Controversial motions to reduce the size of the board of NFoPP and not allow the NAEA and ARLA Presidents to vote or speak at board meetings unless invited, were passed at Friday’s AGM.
Reportedly, a remark made from the floor was that “the membership had voted itself out of existence as a membership organisation”.
Attendees told EYE that, based on a total membership figure of NFoPP organisations given as 16,000, they believed the voting turnout represented just 4.1%.
The two new NAEA and ARLA Presidents are Katie Griffin and Sally Lawson.
Chris Wood, whose application to be a vice-president candidate for the NAEA was earlier blocked by an interview panel, did not see that decision overturned.
We did ask NAEA chief executive Mark Hayward about the size of the voting turnout, but he would only say that the meeting went well.
Comments (19)
Lets be frank, both organisations should be good for the industry and do some valid work but it is how it is run, seen to be run and poor communication that has allowed the rot to set in? Wake up NAEA & ARLA, you need to have a serious look at yourselves and get a grip on things. You may not like the criticism but remember this, why oh why are people complaining about you both? You need to take stock, look at what street you should be driving down, not up a cul-de-sac. What do you stand for? What do you expect to achieve? Are we expecting too much from you or capable of performing. Here is a perfect platform for you to respond and sell yourselves to the wider audience, for many are a source of potential members. If you can’t come up with something, then time for fresh blood with new enthusiasm, ideas and identity. YES possibly someone who is prepared to knock heads together, for your actions to date looks more like ***** footing around and self indulgence.
Sadly have to agree with some of the sentiment here…….But might just point out that ARLA is even worse! They charge me for client money protection (an insurance premium that means that i am paying to recompense any-one ripped off by dodgy agents) I then have to have my client accounts audited by an accredited accountant (another £1500) Oh and my membership costs………. (and a 50% contribution to my staff’s membership fee cos I’m a believer)
Just to make sure that I am really p155ed they rock up in town with a landlord roadshow saying that I could have a stand if i paid some more wonga! Having failed to consult with any of the local ARLA agents and bringing in speakers who do not know enough about the local “micro-climates”
Hmmmmm…… why on earth am I a member?
At a local level membership had been worthwhile and had a few good meetings whilst there was someone to lead it. James Wyatt in my patch did an excellent job as Surrey Chair. Since he stepped down even that’s vanished. On a national level quite useless best I can tell. Emails for market data from us and a reminder for subs about all I see of them.
I wonder what then NAEA and ARLA Presidents Katie Griffin and Sally Lawson think of this?
Does this essentially mean that these members now have no proper representation at board level?
From what I understand one of the above were using the title of president to promote their business before even being elected, I doubt they care VERY little.
As a high street 1 man band and a member since 1998, I used to see the value of membership. But not any more, and I increasingly think about cancelling. As mentioned above – they seem to just be trying to get revenue from courses, as least these are the only correspondence I receive. Vendors do not care less about membership and this is their biggest failing – the declining customer awareness. This fault is historic and I see PropertyMark as a step to address this. But the failings list is a long one and needs to change.
Does the NAEA constitution require a minimum voting turnout? Turn out of 4.1% is an absolute joke and not constitutional. Those in power should be coming under some extreme pressure from their members to go, if that is all they can encourage. A fish rots from the head down and it looks like its now near the tail. Sad for the NAEA to have allowed this to happen. Once they were respected but now seen as irrelevant by the masses. Members should consider an EGM as a result of the AGM as “No confidence in the board” and sack the lot of them. A fresh start, new blood, with dynamic ideas and enthusiasm is needed. The writing is on the wall …. reform.
I see the dislikers are out in force again today.
Come on, debate the points being made not just dislike them 😉
It’s not me doing the dislikes but I can well believe that NAEA members who have had to attain exam qualifications in order to obtain membership take exception to you repeatedly and erroneously saying anyone can simply buy the letters. They can’t, and have not been able to for quite a long time now.
Fair point AI
But those “Exam’s” are hardly taxing.
They are in essence buying letters after a very easy set of questions, The qualifications do not allow you to do anything an unqualified estate agent can do.
The public have no idea about the qualifications.
The qualifications are effectivley worthless (unless you are interestred in letters after your name).
Exams is all the NAEA seem to be about? In the 1990’s I attended many an area NAEA meeting, which was supported by the old school agents. The new blood was noticebale by their absence and the board continued to allow the rot to set in. The NAEA are the same today as back then with little thought to promoting the industry and members at large, just within closed doors. The public have moved on, has the NAEA moved with them?
Just in case many people didn’t see this post late last week on PIE, putting the role of the NAEA, for instance, in perspective (courtesy of Woodentop);
The National Association of Estate Agents (NAEA) is the UK’s leading professional body for estate agency personnel, representing the interests of members ……… The National Association of Estate Agents is dedicated to the goal of professionalism within high street estate agency. Our aim is to reassure the general public that by appointing an NAEA member to represent them they will receive in return the highest level of integrity and service in both sales and lettings. Each NAEA member is bound by a vigorously enforced Code of Practice and adheres to professional Rules of Conduct. Failure to do so can result in heavy financial penalties and possible expulsion from the Association.
It would be interesting to know if anyone out there feels that the organisation still carries out a positive role along these lines?
For those of us old enough but what would Charles Barnes think of it all??
Sorry all but it’s time to turn the lights out and it’s all they deserve
Seriously has it ever been more apparent agents are only members because they are so vain (and uneducated) that they want letters after their name?
Paying £250 a year for the privilege.
It’s a complete joke of an organisation.
They are self serving and do little for the industry.
Just 4.1% of the membership voted? That is a damning statistic that shows just how poor is the engagement of the NAEA with its members and vice versa. A rot that started with the changes imposed by the NFOPP disaster and which, now that the executive has its mandate, will only get worse. Member organisation? Not any more.
I would suggest that 4.1% turnout is representative – if not an exaggeration – of any Association Local Group Meeting numbers.
It should be – and should always have been – a Memberhip requirement for attendance of at least 50% of yearly Meetings as part of the compulsory CPD (that’s if CPD is actually enforced these days).
“THAT! Robert May!!!” was there.
Was anybody there on Friday. What was the word on the shop floor about everything that is going on?