Agents could help fund the regulation of their own industry in future.
The idea was floated at this week’s Property Ombudsman conference when delegates were surprised to be effectively told: “If you want enforcement, you will have to pay for it.”
One agent who was among the delegates said he could hardly believe his ears.
The discussion was about cutbacks in trading standards services, where councils decide their priorities locally at the expense of trading standards in some areas.
Yesterday James Munro, team leader of industry regulator the National Trading Standards Estate Agency Team, told EYE: “We are suggesting that the estate agency industry could fund a certain amount of regulatory work in the same way that some intellectual property rights holders will fund local Trading Standards to protect their brands.
“We are currently working on some proposals in this area and hope to consult with the industry in the near future on how we can work together to help reputable businesses thrive and ensure that consumers are protected.”
Chris Wood, one of the agents at the conference, said: “My first reaction to the statement was that of incredulity, in that law-abiding agents are being asked to pay even more to police our industry despite having already paid our taxes to fund Trading Standards. However, we must be pragmatic.”
“My concern is that it should not be left to individual agents to fund regulation of the industry.
“I call on the NAEA and all the industry bodies, plus TPO and the other redress schemes, to step up to the plate and support this essential funding – even if only in the short term.”
While there is no detail available yet on how any future scheme might work, it is conceivable that the NAEA, for example, might help fund local Trading Standards investigations into portal juggling.
Comments (14)
I’m surprised by the lack of input by the anti-estate agent brigade who are normally off the block before I’ve had breakfast.
History proved in many cases that “Self-regulating” within an industry works. Getting it implemented is where the NAEA, RICS, ARLA & Co come into their own as the pressure group of the industry for change with the Government. Who actually is the head of the regulatory body etc is another matter. Why did self-regulating work …. Example:
Current position.
Agent “A” is failing with a regulation. Currently they don’t care as they believe the customer will never find out and they have been getting away with for so long, it’s become the norm. His competitors across the road have given complaining as they are told in the majority of cases by local TS not interested (varied excuses) = speak to NTSEAT who in turn will tell you, thanks for telling us but you can’t complain as we only take on work that is a complaint from the public, so try the TPO, who says exactly the same = nothing is done or NTSEAT say, thanks but we haven’t the time or resources = nothing is done.
Self-regulating.
Agent “A” is failing with a regulation. Oops better be careful or all my competitors across the road will report me to the regulator who has power and fine me etc as they can see what I’m doing. They would just love to stick the knife in me and be heard. All the agents across the road will be in a better position than any to be aware of wrong doing and love to stick the knife in = Passive and Pro-active regulation is being enforced. It also allows agent “A” the power to report on competitors when they go wrong, so it works both ways. If you have a clean nose, you have nothing to worry about!
The implementation, operations, investigating powers, fines and costs is best left to another story on EYE (but systems have been in place before for many years, so the history for setting up is available) or we will be going down all sorts of avenues when the point of this article should be about having our own regulatory body or paying NTSEAT if we want action or the dishonest will be allowed to continue as they now openly confirm they can’t cope.
I sympathise with your viewpoint Woodentop but actually we do have our own regulator.
Estate agency is the only industry sector that has its own dedicated Trading Standards team – NTSEAT.
Because of their specialisation they actually do better understand agency than most of their colleagues in local TS offices who are dealing with hundreds of different sectors.
The fact that NTSEAT is underfunded and undermanned is another matter altogether.
That’s the point they have failed miserably, unable to cope and have no previous experience of estate agency = not fit for purpose.
How often to we see in the media reports of supervising organisations failing …. just about every week somewhere in the country, all of which are government agencies in some shape or form ….. Health Service, Social Services, Police, Trading Standards ….. to name a few who knowing wrong was being done, didn’t take action. History has shown that the best supervisors are organised from within as they are answerable to the industry. NTSEAT & CO are not answerable to industry, in fact do agents know who the respective regulators are to and are those people making them answerable? The answer to the latter is the biggest NO you can come up with.
This is what everyone knows, NTSEAT & TPO & ASA are not fit for purpose. Their remit is basically one sided to control agents but absolute no intention to get involved in regulating “the industry” which involves all aspect of Estate Agency. Its like having the police only catch cars speeding and ignore any other crime! We are therefore in a position that an industry is not under anyone’s control, there is no stomach by regulators to want to do more ….. this itself is hypocritical ……. to have a regulatory organisation(s) that fails to maintain standards but happy to tell others what they should do.
Government minister should be held to account and this issue off failing to protect the public should be raised in the House of Commons. Dyfed County Council were never ever in the wildest dreams ever going to be competent to fulfil their obligations and now clear for anyone to see. You pay them a bean, it will go into the council coffers and lost. Scandalous. This is precisely what is happening with Cardiff council and their RentSmartWales licencing for the Labour run Welsh Assembly. Phone them and they will tell you all the fees are going to the council but policing will have to be done by the agents local council trading standards who will not receive any funding from them.
What we need is the good old fashioned LAUTRO like schemes that worked for so many years and was ditched when Blair and his cronies wanted the control, as they knew best ….. still laughing on that one and maybe not if Corbyn & Co get their way, they are worse.
If we are going to be asked to pay, then we should have our own regulator, someone who knows what estate agency is about and have full remit on the industry and its sectors, just like other organisations have. It should not be the NAEA or RICs as they are not competent and conflict of interest. It should be a national organisation funded by mandatory fee per business? (getting close to licensing here!!!) and the proceeds of fines held to cover costs. Some of the best regulators have been those from within an industry and have to be answerable, if standards and efficiency is to be maintained with their operating. Just maybe the majority of EA would be happier with a self regulator?
It is a bit of a punch in the stomach to hear but if NTSEAT want to get commercial, in the same way education has effectively been privatised I will happily put my hand up and declare an interest, a domain knowledge and a track record of delivery.
I’ve even got an excellent team who’ve worked a second full time job, unpaid for 15 months who I ‘m sure will be delighted at the prospect of getting paid to evidence widespread breaches of CPR and BPR. As a team we are rather good at what we do! to the extent where for the past 15 weeks there has been a determined attempt by criminals to stop us.
Personal note to my critics and detractors. Me sat around doing nothing of any note or significance since I resigned from CFP includes funding and building the system that is going to rid the industry of wrong doing and wrong-doers whether they are agents or the service suppliers who are helping them do wrong or simply looking the other way. Achievement isn’t always measured in money.
Remind me to look through my drawers today.
Who could possibly dislike me looking through my drawers?
Not much success so far looking for the smoking gun, although this disclaimer on our Rightmove emails made me chuckle:
“The information in this message does not constitute specific advice or recommendation and is for general interest only. The content and views expressed in this message are those of the authors and not necessarily Rightmove Group Ltd.”
Get your disclaimer in early for the contrary-to-law advice your reps might slip through in to print.
And they’ll get a shock on this one, depending on how the Facebook case goes… “Rightmove Group Limited is not responsible for the website content”
Rightmove damn well IS responsible for its content. Quite apart from its’ legal duties to ensure it is only publishing adverts that are legal decent and honest, it has a contractual liability to its customers (us) to properly vet advertisers which it demonstrably has failed to do.
Sorry if am being thick… Isn’t trading standards a government body funded by taxes?
Are we really to pay them twice?
You’re not.
It is.
You’re right.
(And it’s a situation that should not have been allowed to happen)
Does this come with a ‘Gift-Aid’ option?
If not it should do 😉