Agents’ Mutual, owner of OnTheMarket, has declined to make any comment on claims made by the OTM Action Group.
Members of the Action Group – which represents between 1% and 2% of Agents’ Mutual membership – have accused Agents’ Mutual of not addressing any of the concerns they have raised. There is no suggestion that Agents’ Mutual has not responded, only that the group is unhappy with the response it has had – which is a request for more information.
The group claims that Agents’ Mutual already has exactly this information, having supplied it in the first place.
The agents say that Agents’ Mutual requested, and was granted, 56 days to reply to the group’s Letter Before Action.
According to a press release issued by the OTM Action Group, members “believe they were misled by Agents’ Mutual over promises made on joining that their subscription fees would always be equal to, or lower than, members who joined at a later date.
“Their lengthy Letter Before Action, which ran to 24 pages including documentary evidence, set out the factual background of events before and after the launch of the OnTheMarket portal and then went on to explain how these events damaged their businesses.”
Lawyers Eversheds, on behalf of Agents’ Mutual, have informed the group that their client cannot reply substantively until supplied with the Information Memoranda from each member of the Action Group.
The press release goes on: “Agents’ Mutual provided these documents to the group members in the first place. All of this information is already in Agents’ Mutual’s possession.
“The letter from Eversheds completely fails to appreciate how annoyed and disappointed OTM-affiliated members are with Agents’ Mutual.”
Nick Crayson of Crayson Estate Agents, who sits on the steering committee of the OTM Action Group, said: “Our members generously agreed to Agents’ Mutual’s request for an unusually lengthy period of time to properly respond to our detailed Letter Before Action.
“To now send a letter claiming that they can’t address the issues raised, because they haven’t been provided with documents which they created in the first place, shows that Agents’ Mutual are happy to act cynically in order to frustrate the claims of the OTM Action Group.
“There is no reason why Agents’ Mutual cannot respond substantively to the issues raised. They created the very same documents which they now seek from our members.
“Our members are happy to meet with Agents’ Mutual to attempt to resolve these matters informally but it is impossible to do so if Agents’ Mutual refuse to set out their response to our claims.
“In the meantime, it is no wonder that so many Agents’ Mutual members have simply stopped paying their subscriptions.”
EYE put the entire press release to Agents’ Mutual but, as we have said, the organisation declined to comment.
Comments (18)
A few years ago many said this whole project would remain unknown by the public and disliked by the media. Now it seems it could be going to court against its members too. After all this crowing, it still hasn’t moved forward and its hard to see it ever doing so.
The trouble with action groups is that each member of that action group is an individual and according has to be treated as such with any communication from AM. If the action group wishes to pursue information that they already have … well how can that be considered not addressing their concerns and providing information? This story seems to be more “have a go”.
Lawyers Eversheds, on behalf of Agents’ Mutual, have informed the group that their client cannot reply substantively until supplied with the Information Memoranda from each member of the Action Group.
This is correct course of action as each individual member can either try a claim for damages or accept a settlement based on their individual circumstances entering into the contracture arrangements if that situation ever arise. This story is more about a group that does not understand the legal process, that they have instigated.
EXACTLY, Woodentop.
It would make some people wonder how they manage to tie their shoelaces unaided…
What we seem to have is a few agents for whatever reason deciding that they no longer want to be part of OTM and then looking for a reason to get out. Lets be clear here, I am an OTM customer, I joined not because I thought we were going to get any more leads than Zoopla but because in my opinion it’s a way for agents to take back some control of the online market.
As any business owner would I looked at the cost to me before making the decision. I didn’t decide based on the cost to others.
Rightmove have had a fairly stable pricing structure, we all know that try as we might there is very little room for movement or deals to be had. Zoopla have a different approach, you can certainly apply a little pressure and get a deal, it’s no secret that they have been trying to win back customers lost to OTM by offering cheap prices (can’t say I blame them).
So, agent signs up with OTM, Zoopla approaches with a reduced price to win them back and agent thinks ok but I signed a contract, how do I get out of it? If left alone they probably wouldn’t waste their time but with an action group in place it’s easy, just join, sit back and wait for an outcome.
I think this approach is short sighted. It was interesting to hear the Purple Bricks update today, if any agent is ignoring the online threat then they have their head in the sand. OTM is the only portal available to us that is 100% behind High Street agents and make no mistake the landscape is changing and we need to adapt.
I have a somewhat traditional approach to agency with a huge focus on running a fit database of regularly contacted applicants. I need Rightmove at the moment but my second choice could be either OTM or Zoopla. I don’t accept the argument that I am doing my clients a disservice by choosing OTM over a more established Zoopla as portals are only one element of my sales process.
I am happy with what I am paying and if OTM look to expand by offering some deals I am right behind them. More agents means more property, more property means more of the general public will use the site which means my stock will be seen by more people. The pricing will come out in the wash, from what I am told the reduced amounts are for a fixed term only. Those agents deciding on price will be fair game for OTM and Zoopla and lets be honest here, cutting prices to obtain more customers is hardly a radical sales approach. As an industry we may even be guilty of that one ourselves……..
You could even look at it as a form of radical portal juggling, rather than relaunching stock on the same portal switch to a completely new one every six months!
So let’s not lose sight of what this is about. I can understand why OTM feel the need to enforce contracts, I accept (but don’t agree with) the fact that some agents make a decision on price. This is a storm in a tea cup which shouldn’t distract us from the storm of change that is gathering just over the horizon. Time to choose a side and fight for our industry.
AMEN to the vast majority of the above!
‘OTM is the only portal available to us that is 100% behind High Street agents’
Are you positive about that?
http://www.propertyindustryeye.com/onthemarket-says-firm-calling-online-agent-twitter-allowed-advertise/
In fairness, TheJB – they are “100% behind High Street Agents”.
They also seem to be the same 100% behind a few ‘back-street’ ones, too.
You should have been a barrister PeeBee, you’d get Crippen off on a technicality!
The JB, You make a valid point, I seem to have missed that days copy of PIE.
We may have to excuse them for that oversight!
That said, we need to stop this petty squabbling, the online agents must be having a good laugh at us right now. Here is a once in a lifetime opportunity to wrestle back some control of our industry and we’re moaning that somebody else is paying a little less or they have let in the wrong agent.
Let’s accept the fact that an agent owned portal is a great idea and get behind it. let’s rise above the petty comments of the ‘action groups’ and ignore the general mud flinging from the fixed price merchants.
If you’re an OTM member then spread the word in the most appropriate ‘non-cartel’ way you can think of. Talk to the non OTM agents in your area and let them know why it’s a great idea. I know that competitive streak we all have is hard to hide but every now and then we need to act for the greater good.
We should be getting involved and helping in any way we can rather than commenting from the sidelines.
Here endeth the sermon.
This bunch of short-termist whingers is claiming OTM has damaged their businesses whilst seemingly oblivious to the damage they are doing to OTM by making their case so public.
And then they wonder why OTM don’t invite them round for a nice cosy chat by the fire.
I really don’t think I could have put it better.
I’d have padded it out with many words that would have sent Ros’ smutfilter into frickin’ meltdown – but it would have basically said the same!
Eversheds and their client are deliberately stalling providing the answers requested and that will only frustrate the unhappy to make them dig in further and of course apart from the diehards and the head in the sand boys it may actually encourage others to join them as they see it as unfair and obstructive of otm/am.
I do understand your pro argument of otm but you are only seeing your future and point of view which is arrogant in its reply.
Above reads:
1. According to a press release issued by the OTM Action Group, members “believe they were misled by Agents’ Mutual over promises made on joining that their subscription fees would always be equal to, or lower than, members who joined at a later date.
2. The agents say that Agents’ Mutual requested, and was granted, 56 days to reply to the group’s Letter Before Action.
3. “Our members are happy to meet with Agents’ Mutual to attempt to resolve these matters informally but it is impossible to do so if Agents’ Mutual refuse to set out their response to our claims.
** It looks like a valid request for answers, with ample time given. Surely AM/OTM would be best to meet the group with their lawyers and clear the whole thing up in a 2-3 hour meeting and keep members. Avoidance will lead to a show down, that will no doubt see many walk, and others follow.
*** Maybe it triggers agents to ask for other portals to look at lower pricing, if agents hear other agents on other main portals are paying less.
Agents typically pay portals out of their own pockets. Whereas budget models normally have VC’s funding their ‘we can save you £housands‘ to advertise side by side traditional agents on portals.
So, what are agents paying? for what portals? for how many offices?
“So, what are agents paying? for what portals? for how many offices?”
Now, now, Mr Mealham – you know fine well that those that sign the Agreements with RM & Z have also agreed to the portals harvesting a kidney should they even point to a figure written on a steamy mirror that might give away their Fee details.
Take a seat on the Naughty Step (there’s a space there next to your bezzie The Quirkster) for even thinking about such mutinous actions!
21 comments to beat… I reckon we’ll see 50 today!
Mine – for what it is worth – is that i feel this to be a more balanced article on the issue than I have read elsewhere.
I’ve given yo a like PeeBee, Equally I think the article could have been shortened to the 3 points below:
I certainly don’t think along the same lines, Sir.
But, then – I don’t subscribe to your agenda…
I guess the PB story trumps this one so 50 is looking a bit iffy…
…UNLESS…
You and me engage in a proper handbags jobby here, Mr Mealham!
You up for a rumble??
;o)