The RICS has called on the Government to stop turning a blind eye to what is going on in the property sector.
It said minimum standards should have to be met, to prevent just anyone setting up as an estate or letting agent, and that the Estate Agent Act should be amended to include letting agents.
In a hard-hitting statement, the RICS said that the whole issue of regulating UK agents – both sales and lettings – had been ‘danced around’ for too long.
The RICS said that the range of sector licensing schemes, awareness groups and ombudsmen “presents a complicated picture to consumers who want and deserve more effective and transparent regulation”.
The body wants the Government to introduce a single regulation proposition for the entire sector.
It said this should be aimed at preventing consumer harm and increasing consumer understanding, and should be understood by professionals and public alike.
David Dalby, RICS director of residential, said: “Enough is enough. The Government must no longer turn a blind eye to regulatory reform in the residential property sector.
“It must be removed from the ‘too difficult pile’ and dealt with immediately in order to create a level playing field within which all businesses can operate.
“As long as agents don’t have to legally meet any minimum professional standards before they start trading, the consumer is at significant risk. This must not be allowed to continue.”
Steven Gould, RICS director of regulation, said: “An easy first step for the Government would be a simple amendment to the 1979 Estate Agents Act, redefining the definition of estate agents to include letting agents.
“This needs to be followed up by action by trading standards officers to prosecute those agents not complying with the law.
“Property sales and lettings are too important to be left to those unwilling to demonstrate high professional and ethical standards.”
The RICS spoke out after Property Ombudsman Christopher Hamer called for much tighter controls of letting agents.
%20(002).png)
.png)
%20A%20property%20tale%20for%20our%20times.png)
Comments
Well consumers who, "want and desreve more effective and transparent regulation," aren't going to get it from the RICS.
Why? Because this is what they have to say about regulation;
"These Rules provide a strong foundation for RICS and for the Firms it regulates, helping protect the public and uphold the reputation of the profession."
What exactly do they do to protect the public? Nothing.
They go on to say;
"we cannot award compensation or force Members or Regulated Firms to do anything - or refrain from doing anything - even if that means they are in breach of RICS Rules or Regulations."
It was given a Royal Charter in 1881 to promote the public advantage by 2012 it can't even get its Members to sit on the naughty step.
An inquiry into the RICS is long overdue - perhaps in the future it should be known as the ICS?
Ombudsmans61percent Campaign
Rules and regulations apply to all businesses trading in the UK, whether it is the local corner shop/ hairdressing shop or a multi-billion pound blue chip company. Should all of these businesses need separate regulation and licencing before they can open? No of course not.
Trading standards already have the teeth to shut down rouge traders and that includes estate agents. Estate agents should be aware of the legislation that they are required to operate within and if they don't or don't follow them, they should expect to face the penalties that come with non-compliance.
This sounds like RICS trying to sound more important than they are. Perhaps they want the role of saying who can trade and who can't. It's a power thing me thinks.
Ensuring that all businesses are fully licenced before they can open will stifle start-up companies, which are the life blood of our countries economy. Over regulation will close this country down.
Don't get me wrong, proffesional standards and following legislation is what our business is about. To this day, we have never had a proffesional complaint levied against us, but changing the law to ensure estate agents get licenced, will be the start of the slippery slope and before you know it, any business will need licencing.
Trading Standards just needs to get better at sorting out the rouge traders, rather than use a sledge hammer to crack a nut.
Nice,
Big old institution swaggering about with bits like this all very noble and probably right.
However, as we all sit down after a huge price boom I think the fact that there are thousands of claims against RICS members from lenders claiming they didn’t act quite as well as their tone would suggest in recent years and are now being held liable for losses on repos should be considered.
And while im feeling all ‘consumers champion’ lets also remember that the insurance companies that are coughing up to cover this lot are in directly the same ones that insure the publics cars, dogs health, holidays and so on so the cost of this lots mess is arguably costing us all through insurance premiums.
Our man below with the comedy name that doesn’t conjure up images of a stuffed shirt in any way at all has clearly missed this with the ‘protect the public’ line he’s spinning.
And the number of EA’s from this cesspit of un regulated debauchery due in court any time now is how many? – well take out the odd little shyster doing a bunk with his client account and its not many at all
So, I agree regulation is a nice touch and will certainly be a nice logo on the letter head but as far as who should do it? Well I think this RICS lot might not be the right choice.
Jonnie
"a simple amendment to the 1979 Estate Agents Act, redefining the definition of estate agents to include letting agents" so requiring letting agents to register with the Ombudsman
The DCLG have said they can see no requirement for further regulation of letting agents, and I can see why they would say that.
More disciplined attention to Section 19 of 1970 Taxes Management Act would achieve everything regulation would. RICS, ARLA, NALS, NAEA and SAFEAgent only need to require the Section 19 Report to be audited and instantly wrong doing agents and wrong doing Landlords would become criminally liable.
Such a change to the code of practice is within easy grasp of NFOPP, NALS and SAFE and does not require lobbying of Government. Both Ian Potter and Steve Gould presumably have such changes within the remit of their individual roles.
HMRC and OFT might not ask for all the information Professional Agents can deliver as a by-product of their normal workload, but as an industry we can deliver some very compelling data for those involve with collecting Tax and preventing Money Laundering.
I was instructed (this morning) by someone who had a total of four agents round to value. When I asked for some feedback the vendor told me that I was the only agent to talk about TPOS, redress and codes of conduct. She knew nothing about any of them.
We do need regulating but unfortunately only because our current redress schemes are letting us down in terms of public awareness.
A real shame.
Mr Wheatley: "...uninformed salesmen who are employed to act as estate agents without any real training other than sales training are impossible without far stronger regulation...
Proper licensing by a body such as the RICS would be the very best way to protect both the public and the professional estate agent...."
Reading the above, I would have logically expected to have found the letters FRICS following your name - mere Members are not normally so damning of 'on-the-coalface' Estate Agents (whose day to day "uninformed" actions tend to keep them in employment, I would add...). However, the RICS badge is mysteriously absent wherever your name is mentioned. Strange...
I am not an Agent - so what you say shouldn't faze me at all - however I despair when those who live off the fat of the property industry take what I can only describe as cheap potshots at their colleagues in business.
With regard to the second part of the comment, I have read probably as many reports in the past six months of RICS Members being jailed; bailed or derailed as I have mere mortal Estate Agents. Talk me through which part of Licensing stopped this from happening, please?
"When buying a service the public should be able to expect some level of expertise..." Agree with you 100% on that point - as does the Government, by the way, as on the Directgov website it states:
"When you buy a service it must be provided:
* with reasonable care and skill – the service should be carried out to a good standard with no faults or flaws"
I find all this highly amusing - an industry that has been in existence for generations suddenly needs regulating - and everyone quickly jumps onto the bandwagon of sticking the knives in. What you clearly don't realise is that every knife sticks just as deeply in your OWN back, as those you seek to belittle.
Beggars belief, in my opinion...
@Tobias Wheatley on 2012-03-21 10:21:05
"Uninformed"? Not all!
In the late 60's I was employed by a very professional RICS firm but they, as others, were hopeless at catering for the then burgeoning residential market and was the reason for forming my own multi-discipline residential agency that operated for over 35 years until my retirement.
Well trained residential estate agents are as well if not better better informed and more knowledgeable regarding the sale, presentation and professional negotiation regarding residential than many, although not all, of those controlled by the RICS.
I may be wrong but you seem to bear out the concerns in my previous post - total control of the residential market by the RICS by way of a closed shop.
The changes needed to avoid the very high levels of stress and extra cost caused to the public by uninformed salesmen who are employed to act as estate agents without any real training other than sales training are impossible without far stronger regulation. Negative licensing can only work if the regulations are applied on a no tolerance basis. Proper licensing by a body such as the RICS would be the very best way to protect both the public and the professional estate agent. When buying a service the public should be able to expect some level of expertise in the same way as products have to be fit for purpose.
I believe the RICS represent a small minority of the RESIDENTIAL agency market.
The NAEA was formed in the 60's when they tried to exclude all others and monopolise the residential market. In my view they may not mean as much this time but you never know - they could have an agenda - keep an eye on these people!
RICS MEMBERS should not ask agents how much houses are worth! most of them have not got a clue on values. They should keep their noses out.