More than 100 agents are said to have attended yesterday’s meeting of OnTheMarket dissidents.
All press had apparently been banned, including us. EYE was told: “The press both industry and national will not be allowed to attend. We will provide statements after the meeting as advised by barristers.”
We can therefore only report on what we have been given since in a statement regarding the meeting plus comment from OnTheMarket.
Yesterday’s meeting organiser Iain White, an industry consultant whose clients include Choices whose chairman is Simon Shinerock, said that the agents believe they were misled by Agents Mutual, which launched OTM.
He said that the agents say they were promised that on joining their subscription fees would always be equal to, or lower than, those charged to members who joined later.
He said the suggestion now is that Agents Mutual had in fact been offering subscriptions at a much lower price, disadvantaging earlier members.
White said in the statement after the meeting that more than 200 agents across the UK had registered their interest in taking action against Agents Mutual.
White said: “There are a lot of aggrieved property professionals who consider that they have been unfairly treated by Agents Mutual.
“On Monday morning our information session in central London was full.
“The level of outrage among Agents Mutual members who attended is significant. It’s understandable that these small business owners wish to protect their interests.
“Now is the time for Agents Mutual to provide urgent clarity on what pricing offers it has made to attract new customers since it launched.
“Affected firms are potentially out of pocket and have a portal which is not meeting their requirements, let alone achieving the success and volume of enquiries that they were promised in return for their early financial commitment.”
Yesterday’s statement said that a steering group had been formed, and that law firm Tollers had offered to represent the group, together with barrister Ian Rees Phillips.
In notes to editors, the statement added that Tollers’ partner Ian Carson has previously acted for claimants in multiple group litigation. It also underlined that White “makes no financial gain from his involvement in the OnTheMarket action group”.
The ‘explanatory’ notes did not explain who is bankrolling the group, or why.
Last night, asked to comment, a spokesperson for OTM told EYE: “While we by no means take it lightly that some agents are ‘disgruntled’, the broader context is that the apparent supporters of Mr White’s ‘Action Group’ represent between 1% and 3% of our agents. The overwhelming majority of member agents remain wholly supportive ofOnTheMarket.com and of our shared long-term commitment to build the best portal for consumers and agents alike.
“Regarding allegations that some agents are considering legal action againstOnTheMarket.com for alleged misrepresentations made in relation to pricing policy, we have no reason to believe that there are any grounds for legal action.
“The board and management team of Agents’ Mutual have at every stage of the company’s inception and development taken suitable legal advice.
“We continue to take appropriate legal action to ensure that agents meet their contractual obligations.”
Comments (31)
Choices ? Shinerock ? Oh yes, pinch me again. Isn’t he the little boy who wasn’t invited to the party so ran home to mummy to get some matches to try and burn the place down ? Funny how he doesn’t choose to comment on an article in which he’s mentioned. On EAT, he’d be there in a nanosecond. Too busy preening himself in front of Mr White and his gullible fans methinks.
I suspect that the lawyers at EAT, oh sorry I mean the independent barristers for his 100 club, who probably have nothing whatsoever to do with EAT, have probably told him it might be a good idea to keep quiet.
The words dead, flogging and horse spring to mid however.
Why when ever Choices is mentioned, do people writing articles always have to tell/remind everyone who the chairman is? Seems a little odd. Especially as the majority reading them will already be aware, and if they are not, then it wouldn’t mean anything to them. hmm…
Lets face it no one had ever heard of Choices. Simon on the other hand has littered EAT (obviously as we now know because he has an involvement with it). He has also tried to do the same on here.
Funnily enough you don’t seem to jump to the defence of Ian Springett when he is mentioned instead of OTM…the word hypocrisy comes to mind.
Same could be said for INEA (Who i ask you shout) Trevor is a loud and lonely voice.
A point well made Smile….it is just Trevor and his third bedroom isn’t it!?!
“It’s understandable that these small business owners wish to protect their interests.”
Not really an ‘understandable’ choice of words, Mr White. Unless your name is Ratner, that is…
You get a hundred or so business owners together… lock them in a room… and get them to discuss openly and agree collectively how to “protect their interests”
Cartel, anyone…?
I’ll not embarrass Mr Mealham by asking him to confirm it fits the definition he’s been banging on about.
I stand corrected but didn’t TM say he was going as an invited industry observer … he is not a member of OTM I hasten to add, so his presence and lack of reporting back to the industry raises more than a few eyebrows!
All that should really matter for agents is that OTM succeeds long term . Not whether short term ‘cheaper deals’ are offered to some, to get them on board (if that’s what’s happening). Certainly, getting more agents on board is key to OTM’s success.
It’s such a shame that much needed funds and energy will now need to be spent by Agents’ Mutual defending this claim. In reality, all OTM members will likely suffer as a result.
Same could be said about all the time, money and resource put into creating an overseas section, basically for the big corporates. Agents mutual indeed…!
AM members outside the inner circle of the 6 or so founders have been led up the garden path and duped into thinking an unknown website with insufficient funds and naive joining terms was ever going to challenge the 2 big guns. It was, and never will be about bringing them down. Number 2? Mwahhahahah. It was only ever about making a bit more cash from an eventual sale (although it’s not very appealing and sliding further downhill) and recouping “losses” from selling PrimeLocation too cheaply. ZPG and RMV are valued in the £billions and there is some resentment. That’s it. I think it’s time to get back to keeping it simple and negotiating your rates hard with the 2 big guns and concentrate on selling/letting property. Not one single consumer gives a monkey’s about our marketing costs and our fight with portals. Diddums.
Interesting comments … who ever said it was about brining down any other web portal? The aim of OTM was to bring down fee’s for agents, which it did and a platform for the public to see agents properties, which it does. It was that simple, not complicated and still is the same today.
The other hype is a continued conspiracy by those that stand to loose out, charge higher fee’s, sell agents data to third parties and assist those that openly wish to kill off High Street agents for their own personal financial profit and provide a poorer service to the consumer. One is quick to argue consumer rights, how about the same principle applying to business’s? Agents have a choice to join if they wish, if not that’s there decision not yours or anyone else.
Bang on!
yeah simples innit?
except OTM traffic isn’t anywhere near RM (I haven’t seen any comp stats for zoopla of late, anyone? ) so we all could start a portal and charge owt for nowt, could we not?
Consumer P, in war time you would be the one surrendering, some of us have some fight and dont like being at the whim of bullying corporations.
The cats out the bag now for not only was it made clear to everyone over levels of membership and fee’s associated from the very beginning, long before anyone put pen to an agreement with AM …. we will soon see who the 100 are, as they will have to be named in any action and it will be interesting to see if this actually gets off the ground, for if it doesn’t this will rebound on those trouble makers and may effectively put to an end all this silliness by those wishing to destroy a business that was freely entered into by its members and was always their choice with no loaded gun put to there head. The other test will be the “liable” issue for those that have been instrumental in taking this route and if found they are wrong? The process they adopted amounts to conspiracy, a class action is not adopted until after each individual is legally independently assessed/advised.
People joined OTM to make it the 2nd portal to RM. You can survive just with RM, not just with Zoopla. So having a second portal that was cheaper than Zoopla made commercial sense. Zoopla’s data is shockingly bad/inaccurate and the number leads provided are around 80% less than RM. (in my experience) What about Zoopla’s latest advertising that implies that people buy houses based upon energy efficiency!!? Has a buyer ever said – “oh gosh, I am withdrawing from my purchase of my dream, turn of the century, listed cottage as it isn’t currently energy efficient” – NO NEVER!
Much to the readers amusement, after the above bashing of Zoopla we are with them & RM as potential vendors have head of Zoopla and not OTM – and since our local competitors have gone to OTM this helps us!
Vive la revolution!!!! 🙂
100 out of 7000
I think this is 100 rubbish agents who blame OTM for their crapness
Sell your properties to your database without portals! – it’s easy we do it every day
100 out of 7000
I think this is 100 **** agents who blame OTM for their crapness
Sell your properties to your database without portals! – it’s easy we do it every day
hmm useful comment. How about selling on your database and saving £500 by dumping a useless rightmove loving portal otm?? You obviously dont look at your outgoings
As a gold member who was in at the start, I’m afraid Mr White certainly doesn’t speak for me. We all know that in RM, the industry created a monster it now can’t control. We all know that Zoopla simply seemed hell bent on replicating the Rightmove model, so our costs were almost being doubled.
OnTheMarket is the only credible means for the industry to try to regain control of our own futures. The fact is that if all the OTM members had been minded to ditch Rightmove and retain Zoopla, then Rightmove would have been dead in the water within hours.
Instead of whingeing and sniping, I would prefer to see people supporting OTM – it exists for the benefit of it’s members.
Sounds like pie in the sky as how exactly would Z acquire something that is not shareholder-owned?
And who in their right mind would sell out to Z given the history of hostility between the two? Let’s not forget that OTM has been up and running for less than 18 months so why throw in the towel now? OTM is still gaining traction and it’s up to us members to support it and promote it as much as we can because going back to a RM/Z duopoly whose track record on price-ramping is hardly a mouth-watering prospect.
The disgruntled group cited above are simply looking to stir things up possibly because they are failing in other ways and looking for someone to kick. We for one were never promised that later joiners would be charged the same or more than us – so I fear they will have a job trying to make that one stick. We have no problem with later entrants being offered a lower entry fee provided this was linked to a fuller form of membership once a critical mass of membership was reached. The only people to make anything out of this angry little bunch will be the lawyers.
This situation isn’t doing anything for the industry and especially the consumer who appears to be forgotten by many in this debate/issue. But there is a solution that could provide a positive outcome for everyone.
I suggest that AM/OTM be acquired by Zoopla. This would result in the following:
1. Zoopla would gain a much better and much needed new platform
2. Zoopla will provide the consumers OTM hasn’t to date and won’t unless many £millions are invested (which can only come from EA’s)
3. EA’s that invested in AM/OTM will have a shareholding in Zoopla – this could be held as a block vote that whilst nowhere near a majority will give considerable clout, more than any individual corporate
4. Members of this shareholder group will enjoy reduced rates as per the corporates plus have a voice for future development
5. Zoopla can then set about challenging Rightmove – something AM/OTM will not be able to do without £millions
6. EA’s who are shareholders will receive dividends either in cash or in exchange for different services
Those that set up AM/OTM will be able to hold their heads high having truly achieved something for the industry – a part owned portal that will have EA input if not control (and how much control does the average EA have of AM/OTM anyway?)
Is that you Ian ?
Well, that ain’t gunna happen. OTM is (rightly) proud of its purpose and joining the very businesses they wish to topple is beyond unimaginable.
Zoopla can then set about challenging Rightmove? Ermmm, that’s what they told us they would do when they signed us up.
They then proceeded to roger their agents senseless by copying RM.
Z had their chance. They blew it.
“Zoopla will provide the consumers OTM hasn’t to date” – Zoopla never provided us with any useful leads whilst we were with them. They were dropped long before On The Market came along.
You realise Zoopla is a public company right? Also the platform comment is a little odd considering they have a bigger, better and more enriched website, as do RM.
I want 1 billion pound for my share.
This is nuttier than squirrel plop plops.
If those 100 agents came off Rightmove at the start they wouldnt be crying now.
People still ask what the spitfire signs are in agents windows. lol
Glad I new other agents couldnt be trusted to leave rightmove and so only signed for 1 year…