London agency Portico has taken down a property from Rightmove after a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority.
The complainant said that the property was being advertised as “available now” when in fact it was already let.
A spokesperson for the ASA said: “We approached the advertiser to seek assurances that either the listing would be amended to state that the property was let or that it would be removed from Rightmove.
“The advertiser confirmed that the property would no longer be advertised and the case was judged to be informally resolved.”
In February, another listings complaint was informally resolved and Portico was told that if there was a repeat, it could face a formal investigation by the ASA.
Comments (4)
Meanwhile in other NEWS – – – PB are claiming they are better and cheaper than any agent out there with misleading adverts and misleading customers. Not even telling them about close brothers agreements and advertising charges.
Maybe ASA chooses to turn a blind eye.
This is a tenanted property though – “advertised as “available now” when in fact it was already let.”
Sounds more as if it’s an oversight in taking a property off the market when a let has been agreed. Hardly a punishable offence.
Ok, so reasonable answers please, as I have my view on this:
If a property has a sale agreed – both parties aware and solicitors written to (no survey done yet but sales memo’s out) should the property be marked “Under Offer or SOLD” on the websites, or left as available based on when the agent or owner wants it to?
My view, you accept an offer and once the deal is confirmed in writing you mark it “under offer” unless for the exceptional circumstances where you have informed ALL parties involved that the property will be left as available and either names of interested parties taken or being clear you will continue to push for viewings.
Does displaying a property as “available” when the vendor has agreed to sell to someone who can proceed and is proceeding, not contravene the CPR.
We have some agents who delay the marking of SSTC so long they are then displaying SSTC on property which have completed 3 and 4 months down the line…. also a contravention of the CPR in the same sense of the story above… (I.e. once completed leaving it as SOLD could suggest the new owner has now resold the property).
What is the point of the ASA if there is never more than a quiet word in the ear, where is the deterrent? Those of us that do things correctly, legally morally are disadvantaged to those to are prepared to flout the law because they know there will be no punishment coming