A complaint about online agent Tepilo, founded by TV presenter Sarah Beeny, has been informally resolved by the Advertising Standards Authority.
The complainant said that Tepilo’s online advertising did not make it clear that if a customer chose not to use the conveyancing service, the customer will have to pay £360.
Tepilo told the watchdog that it would make the £360 fee clearer on its website, and the ASA closed the case informally.
On the front page of its website yesterday, Tepilo was basing its savings estimates on traditional agents charging 1.5% plus VAT, compared with Tepilo’s charge of £895 inclusive of VAT plus £360 for viewings.
However, at the bottom of the ‘property packages’ section, there is a question which asks: “How much are your solicitor fees?”
If you choose the drop-down answer, this says that the charge is £599 plus disbursements, plus VAT. Under that it says that if a seller chooses not to use one of its panel of conveyancers, there will be a £360 surcharge to opt out.
This morning, Tepilo boss Nick Charnock told us: “Customers do not have to use our conveyancing services. They have complete choice.
“It is simply one of the conditions of using our deferred payment method.
The ASA also informally resolved complaints, which numbered four in total, about a Homewise property listing on Rightmove.
A spokesperson said: “The search result of the listing showed that the property was priced at a ‘guide price of £138,000’. The guide price of £138,000 was, however, only offered to people aged over 60 and eligible for Homewise’s Home for Life Plan, but these conditions were not made clear.
“After we approached the advertiser with our concerns, Homewise assured us that similar future property listings will make clear that the headline guide prices quoted are only offered to those in their over-60’s Home for Life scheme.
“Upon receiving their assurance, we considered the case to have been closed informally.”
Comments (8)
There is nothing wrong with referral fees as long as the client is not financial penalised by either using or rejecting the referral.
I notice that Homewise got a mention in this article, their adverts with Leaders are so misleading, I have been to several valuations where the vendor wants a quick sale so that they can by a very cheep property that has just come onto the market only to have to explain that they virtually have to be at deaths door and a single occupier buy their horrible lifetime plan, should be banned.
Taken from the Governments recent response to their Call for Evidence on how to Improve Home Buying and Selling:
Referral fees are paid by conveyancers or mortgage brokers to estate agents in exchange for recommending business to them. We want to create more transparency surrounding referral fees so customers can make an informed choice and feel they are being treated fairly. We will:
• work with industry to standardise the presentation of referral fees and ensure that customers are made aware of any potential referral fee before they make a decision whether to purchase;
• task the National Trading Standards Estate Agency Team to proactively monitor the disclosure of referral fees; and
• look more closely at the case for banning referral fees, particularly for new build properties and instances when buyers are being referred.
These companies slag off proper estate agents for not being transparent, yet constantly Tepilo and the other lot are being disciplined for trying to hide their charges. ASA grow some balls, start fining these clowns, level the playing field.
Quick question.
In what industry, no, scratch that, in what UNIVERSE can you charge someone for NOT doing something?
I wonder if we could start charging our clients for NOT sending back their protocol forms within our expected timeframes of four days?
Maybe agents could start charging applicants for not turning up to viewings?
Frankly this type of behaviour needs more than an informal agreement from the ASA.
I like this comment. Makes a lot of sense.
What we need is a test case to determine if any aspect of mis-selling could apply to the vendors who do not get a sale after paying a fee.
Common sense and morally it is wrong as Peter says….however, if you set up a business and that is how you wish to base your business model, that is your choice. What is at stake here is customers are lured on the basis of huge savings and these are not quite as large as may first seem. We also know about the hot debate as whether you will be successful in spite of the charges which of course means there is no saving. IF the terms are clearly disclosed and a customer still wishes to chose the service that is their prerogative. As long as it is based on openly disclosed information caveat empter, but as we all know some are good with their ‘scripts and sales pitch’ which might gloss over the finer details.
I shall now offer a service where the only charge is 1 Mars bar. If you want viewings conducted, that will be a Twix available at only £500 However all Mars bars must be bought from my firm at £10,000 Now this really will be a disruptor 🙂