A property which appeared to have spent quite a long time on the market has been the focus of remarks on Twitter. It has now been taken down from Rightmove, apparently because of an administrative mistake.
The property, in Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire, appeared on Rightmove on August 5 – and it looked decidedly familiar.
Not only were the pictures identical, according to Rightmove Plus, but so were the descriptions of the same property that had been on Rightmove for 629 days, between July 13, 2012, and May 2, 2014.
And before that, between September 29, 2011, and July 15, 2012.
Despite its apparent longevity on the market – if correct, a whopping 920 days, counting the two-day overlap – the price of the three-bedroom detached home stayed as constant as its pictures, at £189,950.
Its sold price history also told the same story: the property sold on March 15, 2012, for £181,500.
There was just one notable change, though.
In its first two incarnations, it was marketed by “Owner Sellers”.
But on August 5, it was “marketed by eMove UK”.
However, before you jump to the same conclusions as the Twitterers appear to have done, it turns out this was a case of mistaken identity in that eMove is not eMoov.
Both are online agents but that seems to be it, and indeed when we asked eMoov founder Russell Quirk, he was keen that we should clarify that the two companies are totally unrelated.
We asked eMove UK about the mystery property listing, and they replied: “It says it’s sold, so it hasn’t been on the market so long. In addition, there was a technical error last week (which Rightmove are aware of and dealing with) whereby a number of old sold completed properties were uploaded to Rightmove in error. Nothing illegal.”
Rightmove confirmed to EYE that the eMove listing had been added as the result of an admin error and that it has now been removed.
eMove UK – which uses a trademark sign above its name – lists on Rightmove and Zoopla, and charges sellers from £249 plus VAT to £449 plus VAT, with a £1,199 plus VAT package where £199 is paid upfront and £1,000 on completion.
eMove says it has saved its customers over £42,750,000 in estate agent fees.
eMoov by contrast charges £595 including VAT upfront, or a flat rate £1,195 on completion.
So have we heard the last of soundalikes eMoov and eMove UK TM?
We understand possibly not, so watch this space . . .
The Rightmove listing was here
The listings are shown below
Below is the eMove UK site
So you are not confused, below is Russell Quirk’s eMoov site
Comments (26)
Dearest Ros, when you say ‘no relation’ I have ended up proper confused. Whether it is my dyslexia playing up something chronic or whether the internet is in holiday mode or just because I am tired but a Rummage4 veracious search for emove and emoov has thrown up a few results (22,000)
I am not claiming them to be right or wrong, it is only a beta system after all so perhaps copying and pasting this into Google, Bing or DuckDuckgo would be a good check
“emove” + “emoov”
good night all
Perhaps portals should just be used for listing properties, that way you won’t get agents manipulating the system so that they can turn up on a val claiming this, that and the other.
It would be quite nice if they couldn’t look up the same random number as the vendor looked up and pass it off as a valuation.
I don’t remember asking RM to show my business activity to my competitors!!!! I was basically shown two fingers when I objected.
As I suggested to Smile Please, get over to twitter and use two fingers of your own to tap out a 140 character concern. It isn’t so easy to flick a V when the whole industry is watching for a reply!
Glad this is getting some coverage. The industry desperately requires some sort of reform that makes rogue agents accountable for their actions.
It’s hard enough without having to fight against ‘admin errors’, that mislead the people we are supposed to be serving.
Welcome to Property Industry Eye Ben. It is good to see a new agent poster to the site and it must be reassuring to Ros and Nick to see Agents happy to join debates as brave as this one.
I applaud Ros for airing this, it sends a clear message that while some think they are being clever it is wrong to assume no-one will notice, say or do anything about it.
There was a call a few weeks back for us to stand up and be counted; a few of us have and the effects are already evident.
Thanks for the welcome Robert. Surely this industry can improve quite easily. Enforce required membership of NAEA or new regulatory body. Enforceable fines/penalties for those who ignore a set standard of basic good practice. Should see better agency as a whole.
Increase of revenue for NAEA allows them to improve policing, guidelines and agent assistance. In turn a better and more transparent place for consumers.
I wouldn’t have a non gas safe registered plumber service my boiler. Nor would I expect a non RICS member conduct a property survey.
So someone please remind me why this can’t be done?
I have been trying to rejoin NAEA for quite some considerable time. I quit because of NFoPP and the lack of respect or consideration that was suddenly shown to long standing members but is was the free ride into ARLA I was offered that broke my resolve.
I had put 15 year work into supporting and strengthening ARLA and helping to uphold the standards form outside. It was a simple insult to all I had worked for to invite me to and others to join ARLA simply because I was FNAEA. Despite all I know about Client cash Accounting and Property Management I do not consider myself qualified to join ARLA and certainly not on a free pass.
I might be outspoken and that is probably why I am not wanted back but as C P Scott said the voice of opponents is no less valid than that of friends (or words to that effect)
Interesting stuff.
I thought RM had some sort of algorithm that identified if properties with the same address were being delisted and relisted? Sure I read something a good while ago – unless it was just a piece of PR to satisfy/pacify the industry!
Perhaps technology has moved on though and as always people have found a way around things.
I’m ‘in the market’ at the moment as I’m looking to buy & I’m certainly seeing certain properties regularly reappearing as ‘new’ on the portals.
Perhaps you could email those examples to PIE. It is, technically, an illegal practice* as well as a probable breach of contract with the consumers who have been promised to be advertised on all of the portals all of the time by these agents
*Misleading customers how long a property has been up for sale is a CPR offence and, it could be argued, is also fraudulent behaviour
If you take a property off RM for 48 hours and then relist it, becomes a new instruction.
It also immediately becomes an attempt to deliberately deceive a consumer by falsifying evidence of a properties status or condition…
There is evidence but more is needed. From confidential messages I have received, this appears to be a growing problem with some big names regularly portal juggling/ churning their customers properties.
I would urge anyone with evidence of this to pass it on to Trading Standards http://www.powys.gov.uk/en/trading-standards/ If enough agents do this, we might be able to stamp it out. Though, it has to be said, this is supposed to be policed by Zoopla and Rightmove
The portals don’t want to get involved. I tried reporting another agent a while back and they basically said we wont look at it for 2 months we are too busy.
I am more upset about some of these franchises / internet offices that have one central office and list from many offices. I have to pay for a license for each one of my offices.
If honest agents make enough noise about it, they will have to do something about it. Try the TSO
“The portals don’t want to get involved… they basically said we wont look at it for 2 months we are too busy.”
WHOLLY UNACCEPTABLE. Surely they are therefore allowing and condoning false advertising?
#Powys – are you monitoring this? Do you want examples?
We clearly know where you can find them… you just have to ask!
Strangely there is a spring cleaning going on right now, stuff that was being juggled is suddenly being taken down or removed.
It has been pointed out portal juggling is a way of bumping a property so an email can be sent out to applicants again, if that is the case it is a workaround and is a bad one. Surely there is a way of emailing out a property without deleting and re-listing.
The portals can not allow or condone this as it affects clean agents and therefore it is their [the portals’] job to monitor and police it.
The other annoying thing is agents advertising a property with out an image just saying “coming soon” – Its in the contract you are not allowed to do this but RM and Z still allow it.
Take to Twitter, where Eye will reach its vast audience, Twitter is finding it way across the whole industry. I have been snubbed by a service rep for over 6 months. I tweeted those facts just before dawn and by lunch time we are well on our way to a discussion.
Look out for @agent_peebee, he is never far from very effective discussions! and it is staggering what a Cornishman can come up with.
Actually I don’t think they are trying to deceive the consumer. It is all to do with the RM league tables. I see many multi branch agents listing through one branch and then the next month only through another.
Both reasons are used for deception of the consumer.
If it is time on the market on the portals pages,it is misleading to buyers and, thus, illegal under CPR.
If it is used to bump agents up a league table, it is then used to win instructions from sellers/ landlords using false results and is also illegal under CPR. It may also attract the attentions of the boys and girls in blue as legal advice suggests it may be regarded as fraudulent behaviour or other criminal commercial activity
Thank you, Ros – for allowing the thorny subject of ‘portal-juggling’ (credit: Robert May) to be aired here on EYE. The ball started rolling, as you say, on Tw@tter – I am just so grateful that you have punted it smack-bang into the industry’s mainfield, as this is the way it will be dealt with.
As Robert May, Chris Wood et al have said in their Tweets it should NOT be up to a handful of pesky Agents to police the portals – THEY should take that responsibility.
Good Estate Agency is built upon morals and standards. We all know that genuine mistakes can and do happen – but of course there will occasionally be a situation when people work out that certain ‘mistakes’ can benefit them – then those morals and standards may sometimes be allowed to slip to gain competitive advantage.
Keep up the good work, Ros! Making the industry more professional shouldn’t be up to Property Industry Eye – or a few scattered individuals – but when (or maybe I should say IF) the relevant bodies wake up to what’s going on – you never know what will transpire.
I’ll give you credit for this BIG part in the process TODAY! ;o)
Thank you Peebee great post. When this started out I was asked a specific question about a specific property where the vendor was apparently chasing the market up (since 2012). It had been on with two agents yet it was showing as a recent instruction which obviously wasn’t the case.
Investigating that case lots of other examples started falling out of the internet, Rightmove to their credit took an interest and asked for details, at that point it became unfair to single out one agent when so many are listing , de-listing and re listing properties for whatever reason so it was suggested Rightmove actively start to police the problem. I have to say I think they must be doing that or the agents concerns know how easy it is to identify because checking this morning the portals are suddenly a lot cleaner than the were on Friday.
The obvious solution is for Rightmove to produce a report to show how many times a property has been listed with the same agent in order to achieve a sale and how long it has been listed in total.
The sale agreed report can continue to be a magnificent beacon of achievement but then the times re- listed / total days on market report will add a bit of balance to manipulated claims of success.
“We asked eMove UK about the mystery property listing, and they replied: “It says it’s sold, so it hasn’t been on the market so long. In addition, there was a technical error last week (which Rightmove are aware of and dealing with) whereby a number of old sold completed properties were uploaded to Rightmove in error. Nothing illegal.” ”
Okay… so would ‘eMove UK’ care to answer why, then was the property listed by them the SECOND time, on 13 July 2012 – TWO DAYS before it is listed as being sold via Land Registry – and stayed on Rightmove for a further SIX HUNDRED AND TWENTY SEVEN DAYS until being removed on 2/4/14?
ANOTHER ‘administrative error’, perhaps? And one you didn’t notice for TWENTY MONTHS?
Not ONE call about the property?
NO enquiries?
NOTHING to alert you to the fact it was there – available (or NOT, as the case appears..)?
You didn’t even spot it yourselves?
Beggars belief. But – the offer is there – feel free to attempt to un-dig the cavernous hole you’ve dug if you think you can.
Suggest you hire a JCB. Or three.
Erm… oops! Just spotted my own mistake – it was FOUR MONTHS after the sale completion that the what-could-be-construed-as ‘portal-juggling’ took place, not a couple of days.
How did I allow myself to get that wrong?
Still quacks, though…
What that Rightmove report is showing is the property being marketed for from 2011-2012 taken down and put back on the following day.