The Government has confirmed it is to implement its amendment to the Estate Agents Act as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows.
At the same time, it will lay an order to repeal the Property Misdescriptions Act. Instead, Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs) will apply.
Other legislation will also have to be amended because the term ‘estate agency work’ is incorporated in them. The pieces of legislation affected are the Money Laundering Regulations, Terrorism Act 2000, and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
The changes are likely to go ahead this autumn. The amendment to the Estate Agents Act was part of the sprawling Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act, which now has approval.
Confirmation of the Government’s itimetable is in a new briefing note to MPs which has been placed in the House of Commons library.
But the briefing note also acknowledges – although not in so many words – that there may have been a muddle in thinking.
The Estate Agents Act 1979 is being amended to exempt private sales portals and other “passive intermediaries” offering “low risk” to consumers from its scope. This means that private sales portals and “passive intermediaries” which merely list properties and allow people to contact each other will not have to obey the PMA.
However, the paper acknowledges that CPRs apply to all businesses. Just how much the regulations – which insist on accurate descriptions, including not leaving anything material out – will apply to private sales portals and others is unclear.
The paper says: “The CPRs apply to all businesses that deal with consumers. They could therefore be relevant where a private individual uses a private sales portal to advertise a property. The degree of due diligence that the CPRs require from such businesses is proportionate to the level of service required.”
The paper also sounds less than certain about the effect of replacing the industry-bespoke PMA with the more general CPRs.
It says: “The Government believes … that repealing the PMA 1991 would not significantly reduce levels of consumer protection.”
It refers to supporters of the move who prefer the CPRs because they include banning “misleading omissions, not covered by the PMA 1991”.
The repeal of the PMA is likely to come into force “not before” this October, says the paper.
The paper, by Lorraine Conway, can be found at the first link.
The second link simply happens to be the latest example of a property website business that EAT has come across: but is it a private sales site, a passive intermediary or an online agent – or, indeed, a mixture that defies strict definitions? As usual, we’d be interested in your views.
https://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06622
https://www.idproperties.co.uk/
%20-%20IMAGE%20Client%20Accounting%20%E2%80%93%20what%20are%20your%20options.jpg)
Comments
'@PeeBee'
Rule of life:.
Opinions are like @r$eholes - everyone has one.
Both of yours are full of cr@p.
;o)
Just to clarify,
It is indeed my humble considered opinion that you are both planks of wood.
Hope that helps.
'@Hawkeye':
Is that your own considered opinion or did you just cut and paste someone else's?
Somehow I don't think that either originality or thought process come easily to you...
Yep, they could always put their heads together and make a fence.
Hawkeye.
Thanks for bringing such reasoned discussion to the table.
Clearly your view on the story is... you have no view.
I'd rather be classed as a dimwit with an opinion than as a berk devoid of one.
Care to elaborate on which part of what I have said puts me in the dimwit categiory - and why?
YOUR input to this storyline would be welcomed, Sir!
@ P B and @ H P what are you going on about.
Get back to work and flog a few insread of prarttling on about this you are just making yourselves look a bunch of dimwits.
Happy Chappy: "...owners can get property on to portals for a smallish monthly fee via an online agent ...you pay your money take your chance."
Did you REALLY say that, mate? You, who looks for "value and service" from an Agent? The man who singles out the Agent most likely to actually DO THE JOB?
I would have thought that " take your chance" was not in your phrasebook!
Hi Jon
Peebee is correct FSBO sites are a dead duck.....and rightly so there is no need for them and most are rubbish.
Hmmmnnn perhaps If the government really wanted it could use competition law to make them take FSBO listings as they are so dominant in the market.
However, this never needs to happen forget FSBO as owners can get property on to portals for a smallish monthly fee via an online agent (Rightmove do accept listings from them).......you pay your money take your chance.
...and while on the subject of FSBO sites - has anyone followed the link above?
How's about THIS for a deal and a half, folks?
"Sell Your Property including HIPS!
Offer Expires 31st July 10!
£ 450.00 inc vat"
Ree chuffin' diculous!
Mr Middleton: "I spoke to FSBO site owner yesterday..."
Hmmm... not a POPULAR website, I see (which makes me wonder why the chuff you were speaking to them...) - they seem to have NO listings whatsoever!
An excerpt from said website kind of tells me why -
"About Us
Aliquip tation consequat iriure, feugiat iusto facilisis molestie vulputate wisi at ex te nulla nulla, ut qui. Dolore, eum in vero quis et lobortis tation et et duis ut commodo sit minim zzril augue enim diam autem ullamcorper, ad ex lobortis iusto. Ea facilisi vero, vel elit nostrud, vel, te quis euismod, dolor ut nostrud dolore delenit blandit hendrerit. Wisi et dolor in, qui eu consequat, dignissim dolore consectetuer augue suscipit lorem te esse esse, et qui adipiscing. Autem zzril aliquam vel praesent eu, diam feugait luptatum sit lorem vel euismod dignissim tation."
And sites like THIS are what you see as the future of the home selling process.
Speaks volumes, methinks...
Mr Middleton: "...the Government and the Estate Agents know that once FSBO sites become even close to as powerful as RM..."
Interesting. Over a period of time, of course. They'd better hurry up, though - according to scientists the sun will supernova in approximately 5.4 billion years so they ain't got forever to achieve the greatness you predict!
You crack me up, pal. Priceless MDT. Thanks for making my day a bit brighter!
@ Happy Chappy
My view is that FSBO sites could I’m sure have had access to the likes of RM and other top portals regardless of legislation.
I spoke to FSBO site owner yesterday (www.removethemiddleman.com) and he was told in no uncertain terms by Rightmove that he would not be able to put any of his properties on their site.
Regardless of any legislation change that makes it legally possible for FSBO’s to use RM if they don’t want to allow them on their site there’s nothing that can force them to do so. At the end of the day they are a private business and they can choose which businesses to do business with and there is nothing the Government can do about that.
The root to all this is that the Government and the Estate Agents know that once FSBO sites become even close to as powerful as RM there will be a huge shift in the way property is bought and sold in Britain.
The Consumer Protection Regs cover far, far more than the PMA, thats why it now can be binned. Agents methods of working have to change, CPRs override the current client relaionships and even instructions from them. Forget the PMA, it is already history.
Yes I have no doubt the PMA caused much anguish in 1991, and was hated by all agents. A game changer came along in 2000 (Rightmove) now this is when the point you make, about it not applying to FSBO (or I believe intermediaries) is relevant.
This once nuisance piece of legislation later became a vital defense weapon in the argument used by the likes of Trevor Mealham for stopping FSBO, and Intermediaries having access to the portals. So this is why I think a weakness became a strength for some . :0)
I agree the repeal PMA only to be replaced by the older more robust CPA could encourage some potential FSBO to use agents (whatever type they are)
However, one act covering all means there is no legal justification for FSBO not having access to the portals, if vendors do want to go it alone. Would you agree?
Happy Chappy
I disagree with your views on how Agents used PMA to protect against competition. Contrary to your belief, the PMA was HATED by Agents when it was introduced. The unfairness of the situation - then and now - is that its powers did not extend to private sellers etc - the greatest biscuit-takers when it comes to misdescribing.
After a period of adjustment to its limitations (also known as panic...), PMA became just another element of cost to the marketing of a property. Most Agents never had so much as a sniff of a TSO peering in their windows - but the due diligence aspect of ensuring there was nothing in the window (or adverts, internet or printed sales details, etc...) to attract their attention added time (and therefore money) to 'getting it right' and keeping on the right side of the law - dopey law though it is.
As to my offering an argument for keeping the PMA - how's about the certainty that its' new shiny replacement will cost more to service which in turn will cost vendors more - for no gain. Think about it, Happy - if a vendor runs the risk of being hauled up in front of the beak for failing to advise a prospective purchaser that there is a mineshaft somewhere on the next continent there is MORE reason to let the poor old Agent take the rap for it - so these FSBO sites could end up with LESS properties.
The Government could be doing us Agents a big favour after all... ;o)
The PMA is there now, Happy. You say it is a toothless tiger - but believe me if an Agent c0cks up then they face a hefty bill and possible loss of their livelihood. If there are no prosecutions taking place, that is for one of two reasons: either that the Agent has no case to answer to; or that the 'injured party' simply does not pursue the case. The thing to remember here is that there is NO GAIN to an aggreived party with both the PMA and CPRs.
Fines go straight to boost Government coffers. So why bother?
Peebee - A debate is most welcome, thank you. Now perhaps my statement about EA's loving the PMA may have been a little wide of the mark, however, I still see no reason to keep the PMA when the CPR does more or have I missed something?
'happy chappy thread kiler' - thanks for the mention but I will decide for myself who I keep entertained.
In this instance I find HC's post to be wide of the mark - but on many other occasions he is spot on in his reading of things but attracts derision simply because it's all that some can throw at him.
Tell me - why do you consider him a "lazy troll"?
"...dyslectic..." REALLY? That little slip of the finger, one punctuation gaffe AND missing not one, but two, adjectives from your post puts you behind HC on points, methinks.
Now... back to Happy Chappy and some reasoned debate.
speeleed chec worcs on a Macc not PC-Appy nead to chnge
Oi, I resemble that remark. :0)
I have a fan club if you want to join.
It’s no surprise that happy chappy is all over this article like a fly on turd, pretending to be a dyslectic interested party when in fact he is just lazy troll without spell check. I am surprised; however that PeeBee is entertaining him. Should be interesting.
Originally on line agents and Intermediaries were not covered the PMA and EA act and this was used as a smokescreen in arguments from EA trade bodies to not allow them access to the portals.
I think the definitions of : Intermediary, Online agent and Traditional are now clearer and the CPR better protects buyers.
In shourt we should either regulate properly or not regulate at all.
Does that answer the question better.?
Now can you give me an argument for keeping the PMA or do you agree that the repeal is good thing?
It’s strange how something can be so dramatically changed without any real press activity, the duty of disclosure is massive and overrules any clients instructions to the contrary.
Forget caveat emptor now, for example, agents have got tell a buyer of say a bad survey even before they view, add another 50 or 100 scenarios like this and there will be fines all over the place! !
And with a 66 page guide line document for TS to interpret it may well be chaos just round the corner
Happy Chappy - sorry but your response does not answer the original question.
How did the PMA "protect Agents from competition"?
What "competition" are we talking about here?
Peebee - The PMA was/is toothless, the old adage was if in doubt leave it out the CPR does more to address this. (Perhaps unreasonably so but there you go)
I can give countless examples of things that should have been included in descriptions but were not ion property particulars (the classic is electricity Pylons in gardens)
People like Trevor Mealham and PBK often insisted that anyone operating outside of the EAA and PMA were unprofessional and would be some kind of danger to the public. Now all are covered by the CPR 's so this argument goes away.
In my opinion and seemingly that of the Government. An intermediary is not an EA and therefore should not be covered by the EA act. Intermediaries include newspapers , Property Place, Rightmove, Gumtree.
So there should be no reason for any of these businesses not accept listings from On line agents who are covered by the CPR's.
If someone would like to give me compelling reason for the PMA to remain in place, as always, I am happy to listen and learn though.
Happy Chappy: "The PMA was loved by agents as it protected them from competition more than buyers from misdescriptions."
Please explain, my friend.
“The Government believes that repealing the PMA 1991 would not significantly reduce levels of consumer protection.” Bravo to the government, It's not often you will hear me say that.
The PMA was loved by agents as it protected them from competition more than buyers from misdescriptions.
That's why you will hear lots of moaning on this story from them without any substance or logical reasoning as to why the PMA should stay.
This so-called government is not on any planet - it is in a bubble of its own making and in my view they are a load of very clever 'con-artists'. We must burst it as soon as possible.
WTF
what planet is our government on?