The RICS has called for the introduction of a mandatory, recognised licence for all estate agents in the UK.
It made its call yesterday after anti-money laundering campaigners demanded tougher sanctions against estate agents and other professionals who help corrupt individuals to hide their assets.
Transparency International said professional bodies should strip individuals and companies of their licences.
However, as things stand, agents do not have to belong to any professional body and could continue to practise after expulsion. Only the National Trading Standards Estate Agency Team can ban estate agents.
Transparency International’s call for tougher action follows this week’s leak of millions of documents detailing the use of more than 200,000 offshore entities set up by Panama-based law firm Mossack Fonseca.
Transparency International said: “The Government should establish more effective administrative sanctions on professional enablers by encouraging professional bodies to withdraw licences from those implicated in such cases, in addition to prosecuting those who are personally involved.”
Rachel Davies, head of advocacy and research for Transparency International, said: “If corrupt individuals are allowed to continue to buy up luxury property and enjoy life in the UK, then the Government risks its credibility in leading efforts to tackle corruption on the global stage.”
Last July, a TV programme called From Russia With Cash showed estate agents apparently dealing with a clearly corrupt Russian buyer – in fact, someone playing the part. The agents concerned included members of the NAEA and RICS.
Both the RICS and the NAEA said at the time that they would set up inquiries. EYE asked both bodies about the progress of these and also for their reaction to the Transparency International call for professional bodies to expel any member implicated in money laundering.
Yesterday, we were unable to reach anyone at the NAEA for comment, but a spokesperson for the RICS said: “RICS demands the highest standards from our members, and where those high standards fall short, we will use the full weight of our regulatory powers to take action.
“A full and thorough investigation into those named by the From Russia With Cash programme is currently ongoing.
“While it would be inappropriate to comment on an ongoing case, we will be making a full statement once our investigation has concluded.
“RICS will always take stringent action against our own members that are found guilty of wrong-doing.
“However, at this present time, UK estate agents are not legally required to be licensed and many are not members of a professional body.
“We are calling for the introduction of a mandatory recognised licence for all estate agents.”
Comments (11)
The RICS will be in this for the money, nothing more.
Statutory regulaton, completely separate from RICS and NAEA is what is required.
RICS and NAEA have and can only slap an agent on the hand.
At worse RICS and NAEA have only been able to fine or ban agents from membership and not all agents may want to HAVE to join NAEA for their other rules?
In the USA licencing WORKS as agents engage in mutual collaboration and thus cobroker deals together making he MLS their lifeline to income via access mass local properties.
As such a US realtor that messes about gets a heavy fine or booted out and banned from the MLS (which loses their income) lifeline.
With RM and Zippy being the main market outlets, RICS and NAEA have no standing to ban agents from that market place.
We have some great legislation in place now under CPRs and BPRs where neutral independent bodies like HMRC and NTSEAT can penalise agents who don’t run to regulations. At the same time this standing legislation means agents don’t have to engage in NAEA or RICS training or other rules.
Great idea.
It should have happened 30 years ago.
I’m at at loss to understand why nobody wants to pick this up – maybe our property man in parliament, Mr. Hollinrake, needs to raise his head above the parapit and start giving us a voice in the commons – something we’ve sadly lacked for decades – or maybe he’s still too busy cosying up to his new fracking buddies!!!
Follow the money and connections, then you wil see why.
RICS should not be let anywhere near regulating estat agents.
Should criminal actions not be dealt with by the police? I just see all these so called professional bodies as being their own money raising schemes. Ask anyone who pays extortionately excessive membership fees to bodies like the RICS (over £600 per year for some levels of membership)
Most agents would welcome licencing and most have been calling for it for ages.
The reality, however, is that it’s a hollow call until such time as the resources are there to police it.
Every one of our network reports competitors not complying with existing regulations. We have many examples of such non compliance being reported to national Trading Standards whose response is “Please note – whilst we welcome and use all information supplied to us about trading practices in the estate agency industry, we do not have the resources to deal with individual complaints or business advice. You may therefore not receive a further response to your email.”
I am not blaming Trading Standards – they don’t have the money. Until this is resolved we need the self proclaimed professional organisations & regulators to work together in supporting their members to highlight agents who flout existing rules.
We are advising on people’s most valuable asset, their home.
At the moment you could be running a tanning salon one day and an estate agency the next and in the current market it’s perfect for opportunists.
You can’t just set yourself up as an adviser on mortgages, pensions or investments, why should it be any different on property?
It’s not about the RICS or NAEA, it’s what’s best for the public, surely they have the right to expect minimum standards of competency from us?
Re the theft of client’s money, that’s exactly the point. The RICS and NAEA can expel them but that doesn’t stop them working in the industry.
A national register would allow Trading Standards in each area to check from their desk if a local agent is licensed and be able to close them down if they haven’t.
Well said. Mandatory licensing must be the way forward – as long as it is independent of all existing professional bodies. All agents should have to undergo the full licensing process, whatever that might entail. No-one – whether they be NAEA and RICS members or not – should just be nodded through. Meanwhile, as very much an interim measure, the NAEA and RICS could perhaps institute a system whereby, when they expel an agent, they routinely issue press statements to all media serving that agent’s market, announcing that the firm has been drummed out, and why…
RICS can not be trusted with this, of that I am absolutely sure.
2 Questions;
1, would RICS and or the NAEA have anything to gain from the impulsion of licensing?
2, would licensing stop the theft of client’s money, being a member of either of them hasn’t stopped it?
Fred:
RICS only want this for the money it will bring in to RICS. The Institution is a self serving one. It does very little for its professional members, and fails to protect the public.
No, being a member of RICS (and I suspect NAEA) does not protect client’s money.