Two long-standing opponents of OnTheMarket, Russell Quirk and Trevor Mealham – the pair opposed to OTM’s ‘one other portal rule’ and its ban of online agents – have publicly called for the NAEA to quit the board, following the Competition and Markets Authority’s ‘cartel’ warning last week.
NAEA managing director Hayward was appointed a director of Agents’ Mutual, the firm which set up OTM, in October 2013, when the NAEA finally ditched its own ill-fated portal, PropertyLive.
Yesterday afternoon, Hayward told EYE: “I have an unpaid position on the Agents Mutual board, representing our members who are in turn members of OTM.
“The NAEA is aware not all our members support OTM and we have never directed our members towards one portal over another.
“As a membership body we are at pains to ensure that our members are aware of their legal requirements and adhere to legislation.
“The CMA did not consult the NAEA as to the contents of the letter. They purely asked for a comment and for NAEA to ensure that it was circulated to all our members, which is of course what we have done.”
The calls to resign, from Trevor Mealham and Russell Quirk, come after the CMA last week published an open letter to agents warning them against colluding with each other over portal choices. Both Mealham and Quirk are unable to list properties on OTM.
Mealham has also called for the CMA to scrutinise all nine directors of Agents’ Mutual and the two directors of OnTheMarket.
Quirk has additionally called for OTM chief executive Ian Springett to resign.
Last week, the CMA quoted Hayward, saying he was managing director of the NAEA but without reference to his directorship at Agents’ Mutual.
Mealham has now written to the CMA saying that Hayward should not be both “a poacher and gamekeeper”, and that future reference to him should describe his links to Agents’ Mutual.
He has also written to NAEA president Martyn Baum, saying that Hayward is wearing two hats and “shouldn’t be allowed near anything that could influence the CMA”.
Mealham said that the NAEA supports both traditional and online agents. However, OTM bans online agents.
Quirk said that OTM member agents should quit or lobby OTM to drop the one other portal rule, adding: “Jumping ship whilst there is still a ship to jump from may be a smart idea, although those already contacted by the CMA due to their involvement, will probably be going down with it.”
He said that the NAEA must step off the board and that Springett should step down as CEO.
OnTheMarket comes out fighting and declares ‘We are here to stay’
Comments (39)
This culling was presumably performance/quality related, perhaps agents who weren’t operating at the level which you thought acceptable and who didn’t portray INEA in the right light?
Haven’t you done to agents what OTM are doing to you? Then for the delicate matter of passive intermediaries, would a lying cheating rogue of a lister be allowed on INEA? if not where are your boundaries for inclusion/exclusion?
What happens if Trev can prove the 400 branch reduction is down to OTM’s OOP? I’m not saying it is just asking the question.
Or what if he can’t?
Nice one Robert – but sadly not true. The culling was mainly down to us, but I can say some agents pulled off by AM/OTM cheap shot threats. As such we looked close into EU competition law, thus have taken the stance we have.
There you go again …. “we” …. is that the royal we or just you and which chapter and verse have they broken under EU competition law seeing as you looked? Now should it be none, what was the point in making the comment?
Would you care to answer my questions from above as well while your at it on your estate agency and law professional qualifications? Creditability is an important trait of yours about others and I suspect is double standard to something you haven’t got considering your “expert and legal opinions”.
Woodentop – just name yourself and you too may have some credibility. Yes even the impossible can happen.
I don’t give a fuppenny who ‘Woodentop’ is. Or ‘smile please’. Or pretty much anyone here who prefers not to post under their ‘real’ name.
They have equal credibility in my eyes as the majority of posters who use their own name – and far more than a great many.
Funny, that.
So the lack of an answer is NO QUALIFICATIONS, that says a lot about how well qualified you are.
Maybe they just used that as a way to let you down Trevor.
Same way occasionally we get a vendor saying they are staying put and a week later they are on with another agent. Basically just an easy way of letting you down.
Maybe smile 🙂
We have also just started 2 trials with one of the biggest ‘Online Only’ agencies…
You won’t have a problem with naming them, then.
…and we also have a trial a few weeks in with one corporate office.
SORRY? T055ed away your ‘Independent’ claim to status?
I feel another name change coming on – looks like the NEA is about to be born… before we know it you’ll be down to ‘A’.
Less ink spend on your calling card, I guess…
Sounds like Peebee doesn’t understand cartels and Eu law. We can’t stop budget agents, online only etc from joining INEA, alike neither can RM or Z so long as an agent abides by UK / Eu laws.
AM/OTM do place bans.
So long as consumers gain best service, there really isn’t any reason corps and independents and even online only agents shouldn’t collaborate.
Mind you, I can see why PeeBee and Woodentop would have trouble working with others. ……..
I’m sorry, Mr Mealham – but where, exactly, did I say anything about your stopping ANYONE from joining your club?
I simply suggested that you may wish to name the new recruit you describe as “one of the biggest ‘Online Only’ agencies”
Similarly, I questioned whether the letter ‘I’ would need to be removed from your club’s name if non-Independent companies were joining.
Interesting comment above – you state
We can’t stop budget agents, online only etc from joining
yet here on EYE, on 22/1/15, you made the comment
A national UK MLS would see fees grow to 2-2.5% to then split. BUDGET agents could be excluded as they wouldnt have the higher fees to split.
You seem to be struggling with words and their meaning, Mr Mealham.
Again.
Okay…
Mr Mealham has been banging on like a demented Duracell Bunny about “collusion”; “cartels” and “restrictive” this, “anticompetitive” that and “unfair” the other.
Interestingly, the internet is littered with comments from Mr Mealham which raise eyebrows if not questions in connection to the actions of his own ‘Members’ activities – such as
Last 2 weeks INEA linked up 6 Shepway agents who will mls share listings… 2 of those serving notice to RM. Estimatr those agents will each have 60/80 sub listings to offer on top of own stock. Non like OTM / future is agents collaborating as was common traditionally many years ago. Lets bring back higher shared fees and access to more stock. Lets lose thse high portal fees. (8/5/15)
and
I think part challenge is main portals allowing the likes of Easy, Purple, etc etc in… As such its easier to ask a buyer to pay a higher fee. Than have to fight other agents offering budget fees to sellers. In many ways traditional agent models would be better off such main portals. All said many feel they can’t be. (8/6/15)
and
If agents collaborate not all agents need be on all portals. (5/5/15)
not to mention
There are more portals coming next year. Rightmove and zoopla are becoming expensive so not all properties are on them now (2014)
although I would suggest THIS one paints the best picture
Agent B multi-lists the property (PRE hitting the main portals)… Agent A sends his tenants along to view… Fast let and both agents make a comm. Only a major portal was harmed in the process… We have agents doing deals simply this way before the main portals even get data… Give agents a 2 week main to sub agent share time and then release to main portals. Would totally screw them and their shareholders.
On 1 May 2104, EYE ran a story entitled “More free-to-list ‘agents’ advertise on the big two portals“.
The story included the following
A furious Trevor Mealham, of the Independent Network of Estate Agents, hit out at the portals for allowing low-cost, and no-cost, operators to list… He said: “It means private landlords are let in the back door, and not only for free, but being paid to put properties there. Furthermore, it is properties that agents won’t be getting… “It’s wrong. I think large portals are taking the mickey, and biting the hand that feeds them.”
I would suggest that the above – by Mr Mealham’s hand alone – speaks far more volumes about the subject than anything anyone could possibly comment.
But if anyone wants to rummage among the thousands of other quotes…
Which search engine do you use to show articles from 2104? My google only shows past results :’-(
Hmmm – catch22 position…
…if I tell you I’d be accused of plugging Mr May’s creation
…if I don’t you’ll think I’m not a team player.
Decisions, decisions.
Maybe if I Rummage4 the best answer…
;o)
I think you all seem to be missing their/the point, it is hypicritical to be on a board unpaid or not, that bans agents who are online or multi listing agents when some of them are his members from his paid job’s body (which his paid job encourages them to join) because of their business model, what you knock them for in your posts is not the subject these two men are talking about here, however have you not thought that should otm/am remove this ruling that they may then join and make otm much stronger overnight and gain them the traction that otherwise will take them over a year more to achieve at the current sign on rate!
As for smile, he has made a decision to join because it is gaining traction (slowly but surely) but mostly because the rate offered was so inconsequential to his cash flow that it would have been a bad decision not to join and that is the main reason I believe however I am not a fly on his wall and it is not my business to run but good luck to him.
Steve you have a valid point. The other portal rule was always a bone of contention with some but many can’t afford to be on three or more unless its free. From one point it made sense in gaining a foothold and rejuvenate a stagnate and duopoly that existed. However it allowed the hijackers ammunition to continue shooting OTM down.
I for one see no point in continuing with the one other portal rule.
OTM has massive traction in the market today and this continued argument is not helping and would instantly shut up all those agents who say they won’t join because of it. My suspicions are that the numbers will not grow sizeably over this rule change, for many anti OTM have other agenda and use it as an easy smoke screen to annoy. However I do understand the relevance why AM wish to continue with the rule, which one freely enters into and breaks no UK laws. If it did, half the UK’s blue chips companies and all trade unions would be in court.
AM need to review what they are doing and make a judgement call on their current position and future of the 5 year business plan. I for one will not return to any other portal, as too many portals is costly and is a distraction for the public to search around, for they want an easy option.
My letter was to say that Mark should now pull out from AM or Martyn Baum representing NAEA should ask Mark to step down.
NAEA has traditional High Street agents and ‘online only’ agents. They should SUPPORT both sets equally.
If OTM is as bad as he says, why does Russell Quirk give a stuff about estate agents throwing their money down the toilet and pressing flush?
After all if it goes bits up as he assures us it will, it’ll leave the market wide open to him and for probably the first time ever he’ll be able to say he got a prediction right.
I’ve seen competitors spend a fortune or duff marketing strategy and the last thing I want to do is point out the the error of their ways!
Can someone please enlighten me?
1. How many agents does Trevor Mealham represent, and in what capacity?
2. How many agents does Russell Quirk represent, and in what capacity?
Whilst very nice to have the ‘likes’ (thank you) I am actually partly serious in my questions.
Of course we know Mr Q represents no-one but himself. But what about Mr Mealham? Perhaps he could come on here and tell us just who he represents and how many of them there are. Or does someone else actually know the answer?
@Agency Insider,
INEA has several hundred agent members.
As an industry voice I strongly believe that Agents Mutual with 9 directors colluding with OnTheMarket to:
1. Block agents from other platforms that would increase client exposure to more buyers and tenants is wrong
2. Not allowing ‘allowed to trade agents’ the ‘online only’ agents is wrong when UK law defines what an agent is.
AM and OTM’s cartel like agreements that restrain others are unfair in an open market to portal, portal like, agents and consumers.
Its time for the whole charade to change its ways or for the CMA, Trading Standards to now close the shop door.
No commercial entity should be allowed to continue making up its own rules when everybody else plays in line with the laws of the land.
Much obliged. But please could you be specific about the number of INEA agent members – firms/branches. ‘Several hundred’ is rather too vague for clarity and the facts would help everyone to understand exactly the scale of what you, as an ‘industry voice’, represent.
@ Agency Insider
We have around 200 member agents being 1. Traditional High Street models. 2. Online Only agents. We have also just started 2 trials with one of the biggest ‘Online Only’ agencies and we also have a trial a few weeks in with one corporate office and a number of independents working B2B with them.
So we do not show bias to any one type of agent. Under Competition law we know that we can not exclude any one type of lawfully trading agency under the Estate Agents Act 1979 who complies to a redress scheme and AML requirements.
As such we are shocked that AM/OTM ban ‘types’ of agents who are lawful and go against EU ethos to ban property traders from being able to use other lawful digital platforms.
Thus the NAEA’s senior members to use the NAEA banner to support AM/OTM seems VERY WRONG.
Many thanks.
@Agency Insider – Who are you (name) and what do you do please?
Why does it matter who he/she is and what he/she does?
It’s the words that count – not the name and jobrole.
It matters as people know I have 30 years in the game and bits I’ve done/not done. Knowing who is behind the view is important.
NO – IT ISN’T.
You still have a lot of learning to do, Mr Mealham.
Refusal to accept that basic fact is holding you back.
We have around 200 member agents…
Oh, dear – on 18/1/13 you stated
We have around 600+ agents in INEA. Another 2 joined today. London, Surrey, Reading are all growing well
Something’s not gone according to The Master Plan, methinks…
Sounds like he is as good at figures as an online agent 😉
Well spotted PeeBee.
I have a question for Trev (unlikely to get an answer?) what professional qualifications do you have in Estate Agency and law?
Oh I think he’s answered those already on another thread, Woodentop.
Squat and bu99er all ring bells…
But then there’s a very good reason PeeBee. We’ve invested near £1m on back end next gen tech. Earlier days we encouraged more in (for free at times) to test multi-directional data sets. Post tests we have culled some agents whilst recruiting others.
Post tests we have culled some agents whilst recruiting others.
SOME?
At least two thirds of them, clearly…
Earlier days we encouraged more in (for free at times) to test multi-directional data sets
So nowt whatsoever to do with providing Agency customers (or consumers, as you seem to like to refer to them) a better service, then…
Oh, dear.
Any publicity is good publicity.
It stinks.
Can’t they just say clean and simple yes we shouldn’t be doing this. Next job – politics.
Is it possible to ask quirk to resign or is that ******* in the wind?