new-homes-on-property-portals-451429/ - Which? Read more: http://www.which.co.uk/news/2016/08/only-four-in-10-find-new-homes-on-property-portals-451429/ - Which?

From: Trevor Mealham 06 October 2016 02:15 AM

WHICH - THE CONSUMER GROUP WEEKS AGO SAID ONLY 4 IN 10 SLES COME FROM MAIN PORTALS. ** THIS IS TRAGIC NEWS FOR ONLINE ONLY AGENTS PB may scrape lucky in some areas where they have a few old hands on deck. But new to the game negs may struggle when simply listing a home in a tough market portals alone isn't enough to sell a home. In harder markets and the Winter slow down, many budget online only and recent to the game agents may find a stumbling block where - we can save you £housands, simply don't cut the cake.

From: Trevor Mealham 06 October 2016 02:10 AM

Agree. It takes a range of tools and contacts for an individual to be able to be a moderate agent, let alone a good or brilliant one. The more lead generators the better. No commercial concern such as a portal should restrain the agents tool box. New platforms away from portals as we know them will form part of the future. But I'm not sure a hidden away platform (unless heavily advertised) will be one that springs to mind. For sure high end is in OTMs radar. As such alike RM/ INEA/ ZOOPLA. Will this be another site the Springer club add to their 'another to boycot' list. Silly chap With main portals (according to research) achieving only 4 in 10 buyers. The true test is how a agent handles a tougher market, when sticking a listing on RM and Z fails.

From: Trevor Mealham 05 October 2016 10:15 AM

Come February the court should have highlighted to AM/OTM that it's cartel restraints are anti competitive and to end for being cartel

From: Trevor Mealham 05 October 2016 00:23 AM

Rose tinted glasses. The contract is worthless if it goes against UK law

From: Trevor Mealham 30 September 2016 11:32 AM

Simon stop tip towing. A group of otherwise competitors cant cartel together in order to take out another. And any agent now wise that top dogs establishing competition issues would be wise to abort and run for the hills

From: Trevor Mealham 30 September 2016 09:42 AM

Thats fine James when contracts dont break anti-trust or UK competition law. Have you noticed taxi's dont drive on paths in rush hours even though the boss would like it to achive faster fares. Just because a company makes a contract. The deal has to be that its lawful. Equally Highways and the police would stop taxis driving on paths regardless of what the company boss said

From: Trevor Mealham 30 September 2016 09:39 AM

Ummmmmmm: AGENTS' MUTUALs website reads:. http://www.agentsmutual.co.uk 3. 100% agent-owned and agent-controlled (REALLY) 4. Each firm has an equal interest and voting right, irrespective of firm size (OR NOT) ** A company limited by guarantee does not usually have a share capital or shareholders, but instead has members who act as guarantors. The guarantors give an undertaking to contribute in the event of the winding up of the company. £2,000,000 divided 7000 = £285.71

From: Trevor Mealham 30 September 2016 00:27 AM

It misses many by miles

From: Trevor Mealham 25 September 2016 21:11 PM

All those companies and PSG. Thats a lot of Joe Public data being held.

From: Trevor Mealham 16 September 2016 12:52 PM

When I see or hear YOPA - I first think Savills. When I think Village people I think those Village guys don't have wives :-) I then see cheap at the end of the advert. Savills really will be seen in the industry as a very different beast than traditional high end before long. This could be Savills bosses doing a ratner moment

From: Trevor Mealham 16 September 2016 12:49 PM

Many would disagree. The UK is ready for a new way forward. Portals rely on portal tech and are encouraging in list only cheap services for £'s that portals do not highlight to consumers as totally different service levels.

From: Trevor Mealham 14 September 2016 18:02 PM

So Dan. You're saying sales down, and money into providing a competitor service at much lower cost. Hysterical. Maybe Bentley or Rolls will invest in a new car type and call the company Ladaa or Skooda. Or the black cab drivers invest in a new transport company and call it UBOR

From: Trevor Mealham 12 September 2016 11:38 AM

They need to market the right message. The Savills brand is high brow. Maybe they feel YOPA isn't their marketplace and enters the into a new market place. Maybe some of those high end clients will want silk purses for clothe prices. All weve heard is that Savills have invested in a cheap model. What were not hearing is why Savills is now any different. Estate agency is getting funnier by the day. Left arm, right arm. What must Joe Seller be thinking.

From: Trevor Mealham 12 September 2016 11:34 AM

I hear Ground £zero cost agents are enroute. Maybe their pitch will be save £hundreds on listers fees such as YOPA, Purple Blocks, easyHome, eeMove, Thepilo and Simple House. I'm looking forward to Ground Zero when budget agencies only have RM and Z to offer whereby the WHICH survey shows only 4 in 10 homes seen on main portals get brought. Agents looking to drop their pant's, best have eyes in the back of their heads as the race to the bottom is becoming funnier by the day. I wonder if Mr Whippy will start selling 99's at 89p next year. Its time for agents to support one another and charge decent fees. IT'S NOT HARD

From: Trevor Mealham 12 September 2016 11:29 AM

Higher Stamp Duty on BTL purchase could flip add on to selling of BTL units by higher tax on capital growth. Could be good timing by the Wilsons.

From: Trevor Mealham 12 September 2016 11:22 AM

Simon is well respected. But he's wrong on this one. Purple and Easy have had huge funds thrown in from VCs. Their model isnt so much agency as fund raising. The flaw is that budgets need say £500 to pay for a listing. So £698/798/999 models make little profit. With more lower cost budgets. Ie sell for £99 / 199 / 299. Its hard to pay for FS boards, EPCs, some joker going round etc. Basically the more recent budgets will pitch we'll save you £100's on the PB, EASY, eMoves and so on fees. When the VC funds run out. Bye bye. Weve done various case studies in recent months of doing more for 1 / 2% fees to sub out and in cases make vendors £40-50k more than cheap fee lone agency.

From: Trevor Mealham 08 September 2016 21:02 PM

I see on another agency forum that there is now a budget 'sell your home service' for £99, which could save sellers hundreds from the budget agents charging £699, £599, £499, £399, £299 etc VCs would be stupid to put another penny into stack em high sell it cheap models. Tides are turning. Roll on ground £zero fees from jokers and 1.5% to 2.5% fees for proper full service agents

From: Trevor Mealham 08 September 2016 20:53 PM

And one flew over the Cuckoo Nest. CARTEL FOR SURE

From: Trevor Mealham 02 September 2016 20:05 PM

Brave agents looking at AM/OTMs cartel like restraints on other portal and agent platform embargo's. Additionally whats the update on the OTM court cases re Connells and the anti OTM agents group?

From: Trevor Mealham 02 September 2016 00:29 AM

Create a UK model that burns heavy funds. The VCs might open in nearby, France, Spain, Germany. No make it Australia where not too many will lnow whats happening in the UK

From: Trevor Mealham 30 August 2016 00:06 AM

A portal is simply a digital window. Government legislation allows 'sub agency'. It's lawful. Agents need stock. But do all agents need be on main portals that many claim are expensive. Truth is something is only expensive if it doesnt perform. So portals could be quantified as fit for purpose. But do all need be on them? Agents should collaborate bringing their listings to market together. Its lawful. It would be stupid to ignore the power of the portals well funded reach. But not all agents should engage directly when buddy agents could gain exppsure for what properties other agents could share over. Then comes the collective value all agents can bring when they pool their USP outlets. Portals are just media groups. Agents with stock hold what consumers teally want.

From: Trevor Mealham 29 August 2016 07:23 AM

Maybe we should make some more buyers to pain the shortage of properties further. Supply and demand.

From: Trevor Mealham 26 August 2016 15:26 PM

Rodger, there's easy ways for agents to increase stock on their books. Increase fees and win more over other agents who are lower initial costs. Agents can easily adjust their marketing for a more win win model.

From: Trevor Mealham 25 August 2016 23:18 PM

The model is alike a broker model. I would imagine Chris (as a past agent) would know good and bad bits agents are offering and bits they may not be offering. I do the same at times. Typically I get a agent to agree to a higher fee in order to include sub agents to increase exposure to more buyers to achieve a best price. Two recent cases have included a Countrywide office manager opening to subbing independents and a LSLi (Your Move) to sub 6-7 local agents. Both clients were happy with higher fees for extra exposure. One got £35k more than another agents valuation. In the CW case they pulled in 7 viewers and our sub agents pulled in another 9 viewers for them, resulting in 3 offers from different offices. I took zero fee, as both cases are micro corp/ independent main agency trials.

From: Trevor Mealham 25 August 2016 08:48 AM

But will the VC well funded cheap agents be about in a few years when were likely to see 100's if not £housands of listers offering a board and an ad on RM and Z from £99-199. The writing might be on the purple wall that even todays £399-£499-£599-£699 might be seen as too expensive where £99-199 would save sellers £100's As such traditional Hg St and traditional online models need to up their game and offer more than cheap agents offer, and offer what cheap listers can't

From: Trevor Mealham 24 August 2016 10:07 AM

Mystery. Or simply that budget models burn heavy funds and return little back. Few live listings plus rightmove and zoopla bills = unviable models.

From: Trevor Mealham 19 August 2016 00:48 AM

Would be good to hear Mark Haywards thoughts about Agents Mutual and On The Markets anticompetitive practices over other portals and online only agents.

From: Trevor Mealham 12 August 2016 14:09 PM

John, I work close with agents, techs and legislators. I do many trials with agents as to the way they market. Most agents would get the same 90% of viewers if they use same details and same pics as the next agent from RM & Z portals. The way I work with agents is to increase the 10%. If we accept that the 90% remains as a constant regardless of agent. The a main agent charging more, has more funds in the pot to allow sub agency. If 10 sub agents all achieved a further 10% then you can have 90% + 10 x 10%'s extra applicant interest = more viewers = likely more offers. Each agent will have some different USP's and different applicant buyer lists. We now have many case studies where £10's thousands more are being achieved away from sole/lone agency and reliance on portals. Most agents don't yet understand this, but more are looking closer. We did a recent trial with a Countrywide office and independent sub agents. Only 50% of the viewers came from main portals. The other 50% came from sub agents having different mini outlets. The price of the property doesn't really come into it as to this method working. The biggest barrier is getting agents and the likes of yourself to understand there is a better agency model yet to come, using the web not only for marketing such as portals, but ALSO to help agents collaborate B2B their data flow.

From: Trevor Mealham 23 July 2016 10:29 AM

Agree Richard. Service cost should be relative to bespoke efforts to achieve best results. Budget one cost fits all and the internet is the holy grail are not in best agency practice or CONSUMERS best interest.

From: Trevor Mealham 22 July 2016 12:54 PM

Not true John. If you have 1 agent who does RM and Z, then 100% of the people who look on RM and Z would find it reagrdless how many agents had it. FACT. But there is more to agency than RM and Z and budget. I work linking agents together. recently we had a main agent (1.5% rather than 1% sole/ or a budget £100's up front). Where the property was subbed to 6-7 other agents 10 miles around the listing. 16 viewers came in. 7 via the main agent/ 9 from the sub agents in different locations with different mailing lists. As such I'd say only 50% of the applicants where from portals and 50% from the other agents attributes including Hg St offices and local magazines/papers/ different applicant lists. 3 other agents valued. We achieved 3 offers from 3 different agents and £35k more than lowest valuation from a sole agent who offered 1%

From: Trevor Mealham 22 July 2016 12:51 PM

Agree Carl. I can better that, one of our INEA agents just sstc a property at £510k over a certain budget agent valuing £350k-400k I also helped a vendor the other week get a property down from £300k to £283k simply by being a better negotiator than the agent selling.

From: Trevor Mealham 22 July 2016 12:45 PM

Basically a good example of 'omissions'

From: Trevor Mealham 22 July 2016 01:39 AM

Easy. YOPA could do their own advertising on central London Tubes, taxis, buses and market as: 'Compare our fees to what a vendor might pay Savills' But would Savill's marketing message be as to why use them rather than YOPA. Answers on the back of a bus advertising space please ......

From: Trevor Mealham 22 July 2016 00:42 AM

Fair comments. Good article. If an agent hasn't checked Intel under CPR guidance and misleads in representation. And again after a warning shot from TS. Then it's their own fault. It gives agents using bad practice an unfair advantage over fair agents playing by the many rules and regs.

From: Trevor Mealham 22 July 2016 00:37 AM

It won't be many weeks/months before we see list only service providers from £99 to £199 to get a home on RM and Z. £x for pics + floorplan and an EPC. As many budget Listers can't negotiate. Just taking funds up front. We will soon see good negotiators changing from game keeper to poacher as Buyer agents and screwing poor budget agents clients down £housands. The we save you £housands will soon have a reverse meaning. Then watch idiot VCs keep backing budget models. Investors will soon run a mile from budget agent startups.

From: Trevor Mealham 22 July 2016 00:31 AM

High Street offices do carry a presence in the community value. Its when Mary or Gill visit the coffee shop or hairdresser or 'other' weekly or pass through to the school 5 times a week. A name board seen 50 plus times a year over x years is a great brand reminder for when people think they need a valuation. People when not selling don't see agents on the web weekly.

From: Trevor Mealham 21 July 2016 22:24 PM

As more DIY low cost list models enter. The saving part is that there will be a new growth in buyer representative agents to negotiate a lowest buy price. likely saving buyers far more than vendors listing low cost will save. Were be moving to a more buyer and seller represented market place where DIY listers will be screwed over by strong negotiators representing buyers.

From: Trevor Mealham 18 July 2016 15:31 PM

Agree - more lower cost models are coming. houseSimple claims £499 and now Settled £299. The next will be £199 nd downwards to £99 for FSBO/DIY other than the listing part on RM & Z. In the coming 2 years we'll likely see 2000-4000 such operatives listing 10% to 20% of all houses on main portals. So Settled's VCs are either brave or foolish as other cheaper entrants come in.

From: Trevor Mealham 18 July 2016 15:28 PM

Budget listers will also open opportunities as many will employ poor grade staff who wont have negotiation training. The low cost order takers will be poorly placed to best serve sellers to negotiate best offers. As such poor grade lister only services may become very costly for DIY vendors where negotiators representing buyers may screw sellers down. Because as experienced negs they may be able to save buyers £housands.

From: Trevor Mealham 14 July 2016 01:00 AM

The low cost listers will see other agents and bare bone 'just listing' services evolve in the coming 24 months to 2-4000 operatives. My guess is the low cost listers of £499 (HouseSimple to easyPs and Purple will see head competitors go head on dropping to £200-£300 poss £99. Current low charge operatives spending £1m pcm in a 8-10 budget lister arena I predict will have to raise to £1.5/2m pcm in an arena come 24 months of 3,000/4,000 cheap listers. ***(Note I dont call them estate agents). But this gives others great opportunity to use good negs who can really negotiate + easy to understand comsumer wants as upsells. The Purple's, YOPAs, HouseSimples and like constant pitch of 'we do the same as hg st agents but save sellers £housands' will be compared on par to cheaper offerings from other budget listers at lower costs. Additionally those cheap listers getting sellers to sign up loan agreements will start to get bad comments when sales dont happen, yet theres a seller bill to pay regardless. True service should then be able to be identified as premium and higher just cost. Traditionals should be able to switch their pitch to 'we can offer silver and gold. And we can also offer a (cheap nasty and crappy) lead or tin or plastic service alike many of todays budget models etc. When traditionals for too long have offered just sole. The budgets have had an easy target. If traditionals offer medium and upper better. Traditionals/chimeras can show a low cost (crap) list only offering available. But of little value to sellers who really need hand holding and a professional to achieve a best offer via negotiator skills over just a budget lister. As the saying goes. Be careful what you wish for. It might just happen.......... As such others will soon be saying we can do what the low cost listers can do. But much, much cheaper and save sellers £100's. Basically go head on with the pitch budgets have been bleeting for the last 3-4 years.

From: Trevor Mealham 14 July 2016 00:56 AM

Trouble is many agents jumped on the bus and didnt expect the driver to treat passengers differently.

From: Trevor Mealham 13 July 2016 17:24 PM

But then have portals got too much control over agents, what with owning the market sites that Joe Public go to. And in cases the source places where agents add their data?

From: Trevor Mealham 13 July 2016 17:23 PM

@ Michael - interesting. So they didnt check out the potential buyers and the owner didnt know how. Not a good direction for the market to go to for consumers. ............. So for any good negotiator, there's a new model. If you can get offers up. ...... then why not represent buyers and target vendor/sellers who have gone to budget listing agents to save £housands on agents fees and take your fee from the mega £housands saved, that sellers stand to lose when a buyer is represented by a good negotiator. We could flip the industry and save buyers £thousands . ..........

From: Trevor Mealham 11 July 2016 15:08 PM

With Savills and Countrywide both backing a budget model others will follow. The the budget take up will soon rise to 8%. More traditional and new hybrids will follow. In 24 months there could be 20% providing a cheap list model. At this point the 8 - 10 budget originals or in part budget operatives will have created a substantial monster that will be trying to bring their £700-£1000 model down to £200-300 providing a real poor service for consumers. The big low cost models will have to increase spend to poss £2m pcm. It's crazy to think vc's don't have the grey cells to see budget is flawed if they create a spiral masses will follow, especially when the model is based on becoming cheaper to foolishly compete. Totally bonkers.

From: Trevor Mealham 11 July 2016 10:41 AM

Quote: Zoopla claims that it has delivered a 40 per cent increase in valuation leads to its agent members in the first six months of 2016 compared to the same period in 2015 - Question: Could EAT find out what % of leads were passed to budget agents in 2015 then 2016 vs traditional agents?

From: Trevor Mealham 11 July 2016 05:36 AM

Best thing Yank models could bring would be the MLS that opens access to more local stock. MLS is the thing thats built all the big US brands.

From: Trevor Mealham 06 July 2016 15:01 PM

We'll see new models created, we may even see more FTB's return if prices drop and financially perfect FTBs take advantage of low rates. Poss good to release upward stock. Secondary owned properties will be hit mostly by the SDT (3%) hit. Investors will want 5% further off to account for the 3% + less landlords buying if not more. Lease Options allow for the 3% avoidance if strongly geared into a contract where builders may secure, revamp and sell on rights without even purchased. Its mainly bigger biz that will be hit, opening opportunities for smaller biz's to adapt their models

From: Trevor Mealham 06 July 2016 14:59 PM

One of our agents achieved £40k more on a sstc that is about to exch based on a identical property that sold 2 months prior. The open day and subbing achieved 30 viewers from a main and 5 sub agents. The vendor liked the marketing strategy and happily agreed to pay 1.5% rather than a budget or 1% fee. Done right and polite. Open days can be great. Also bringing more potential buyers to the table means a best buyer can be found, assuring the client sellers of LESS stress in finding most solid buyers.

From: Trevor Mealham 23 June 2016 09:23 AM

Hi Terence, agents should answer your questions. I agree thats bad agency. But I know agents who don't rush viewers in day 1 and sstc day 2. Delaying viewings by say a week/10 days and getting many along on the day at one after the other fair intervals can create hype and drive offers in and up. I have just allocated a property to a main agent who will sub out. Weve stressed that viewings should only start when all sub agents have had chance to mail all mailing lists applicants to bring as many to the table. Weve offered a 2% main agent fee to split 50/50 with any sub agent who achieves best offer. If the client achieves £10-20k more. Then structuring the sale rather than selling it to first punters in 24 hours is worth a couple of weeks longer wait.

From: Trevor Mealham 23 June 2016 09:16 AM

Could have something to do with parting with bigger than average funds to buy. Open days done right can be a very powerful tool to achieving best price from putting potential buyers next to one another

From: Trevor Mealham 23 June 2016 01:19 AM

The current UK government and last haven't made the most of opportunities. A Brexit would likely lose Cameron and Osborne. Be it in or out of the EU, we'd likely be far better off without Osborne and Cameron. Many may vote out to bring Boris in.

From: Trevor Mealham 22 June 2016 10:45 AM

Budget agents will start to struggle now az traditionals start to offer llw cost listing models in addition to their traditional higher fee models. Big vc funding may also now start drying up for cheap to sell listing models

From: Trevor Mealham 17 June 2016 01:34 AM

One of our INEA member agents has just taken an offer on a penthouse at £505k. The Purple Bricks valuation was below £400k. Even if the owner had gone with PB at £1100, then our agents main agency to sub out at 1.5% is far better for the consumer seller. The recent Guild and Countrywide lower cost entry models to sell with the option to upgrade will hit the budget alone agents.

From: Trevor Mealham 16 June 2016 10:40 AM

Well said. But abroad the 5% includes legals and typically main/sub agency (mls) exposure. When you market are legals included and do you cobroker?? Equally, sellers overseas run with it over lone agency which the bulk of UK agents only offer. Low fees is simply a race to the bottom and one must question if cheap. What other than listing on TM and/ or Z do agents have to offer

From: Trevor Mealham 13 June 2016 18:18 PM

Misrepresentation no longer exists other than in comparative case law. Were now under CPR's, BPR's and 'omissions'. So even more to catch agents out on.

From: Trevor Mealham 13 June 2016 18:14 PM

@ Hafsid. No smoke without sparks. Guess the protest barristers must have seen something irregular. Onwards for sure AM/OTM have cartel like/ anti-competitive retraints in place which is a NO NO.

From: Trevor Mealham 13 June 2016 18:08 PM

@ Dean. There's good online only and traditional agents. Equally, there's bad in both camps. Unfortunately investment is mainly going into supporting the race to the bottom fees models.

From: Trevor Mealham 13 June 2016 09:23 AM

Unfortunately @Smile, many Hg St agents are little more than listers. It's those that will/are losing out. There is a way UK agents can power their consumer take up via changing their sole agency pitch to to a dual pitch. 1. Sole 2. Main/premium. In this big data sharing age, agents can come on to a firum and share chat, but few have the skill to share listings. PB, YOPA, Will take out the lone agents. But main agency could self exclude to budget listers.

From: Trevor Mealham 13 June 2016 09:20 AM

Will be good to see what happens now a legal case is looming. Additionally, what have the CMA been doing since making clear they were on the scene back in April.

From: Trevor Mealham 13 June 2016 00:42 AM

Could haart not also be suffering by only being on one of the main portals and as such suffering by not being see so much by consumers?

From: Trevor Mealham 26 May 2016 00:05 AM

.........its 'Sell faster' claim has been amended to an average selling time of 25 days and no longer includes a comparison to 'high street' estate agents. ** Good to see mr Quirk standing up for the Hg Street agents. ... :-)

From: Trevor Mealham 25 May 2016 10:23 AM

Ummmm. OTM will unlikely be at the Zoopla Xmas bas and vice versa ??? :-) What is there to say? OTM mentioned in ASA communications for poorly worded comments about a competitor and also recently (April 21st) in CMA communications https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/517834/Open_letter_to_estate_agents.pdf . ........where the CMA highlighted The CMA is taking this step after becoming aware that estate agents in some local areas may have made a collective decision to join the OnTheMarket portal and, at the same time, to remove their business from other portals that compete with OnTheMarket. . ..........given some evidence that such collusion may be happening between estate agents in more than one local area, we are issuing this open letter to all estate agents, advising them that this kind of conduct may break competition law and that agents engaging in it could therefore face significant fines. Separately, the CMA will be contacting individual estate agents it suspects may have been involved in this potentially anti-competitive collusion. ** Um, anyone see a massive rain cloud in the sky today, the weather down South for sure looks like the clouds are going to open soon. .....

From: Trevor Mealham 18 May 2016 13:20 PM

And you have a right to that opinion Ray. Im happy that EAT allows you, I and others to voice our thoughts.

From: Trevor Mealham 13 May 2016 13:06 PM

Thanks Sophie and B Mac B. If the Springett Mob can threaten agents with letter of anti-competitive comment, then I'm sure a few comments from others in forums can't hurt. Views other than AM/OTM have taken legal advice to warrant their behaviour to many others is tosh. All sides need to be heard so agents can ongoing have other views than propaganda. EAT and PIE are giving all voices place to be heard

From: Trevor Mealham 13 May 2016 10:29 AM

Opinions Ray?? Hardly. More factual id say buddy :-) Maybe you should ask the European Commission to take down their 'bias' (no doubt in your view) on anti-trust behaviour found on: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/overview_en.html European antitrust policy is developed from two central rules set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union: Article 101 and article 102 These are factual. Not my opinion. Read them and get over it.

From: Trevor Mealham 13 May 2016 10:24 AM

The storm is self created by the AM/OTM cartel actions and restraints. All should see the CMA letter as a warning shot. And with warning shots all agents would be wise to check out: EU rules 101 and 102 as o dominant positions and cartel restraints. The fact 40 agents have piped up the £50k is a great stat. As the mentioned 200 agents wanting to take action would have more funds in the pot. At the meeting there was instances where singular agents present were representing 4-5 others. As such this rebel group could fast gain 1,000 agents. Those that swayed from RM and Z now appear to be the first of those wanting to sway out of AM/OTM

From: Trevor Mealham 13 May 2016 09:16 AM

Solid evidence has been passed to the CMA for sure

From: Trevor Mealham 13 May 2016 09:11 AM

A number of our agents were threatened, many told OTM where to go understanding that a cartel such as AM/OTM should not restrain them from acting in their clients best interest. 7000 agents is pretty big, as such Am/OTM cartel ways are a time bomb waiting to happen be it soon or after. You can't unbreak broken glass in a window, so the damage has been done. Already there are now places such as N Ireland where AM agents have aborted the No.1 portal and have left some online only agents in a minority (whilst excluding their entry). My concern as an agent would be that AM/OTM claims its entities are agent owned. As such does this make ALL members responsible for the creation and support of restraints on others.

From: Trevor Mealham 13 May 2016 09:10 AM

AM/OTM wants to be No.1. They have done extremely well to reach 7,000 members (and hats off to them for that). But any agent supporting needs to remember that if it did one day become No.1 and fo the fact it bans 'online only' it would be the biggest dominant abuse of unfair trade to those 'online only refused entry' Call it what you want. But this simple equation = TIME BOMB. Its not if. BUT WHEN

From: Trevor Mealham 13 May 2016 00:55 AM

And, how the hell can NAEA support 1. 'online only' and 2. Hg Street agents yet its PPNAEA sits on the AM board that embargoes 'online only' agents. Government allow both models and so should ANY representative body in the UK

From: Trevor Mealham 13 May 2016 00:41 AM

The demise of Agents Mutual will be: a. they charged different agents different subscriptions b. the created cartel like embargoes on other portals and digital platforms c. they created a membership ban on 'online only' agents d. they created anti-competitive arrangements in geographical areas e. they encouraged members in instances to offer consumers lessor visited portal presence than some consumers had enjoyed compromising clients best interest from their agents' f. they wrote to some agents on with other platforms such as mls's saying that they must take down their listings from said other platforms (anti-competitive) g. 9 AM directors colluded with 2 OTM directors (separate Companies under companies House) to create unfair trade rules as cartels do to restrict competition. Take your pick or select all of the above. Its now time that this anti-competitive collusion comes to an end. Lets hope the CMA Open letter of April 21st is the start sign that the CMA are now on the case in the interest of fair trade in the UK's biggest market place and all agents, portals and CONSUMERS can not be unfairly restrained by a few who think restraints on others and restraints now in some dominant instances such as geographical soon come to an end EU Antitrust Law 101 and 102 prohibiting companies to collude for the purposes of exerting unfair trade pressure on others now needs to kick in. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/overview_en.html

From: Trevor Mealham 13 May 2016 00:37 AM

Would that be the same Mark Hayward who sits on AM that doesn't support online only agents into a portal he has tried to help mainstream? Should such NAEA reps be talking behind closed doors when one hat excludes an agent type, whilst his other hat supports online only agents via NAEA membership?

From: Trevor Mealham 11 May 2016 11:19 AM

True Chris. Agents can't complain. When theyve not raised issue with bits this 'raising red tape' call allows them to have a say in what is wrong.

From: Trevor Mealham 09 May 2016 13:37 PM

Another important bit to the puzzle is: In competition law, a group boycott is a type of secondary boycott in which two or more competitors in a relevant market refuse to conduct business with a firm unless the firm agrees to cease doing business with an actual or potential competitor of the firms conducting the boycott.[1] It is a form of refusal to deal, and can be a method of shutting a competitor out of a market, or preventing entry of a new firm into a market.

From: Trevor Mealham 06 May 2016 23:19 PM

Well done Graham for finding this :-) Its quite powerful guidance. The shame is that come 2pm and no one has commented on it. 2.3 Agreements between businesses which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition are prohibited and rendered void (and therefore unenforceable) under Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 (CA98) and Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

From: Trevor Mealham 06 May 2016 13:57 PM

Surely, online only agents have to magically appear in some cases to do viewings, take the listing on etc etc. Many work from serviced offices etc etc. My preference agency model is Hg St offices. But equally be it Hg St or online only - both under UK/EU law have a right to trade. Why should a commercial digital platform have the right to ban them. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/520423/competition-law-redress-a-guide-to-taking-action-cma55.pdf In the above CMA paper, it part reads: Anti-competitive agreements – Article 101 and Chapter I prohibition 2.3 Agreements between businesses which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition are prohibited and rendered void (and therefore unenforceable) under Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 (CA98) and Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) If Am/OTM actions are found to be prosecutable, then their contracts with agents could become totally worthless.

From: Trevor Mealham 06 May 2016 13:50 PM

Facts are that AM and OTM register as two different companies. They have then colluded to create restraints on other agents (online only) and other digital platforms ie RM, Z and our own INEA. Embargoing these under AM/OTM collusion is unfair in an open market. The fear for an agent who joined AM at the mo must be that the OTM site claims: 3. 100% agent-owned and agent-controlled * agent owned 4. Each firm has an equal interest and voting right, irrespective of firm size * equal interest 5. Open only to full-service, office-based estate and letting agents * restrains 'online only' agents which is anti-competitive http://www.agentsmutual.co.uk/ Could you really blame worried agents as to meeting legal bods to see what advice they might have?

From: Trevor Mealham 06 May 2016 10:47 AM

@ James Much like a person or company accepting advice or something is endorsed by a body such as NAEA shows support of AM/OTM - could be fair comment to a judge that an average agent thought they were joining a lawful collective. How many landlords would question their boiler service might be unsafe if the engineer was registered appearing as required

From: Trevor Mealham 06 May 2016 10:39 AM

Simon, there are many opinions. The definitive answer will be from the CMA. But at this stage facts include two main collusions: AM (company 1) OTM (company 2) colluding to create entry rules that factually place bans on other lawful traders. ie AM have the one other portal rule that has placed embargoes on RM/Z/INEA and other digital platforms. AM also prohibit 'online only' agents from entry into OTM. You then have competitor agents joining forces to create AM to feed into OTM and supporting / upholding factual bans on others which is anti-competitive. Have a read here: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/overview/index_en.html

From: Trevor Mealham 30 April 2016 09:32 AM

Ray Evans - maybe enough accusers have sent enough in to have prompted the CMA to sit over the situation like a storm cloud. Whether that storm cloud now erupts would depend on CMA observations as to EU and UK law. For sure anti-trust and anti-competitive matters are very taboo. Time will tell Ray. Time will tell. But for sure whether the CMA do OR the don't, will set precedent for trade bans other portals and platforms could place on OTM agents. Hypothetically, what if RM said OTM agents are banned from RM and Z said OTM agents are banned from Z The short revenue loss could hit OTM agents and their staff badly. But then I can't see RM or Z doing that and neither has INEA. As such it is unfair that OTM/AM have partnered to create such restraints.

From: Trevor Mealham 29 April 2016 15:49 PM

Ray - if CMA don't stop AM/OTM's one other rule - *** WILL IT BE OK for RM and Z to ban any OTM agent from placing homes for sale on RM and Z. I see that CMA has to make a statement at some point in the coming weeks/months to either allow competitor embargo's. Or to take action on AM/OTM on the embargo's they have created. Fairs fair. How long would AM/OTM last if it's agents have to drop the big two?

From: Trevor Mealham 29 April 2016 13:05 PM

@ Ray - isn't that what AM and OTM have tried to do. Didn't they start the witch hunt by placing embargo's on lawful other platforms and agents. As for choice. When hands are tied, its a definite restraint.

From: Trevor Mealham 29 April 2016 13:00 PM

@ Scratched Record - they wrote to some of our INEA agent members and tried to bully them into leaving us under their 'one other' rule. At this point we have simply stood our ground and reported to the powers that be anti-competitive attacks from AM/OTM at the INEA group. When they threaten legal action on our members then we stand by our members. Equally it stinks that OTM can embargo some agent types over others. INEA is also about uniting agents to help consumers by opening their properties for sale and to let to larger applicant bases. It seems absolutely negative to restrain agent operatives from exposing clients listings to more potential buyers and tenants. Consumers trust agents to max interest. Not restrain exposure. I trust this answers your question.

From: Trevor Mealham 29 April 2016 12:58 PM

Gosh - there's a Shinerocks on the OTM portal. Any relation Mr S http://www.shinerocks.co.uk/

From: Trevor Mealham 29 April 2016 11:57 AM

One must also consider legislation like the 1979 Estate Agents Act that centres around agents best performing for their clients. As such if a MD/CEO has placed restraints on staff to do less well known outlets against their staff's knowledge that other options they removed listings from. Then there is a massive consumer let down to have received less than many were promised at time points. New portals have to be allowed time to establish for sure. But in doing so the one other portal rule shouldn't have compromised clients along the way. Unfortunately, how can you judge what fall in awareness failed sales or lets to happen. Placing commercial restraints that interfere with consumer trust to achieve best must hit EU/UK 'anti-trust ' laws and as such would be massive if the CMA Open Letter of the 21st are found against parties

From: Trevor Mealham 29 April 2016 11:49 AM

Company 1: ON THE MARKET LIMITED / Company number 05387791 shows 1 director: Ian Peter Springett and 4 resignations There is also: 1: ONTHEMARKET (PROPERTY PORTAL) LIMITED / Company number 09104303 WHITELEY, Paul Timothy Then shows: 2: AGENTS' MUTUAL LIMITED / Company number 08381458 This company does not have any OTM directors registered as AM directors and vice versa. as such two separate entities (or three) showing AM/OTM collusion. Directors show as: ABRAHMSOHN, Trevor Steve BARTLETT, Robert Hardington FIDDES, Michael John Alexander FLINT, Noel Ashley Vere HAYWARD, Hugh Mark (heavy NAEA history) JARMAN, Paul John MASTERS, Paul Martin MEAD, Edward Philip Uttermare SMITH, Paul Alick HODGSON, Michael Edward ROOK, Clive Equally there have been many agents driving enrollment in England, Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland.

From: Trevor Mealham 29 April 2016 11:40 AM

Its hard for any directors of AM or OTM to say that 1. AM and 2. OTM just appeared. Such things don't arrive like a Chrimbo present. They have to be put there. Im sure the 'putters there' had to have pre met up. Put funds in to build coding and web structures and designs. The drivers would have also jointly agreed conditions of entry, ie members will have to leave all but one other portal on a list of x. Plus agree that an embargo would happen on 'online only' agents.

From: Trevor Mealham 29 April 2016 11:19 AM

The trouble with the RM/Z dominance argument would unlikely hold water. But why?? In EU law there is a part that allows dominant players: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/procedures_102_en.html It applies to the main leaders that have more than a 40% share. Rightmove and Z have NOT tried to block others entering the portal market. To be dominant is not in itself illegal. But to operate in a market and place unfair competitor restraints such as the 'one other rule' or to restrain types of traders ie supporting Hg St, yet banning online only that gov accept and encourage to give consumers agency choice, could definitely be seen as anti-competitive. You then have to look at the structure of who owns and drives the entity or colluding entities and thus has laid down or supported 'unfair' restraints on others.

From: Trevor Mealham 29 April 2016 11:14 AM

If the CMA step in next stage, OTM and AM may not be her later this year John.

From: Trevor Mealham 26 April 2016 17:03 PM

Ray, Unfortunately for non Trev fans or even Trev haters. I speak to many agents and property bods who don't always feel happy or secure to come forward in public domain. As such this messenger (and at times my own views) all have a right to be heard. If some didn't feel threatened more other voices would come forward, both small and some bigger industry players.

From: Trevor Mealham 26 April 2016 16:03 PM

It's a view Ray, the same as everyone else has a right to. I speak with many many agents. I help many agents. I have a different next gen tech that links agents in a different to de facto way. Ive also been active in consultations on res sales matters and have had some advisories adopted in to official guidance. My experience and findings are currently supporting some agents who feel they have somewhere to go without having to be seen or heard.

From: Trevor Mealham 26 April 2016 13:18 PM

Kristjan, unfortunately, imposing their own rules is anti-competitive and consumers caught into business restraints is unhealthy for Joe Public. In N Ireland I hear that OTM and AM have introduced a higher per office cost model than Property Pal. Property pal in N Ireland is bigger out there than RM or Z. So its odd AM/OTM even went there to upset a lower agent pricing model. This out there can only drive prices to agents up. Could AM/OTM intend to increase pricing here one day above RM and Z?? Equally AM/OTM have tried to make agents boycott other digita platforms that are not totally portals that doesn't go well with Gov wants to see new internet agency models to benefit agents and consumers.

From: Trevor Mealham 26 April 2016 12:06 PM

Smile - It's been well reported that AM have been writing to agents. At INEA we have seen emails from AM staff saying agents had to leave us. Fortunately several just stuck two fingers up at the AM admin staff. At that point we passed emails to the CMA and trading Standards under anti-competitive behaviour. I'd say there isn't a stinking battle. Thunderbirds, Airforce one, No, the CMA have now made it clear that they have stepped in. At this point many more will contact them and they'll gather findings. AM gaining more stock is fine. Shame few will see it. Im for better fair play agency. Not cartel like restraints that hinder good agents or consumers or go against UK and EU gov directives.

From: Trevor Mealham 26 April 2016 11:13 AM

Richard - your right there are better property industries out there. The US part self regulates due to its B2B structure, where bad and cheap fee agents become embargo-ed on a one to one basis. A N Other portal to create a third was the wrong call as it simply replicates the du problem to a trio problem. The Yank B2B opens up stock and outlets agent to agent. As such Zillow and Trulia are free as the real value is in your neighbouring agent having stock and applicants to bring to his neighbours table.

From: Trevor Mealham 26 April 2016 10:08 AM

Its not Scaremongering Smile other than AM/OTM sending out scare letters to agents who want to quit what isn't working and failing to reach what was promised. The CMA for sure have made it clear that they have arrived on the scene, which takes a lot. So in their lawful eyes, they are now looking close.

From: Trevor Mealham 26 April 2016 10:03 AM

It's a good thing the CMA are stepping in Michael. AM and OTM are separate operatives in Companies House. as such their agreements to restrain agents need removing, or AM/OTM needs removing. From the above the agent, his staff and consumers will have suffered. Why should he have to stay there when so many are suffering just because a couple of companies have tried to tie him in. No - its a good thing that the CMA can step in and stop those who restrain our industry.

From: Trevor Mealham 26 April 2016 10:00 AM

@ Hafsid Jalal AM has 9 directors. OTM has two registrations and is registered at Companies House as a different Company with 2 directors. Thus Am and OTM colluding is cartel like due to restraints on other traders that they place bans on being: 1. online only agents 2. other digital platforms (portals/MLS)

From: Trevor Mealham 25 April 2016 12:02 PM

Just seen this on linkedin: CARTEL OR WHAT!!!! Oliver Hill: In our local area this is exactly what has happened. *** I was copied into many emails with regards to what portal to come off (Zoopla if anyone's interested) because of this it made perfect business sense for us to stay with the big two as it became a bit of a USP for us and its worked well. off topic a little but a reply to your comment Gavin, landlords and Vendors have been advertising their own properties on Rightmove and Zoopla for a while now with the help of easy rent, purple bricks and tepilo but in my personally experience landlords and Vendors that do this do struggle to sell or let due to a couple of issue. They always over value their own home, along with the worst marketing photos (saw a screen shot of the house from an iphone the other day!). Will be really interesting to see if the CMA do hand out any fines. https://www.linkedin.com/groups/3073629/3073629-6128921249675563012?trk=hb_ntf_LIKED_GROUP_DISCUSSION_YOU_CREATED

From: Trevor Mealham 25 April 2016 11:02 AM

Well said Steve. NAEA should revise and look at what allows an agent to be an agent and accept that supporting AM/OTM a restraint cartel like collaboration goes against EU competition law by restricting other lawful traders. NAEA support both 1. online only and 2. traditional Hg St models. As such they SHOULD NOT support a dual platform that restrains lawful property traders entry.

From: Trevor Mealham 25 April 2016 10:58 AM

Congratulations Michael

From: Trevor Mealham 22 April 2016 10:19 AM

Not at all Chris. Russell has an online only model. Im not a fan of Russell's cheap fee model, BUT nothing in the Estate Agents Act says that Russell can't trade as he does. I believe a traditional approach can achieve better prices. Equally I have seen some reviews that compliment eMoves customer service. Were in changing times and future agency will chimera into different models to even today. But anyone who trades as lawfully allowed has to be accepted. The AM/OTM stance didn't just hit RM and Z. They blacklisted many including INEA, online only agents, other portals and so on that are all lawfully allowed. What isn't allowed is creating an unfair, unlawful platform via collaboration that goes against UK and EU competition and industry laws.

From: Trevor Mealham 22 April 2016 10:17 AM

It doesn't say that James. The fact that AM and OTM have different directors totally and the fact that the 'one other portal rule' is a colluded consequence. Means that agents have been led by a cartel arrangement. To have a cartel needs two separate entities colluding. The CMA have studied the situation for a long time. As such I feel serious things will now happen and heads will roll. The UK is part of the EU, and EU law is very harsh on anti-competitive arrangements. I would think agents would be wise to take legal advice and show their solicitors the CMA letter and think deeply to stay in AM/OTM and support it totally, or to bail out if post legal advice they feel it isn't something they wish to be part of.

From: Trevor Mealham 22 April 2016 10:11 AM

Giles H - I know the first agent to report as I told them about the leniency rule many many months ago last year. They reported their view to the CMA and have since left AM/OTM feeling that what AM/OTM was doing wasn't right. All said maybe the CMA letter today is an olive branch??

From: Trevor Mealham 21 April 2016 19:57 PM

Where's all the hecklers who had a go at those of us who said AM/OTM was operating cartel like. Have they lost the voices?? In an open market, placing unfair restraints is taboo. AM and OTM are shown as two separate Company House registrations with different directors. The OTM guys only allow agents in if they comply and support the AM restraints. AM and OTM having different directors who have colluded these restraints have acted to encourage cartel restraints. So much so arranging behind closed door meetings. VERY WRONG. UK law needs upholding. The driving offenders need to be called for answers and banged to rights in support of prescribed lawful best practices and consumers being fairly treated.

From: Trevor Mealham 21 April 2016 14:09 PM

Agents have to abide by CPRs and all businesses have to abide by BPR's. AM/OTM dually cartel like enforces restraints that after fair time could be seen as being poor consumer representation. As Simon says, The EAA1979 is about agents acting in clients best interest. For AM/OTM to place cartel like restraints such as 1. banning online only agents and 2. their 'one other portal rule' then I think Eversheds should do more research on what an agent should be doing under government regulations rather than AM/OTM want rules in consumer best interest. If agents feel that giving AM/OTM a go has resulted in restraints restricting best practice for consumers and other businesses they may be acting for then AM/OTM may be breaking BPR's themselves. The HOWEVER though is that as Z hasn't acted too fast, in many google searches for property. OTM paid for advertising often appears above RM and Z searches. as such have some of the big AM/OTM competitors done too little too late in that OTM is hitting high on may searches now. The saga continues.

From: Trevor Mealham 12 April 2016 11:42 AM

AM and OTM both show different registrations at Companies House. That makes two companies to me. ......

From: Trevor Mealham 12 April 2016 11:41 AM

Agents have to abide by CPRs and all businesses have to abide by BPR's. AM/OTM dually cartel like enforces restraints that after fair time could be seen as being poor consumer representation. As Simon says, The EAA1979 is about agents acting in clients best interest. For AM/OTM to place cartel like restraints such as 1. banning online only agents and 2. their 'one other portal rule' then I think Eversheds should do more research on what an agent should be doing under government regulations rather than AM/OTM want rules in consumer best interest. If agents feel that giving AM/OTM a go has resulted in restraints restricting best practice for consumers and other businesses they may be acting for then AM/OTM may be breaking BPR's themselves. The HOWEVER though is that as Z hasn't acted too fast, in many google searches for property. OTM paid for advertising often appears above RM and Z searches. as such have some of the big AM/OTM competitors done too little too late in that OTM is hitting high on may searches now. The saga continues.

From: Trevor Mealham 12 April 2016 11:38 AM

Portals like zoopla by not acting have allowed AM/OTM time to establish some following. They should have acted sooner

From: Trevor Mealham 09 April 2016 08:50 AM

Yawn. Old news. AM/ OTM is registered as two companies. It's places restraints on Agents, that ifvthey feel compromises them against consumer best interest they should just serve notice on those grounds. Any other big play portal concerned should support Agents out. It's one for unhappy portals to grow a pair.

From: Trevor Mealham 09 April 2016 08:48 AM

Always good events thanks to Gary who works hard to coordinate them together

From: Trevor Mealham 29 March 2016 11:03 AM

Budget agencies CAN’T deliver everything that a traditional agent can to the best interest of many vendors when selling: ** Of late I have been working with more agents showing them how to win more listings by offering clients greater sub agent exposure. budget agency ALONE can’t offer this as fees are too low to sub out. As such low cost agency are not able to offer full traditional agency services.

From: Trevor Mealham 23 March 2016 07:22 AM

Simon - I think your on the property bod/ top skater lists :-)

From: Trevor Mealham 22 March 2016 12:24 PM

If suspicions are true, software bosses may start to worry as to whether agents will need their services. Portals should remain in their media space.

From: Trevor Mealham 04 March 2016 09:28 AM

Ouch. ..... Really. It would be too big brother. .......... But could the announcement be a Zoopla ploy :-) Whatever the stance, agents are best to remain at arms length treating portals as just media outlets and not their lungs, kidneys and heart beat.

From: Trevor Mealham 03 March 2016 00:59 AM

OTM is simply a clone of the now dated single directional schema that RM created and zoopla have run off too or should in OTMS case that be clown. Agents need tech to give them access to more listing. Also legislation allows long sole selling right contracts. Take both and you have a new model to open stock to collaborating agents B2B which disrupts budget only operatives and helps get fees back up. OTM and especially AM directors have squat zero idea of next gen property tech considering the funds they've burnt through. AM and OTM could be compared to Ray Charles leading Stevie Wonder

From: Trevor Mealham 12 January 2016 08:21 AM

Agree Glen - but that say you can only be on OTM and RM or OTM and Z, plus now OTM and other portals only. Simply a cartel stance, a rule book of restraints on trade where if 1/2 the cake only achieves 2% share = poor client and consumer exposure. Thus if on the outside, an agent working with a restrained agency could facilitate additional exposure to enquiries they may be able to get that an OTM agent alone is 'bound' to not get.

From: Trevor Mealham 06 January 2016 14:32 PM

Wow's. Keep up the good long term reorganising strategy Alison. The games a changing. Or is the game being changed !

From: Trevor Mealham 06 January 2016 01:27 AM

@ Glen. Question? As AM/ OTM agents can't do either RM or Z. What about helping such restrained agents gain extra exposure that today they may be missing out on. I can help if interested. Let me know. .... I'm easily found on linkedin. Rgs Trevor

From: Trevor Mealham 06 January 2016 01:21 AM

@ Steve - I know of agents who have walked away, feeling that the restraints compromised their business and consumer best interest. UK agency law is very supportive of agents acting in best client and consumer interest. I'd not like to be an AM/OTM rep standing in court pleading with a judge that an agent HAD to stay, whilst goals and promises had failed to deliver.

From: Trevor Mealham 04 January 2016 13:22 PM

...... where buyers/ sellers will fall into their sale falling through or being delayed and falling into higher SDT, having to find the extra 3% until they can later gain refund. If enough don't comment then such bits will get rubber stamped. The big flaw is that HMRC haven't addressed 'back to back' deals. Lease Options, etc. Such vehicles allow trading to gain substantial profits, from the side-lines.

From: Trevor Mealham 04 January 2016 02:39 AM

It's a consultation that many agents will have views on, yet theajority will gail to spend 20/30 minutes reading, first hand. A big shocker is where there is an overlap time when ordinary sellers/buyers will fall into

From: Trevor Mealham 04 January 2016 02:32 AM

It's a shame it operates with cartel like restraints. Let's hope the CMA has now started looking closer to bring it in line with EU competition law or goes further if the AM/OTM partnership continues acting away from best industry and consumer interests in the market.

From: Trevor Mealham 04 January 2016 02:14 AM

The publication goes way beyond review sites alone. It outlines the works ahead for the CMA, its budgets, thoughts on anti competitive associations and groups from best interest of competition, changes in online markets and best consumer interests. The CMA is a government group with teeth. Those who feel anti competitive measures are happening in agency should read the consultation document and bring awareness of cartel like and practice not in the industry's and consumer's best interest to the CMA.

From: Trevor Mealham 04 January 2016 02:04 AM

Very good point Andrew. Are members really being given a vote to offer other agents mates rates or free, when they themselves keep paying subscriptions.

From: Trevor Mealham 11 December 2015 09:48 AM

Simon - Ive heard that in part of the UK that an agent has been offered a variant where they can choose which properties go on which one portal - ouch. That won't be liked by many softwares that upfeed ALL or nothing to agents portals.

From: Trevor Mealham 11 December 2015 09:46 AM

Hi Anna, have you ever heard Dyson, Branson or top of the tree athletes talk proudly about what they do and share their experiences?? Rob is TOP of the real estate game in the USA. He has overseen the changeover that is about to happen there. I have known Rob for 6 years, he has seen UK estate agency decline with fees falling. He also understand legislation and the impact it can have. I asked Rob as a favour to share his experience, wisdom and knowledge. He accepted and as such there is NO catch. US MLS associations bring stakeholders together be they government, agents or technologists. INEA has lobbied hard on agent and consumer property issues. We've invested heavily in breaking the rightmove restraints to allow agents to co broker to access more local listings and achieve better fees. The catch is that there is no catch, Rob has no commercial gain. he's just a bloody decent professional that's willing to share his work and insights and offer the UK his insight to what we too could have.

From: Trevor Mealham 10 December 2015 19:27 PM

Yes Steven, MLS would create the hybrid model that would open up UK stock. More alike the mortgage and insurance industries operate where a agent broker could offer whole of market properties via fellow agents, rather than what they ONLY have on their OWN books. MLS could sit between portals uniting agents. It could also damage (the very) budget models whose fees are too low to share back. So higher fees. Lower portal costs, access to more listings. Ticks many boxes.

From: Trevor Mealham 10 December 2015 06:23 AM

There's a lot of interest already, so please don't leave contacting too late. In particular were looking to work with agent softwares to back integrate our UK MLS/idx feed which means their agents would have access to 100's of more listings = more sales = more agent revenue. Rob Larson is the highest profile real estate/property technologist in the USA currently, so this is a wonderful opportunity for anyone in UK estate agency to come along to London and ask the great man the latest in whats happening in US prop tech and discuss how MLS can roll in the UK. Technologists, resellers even investors welcome . I can be emailed on admin@inea.co.uk

From: Trevor Mealham 10 December 2015 05:07 AM

More should do MLS Steve. We've got lots of shared properties coming on daily. Better to make a share of setting than 100% of nothing. Would seem as though Housesimple with big backers are trying to justify low stock (even with cheap fees). Crazy

From: Trevor Mealham 09 December 2015 06:44 AM

The team will need to look close what with buy to let and second home heavily changing tax wise, ie SDT increases. Plus MORT interest set to change and the wraith of other legislation to in and coming. They'd be sensible to set up a crowd buying platform to offset some changes collectively and look at bulk buying from on the many likely to portfolio exit in the coming couple of years

From: Trevor Mealham 09 December 2015 05:00 AM

Alex must be fairly new to the game. When the clocks go back and the nights come earlier. Things slow. And when the man in red with a white beard starts appearing the whole thing slows. This a seasonal thing. Always has been. Always will be.

From: Trevor Mealham 09 December 2015 04:50 AM

Jon. US agents do have higher fees. But also provide greater extended exposure via fellow mls agents to reach more buyers and tenants. The result is often more applicants viewing and offering thus higher/better stc's The higher fees are totally justified compared to budget fees for less in the UK. The biggest UK restraint is from the de facto rightmove schema that isnt good for agents b2b interoperability to enable data sharing. The same flaw feed schema was adopeted by Z and onward otm. Change the feed schema to mls and we could mass do this in the UK. Budget agents would then be in trouble as they dont have enough fee in the pot to share commission. The USA is about to upgrade its data schema nationally on Jan 1st. I have the CTO Rob Larson over in London Thursday 17th for those interested at looking into MLS in the UK

From: Trevor Mealham 08 December 2015 11:10 AM

Maybe John's onto something?

From: Trevor Mealham 08 December 2015 11:01 AM

Now wouldn't that be funny Steve if an OTM member of staff left to an online only model like eP :-)

From: Trevor Mealham 08 December 2015 11:00 AM

David. I'd agree. But replace 'competitive' with collaborative. The Yanks make their job of selling much easier as they offer from their local MLS shared property pool.

From: Trevor Mealham 08 December 2015 09:06 AM

Latest reports show Purple directors and backers to pull out £33m. That shouldnt help confidence in people they'd seek next funding from.

From: Trevor Mealham 08 December 2015 06:56 AM

The main thing the Yanks do is work together via MLS. Lets hope the NAEA members going take note. Its superior to UK agency as brokers open access to whole of market properties, rather than JUST whats on their own register. Calls to question why NAEA supports Agents Mutual that bans some UK MLS platforms. Kettle and black ckme to mind.

From: Trevor Mealham 08 December 2015 06:54 AM

Consumer safety should come first.

From: Trevor Mealham 07 December 2015 10:25 AM

Fab idea. Let's wait for the first person to lose the agent filter and under go an assault in their own home due to some clever App that will allow people to sell under value and at risk in their own home.

From: Trevor Mealham 07 December 2015 10:23 AM

So on investment raised. How much has it brought in from sales and lettings?

From: Trevor Mealham 04 December 2015 07:21 AM

Interesting Ray. The trouble is that other forums have been very AM/OTM pro. Things change - for instance can agents tied in for 5 years to AM/OTM's restraints near a year on say it was the best move, or are they regretting it? Other bits that change are regulation restraints. As well as AM/OTM having their cartel-like rules for own commercial gain. Does their own remit fit government/consumer wants?? Just the other day we saw Treasury put out a paper to bring more innovation into the industry. The paper wants generally more innovation, but also highlights online only agents. As such moreso now than months ago, AM/OTM are now flowing more against the Government tide upstream. Consumer beneficial markets - can't restrain by commercial anti-competitive company rules. AM and OTM are shown as two separate entities with different directors on the boards of each. Collusion against government consumer wants is a dangerous place to take agents.

From: Trevor Mealham 03 December 2015 14:16 PM

Maybe some consumer groups are picking on bits they don't understand Kristjan

From: Trevor Mealham 03 December 2015 14:08 PM

@ Kristjan Byfield So your also saying in some areas you feel the opposite applies too :-)

From: Trevor Mealham 03 December 2015 14:07 PM

Equally a 1 bed with 1 bath, a 2 bed with one bath, a 3 bed with one bath. What's in a house isnt alway per Sq proportionate as any valuer knows. Often knowing an applicants list and buyers speed want to move can make thousands of pounds difference. Even AVM's can only calculate on historic data and fail to take into account good schools closing, or new roads going in. Willing buyer who can get funds / willing seller

From: Trevor Mealham 03 December 2015 14:06 PM

What a great argument for MLS - virtual agents wanting Hg St presence but on an adlib basis. Will all those online only agents who may be on all the portals or some, like to link with Hg St agents who may be on just 1 main portal like to collaborate. You'd both gain more stock via B2B and the other may have buyers or tenants for you if you have stock they don't to facilitate to their enquiries on properties they wouldn't have had :-) Now, how many OTM agents only on RM or Z want to have INEA as their one other portal to reach enquiries from places OTM doesn't want them reaching :-) Im very easy to find on linkedin :-)

From: Trevor Mealham 03 December 2015 09:47 AM

In fairness. Clocks go back, less people view in the dark after work. Viewings become less nov/Dec/Jan. People view at weekends, that is as peoples christmas and new year plans allow. So all property sales websites traffic drops and grows with the seasons as does agents trade. But for sure reports like Richard Rawlings show stats that OTM is flagging and its one other portal rule is damaging not only for consumers relying on presence to show their property. But restraints causing lessor biz is bad for biz. I know agent MDs concerned they have wages to pay and one MD tied in for 5 years even claimed he was losing instructions as OTM wasn't a brand most home buyers or sellers knew of.

From: Trevor Mealham 03 December 2015 09:41 AM

Now do they want an internal sq ft or the external footpint. Can we also have a want that consumer groups actually have to understand industries to comment.

From: Trevor Mealham 03 December 2015 09:35 AM

Who are the 19 wise bods. Sounds like they all live in Safe St. The opinions don't appear to highlight if some landlords flood reduced listings by the bulk in some reason streets.

From: Trevor Mealham 02 December 2015 01:22 AM

Daniel - if you are on OTM you have agreed to come off either RM or Z? You say traffic is LESS than RM/Z. If so would you agree that less traffic may have equated to less viewings and that if more viewers had viewed you may have got a higher offer to sstc? If so, I wouldn't dispute that its gained you buyers, but did it achieve your consumers better buyers than being on RM AND Z and OTM would have achieved???

From: Trevor Mealham 01 December 2015 14:30 PM

The CMA would take as long as they feel they need to. It's not uncommon for monitoring and then investigation to take somewhere between 1-2 years.

From: Trevor Mealham 01 December 2015 14:26 PM

@Agents s I don't think RM would be stupid enougg tk set up a cartel like restraint model that could land many in hot water for its anti-competitive restraints such as *banning online only models. *Targeting memberships of other platforms such as INEA. *Placing a one other portal For sure government want to encourage online models. I wouldnt want to be an OTM agent being seen to support anti competitive trade.

From: Trevor Mealham 01 December 2015 09:54 AM

As the year ends daylight hours drop = less viewings = less offers = less sales. Economics yes play a large part. But so does the time of year that were in

From: Trevor Mealham 30 November 2015 06:09 AM

Rob, the powers that be don't always get it 100% right first shout. My view is the 'second property' wording is there as a slip net. It would be very hard to associate some unmarried couples. But a singular person having more than a promary residence is fairly easy tk define.

From: Trevor Mealham 27 November 2015 22:13 PM

I can see more rogue traders using lease options to secure properties to sub let back out again with poss monetary tie ins on resale to normal buyers. ............

From: Trevor Mealham 27 November 2015 13:22 PM

It will be on UK properties regardless of where the owners main residence is

From: Trevor Mealham 27 November 2015 09:12 AM

If the SDT had simply been for BTL, then it would have been easy to keep moving into a new home and let the last one. All said there would have likely have been a time cap (say 12 months). But by adding second home - it's quite clever of Treasury . Not for the fact that Mr Smith and Miss Green will buy in separate names, but for the fact, they're, buggered at property no. 3 which can't be a primary for either. Agents - the big biz is going to be resales of investment stock. Agents will need to understand more BTL and investment rules to help landlords on their exit, navigate deals to newbie landlord vehicles coming in. Estate agency won't be about who can get a punters house on RM or Z for the cheapest fee any longer. estate agency will be greater about knowing legislation than for a long time and less about tech.

From: Trevor Mealham 27 November 2015 07:43 AM

@ Simon - agree - when the Gov makes rules, the rules come in. Bar HIPs and poll tax most stick and in cases changes can open up opportunities for early adopters. My guess is that several larger institutions and cash rich pensioners downsizing will see BTL opportunities in longer term ventures, playing on high LTV landlords bailing out. Buying a great rental at 5-10% discount may warrant 3% higher SDT. Equally lettings only agents may have stock direct from source to offer for sales. Change the rules and you get to play the game differently.

From: Trevor Mealham 26 November 2015 12:09 PM

Property purchase of £40,000 to £125,000 – Stamp Duty will be levied at 3% (currently 0%) Up to £250,000 – 5% (currently 2%) Up to £925,000 – 8% (currently 5%) Up to £1.5m – 13% (currently 10%) Over £1.5m – 15% (currently 12%).

From: Trevor Mealham 26 November 2015 11:10 AM

@ John - in a way its clever. Create a industry bubble that people nationally have got into. ie the buy to let clubs and buyers. Then when cooked, bang in lots of taxes and tariffs. For people to exit pricing will have to be right what with energy upgrades etc. What doesn't get compromised is the SDT as a fixed cost. V Clever. @ Rob - great biz for those that can negotiate sales, maybe not so good for landlords with high LTV buy to let mortgages, or landlords with tired props that will fall unlawful needing £1,000's spending to upgrade energy wise. But for sure forcefully a changing market ahead

From: Trevor Mealham 26 November 2015 11:09 AM

Sounds positive. This type of e-signature happens in the USA, so why not here. And why not - a good evolvement

From: Trevor Mealham 26 November 2015 07:19 AM

More to the point its disrupted many agents businesses. Another this week has said to me that consumers don't know about it and its losing them instructions with its silly one other portal rule.

From: Trevor Mealham 26 November 2015 07:12 AM

The timeline for landlords is * April 2016 - SD Tax see's massive hikes * 2017 to 2020 - BTM mortgage offset relief gets hit, rental income gross takes place of net, worsening year by year * April 2018 - The 2011 Energy Act kicks in next stage where minimal standards estimate that 10% of res and 18-20% of commercial premises become unlawful to let I estimate a 30% shift of BTL properties changing hands due to legislation changes coming in. Letting agents - its time to start opening sales departments. The shift is coming.

From: Trevor Mealham 26 November 2015 07:08 AM

Example a BTL at £1m in March 2016 would be £43,750 SD Tax Come May an investor would be paying £73,750 SD Tax

From: Trevor Mealham 26 November 2015 07:02 AM

What is the industry coming to? So many rogue property guru's and a few descriptions a little out of sink. CRAZY TIMES. ......................

From: Trevor Mealham 25 November 2015 11:12 AM

@ David. ................. Your client feels a need to leave PB - why? If they have failed to deliver or over promised. The contract may not hold up and they may be able to leave. Was the consumer mis-sold to??

From: Trevor Mealham 24 November 2015 13:46 PM

Ouch. ...................... The trouble is that AML is part of statute whether the industry likes it or not. I'm being neutral. A SAR (suspicious Activity Report) isn't just about reporting funds in transfer or when the horse has bolted, but to raise concern over suspicious activity, ie irregular sellers or buyers!! The legislation does apply mainly to sellers as they are the agents clients (most times) but buyers also come into play when an agent is commissioned to find/source properties. ... An honest agent in the loop may also identify a dodgy solicitor or rogue valuer. Agents are required to have 7 main parts in place including an approved nominated AML officer. More than happy to help agents on AML, but to not register with HMRC is leaving your agency open to fines etc. If anyone wants help, by all means email me at admin@inea.co.uk AML isn't perfect and many agents will see as a pain. Equally, what if it identified an ISIS set up. Just look at Paris. Just one of the reasons why AML is there. ......

From: Trevor Mealham 24 November 2015 13:42 PM

So if QS select agents that use RM & Z then there goes OTM/AM agents. But sounds like there could be many if's and but's, like how long is the 'future to sell' contract. Does it need the £5m to grow. Will investors pump £5m in to give it away without promise of homes coming on? What if a couple divorce/split. Can the listing be held. What if the seller doesn't agree with the valuations.

From: Trevor Mealham 23 November 2015 13:07 PM

I know of an agent who joined AM who has already written saying he feels that what he joined has become cartel like. Many other concerns have said that they feel AM/OTM collusion is anti-competitive too

From: Trevor Mealham 19 November 2015 12:56 PM

Umm. There are several factors in legislation due to kick in 2017-2020 ans mid 2018 that will alter and potentially upset flow of sectors of the property market. Such things could affect the above story logic

From: Trevor Mealham 13 November 2015 09:06 AM

@ Smile. Agree. But INEA isn't one of them which im sure most who know me would agree. Our industry is a mess. It could be so much better. But cartel like restraints by OTM and AM isn't the answer

From: Trevor Mealham 05 November 2015 18:06 PM

Sorry for spelling going skew. On a train and small keyboard. But to finalise. I believe AM and OTM have seen INEA as a threat as we have next gen tech that could return main and sub agency to the UK in a way other countries market real estate. As a portal we have never tried to take on the top spot players. Instead link good agents with sub agents stock and vice versa. AM and OTM are shown as different entities at Companies House. Thus collusion of rules and restraints on us. Portals and online agents is pure cartel like actions. We just hope evidence now gained is processed by the CMA swiftly. We do not blame any agents pulled in. But we do point the finger at the AM and OTM Directors who have placed us on their hit list.

From: Trevor Mealham 05 November 2015 17:38 PM

Good point Patrick. I asked OTM for a list and they refused yesterday. Smile. 8-9 years ago I was instrumental in making TESCO Property U turn and exit via a legislation quirk over FS boatds and the fact it then pushed TESCO (into being the agent and then open to PMA and £5k fines for achieving a £299 fee). The legislation has moved on. I did it to protect smaller agents - not personal gain. I entered agency 30 years ago and had two very successful offices for over 2 decades. Agency then was 65% deals done betwern main and sub agents. The RM feed schema all adopted in 2000 by schema doesnt have the sharing fields that the Yanks have in their mls which is better agency and alike old fashioned UK agency. My want is a better fairer agent market place that allows cobrokerage back that really portals hijacked. Isnt it better agents collaborate with better fees that allow sharing and give buyers and tenants choice. But also vendors and landlords greater exposure via more agents?

From: Trevor Mealham 05 November 2015 17:28 PM

Hi Smile, At the start INEA was very open and we tried to make approaches to IS which were ALL ignored. A software tipped us off that this was going to happen. My guess at the time was that it would stop many agents who use us from using us as many AM agents share their central London listings between agents where one may gain RM leads and the other a Z lead. INEA has outer London agents. Blocking us has simply removed the ability for some outer AM/OTM agents from collaborating. So Smile. The truth is we didnt start this. But we may be the ones that finish this ridiculous AM/Cartel like behaviour.

From: Trevor Mealham 05 November 2015 12:18 PM

No portal should place anti-competative restraints on agents or abuse business protection regulations with companies/entities/bodies, they consider to be a threat for their own commercial gain. In compromising agents duties to best serve the interest of their clients. AM and OTM's cartel like restraints is likely to be compromising 100's if not 100's of agents each day in conflict of the Estate Agents Act. Legislation that stands to protect consumers, NOT the commercial interests of AM and OTM directors.

From: Trevor Mealham 05 November 2015 09:21 AM

@ Paul - so far I know of 6 that have come forward. A Andrew Love at OTM who seems to have no estate agency experience on his linkedin, ie CPR's, BPR's or understanding of CMA cartel guidance has launched an attack on us. Some agents are simply sticking up two fingers as INEA is 10% portal and 90% lobbyist for agent rights to government and industry voice for agency fair play to consumers. By bringing us into AM/OTM's one other rule restrains agents who feel threatened by AM/OTM from INEA's other services that AM and OTM do NOT offer.

From: Trevor Mealham 05 November 2015 09:12 AM

Good point Tom. I can confirm that no member agents have contacted us to say INEA was on the agenda to be discussed as an allowed, or banned platform. OTM and AM have different directors. As such this action is cartel like as AM rules are being upheld by OTM's board. We hope the CMA see fit to now look at clear facts and evidence from us and others to tell AM and OTM what they can do for a change, rather than their attacks at those they see as competitors. Fair justice would be to take OTM and AM down and make their directors accountable (BUT NOT agents that have been pulled in to their web).

From: Trevor Mealham 05 November 2015 09:07 AM

Didn't Countrywide invest into PiLabs which invested into eMoov ??

From: Trevor Mealham 28 October 2015 16:09 PM

Countrywide is the biggest online and biggest traditional office based agency. They like 99.9% of agencies are already online. The article mentions restructuring to do more B2B in the consumer space. Sounds to me as though internally CW are looking to generate more revenue from within what they already have. Solid move, pre growing further outlets.

From: Trevor Mealham 23 October 2015 12:20 PM

O'dear: JC says: Does the public really care? It seems to me that this has become a battle of agents and portals - agree SH says: Personally I do not feel that OTM can provide serious competition. All they do is hold Zoopla while RM get stronger. Beyond stupid really. - Agree

From: Trevor Mealham 20 October 2015 14:20 PM

It doesn't have to be low fee Glenn. Hybrid could be a co broker model using different data structures in addition to the RM feed to allow more offers to be brought to the table.

From: Trevor Mealham 20 October 2015 09:05 AM

How much have AM/OTM spent up to now. To upgear eyeballs and footfall could take many times more. Equally they are using restraints (ie one other portal rule) which may be the big fly in the ointment.

From: Trevor Mealham 20 October 2015 09:02 AM

There's changes happening in tech and legislation which alters daily agency operations. Many try and address changes in all corners, but when agents are busy trying to be busy, its often hard for new things to enter. Most will operate with familiarity and if it ain't broke - don't fix it. For sure things could be FAR better if only the industry could embrace better practices for agents and consumers.

From: Trevor Mealham 16 October 2015 11:10 AM

So they can advertise - we can get you on RM and Z for £0 Ummm. And still open to CPR's and BPRs and the EAA 1979 and all the fines that can go with them.

From: Trevor Mealham 15 October 2015 15:10 PM

Well said Steve. Joe, your comment is good as you say you looked into it with eyes wide open, which is respectfully part of the problem. Agents are entering into a situation 'they believe' to be safe. As per the article. Even a solicitor/agent group (GSPC got caught out with eyes wide open, who you wouldn't have expected to have got caught out over rule and restriction making. Any concerned agents shouldn't just take my thoughts or AM/OTM's view alone. But seek independent legal advice or better contact the CMA direct to show due dilligence.

From: Trevor Mealham 12 October 2015 13:09 PM

Agree Andrew. Service is a must

From: Trevor Mealham 10 October 2015 13:59 PM

Thanks Chris. Key to the article: should an agent accept commercial restraints, if it means they or their staff enter a commercial contract that could compromise best interest of tbeir client consumers in gaining max buyer exposure?

From: Trevor Mealham 10 October 2015 08:27 AM

Totally correct. I too often say to people that 99.99% of agents are online. Be they online only or traditional online. There are far bigger differentiators in various models such as traditional agents typically have higher fees which allows good old fashioned subbing which budget agents don't have enough in the pot to do.

From: Trevor Mealham 10 October 2015 05:44 AM

That legislation Juggernaut creeping up on agents again. I expect more cases will come to light hitting more budget type agents who maybe hire inexperienced call centre staff who see more importance in being cheap to win biz, over being better and more compliant. Seeing CW was a bit of a shock, seeing their the biggest traditional and biggest online agent in the UK. But for sure more will follow.

From: Trevor Mealham 07 October 2015 01:38 AM

@ Steve - so it just shows how legislation varies in parts from England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland and also some of the islands in UK waters. Whats worrying is that some legislation can border conflicting with other parts of statute, ie AML (currently) has conflicts with BPR's when agents B2B.

From: Trevor Mealham 06 October 2015 08:54 AM

@ Steve - interesting. So different to UK mainland laws - thanks for info. Couldn't find anything on: https://www.gov.im/categories/planning-and-building-control/ so imagined the same

From: Trevor Mealham 06 October 2015 06:33 AM

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/783/made The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 Size of boards Residential - the board must not exceed 0.5 square metres in area, or a total of 0.6 square metres for two joined boards. Agricultural/Industrial/Commercial - the size of the board must not exceed two square metres in area, or 2.3 square metres for two joined boards. Sale of goods or livestock - the board must not exceed 1.2 square metres in area. Any board advertising property for sale or to let must be displayed on the property to which it relates. Sale or rental of residential, agricultural or commercial property - any board advertising a property for sale or to let must be removed within 14 days of the completion of the sale or granting of tenancy.

From: Trevor Mealham 06 October 2015 05:59 AM

Sorry Algarve - only just revisited forum. Can't say too much at the mo. But agents I can see feel inbetween a rock and a hard place if main/sub agents. but there is a reason for that which needs resolving which hasn't been created by agent error. Im sure all will come out in the wash - it has too :-) There is a solution, I just can't share finite intel at this junction in time. Happy for anyone to phone me or email: tmealham@aol.com - just can't say too much in forums at this stage.

From: Trevor Mealham 02 October 2015 19:12 PM

In a perfect world - supply and demand etc etc. To sway most OAP's to up sticks needs key factors: * interest rates on savings are low, so many feel equity release vs larger home equity growth doesn't stack up * stamp duty for many older people is a big put off to move to release stock Maybe government should trial a 18-24 month trial to encourage the silver surfers better savings interest rates, for released funds to counter balance equity rise in bricks and mortar and incentivise stamp duty AND build more suitable retirement flats and bungalows.

From: Trevor Mealham 24 September 2015 05:57 AM

ForSalebyOwner.com Founder Uses Realtor Agent to Sell Home Here's the US truth - even a FSBO boss failed to sell his own home and placed it with a real estate company who achieved $150,000 MORE via MLS than his own budget model could do.

From: Trevor Mealham 24 September 2015 05:49 AM

Good luck in the USA Rob. Its a VERY different kettle of fish. You'd have to be compliant on Realtor (NARs) regulation. The whole US ethos is different. Budget agents don't have enough fee in the pot to share. As such your US clients would lose out on the most fantastic system in US real estate: MLS where many agents B2B can achieve far more than a sole listing agent.

From: Trevor Mealham 24 September 2015 05:47 AM

The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements)(England) Regulations 2007, permits under Class 3D, the display of an advertisement on any property (with the owners consent) announcing any local event, providing the advert is not displayed earlier than 28 days before the first day of the event and is removed 14 days after the event. http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/News/Rogue_board_costs_estate_agent_1500_pounds.asp

From: Trevor Mealham 24 September 2015 05:42 AM

The answer and solution really isn't that difficult :-)

From: Trevor Mealham 23 September 2015 11:34 AM

Agree Glen. why market for free when free exposure could mean less to the seller?? Um. ...... ''We are going to show you a way to sell your house online'' Spokesman David Sessford says “this completely cuts out the need for an estate agent." Can't work out the model as no 'other services' appear to be offered as would take the model away from a passive model. But if the statement - ''We are going to show you a way to sell your house online'' extended to any advice, ie valuation, advice on offers etc etc, then it would open the model to estate agency regulation and redress??? So what's the business revenue model?? No revenue makes a site hard to ongoing fund, unless there are others funding with other interests at hand???

From: Trevor Mealham 16 September 2015 12:40 PM

So what's the WHY? they've left????

From: Trevor Mealham 14 September 2015 15:26 PM

Law's the law. It's intended to allow sellers to know all their bill. Jeremy: If shown on a FS board then it has to show incl VAT which I have from main property TS officers. The consumer message has to be consistent. The latest guidance is pretty good. Agents future will be understanding regulations to guide their clients. The future as I see and especially on lettings will be consumers having fair rights be it via an agent or landlord direct. This could entice landlords back to agents rather than face potential hefty fines.

From: Trevor Mealham 14 September 2015 15:25 PM

The sold boards shown would be illegal as they don't have 'stc' on them as required under the 'Town and Country Planning Act' , whoever signed off the commercial should know estate agency law. As such - Worrying. Budget agents often cost sellers more than they save as they don't network with other agents to bring more buyers to the table. Their fees are too low to B2B Based on many agents charging 1% their £5k plus average savings seem consumer misleading based on average UK house prices.

From: Trevor Mealham 11 September 2015 08:00 AM

The job of the agent is to be fair and honest. Agents on the whole are not surveyors and should present intel fairly. TS accept that there is a time and place to provide levels of information (which may mot be all up front straight away). As Philip says, the HIP was a good idea. But unfortunately was watered down on launch. The agent's need is to provide fair and honest info as would be expected by average consumers. For instance an average equestrian buyer would require specialist average intel as relevent to buying a equestrian property.

From: Trevor Mealham 03 September 2015 16:02 PM

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-completes-probe-into-advertising-of-estate-agents-fees Wasn't long ago that a number of agents restrained marketing via the Trinity Newspaper Group. Country Life restraining non Agent Mutual ads from its portal cries out cartel.

From: Trevor Mealham 01 September 2015 08:02 AM

Good call. Exclusive to EAT

From: Trevor Mealham 01 September 2015 07:57 AM

@Jonathan and Harry. CMA have stated several times that they ARE still monitoring OTM. Simon for the CMA to say they are monitoring, means they must be observing areas of concern. It wouldnt have to be national. But upsetting even a segmant. We know they prejudice against online only and stop managers and negs via bosses partner agreements from marketing in more than one other main portal. AM and OTM being two entities are acting cartel like in their joint restraint rules on select agents in the market. This isnt healthy for agents or consumers.

From: Trevor Mealham 17 August 2015 20:19 PM

Had an agents meeting yesterday evening. One agency tied into OTM contract was looking to end it as only getting a couple of leads pw. Prior was getting many leads from RM and Z. No portal should restrain agents from acting in the best interest of their clients. Estate agency is based around the Estate Agents Act 1979. 'BEST INTEREST OF CLIENTS' No portal should restrain agents. Now could portals like OTM/AM actually be done under BPR's (Business protection Regulations' ?? Maybe?

From: Trevor Mealham 05 August 2015 00:09 AM

Article reads: . ....... arrangements intended to benefit that small group. Equally this could refer to a group or 'type of agents' being disadvantaged as was equally the case. ...... No media be it a portal or paper should collude with a group of agents and unfair rules to harm others in the property industry. Agents should not be disadvantaged unfairly. Such service providers should respect agents need to comply with the Estate Agents Act 1979: Which centres around acting in the best interest (not restraints) of consumers.

From: Trevor Mealham 04 August 2015 22:49 PM

Sorry Kelly. On train. Bad internet. Dble sent

From: Trevor Mealham 04 August 2015 10:21 AM

Kelly - maybe your not seeing the bigger picture. Tonight I'll be with 20 agents (different companies) many do work together which is industry and consumer healthy to achieving greater client property exposure to bring best B2B apllicants and offers in. But im there as the agents have asked to look closer at current property sales guidance changes Trading Standards are bringing in. Looking closer, gov powers that be are also using the web to allow Joe Consumer to log agent complaints more. As for cartels. Im sure the Three County agencies and the Trinity wish their £700k fines really hadn't been for real. At the mo, in similar light there is a bigger similar instance restraining other agents in the market, just because they are online only or choose to usr more portals. Similar restraints got the Trinity group and three county agents in hot water.

From: Trevor Mealham 04 August 2015 10:19 AM

Kelly - maybe your not seeing the bigger picture. Tonight I'll be with 20 agents (different companies) many do work together which is industry and consumer healthy to achieving greater client property exposure to bring best B2B apllicants and offers in. But im there as the agents have asked to look closer at current property sales guidance changes Trading Standards are bringing in. Looking closer, gov powers that be are also using the web to allow Joe Consumer to log agent complaints more. As for cartels. Im sure the Three County agencies and the Trinity wish their £700k fines really hadn't been for real. At the mo, in similar light there is a bigger similar instance restraining other agents in the market, just because they are online only or choose to usr more portals. Similar restraints got the Trinity group and three county agents in hot water.

From: Trevor Mealham 04 August 2015 10:18 AM

There is a lot of legislation out there now that has appered in just recent months/years, that many agents are unaware of. Many will get caught out for silly or ignorant breaches where training or compliance just isnt happening.

From: Trevor Mealham 04 August 2015 00:45 AM

Agree. Sad thing is that the cartel case mentioned isnt too disimilar to a large group at the moment whi run subscriptions and ban many other agents in the market simoly as they choose to also put consumers properties in other main portals, or because other agents are online only. Government bodies are embracing the web to allow consumers to report rookie agents.

From: Trevor Mealham 04 August 2015 00:42 AM

Cheers Glen - yes just seems to be the pattern. Shame, as budget does a job, but there are things budget fees can't do which can include getting the best deal for the customers. More money in the pot from better fees = agents ability to do better. THAT IS unless £m's are poured in at the start. If a model then bleeds money out, long after vc's have hit their magic 5 years to exit. What's left may have limited time.

From: Trevor Mealham 30 July 2015 13:29 PM

RAISING BIG FUNDS FOR A BUDGET AGENCY 1. The Biz plan centres around a consumer pitch of: 'We can SAVE you thousands by doing it CHEAP' - which is is an easyPitch for investors to understand to put their investment into. 2. A big brand name or celeb VC helps = £m's raised 3. Throw money at big impact - TV - press etc, and make the offering cheap so many customers engage - there will be some success when such models use traditional agency outlets like RM and Z 4. Return for next £m's of investment - showing some success and placing outstanding value (that goes outside normal realms) = greater funding. 5. All VC's like a 5 year exit. Taking £m's out and no doubt retaining some shares. 6. Company has some traction - but when the moneys gone. ............

From: Trevor Mealham 30 July 2015 11:57 AM

Thanks for the mention EAT. We will also be running over AML (money laundering procedure and protocol). The event is FREE, places already going.

From: Trevor Mealham 30 July 2015 01:41 AM

At very, very low prices can only be classed as a way for pretty much PRIVATE SELLERS to enter their homes into rightmove and zoopla.

From: Trevor Mealham 30 July 2015 01:38 AM

Um. ..... for sure doesn't sound like 'no sale no fee' Id be worried what the offset/delayed APR was? Sounds like it could compound, and become very expensive. .......

From: Trevor Mealham 27 July 2015 10:10 AM

So the agent is commenting on lack of seo. but did he or she leave Spicer due to 1. seo 2. feeling own ability to job was being compromised 3. Feeling that ability to serve clients and consumers had been compromised * If no. 3 then it questions (in the agents view) are they compromising their clients best interest in light of their obligations under the 79 Estate Agents Act.

From: Trevor Mealham 27 July 2015 10:05 AM

**contracts in place with third parties to ensure appropriate data protection clauses are in place ** Interesting. How many agents have checked their software suppliers agreement? I have seen one softwares agreement (from a large supplier) that stipulates it has rights to access and pass on collected clients data that the agent has entered or brought in. In a long contract small wording could easily be overlooked, yet compromise an agents data protection liabilities.

From: Trevor Mealham 27 July 2015 09:48 AM

I wouldn't want to be part of a large group of agents who band others along the lines of portal restrictions or banning simply as they might be online only.

From: Trevor Mealham 23 July 2015 15:03 PM

Fact is that in cases some budgets wouldn't have so much saved sellers money as in fact cost them more. There are examples out there where neighboring properties have been sold by 1. a budget agent and the neighboring one by a traditional agent at a much higher price. As such the budget agent has cost the seller a substantial loss.

From: Trevor Mealham 20 July 2015 15:24 PM

The new draft code from Trading Standards mentions under the belt marketing methods. http://pstatic.powys.gov.uk/fileadmin/Docs/Estate_Agency/NTSEAT_guidance_on_property_sales_-_June_2015__draft__en.pdf Part of what the traditional agent has said is opinion. ...... Equally, how often do budget agents have the opinion they can save sellers money. Sounds like: Hand bags at dawn

From: Trevor Mealham 20 July 2015 12:31 PM

One of the new Dragons (Sarah Willingham) is on an advert fluffing up Purple Bricks. Guess it shows she doesn't appreciate traditional agency models. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjtAq2QsLvk Put her on The Apprentice so Mr S can fire her :-)

From: Trevor Mealham 14 July 2015 19:26 PM

@Neil & Algarve Unfortunately, the 'From Russia with Cash' wasn't all it seemed. ......... It was 1/2 good, but failed to show 'Tipping Off' the bit of legslation that had agents 'tipped' the Rusky off, they would have been in the wrong under UK law. It also failed to show what happened post viewing as thats when much of the AML proceedures kick in. On UK agents, unfortunately, not enough managers and directors take legislation and reform in. As such it doesn't get passed on for staff to comply by. Agents are also missing a big trick. By understanding guidance, they'd see what local rogue agents were doing more wrong. This intel could then be used to highlight bad agency to Trading Standards to get rid or discipline bad agents. Many of which are doing low harmful fees. So guidance reform - USE IT, OR OTHERS WILL ABUSE IT. ....

From: Trevor Mealham 14 July 2015 12:09 PM

The Guidance is a good thing. Unfortunately, many agents whine about bad practices of some less ethical property traders, where such guidance can be referred back to Trading Standards to take action be it CPRs, BPRs, other regulation such as Money Laundering or advertising standards. If followed and used agency could be better. Equally, we now need NTSEAT to do their bit to rid the rogues out.

From: Trevor Mealham 14 July 2015 10:15 AM

I was chatting to some easyProperty staff at an Expo a while back. Many didnt seem that knowledgeable. My guess is that most wouldn't pick up on a AML situation that would require a SAR being submitted. Met Rob. Decent enough chap. But not confident his staff would pick up AML

From: Trevor Mealham 13 July 2015 22:54 PM

I knew Russell said he'd created a higher fee model. .......... :-)

From: Trevor Mealham 10 July 2015 13:50 PM

@ Ashley Yes would have been a good continuation for a second week. Then third week agents and solicitors walk into a room with serious fraud squad sitting there :-)

From: Trevor Mealham 09 July 2015 23:04 PM

@Sceptical As Always. An offer doesn't have to be made. Thats the whole point. It's if the agent is aware of suspicious ways funds may launder into a purchase. But in fairness to agents. 'Tipping Off' is an offence. As the documentary was a fly on the wall, where the agents main directors where not included. No, after viewing filming, in the agents offices took place to see if they then followed HMRC guidelines. The doc was a good idea, but only showed one side, and failed to go further. Ch4 could have worked closer with HMRC to see if any of the agents raised concern. But they didn't. Some could say the programme researchers only did half their job!

From: Trevor Mealham 09 July 2015 13:07 PM

The programme showed companies ignorance mainly in the companies on screen statements. But also it didnt show what agents did or didnt do after the viewing. If agents felt something wasnt right then they would also have been wrong for "Tipping Off" which the programme did'nt mention. For sure, the agents didnt seem to understand AMK regulations. Not good

From: Trevor Mealham 09 July 2015 00:55 AM

Ummmm - There's always middle ground. MLS brings new tech and strategy helping agents serve B2B agent 2 agent agreements. The UK doesnt really need a third main portal. In fact Primelocation (ranked 388) sits higher than OTM (460) Even Propertywide isnt that far behind OTM Others such as Twitter, ebay, Faceache etc all show homes and sit way above. So is OTM now the 6-7-8-9th top UK portal? Maybe the game changer is in changing the way the game is played. Not by doing a 5-6-7-8th place RM or Zippy clone. Agents accessing listings from one another via changing data flow makes much more sense.

From: Trevor Mealham 29 June 2015 17:29 PM

Great to see Russell upping his fees in his latest offering.

From: Trevor Mealham 29 June 2015 09:16 AM

The CMA are still monitoring AM / OTM. As such investigation could collow into it being classified as a cartel. Agents best move would be greater B2B collaboration as agents hold stock that applicants and portals want. Now over 1m USA agents cobroker this way daily. It often means sellerz get the very best price via more agents bringing buyers to the table = higher fees. By being cheap US agents exclude themselves from the party as they have nothing to put back in to share with other agents. Here RM and Z are allowing VC funded to take advantage of the millions traditional agents have poured in. Work together. Were in the age of BigData, ie e ay, facebook, linkedin. All BIG sharing data models. Agency could/SHOULD evolve this way.

From: Trevor Mealham 29 June 2015 09:15 AM

The OTM agent marketing restraints have gone against it. Also to take on RM and Z would need far more than the £10m Agents Mutual were/are aiming to throw into the hole. The funding raise and much of OTM was very clever. Its main mistake is being nothing more than a RM/Z cone. For landlords (and the majority of agents) being on the top portals is important. Having to be on the 5-6th position portal isn't landlords or sellers main concern. In fact - not being there isn't a problem, when properties are listings in bigger busier places.

From: Trevor Mealham 15 June 2015 07:18 AM

@Algarve Investor: Yes god and bad in both online only and traditional office based agents. For me best agency is main agency where fee is high enough to allow subbing out. Sorry but budget agents do NOT have enough in the pot to sub out. As such they can NOT in my opinion give max exposure to gain best deal. FACT

From: Trevor Mealham 08 June 2015 20:10 PM

Maybe a shift could be offering sellers 0% fees or paying sellers £500 on completion and charging buyers 2-2.5% Could pee off the budget agents

From: Trevor Mealham 08 June 2015 14:29 PM

Neil - I think part challenge is main portals allowing the likes of Easy, Purple, etc etc in. As such its easier to ask a buyer to pay a higher fee. Than have to fight other agents offering budget fees to sellers. In many ways traditional agent models would be better off such main portals. All said many feel they can't be.

From: Trevor Mealham 08 June 2015 14:25 PM

Kenny - agents have to put forward all offers unless clients have placed in writing conditions (such as a low limit) where offers need not be accepted.

From: Trevor Mealham 08 June 2015 12:34 PM

Section 5n TPOS says: Fees and Charges: This amendment highlights how agents must not charge the same service to more than one party in the same transaction. As such are the buyers being charged for different services than the buyers being charged for sales services?? Reduced mortgage and conveyance fees? Maybe a good offer. Or not. Im sure the buyer/s sound the type to shop about. Laws the law. Just depends on whos getting what as interpreted by law. If unhappy the buyers should contact TPOS or their local TS officer. But for sure. Guardian is agent unfriendly and media can twist true or indepth facts.

From: Trevor Mealham 08 June 2015 12:32 PM

Rob - look outside the UK. So long as people accept. Whats the problem. To bring recorm you have to make changes. In the UK we see many large companies use 0% models. In fact they charge the buyers. Auctioneers have been doing this for decades. Buyers and sellers are protected by their lawyers and UK law. So don't see a problem in agents running on buyer and seller fees.

From: Trevor Mealham 08 June 2015 11:07 AM

Many parts of Europe and the USA/Canada work on dual fees, so whats wrong?

From: Trevor Mealham 08 June 2015 10:03 AM

The Guardian is very anti estate agents. Read with a pinch of salt, knowing they know very little about the property market. How it works and how it should work.

From: Trevor Mealham 08 June 2015 10:00 AM

@Hafsid. Sorry your wrong. OTM has all the signs of breaching UK regulations. Also on sole agency. Most countries real estate allows selling rights. Even in the USA over 1m realtors gain main agent exclusivity on the basis they MLS sub out. In the event that a agent doesn't deliver key points that formed part of gaining the instruction, consumers can contact Trading Standards to intervene and police foul play. There is quite a bit of good UK law in CPRs and BPRs and the 1979 Estate Agents Act. Equally likes of OTM must also abide UK real estate law. Its wrong they impose their own rules for self commercial gain in favour of abiding CMA/former OFT guidance.

From: Trevor Mealham 04 June 2015 21:10 PM

No service provider to agents should restrain law as set down by BIS, OFT/CMA, Treasury/HMRC and other government bodies. The recent CMA Trinity + agents cartel case contained less restraints by just a few agents. OTM now has solid rules that have been enforced on willing agent practitioners + larger group MD's insisting managers and negs abide by the one portal rule. As such a manager or neg who feels their bosses rules are not in client best interest may individually being forced to also breach the 1979 Estate Agents Act. Depending on findings, individual agents under OTM engaging agency brands may have ethics questioned?? The collective banning online only models was ill thought out. The OFT wanted CPRs and BPRs to open the web to new agency models. Not for commercial media operatives to take things backwards. Alike OTM having it's commercial trade rules, OTM as a UK operative comes under UK CMA, BIS and Trading Standards regulation and policing. Why should a commercial concern restrain agents under their own rules when UK law is very clear. AM really just ploughed in and if the CMA finding are that they were wrong, then alike the recent £735k cartel fines will have to accept penalties, changes or worse. For sure CMA will ask what effects has OTM's restraints had on consumer best interest and (BPRs) to other operative agency models in the industry. Has OTM restraints banned lawful other models - YES. Again - one surveyor commented to me earlier that he felt one large portal had a ban on agents showing their fees. Maybe this brings call for the need for CMA to make BPRs (business protection regulation) also mean that agency service providers MUST NOT impose rules and regs that defy what government has laid down clear for all in the industry to follow. Interesting. Cartel rules do say: LENIENCY FOR BUSINESSES A business which has participated in a cartel may receive total or partial immunity from fines if it comes forward with information about the cartel, provided certain conditions for leniency are met. THE LINK IS HERE FOR AGENTS WHO FEEL THEY MAY BE IN A CARTEL AND WISH TO REPORT IT: https://www.gov.uk/cartels-confess-and-apply-for-leniency The first cartel member to report and provide evidence of a cartel will be granted total immunity, provided the CMA is not already investigating the cartel

From: Trevor Mealham 04 June 2015 17:15 PM

They need to change their costings as shown PLUS VAT. rather than including VAT

From: Trevor Mealham 03 June 2015 22:06 PM

Glen one of the best estate agency practices is main/sub agency which can achieve better buyer results for clients. You can't tell me you can offer this (better than sole selling practice) at 0.9% When you can provide main/sub agency beyond just doing rightmove and zoopla, then I'll be impressed.

From: Trevor Mealham 02 June 2015 21:23 PM

So Ewemove are/have been opening Hg St offices. When I was playing sith the chat rep, he said fees were lower due to not having expensive offices. Interesting that Glen is saying several are now opening offices. Was also with Russell from eMoov who said they had begun offering a higher fde model and had gained extra business. Umm upward fees and traditional offices. Are the budgets trying to tell us something we already knew?

From: Trevor Mealham 02 June 2015 09:56 AM

Have a laugh agents and use their live chat - the telesales don't have the first idea about estate agency tech questions or what local reps they do/don't have.

From: Trevor Mealham 01 June 2015 16:44 PM

An INEA agent sent a copy of an EasyProperty advert which was aimed at private landlords and read: Get on Rightmove for less than a tenner. Ouch. Not good for traditional agents. Maybe RM and Z allowing 'under a tenner' models in will mean RM and Z drop their subscription costs to below a tenner. Or maybe traditional models will start walking.

From: Trevor Mealham 30 May 2015 00:50 AM

Now Paul Smith MD of Spicer did make statement that OnTheMarket would be the UK's No.2 portal in 12 months. So if Joe Public bought into that as would be a fact, will the ASA take action when it fails to become No.2, for all those vendors who had expected it to be.

From: Trevor Mealham 28 May 2015 00:55 AM

May have been easier to have just said - we advertise on two of the UK's main portals. ...... Agents are getting bogged down with more red factual tape than ever before, whilst the portals they go on are allowing in budget marketeers who cut commissions up.

From: Trevor Mealham 28 May 2015 00:53 AM

Better agency may require higher fees. But budget agency although cheaper can cost a seller thousands when the budget agent is a poor negotiator.

From: Trevor Mealham 27 May 2015 18:08 PM

Hang on. Mark asked one Government official. There are others such as BIS, CMA, Trading Standards etc etc etc. Mark is likely to have asked for NAEA to regulate which not all agents will want. On Friday last week I met with the chair of UK Trading Standards, Lord Toby Harris who has NTSEAT under him. We discussed Government cut backs. But there could be room to encourage industry self policing and self regulation at levels.

From: Trevor Mealham 27 May 2015 18:06 PM

At INEA we import many daily feeds for overseas agents who are willing to sub and split fees. Biggest problem for most agents taking various overseas listings is handling mass data sets. MLS multi listing makes this very easy and manageable

From: Trevor Mealham 21 May 2015 08:30 AM

So long as agents provide services that they contractually agreed to do then a contract length be it 10-12-20 weeks is fine. If agents breach their offering Im sure Trading Standards would uphold the clients wishes to break the contract. Bigger worry would be contracts worded 'sole selling rights' rather than 'sole agency' Most mobile phone contracts now run 12-18-24 months, so agents contracts are short in comparison.

From: Trevor Mealham 21 May 2015 08:26 AM

Labour would be bonkers to keep her. Her property policies don't stack up. She'd be a vote loser

From: Trevor Mealham 14 May 2015 00:16 AM

As main portals allow budget agents in - maybe portals should drop yheir charges and offer traditional agents budget subscriptions. Seems fair

From: Trevor Mealham 14 May 2015 00:13 AM

Creasy needs to understand estate agency law, ie CPRs and BPRs, which mean property professionals have to be fair. She could thyen look at the 79 Estate Agents Act which says that agents must operate in the best interest of their clients.

From: Trevor Mealham 12 May 2015 12:20 PM

Agents fed up with high costs of portals. One of others interested poss to leave OTM. INEA gives properties back. Its better agency. Its old fashioned agency. OTM is just a RM2

From: Trevor Mealham 08 May 2015 11:45 AM

Hi Jon. I'll name agents just joined. 2 x Andrew and Co. 1 x Alexander Fleming. The Good Agent. South Key Homes and Stephen Alleyne. Data feeds being alivned into INEA. 4-5 more Shepway agents interested who may come in, in the next 3-4 weeks.

From: Trevor Mealham 08 May 2015 11:43 AM

Last 2 weeks INEA linked up 6 Shepway agents who will mls share listings. 2 of those serving notice to RM. Estimatr those agents will each have 60/80 sub listings to offer on top of own stock. Non like OTM / future is agents collaborating as was common traditionally many years ago. Lets bring back higher shared fees and access to more stock. Lets lose thse high portal fees

From: Trevor Mealham 08 May 2015 00:58 AM

OTM is a cartel. Its old technology. It doesn't make 2 years.

From: Trevor Mealham 08 May 2015 00:37 AM

Well done, nice new site, good luck

From: Trevor Mealham 05 May 2015 14:39 PM

Breaking News