The Property Ombudsman is seeking help to ban two firms of estate agents.
It has approached the Office of Fair Trading about the behaviour of two estate agencies, one of which was fined £3,120 for 26 offences, including displaying TPO logos when it was not a member and for other breaches of consumer protection law.
The agent also had to pay costs, taking the overall penalty to around £6,500 for the 26 offences, and the case was reported here on EAT on Monday.
Bill McClintock, chairman of the TPO operating company, said wli.uk.com from the West Midlands could be expelled from voluntary membership of TPO’s residential sales and lettings codes because Amerjit Singh Dhuga, the firm’s owner, is in breach of the organisation’s terms and conditions.
The second, un-named, agency is in the West County. According to McClintock, the directors have convictions for aiding and abetting a fraud.
The firm, which apparently continues to trade, has also applied for voluntary and statutory membership for sales but this process has not been completed because of the conviction.
McClintock said: “The TPO Disciplinary and Standards Committee is looking at both agencies and will come to a decision shortly,” he explained.
“I cannot pre-empt what the committee will decide but the expulsion of wli.uk.com is likely to occur, subject to any appeals process.
“We asked for guidance from the OFT regarding the West Country agency in mid-November and are still awaiting an answer regarding its statutory registration.
“Our difficulty is that we are bound to accept agents into registration for residential sales under the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007 until they have been banned from estate agency by the OFT. When, and if, that process takes place, they can be denied TPO registration completely.
“The Ombudsman has a memorandum of understanding with the OFT that he will refer to them estate agents whose actions we have called into question and/or expelled from our voluntary schemes. We have done this in the past.
“We have to study the applications that were made for membership of our schemes by these two firms and the answers that were given to some of the questions.
“Nobody at TPO wants to see firms that have had their practices called into question by the courts continue with TPO membership, but the process has to be fair and open.
“It is important for the public and the industry to know the outcome, and when these matters have been resolved I will issue a further statement.”
Comments
Visit their website - .....'we’ll be more than happy to discuss our fixed price fees and even provide a valuation of your property over the phone'.
Would anyone seriously use these clowns?
Deport them..............simples
TPO COME ON BAN THEM or maybe its not politically correct!! anyone else and it would be done. Dreadful
What point in Billy Mac or the Ombudsman then, sad he is just there to let the public have somewhere to moan. He was good, but now out of his depth perhaps. Time to get rid and replace all this lot with one cohesive organisation that know what they are doing.
Some are still wanting even more regulatory bodies with their fees, when even the existing ones are rarely fit for purpose - make those work first. Cash cows indeed!
What do all those sleeping at Warwick make of issues such as these?
Stonehenge: Of course they are! They displayed the logo BEFORE they became 'Members' of TPO, so why would one expect them to drop it just because they had been accepted and dumped out in record speed?
Sorry I meant wli.uk.com
lets face it, you pays your money, you gets your window sticker. It does make you wonder how much effort the TPO or NAEA / RICS goes to before any firm is allowed membership. I do hope the TPO go after this guy though, maybe we could hang him at the next expo?
If you look at the wki.uk.com website they are STILL advertising that they are members of TPO scheme
According to Mr McClintock "...we are bound to accept agents into registration for residential sales under the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007 until they have been banned from estate agency by the OFT".
Regulation is essential for protecting the industry from rogue traders, but surely this quote from the chairman of TPO highlights the fact that TPO is not fit for purpose!?
Burf: The company/individual/whatever deserve the whole shebang. It is cases like this that produce the nitrogenous brown stuff that everyone likes to throw at the ventilation device in order for most of it to stick to Estate Agency.
What I am querying is WHY the TPO allowed this apparent serial rule-breaker and CONVICTED of 26 offences relating to the business was even entertained to join! It is patently obvious that such a company is NEVER going to toe a line - where is the supposed benefit in the TPO allowing such an action? The answer - a years' membership subs into the coffers for what - a week?
Those who post on here that the TPO is a waste of time; yet another 'regulatory' body there for the sake of it; etc etc - feel free to have a field day on this one!
The TPO have come out of this as stained as the offending Agent, I would suggest...
PeeBee - surely your not suggesting that they dont try to ban this guy? He deserves everything they and anyone else can throw at him?
Or are you just finding some way of having a go at the TPO for actually doing there job on this occasion!
Seems strange to me when your comment on the story was ' something along the lines of has more neck than a giraffe'
And the only reason he has paid is money is because he has been found out! His site is stll displaying that he his a member of the TPO so he is still breaking the law?
I wouldnt mind it it was just one or two offences but 26!!!!
This company needs stoping and a lesson learnt for all those other agents out there who think they can say what they want and not get found out!
TPO is about making money for its owners and not about estate agency members. We are the cash cows, however, what choice do we have, NAEA anyone?
Now this one has me wondering. The first Agency was subject to a story within the last week as it was claiming to be a member of everything including the Queens Own Guard. One of the posters then advised that it was now registered with the TPO.
NOW, the TPO want it struck off. Nice one. They've obviously had the money - now give them the shove-off.
They reported them in the first place for advertising membership they didn't have AND for 'other breaches of consumer law'; surely that was indication as to the ussuitability of the company to be brought under the wing of the body.
Kinda makes you wonder where the morals lie at the TPO, doesn't it...?