Online agents may have to adjust their claims as to how much they save sellers after Which? has updated the average fee it believes high street agents charge.
Which? did claim the figure was 1.8%, but now says the average fee is now 1.3%.
Online agents may have to adjust their claims as to how much they save sellers after Which? has updated the average fee it believes high street agents charge.
Which? did claim the figure was 1.8%, but now says the average fee is now 1.3%.
We use cookies to improve your experience. By clicking Accept all, you agree to our use of cookies. Cookie policy
Comments (13)
Which? is flawed and should stay out when it comes to reviewing service industries. It can easily review one in ten washing machines or one in twenty mortgages which have defined limits. Service industries, just like ours has no limits and so many variables with outlets running into the thousands, their reports will always be inaccurate and only based on a sample, as if it is a true reflection of an industry. Very misleading from a company that tries to be a champion for consumers. Having to update its information in just a short space of time is an admission they haven’t got it right.
SPOT ON, Woodentop!
‘Which’ have just regurgetated My Home Move’s figures which is probably more accurate than anything they could come up with themselves.
At least part of the truth is now out there. 1.3% including VAT sounds a lot more realistic to me.
Which, at the some point, needs to look at the true cost to consumers of using a ‘charge up front online lister’. What are the FACS…….Fee Average per Completed Sale.
I wonder awhat the total fees charged divided by the number of completed sales works out to be as a percentage of the average completion price? Be interesting, wouldn’t it?
Well thanks to the Which? report, i expect the onliners adverts to read something like…..”High street estate agents charge up to 3.5%”
Oh – they already are…
https://www.yopa.co.uk/fees
Anything that can be used to deceive will be used. Wouldn’t it be refreshing for an advertiser to actually tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth for once?
Lets have your FACS yopa….well go on then….we are waiting?
It’s a race to the bottom I tell you, a race to the bottom!
Just make sure you don’t win this particular race Andrew, in fact don’t even take part, play to different rules.
Well said Iain.
Play by different rules on different tracks
Hmmm…
“Play by different rules on different tracks”
I know where’ you’re coming from, Mr Mealham – however what you are advocating is actually the hub of the current problem.
We should all be on the same track. Playing by the same rules.
Agency only has itself to blame; the most valuable asset after its staff an agency has is its dead file data. That is the bit that makes the difference over winning or losing the next instruction, the level of commission secured and the prosperity of the business
Online valuation systems facilitate increased low quality, low cost competition and that is the key driver in reduced fees.
Allowing service suppliers to share copyright photos, descriptions and property fact with your competition allows your competition to exist. Without the research detail the service suppliers share with the public and the competition both would seriously struggle to have accurate informed advice on value.
While agents allow their dead file data to be shared the erosion of fees will continue and unqualified assisted FSBO portal listing services will exist.
something wrong with which? Anyway. Consumers have a choice. Its like macdonalds saying they are cheaper then the Ivy…. Complete shambles our industry. No one protects agents from this constant which? Fuelled hatred.