Big hike in NFoPP client money protection costs

I think the increase is fine, and membership is worth every penny.

If the public in your area do not realise or appreciate either NAEA or ARLA membership then you as agents are not selling the benefits enough. Each member MUST sell the benefits, stop advertising THE portal and replace the logo with the ARA or NAEA ones. How is the public going to know if us as agents do not tell our clients the benefits.

Insurance premiums go up and down and by having CMP the. It shows that we care. I certainly do.

CPD is a great thing and we can never stop learning, CPD does not have to be ARLA or NAEA courses, there is a big wide world out there, just record it on your CPD log!

Remember ARLA and NAEA membership is what we make it. Nothing ever is perfect as we all have our own opinions, but being part of it makes us better.

• 09 March 2011 22:01 PM

Surely it would have reduced the premiums and leveled the playing field for all if from 01/01/2011 NAEA members had to complete the full accountants report the same as ARLA members and not a watered down version.

• 08 March 2011 10:40 AM

At the moment being a Member of the NAEA or ARLA means very little, if anything, to the general public. Since the the amalgamation into the NFoPP it is becoming just a self-serving courses/insurance selling organisation.
I say again, the general public do not know of or recognise it.

• 08 March 2011 09:29 AM

Peter, you are quite right - my professional development calculations were incorrect, my apologies for this - however that said the associated costs of membership per annum to remain compliant are still considerable. My real concern is that the NAEA and ARLA are seeking legitimacy to 'police' agents by lobbying the government to make all agents licensed. I dont believe this is in the interest of either agents or the public. The NAEA and ARLA of course would be in a win win situation. Has the CMP premium gone up due to an increase in claims? If so, I think I have made the point I was making below - if an agent is dishonest, being an NAEA or ARLA member wont protect the public from unscrupulous individuals. Every business has them unfortunately.

• 07 March 2011 18:07 PM

Peter, thanks for taking the time to respond on here but I am afraid your compliance department is woefully inadequate. In what I assume is an attempt not to lose members, my membership has gone through again this year 'on the nod'. I ommitted to reply to the first letter asking me to renew my membership and when the second one came they simply wanted me to tell them if my details were correct and send them a cheque. No request for anything from my accountant (I am completely legal by the way but ARLA can't possibly know this).
I continue to pay into the NFOPP in the vague hope that one day we will be recognised as a profession but I fear that the organisation is not serving its members well or for that matter the consumers who have no idea about ARLA or the NAEA I don't think your message is coming across clearly enough and I am afraid that with dwindling membership unless there are serious changes in the organisation I do not believe it will survive.
With the governments cooperation, make every agent a member of the NAEA and then (if they haven't already done so) give them two years to pass an appropriate qualification in order to continue practising. You could then lower the exhorbitant membership fee and suddenly you have a professional body whose sanctions for breaching its code of conduct could be meaningful.
Rather gone off-topic but the NFOPP need to realise that the members who pay for it have not had the easiest couple of years and every penny counts.

• 07 March 2011 15:16 PM

I can quite understand that some memebrs are upset by the increase in Client Money levy. The letter we sent explaining the rise set out the genuine reasons for this., As I pointed out, all claims received were in respect of firms who within the previous 12 months had provided clean Accountant's reports. Where we are at all suspicious we carry out further invetigations and last year undertook numerous formal inspections. Where things have gone wrong, in a firm, this has normally happened within 2 months. What more can we do to police this? We would have to ask for weekly reconciliations.

Some have suggested that we stop offering CMP. However, at recent meetings of members it has been clear that many see this as a positive marketing tool which cannot be offered by non regulated agents. and that we need to continue it. By belongoing to ARLA, any member in TDS has benefited to the tune of £3 per tenancy.

I cannot begin to understand the suggested calculations to comply with our 12 Hours CPD per annum requirement. Why would this ever entail going on 12 courses which to my mind would probably qualify you for something in the region of 84 hours in the year! CPD can be gained in a variety of ways and not just by attending courses.

In response to the other comment by Patricia we automatically notify SOCA, the Police and other relevant bodies when we come accross theft of client money. I agree that a prosecution should happen in every case,Unfortunately the authorities show little interest.

• 07 March 2011 14:17 PM

It is set to get a whole lot more expensive than that Brian! With the NAEA pushing for 'licensed agents' and it being suggested to the general pubic that if you are not a licensed agent, then you must be a rogue, it will I think then be mandatory to take 12 hours 'professional development' for each association per annum (or, I believe it is suggested, lose your 'license'). At £150 per course x 12 x 2 (NAEA and ARLA ) - thats a whopping £3600 a year, plus association membership fees, plus client money protection insurance, plus Professional Indemenity insurance, plus Property Ombudsman fees, plus Money Laundering register etc etc. The number of feeders on existing businesses is becoming quite intolerable. All under the guise of protecting the public when we all know that in every business if someone wants to act dishonestly, they will and often the public find themselves with no satisfactory recourse, despite all the insurances and ombudsmen. Stealing money is a criminal offence and anyone (especially someone who is entrusted to handle their client's money) found to have done so, should be dealt with severely by the courts. The public is often lulled into a false sense of security with organisations advertising they belong to professional associations. If an individual or company intend to act dishonestly, nothing will stop them. A long stretch in prison and huge financial penalties is the real deterrent.

• 07 March 2011 12:04 PM

I have spoken with the regulation department at ARLA and told them I was pretty fed up with this increase which as we know is double last years charge. ARLA fees are heading towards £200, we have to be part of the Ombudsmans Scheme and worst of all subscribe to the hugely expensive Dispute Service. All costs to the business affecting my bottom line. This increase is because other agents are going bust stealing the client account and honest agents have to pay for it. I have been a letting agent for 20 years never had a claim against me. Regulation is generally a good thing but the price is high. I am considering leaving ARLA because I derive liitle benefit from membership. I am told however that membership of The Dispute Service is conditional on membership of a professional body. They seem to have you all ways!!

• 07 March 2011 11:34 AM

Absolutely ridiculous. Surely the fact that the premium has risen so steeply indicates quite how ineffective ARLA are at policing their regulations. The vast majority of deposits should be in an approved scheme so exactly which agents have debunked with the money? Last year in my own patch we had two letting agents disappear taking the client account with them but neither were ARLA registered. I pay subscriptions to the NAEA and ARLA and so with this hike in total I guess I am giving the NFOPP around £700 pa and seeing not a lot in return. They are losing members at an alarming rate and still don't seem to get it.

• 07 March 2011 09:24 AM