The agent that was listing on all three portals earlier this week was yesterday invisible at OnThe Market.
The agent was highlighted this week on EYE, and we have screengrabs to show that 247 Property Services was listing the same property on Rightmove, Zoopla and OTM – in apparent breach of OTM’s strict ‘one other portal’ rule.
A spokesperson said yesterday: “We have a continuous and robust process in place to help us monitor and enforce our ‘one other portal’ rule, whereby agents joining OnTheMarket.com agree to list their properties with us and a maximum of one other competing portal.
“We react promptly when potential breaches of this commitment are drawn to our attention.
“We do not believe it would be appropriate to comment further via the media on our contractual relations with this agent.”
247 has also been offering a £99 listings service for vendors on the portals, on which only Zoopla has so far commented.
Comments (26)
247 Property Services are letting agents who think £99 is money for old rope, what you save on a proper agent’s fees you probably lose more than double that off your selling price. Stupid agents selling for stupid vendors. Paying upfront means no incentive for the agent, sellers are more inclined to take a lower offer rather than lose what they’ve spent already and going with via a proper agent.
Dude I’m guessing 247 Property Services wasn’t made for people who don’t understand 247 Property Services. Its for people who are dreamers, innovators and disruptors. Also people are stupid.
“Also people are stupid”
Amen to that! 🙂
Rather contradictory, banning an agent for advertising on all three , considering they’ve broke their own rules allowing internet agents to advertise on their website….
Boom!
I get the impression that even the directors of otm are starting to lose interest.
I can’t remember the last time I saw a tv ad or any statement from Mr Springett.
They’ve run out of money, Winny. And did so quite a while ago. Where’s the money gone? Horrible, awkward, embarrassing court cases. No more marketing for OTM for the foreseeable…
We are gold members of on the market and dropped Zoopla to join at the outset. We like most agents are very disappointed with on the market and about a month ago we rejoined Zoopla, the amount of inquiries we have received has surprised us and we get more from Zoopla than Righmove. We received an email from on the market a few days saying that unless we dropped one of the portals they would hide our properties which they have just done. I sent the following email to on the market but doubt I will get a response:
There is plenty you could help with and the first is fulfilling your end of the bargain. Since day one we have had no support, no leads of any worth and just a large hole in my pocket every month. You will not succeed due to your total lack of understanding and your inability to realise that you will not be able to become a market leader or get anywhere near. I mention on the market .com to clients, friends etc and they say they have never heard of you so I do not bother anymore. Since listing again with Zoopla the amount of leads exceeds that of Rightmove. I will not be leaving Zoopla or Rightmove so your silly trick of hiding my properties only works against you and not me!!!! At least my lady who uploads properties will have one less job to do. Please feel free to spend my money as you wish, in the end it will count against you.
Spot on
Good luck with them.
Truth.
I would have some sympathy with OTM if their portal produced anything like the results they projected, which sadly, even after 18 months it has not, in fact it is nowhere near. The number of leads we receive is paltry, and well outnumbered by the rubbish promotional literature and updates they send. The commitment we made to them in terms of cost and time is simply not justified. Conversely the number of Zoopla sales and rental leads we receive is increasing.
We thank Property Industry Eye for bringing this to our attention. 247 Property Services Limited has always solely marketed our properties on RightMove and Zoopla along with the smaller, independent portals. When OnTheMarket was first mooted we investigated the possibility of joining them at launch, however, due to what we felt were restrictive requirements, we chose not to. Our Landlords all pay the same 10% monthly fee, for the management and advertising of their properties, thus we thought that OnTheMarket’s requirement to solely advertise with them for a period was not good value for money. Advertising on both RightMove & Zoopla, who do not have this restrictive caveat, seemed far better value.
247 Property Services as a business work on a franchise basis with only Doncaster “HQ” being wholly owned by the founders. Individual franchisees are free to choose their own portal providers dependent on their budget. One of the franchisees chose to utilise the services of OnTheMarket and an internal software configuration error led to the properties from all branches being advertised through OnTheMarket, this of course has now been corrected. At no time did 247 Property Services (Doncaster) receive leads supplied through this portal, they were all sent to the franchisee who paid for their services.
With regards to the £99 to get online, we felt that a very cluttered, and what is deemed expensive by the public, marketplace needed a shakeup. 247 Property Services acted as the estate agent for the vendors, the only difference was the vendor carried out their own viewings, a practise that is not uncommon whilst the vendor is still resident at their property. All offers for purchase of the property were negotiated by 247 Property Services thus we feel the allegation of reselling space is unfounded. How do you define an estate agent? They market, negotiate and complete sales of properties. This was something 247 Property Services carries out for their vendors. The £99 sales fee, along with our 10% plus VAT management fee for our managed rental properties, is excellent value for money for our clients and we will continue the practice of offering excellent value for money across our product range.
Whilst 247 Property Services Ltd understand and accept the point raised in the article regarding OnTheMarket’s restrictive practice we, at no time, as a company advertised through them. We also note that the franchisee’s properties have been removed from their portal and agree that this was the correct course of action given OnTheMarket’s terms and conditions. We have always, and will continue to do so, solely marketed our properties through Zoopla and RightMove and we look forward to a long and happy relationship with these portal providers.
I suggest you increase your fees otherwise you will be bust soon
“One of the franchisees chose to utilise the services of OnTheMarket and an internal software configuration error led to the properties from all branches being advertised through OnTheMarket, this of course has now been corrected… we, at no time, as a company advertised through them.”
In a word – b0110cks.
If you want the full version – pure, unadulterated b0110cks.
The evidence was shown here yesterday – http://www.propertyindustryeye.com/agency-offering-vendors-99-service-simply-get-property/
Talk us all through what “software configuration error” put the OTM logo on your company website?
Good try at a clean-up – most of the offending information has been scrubbed.
But you were caught out with your pants round your ankles. Best option now is to hold hands up and admit it – or lose any scrap of credibility there is to walk away with.
You’re only one party in this mess – it has taken two to tango.
Lies and losses catch up with liars and losers!
I wouldn’t worry about it PeeBee – nobody outside of this forum and a disappointed sales person has even noticed they’re on OTM or not.
Our main website is a generic group website with interlinking franchise sites, one of our franchisees was using the OTM service, this is why the logo was included on the site and mentioned in the text. As the franchisees properties are no longer on OTM the logo and text has been removed.
We had an idea with the £99 promo and went with it, now, as we have been informed it did not meet the portal provider’s criteria, we have removed the offer and all relating information. We are always looking at ways of reducing costs to landlords and vendors and will continue to do so. We do not run a “pile em high and sell em cheap” business. Our company has grown tremendously over the last 7 years by making it affordable for landlords, tenants and now vendors and do not foresee a change in that ethos.
We have made the corrections as requested by the portals and now look forward to resuming our busy day.
Trust me – the time to stop digging the hole was before you posted this.
So are you paying the national estate agent rate with RM?? Pray tell what are your fee’s with RM & Z?
For vendors £99 and 10% landlords …. makes me laugh more, not in the wildest dream would you cover the cost and make a profit with all your other overheads! RM rules are that you may not act as a outlet for the purpose of private sellers/landlords and that is exactly what you have been caught doing. Maybe you would like to comment on RM restrictive practises as much as you are concerned about OTM.
RM said some years ago they would expel agents acting for private sellers!
Not so quick to jump in and defend yourself now that you have been exposed. Dug yourself a big hole trying to defend your indefensible conduct, another big mistake.
Interestingly everyone so far, has not commented on RM rules over membership which the agent broke.
On the Market have continuous and robust process in place to help us monitor and enforce our ‘one other portal’ rule but rely on other people to tell them is someone is breaking their rules.
You couldn’t make up a story like that even if you tried!
so the “robust” process to enforce the one portal rule is to tell new subscribers not to break it and then rely on other agents to grass them up if they see they are seen to be breaking this rule.
I mean, its a process, but it’s just about the least robust process you could ever create!
Rough translation “we gave these chaps a years contract at £50 and they have threatened to tell everyone if we kick them off”
It might not be appropriate to comment but it is important to be seen to act swiftly and decisively. Social media is awash with mutterings and disquiet about how the rules are being flaunted on some unfathomable basis; getting into legal challenge with firms paying significantly more and with more branches for doing nothing different to a couple of chaps operating from the upstairs snug of a pub.