A new complaint could be on its way as advice was issued yesterday for estate agents to ensure that their marketing complies with the Committee of Advertising Practice Code.
The ‘home truths for estate agents’ practice note is on the Advertising Standards Authority website.
None of it is new, but it does round up three key points from recent ASA rulings, including one that told Purplebricks to make it clear that its fee is payable whether the property sells or not. Purplebricks now makes it plain that the fee is payable “when you instruct us”.
But yesterday, there looks to be what could be the start of a new challenge:
The ASA advice published yesterday makes these points:
First, agents are urged to be clear about what their fees cover, and make clear any limitations and qualifications.
For example, in one case the ASA upheld complaints about an advert claiming to sell a property for a flat fee, but which did not make it clear consumers would have to pay an additional fee to use their own conveyancer.
Another complaint was upheld against an agent who quoted 0.5% commission without making it clear that the fee did not include accompanied viewings.
The ASA also upheld a complaint about a Purplebricks advert because it did not make it sufficiently clear that an upfront fixed fee was payable regardless of whether the property sold or not.
Agents should always advertise their fees inclusive of VAT.
Second, agents should not exaggerate the features of a property.
Third, agents can use the term ‘local’ – as in ‘Local Property Experts’ – when agents can be proved to have local knowledge of the area they cover.
The term ‘local’ does not relate to the physical location of that agent.
Agents should also be careful not to imply they have physical branches in locations if that is not so.
The full note is here:
Comments (60)
You’ve gotta laugh, ain’t cha…
…clearly the ducky’n’dom duo were waaaaay too busy to comment upon yesterday’s report that their #Fanboy_Fave PurplePals are trying to add Kings of the “BMV” market to their list of what some might think to refer to as questionable practices (almost three dozen comments on that thread alone seems to corroborate that thought process…) – yet they are all over this article thread like cheap scent on a whooer’s bedspread.
Makes you wonder… if you can’t defend the indefensible – then why bother turning up to any of these recurrent nightmares?
It’s not like you’re making any of us think differently… and the slapped wristies keep on being dished out to your serial offending Solihull-based chums.
BMV investments have been marketed for years, here is one of the largest around which has been trading well over ten years.
https://www.thebuy2letshop.com/
Advertised in many outlets, fast sale and distressed sales agents, it’s not new and it’s not illegal, so stop trying to imply otherwise and get off your high horse as usual.
You sound a tad jealous you think I’ve got a horse, dom-boy. Does that possibility cause you upset?
I’ve got friends as well – does that eat at your @$$ as much as it does ducky’s?
Here we go again, I have no idea what you are waffling on about.
“…here is one of the largest around which has been trading well over ten years.”
SEVEN years actually, dom-boy. beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07631758
Third change of name in those seven years – there’s usually a reason for that… and as can be seen on the above link it was Gazetted as recently as May (albeit action discontinued)
Is good old plain, simple fact really so difficult a concept for you guys to adhere to?
Ok SEVEN years, it feels like 10 years ago when I bought a great BMV from them. If you have an issue with them you can always refer this to the TPO who they are registered with.
Sorry – who says I have an issue with THEM, dom-boy?
YOU. Not me. I just checked what YOU stated in your ever so matter-of-fact bluster, and found it lacking in a fairly significant ingredient of that wee phrase – the “fact” bit.
It was YOU that made the erroneous claim – not them.
it was YOU who dragged the company into the debate – which I’m sure they will be absolutely champing at the bit to thank you for.
It was YOU opened the whole can of worms in a desperate attempt to deflect attention from the real subject – your #Fanboy_Fave PurplePals and which pies they have their fingers stuck.
There’s a common denominator running through this, dom-boy. That would be YOU.
#Funny_that…
Again total waffle, off topic nonsense, get a grip sir.
Actually, Sir (term loosely used…) – it’s 100% ON topic. Suffering from #DOMfusion?
Get a grip? It’s you that needs to loosen yours.
The dom-boy chicken is well and truly choked.
Call me naive but, when a High Street Estate Agents signs a terms of business with a vendor client, the fee has to be clearly stated. It must be shown inclusive of VAT and a worked example shown if the property achieves the quoted price such as fee is 1.5% INC VAT of selling price therefore if your house sells at £240,000 the fee that you will pay will be £3600 on a NO SALE NO FEE basis. Surely clearer than the current Burple *ricks version of “magical very low fee” with any additional costs in very small print somewhere on the website/paperwork?
If the public do not understand from that what fee they will be paying the estate agent then I suggest that something is going wrong at school and we should be investigating English & Maths teachers?
Ha Ha, I’m a quack financial advisor, I’ve heard it all now…..
You’ll be getting a complaint made against you now and named as a shady and unscrupulous estate agent who’s dishing out financial and investment advice when not qualified to do so lol!! Watch out for Which knocking on your door in the coming days/weeks…..!
Brilliant….And don’t forget Beano the next time you are playing Monopoly with the kids…NO ADVICE as to whether they should buy Mayfair or not, Or you’ll have Dom knocking at your door.
Yep bet EYE are reported to the FCA now by a certain little toxic poster.
Smile please you seem to have such anger in you, maybe your little firm is failing and you need to vent somewhere?
Share price been trending downwards a fair bit lately
Is the honeymoon over?
Agreed, sell- PB, Buy- OTM ……..
Beano you shouldn’t be giving financial investment advice unless you are qualified to do so.
The shares are knocking at the door of what you paid for them a while ago aren’t they Dom?
I’d be curious to know whether a sophisticated investor like yourself grabbed your chips and left the casino for a bit of fun in Vegas on the profits that were temporarily available or whether they’re still in your possession?
Dom, based on current trends can you disagree with Beano’s advice?
As is always stated with AIM stocks ‘DYOR’.
Hardly financial advice, more an opinion. I doubt most investors use the comments section of PIE to inform their financial choices!
Sorry if this has already been said above, but am I the only one that doesn’t see this as “a new complaint” – simply the basic requirement for a previously upheld complaint to be actually complied with.
Indeed PeeBee that is indeed the situation.
PB new logo consists of two fingers either side of the letters ASA; look out for it on the TV.
Whilst it does state that the fee is payable upon instruction, it doesn’t actually state that the fee is not refundable if the property doesn’t sell. The question I suppose is would a reasonable person ‘reasonably assume’ that the fee would be refundable if the property didn’t sell?
Indeed PropertyKevin. That is the point of difference with the ASA ruling. You can read their full ruling here:
https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/purplebricks-group-plc-a18-442067.html
The above ruling is referred to in the guidance note issued yesterday, and quoted above, by CAP and the ASA.
Point 3 of the ASA resolution A18-442067 is the important section in this instance:
“We understood that it was standard practice for traditional estate agencies to only levy their fee in the event of a successful sale and after that sale was complete. We therefore considered that, in the absence of information to the contrary, consumers were likely to assume that Purplebricks worked in the same way.
We understood there were various circumstances as to whether and when customers would pay, including: when a property was sold and the legal process was complete; if a customer withdrew instructions for Purplebricks to market a property; if a customer withdrew from Purplebricks’ Advanced Conveyancing service or ten months from the date when customers agreed to use Purplebricks’ services. We therefore considered that the ad should have made clear that the fee would always need to be paid, even if the property was not sold and potentially before any sale was complete. Because it did not do so, we concluded that it was misleading”.
Propertykevin,
>The question I suppose is would a reasonable person ‘reasonably assume’ that the fee would be refundable if the property didn’t sell?
That is indeed the question.
“We understood that it was standard practice for traditional estate agencies to only levy their fee in the event of a successful sale and after that sale was complete. We therefore considered that, in the absence of information to the contrary, consumers were likely to assume that Purplebricks worked in the same way”
The current advert is quite different from the ones being commented on in the original case referred to by Malcolm where PB were saying “Instruct us to sell for £849”. Does the information that the fee is payable on instruction not now distinguish PB from standard practice of traditional agents? That would certainly be an argument I would make if I was PB.
It seems pretty clear that an reasonable person could quite happily comprehend that a fee is payable from the front page of the PB website.
Malcolm does seem to have a crusade with these ruilings and perhaps should look at a very recent one where the agent is outright refusing to comply. Oh but trading standards told them not to, or did they???
>perhaps should look at a very recent one where the agent is outright refusing to comply
Yes, plenty more misleading websites if you actually look too.
In fact if Malcolm took a good look at the blog of the company that you are referring to he’d probably find lots of other claims that are unlikely to be able to be substantiated. Probably turning a blind eye like Robert May & PeeBee.
Makes you wonder whether he has an agenda.
The question any person with a moral compass should be asking is why do PB consistently have to be told these things and not want their clients to be informed clearly in the first place. This is the issue.
PB are destined to fail if they build their business on the back of smoke and mirrors. Not withstanding the vast borrowing from investors who may well have lent ££ on the back of this rather shameful way of marketing.
Beano200062,
Perhaps they operate in an industry which lacks a moral compass & transparency.
Perhaps most industries are the same.
Perhaps the reason they have to be consistently told is because their competitors see them as a threat and an easy target and keep making complaints to the ASA?
I’m not sure if you saw the recent decision by the ASA against an Agent who openly encourages others to make complaints about PurpleBricks to the ASA. It’s just gobsmackingly hypocritical.
One of the first complaints agaisnt PB was from its competitor and I took a look at their website and they had an advert with subtext that lasted the whole of 5 seconds before it dissapeared. I commented on here to that effect and the advert was subsequently removed.
Perhaps perhaps, thats ok then is it? I dont work that way, and I imagine most posters on here don’t either, so they are more than entitled to want the public to be properly informed when a competitor is ‘perhaps’ behaving without a moral compass.
Mr Cyberduck – my only ‘agenda’ is to highlight misleading advertising by those in the Property industry.
The ASA clearly feel that there is an issue in the property sector as they issued an enforcement notice to the industry in December 2017. They also felt the need to issue updated guidance to the industry yesterday.
The property sector also appeared in the top 10 ‘regulatory interventions’ in the ASA annual report for 2017.
Clearly the ASA feel that there is an issue with the ‘advertising standards’ of some businesses in the property sector. Who knows where that will lead them in time especially if the same companies continually flout the regulations and their resolutions.
Please feel free to view my Twitter timeline and you will find examples where I have highlighted the misdeeds of both ‘traditional’ and ‘online’ agents.
If you feel my postings are skewed against ‘online’ agents then unfortunately it is a fact that recently there have been more cases upheld or informally resolved against the advertising of ‘online’ agents.
By my reckoning in the past two years there have been 30 informally resolved or upheld cases dealt with by the ASA in respect of just 3 ‘online’ agents.
You could argue that as the advertising of those agents is nationwide, thereby potentially affecting more consumers, there is a greater need to highlight these matters than a complaint against a 1 branch firm advertising in Lincolnshire.
I actually feel that misleading advertising needs to be highlighted irrespective of the size of the company involved. Why? Because consumers can be affected by the information that they see in adverts and on company websites.
After all advertising is ultimately about making a person aware of your service so that they can purchase your product or service.
Consumers must be fully aware of what is being promoted and offered. Hence why all advertising should be ‘legal, decent, honest and truthful’.
To ensure that this is the case advertisers have a duty to comply with the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) regulations. The ASA are the body who rule on matters if those regulations are broken.
Please feel free to debate the rights and wrongs of my ‘agenda’ if you wish.
>You could argue that as the advertising of those agents is nationwide, thereby potentially affecting more consumers
20,000 agents with 20 times the market share of PB. Do you spend 20 times more time checking up on those agents?
Have you ever made a complaint against a traditional agent? You say you have in the case of PurpleBricks.
Do you read Chris Woods’ blog? Never see anything you suspected could not be substantiated? Especailly when he comes out with comments like “As for everything else, people will choose what they wish to believe. Having checked the evidence and drawn on my experience, I tend to believe I am right until I am proved I am wrong or the evidence changes.”
Incidentally, what do you think about somebody making the claim “Cheap agents could cost UK consumers half a £Billion in wasted fees” based on a sample of justy 15 properties? I didn’t notice you commenting on that ASA decision.
I’m not disagreeing that it is clear that a fee is payable from what is there, but is it clear that that fee is payable regardless of whether the property is sold and exchanges/completes or not? Is it clear that the additional £300 fee for accompanied viewings is payable whether there are any viewings or not? Those are the parts that could be construed as being unclear or misleading. When you sign a contract/enter into an agreement to sell (however you want to refer to it) with a “High Street Agent” it’s very clear that if your sale doesn’t proceed to exchange of contracts then there is no fee payable. Do PB make it clear on their website, or when they visit customers in their homes, that any fees payable are payable regardless of whether the property sells, exchanges and completes?
propertykevin,
“We think this is much simpler and fairer than paying a commission upon completion because, with us, you know exactly what will be charged from the start.”
If you know exactly the fee you pay from the start then you don’t get it back.
Before you sign up you choose which options you want, read the terms as you go through the steps when signing up and you know what you are getting charged when you accept. The idea that I’d get something back if I didn’t sell never entered my mind. If anybody thinks that somebody is going to charge you £845 up front to sell your property and then give it back if it doesn’t sell then they’re not thinking straight.
So how about if a high street agent agent charges a seller a fixed fee as opposed to a percentage? The seller knows what the fee will be from the start, but they aren’t going to have to pay it if the property doesn’t sell.
“The idea that I’d get something back if I didn’t sell never entered my mind. If anybody thinks that somebody is going to charge you £845 up front to sell your property and then give it back if it doesn’t sell then they’re not thinking straight.”
Maybe not, but not everyone is necessarily as intelligent as you are so unless it’s made very clear that the fee is payable regardless of the outcome of the marketing and is not refundable then people may well assume that if they don’t find a buyer that proceeds to exchange and complete that they will get their money back. I’ve spoken to a couple of people who said that the LPE didn’t make it clear at time of sign up that the fee/s were non refundable if the property wasn’t sold and whilst I’m sure that there are many decent LPE’s out there who do spend the time explaining this to a potential client, equivalently I’m sure that there are some who don’t so as to make sure they get the instruction so they get their commission and can move onto the next one – that’s the problem with paying the LPE’s on listing/instruction rather than when the property is sold and completed (I’m sure there are also some rogue high street agents out there as well, but at least they’re not taking sellers money up front and not delivering a sale).
The fact that we can have this discussion must show that the wording isn’t clear enough though surely?
“So how about if a high street agent agent charges a seller a fixed fee as opposed to a percentage?”
Many already do as I’m sure you know, propertykevin.
I charge a fixed Fee on any property that does not stack on my standard %age commission… as do most – certainly here ‘oop North anyways.
That fixed Fee equates to 1.2x the Fee that the same seller would pay PB (including Accompanied Viewings and the penalty incurred for using their own, better, cheaper local conveyancer – based upon the multitudinous comments observed on a daily basis on Trustpilot, PB website, Facebook… the list goes on) – but being NSNF it is 100% risk-free compared to, using the perfect recent analogy, “tossing a coin” with them.
OK, if PB are so sure it is as clear as you suggest then why not make it even clearer and say fees are non refundable, just to ensure clarity? We know why, because as so many have said and I can absolutely confirm this – people still dont realise it is pay upfront and non refundable, with no guarantee of a sale. Which means, it isnt clear on the website.
I have to agree with the many on this one.
I find it odd that PB consistently word their ads in such a way that it never quite hits that hallowed ‘transparency’ that they should be. I just can’t get my head round why, if they truly believe that the service they offer is attractive at the price they offer with all of the positives and negatives they tout when compared to a ‘standard’ agent, they can’t be completely open and up front with no misleading text.
Surely their self belief in their own product should allow them the conviction to be balls to the wall honest and display the full facts?!
The current wording is better in that it makes it clear that there is a fee to pay and what that fee is, but as many have stated, still no mention of the fact that is is not NSNF, and I would envisage that many people who have dealt with traditional agents for many years would perhaps make an assumption based on common knowledge.
My personal opinion is that this is misleading through omission of material facts, and in itself should be picked up as non-compliance by the ASA.
In a nutshell, if I saw a t-shirt advertised for £10, and I gave the retailer £10, I would expect either my t-shirt as advertised or my £10 back. I am willing to bet most people feel the same way and would be surprised if the retailer didn’t give you the t-shirt or your money back, and then said “well we did tell you it was a tenner so you knew before you bought it”, therefore I think it is misleading.
“The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Purplebricks Group plc to ensure they made clear immediately and prominently that their viewings service had a separate fee, payable in addition to the £849 ‘standard’ price, and that fees would always be payable whether or not a consumer’s property was sold and potentially before a sale was complete.”
PB were told to ensure they made it clear a fee is payable when the consumer sells or not.
Surely “Our one-off fee is payable when you instruct us” makes it clear. Right there on the front page of the site.
Malcolm (Bernard), if you are reading this, did you receive a decision in regard to when you were posting on social media about a similar claim of yours? See http://www.propertyindustryeye.com/purplebricks-looks-to-woo-mumsnet-with-ten-free-packages-in-exchange-for-posting-up-their-feedback/. I didn’t think that one was clear cut. Did you test out your theory by making a complaint?
Morning Mr Cyberduck.
I did indeed test out my theory regarding that claim.
As the claims made by Purplebricks in the Mumsnet adverts were already subject to an ASA ruling another investigation was not deemed necessary by the ASA.
Instead, because the adverts were materially similar to a previous resolution, the matter was passed to the ASA Compliance team for them to take up with Purplebricks.
Kind regards
Malcolm, did you follow up and ask what the Compliance Team did about it?
Mr CyberDuck. Once a case is passed to the ASA Compliance team the only correspondence is between the ASA and the Company that is subject to their ruling.
“Instead, we will refer this matter directly to our Compliance team to take action; the Compliance team doesn’t report to complainants or publish the details of its work, but please be assured that it will address the problem”.
PB website now states;
5 star service for a fair fixed fee of £849
We provide a full estate agency service at a low cost because we’ve removed the expensive offices and fleets of cars that you see with traditional agents. Our one-off fee is payable when you instruct us but you can defer it for up to 10 months when you use our conveyancing service or until your property sells, whichever is sooner. If you don’t sell within 10 months we’ll continue to market your property until it does without asking you for more money. We think this is much simpler and fairer than paying a commission upon completion because, with us, you know exactly what will be charged from the start. We can also take care of viewings for you for just £300 but many of our customers prefer to do it themselves, we’d rather give you the choice.
1. No obvious mention that if you then decided not to use their woeful conveyancers, possibly as a consequence of their awful reviews, you shall be immediately charged an administration fee of £360?
2. If PB is unable to complete on a deal, themselves, their fees are payable regardless and their users may end up paying two agency fees – proper estate agents have to promote a dual fee warning?
3. Even if you have no viewings, or the viewing person fails to show up or cancels the viewing, is their viewing fee payable regardless?
4. They may not have expensive offices and fleet of cars to pay for but they do have a £21 million additional TV/Radio/Media marketing cost that most agents do not accrue which cost them around £326 per instruction in their last published accounts?
5. Many of their reviews are posted, prior to completion of the transaction, unlike proper No sale, No fee estate agents -Do the Trustpilot viewers know this – Do they also know that many 1 star reviews are challenged and removed?
6. For 30 odd years, proper estate agents have not charged if they failed to complete their contract, is PB taking advantage of this ‘established’ and therefore ‘presumptive’ key estate agency feature?
7. Their savings calculator defaults to a UK wide national average of £280,000 and 1.5% average fee – is this misleading as the average property price according to RM for around 2/3 of UK is around £180,000 and their own conveyancing partners established an average fee of 1.2% including VAT 1 ie 1% plus VAT?
8. Many small agent companies may not be VAT registered like many self-employed LPE’s but these are small local businesses and are not tied to a national brand valued in excess of £1 billion. Do PB pay VAT on all their transactions? With a turnover pushing £90 million did they pay circa £18 million VAT as ‘More homes are sold, more quickly, than the top 10 agents who presumably pay VAT on all their transactions?
9. Are PB’s eye-watering conveyancing referral fees of around £400 part of their circa £90 million turnover or accounted for separately? If so, is this not depriving their normal shareholders of a valuable income stream that could not, otherwise, be gained without an agency platform that they invested in?
10. Is it right, that a company can accrue 11 ASA rulings against them, in such a short period of time, without being thoroughly investigated by all the regulators, who are presumably paid to police the industry and ensure fair trading on behalf of all consumers?
The Australian authorities have considered some of these points and actually fined them?
Are these 10 points above worth further consideration?
Additionally to point 4, unlike the marketing spend that PB conveniently leave out of their marketing twaddle, the estate agent spend on offices and cars are there to directly benefit the client in terms of the superior service/marketing that only local shop based agents can provide.
Unfortunately CD this is not clear. Its been created in a way that can be mis-interpreted.
Only yesterday i arranged a viewing for some out of area that had signed up with PB. I asked him what made the decision to instruct PB rather than a local agent. He told me that PB had been chosen due to a higher valuation and that the fee was around half that of the local agent. I asked him if he was concerned about still having to pay PB if they were unable to sell his home….the silence was deafening….despite probably having been on their website, having an LPE out to value his home, signing whatever paperwork he had to sign….he had no idea that the fee was payable regardless of a sale or not, he presumed they were no sale no fee.
I don’t think you can get much clearer than “the fee is payable on instruction”. Are you sure they looked at the company website? They may have just gone on there to arrange an appointment.
But even if you get to the signing up part without realising, you can’t really misunderstand as it’s very clear (providing it hasn’t changed). Essentially, you click on one of two choices “pay now” or “defer payment”, neither of which suggest you don’t pay the fee if the property doesn’t sell. You just can’t sign up unless you make that choice.
My LPE also spelled out that the fee was payable whether I sold or not. Of course that doesn’t mean the one this person you describe got told.
“I don’t think you can get much clearer than “the fee is payable on instruction”. “
Oh – but I think you can. Try this for size:
“The Fee, including any additional costs charged, is payable on instruction and IS NOT REFUNDABLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.”
Kinda fits the bill, ducky.
bill… ducky…
Get it??
So…
“Someone” here seemingly ‘Dislikes’ the idea that a material statement should be bold, precise and compelling.
“Someone” here seemingly doesn’t agree that people are given the facts before entering into an Agreement that could cost those people a considerable amount of money for the toss of a coin.
“Someone” here seemingly has a problem with transparency, honesty and fairness.
That “Someone” should be busying themselves looking for a new handle – ‘cos their old one’s busted good and proper, I reckon.
“If the rules don’t suit the investment, ignore the rules or break the rules!!”
When you here the utter arrogance of a boast like that you understand that here are people who put cash on a pedestal and the pursuit of money ahead of all else.
Shame for them really, they’re denying themselves achievement; money earned outside the rules has no value and no respect.
I ‘borrowed’ that quote yesterday, Robert – hope you don’t mind?
Its all just words, the ASA have no teeth to follow any of these things through. If the above tweet is accurate it also means they do not monitor that companies adhere to their rulings. What is the point in stating that a company has breached the law, if there is no follow up to make sure said company has changed its advertising.
Some companies feel they are above the law, and in this case it may be true
100% correct.
100% correct. I have spoken and written to them on PB and they have stated that they see no wrong in what they say, or don’t say???? PB certainly feel that transparency, rules, regulations etc are for everybody else, but not for them. ASA are toothless.
Arthur,
The ASA have a few things they can do if an advertisier doesn’t work with them. See https://www.asa.org.uk/codes-and-rulings/sanctions.html
If advertisers don’t work with them they can refer them to Trading Standards and they may bring a case. The ASA also have a naughty page https://www.asa.org.uk/codes-and-rulings/non-compliant-online-advertisers.html for those that refuse to work with them.
They can also take out an advert on search engines so that if people are looking for you they will see their warning about the company. So if you search for “Ray Brown Healing” you find the ASA advert “Ray Brown Healing | Misleading Health Claims | ASA.org.uk”
They can ask advertisers to remove paid advertising being used by the company. That might even include use of portals like Rightmove. They don’t say it but it if a company is using a commercial hosting company to host their account they could ask them to remove the website – it would most probably be in breach of the hosting companies T & C’s.
So not completely toothless.
Hi Cyber
There are many things the ASA can do, but instead always choose to do nothing. The greatest deterrent is the fear of punishment. Everyone knows that if you over step the mark the worst that will happen is “informally resolved”. This creates a situation where companies (not just PB) push their luck until rumbled, have their wrists slapped and then sometimes nothings changes.
What the industry needs is for something to be heavily fined, this will then make everyone else take notice. Perhaps a 2 or 3 strike system. First informally resolved, second a harshly worded warning, then thirdly the fine.
Arthur,
>There are many things the ASA can do, but instead always choose to do nothing
If you look at the list https://www.asa.org.uk/codes-and-rulings/sanctions.html they do do something. You wouldn’t want to be on that list would you?
The courts can fine you if Trading Standards take on the case or if a private prosecution is brought. I’m sure the authorities are aware though that it’s mainly traditional agents complaining and that traditional agents are less than transparent and will take that into account when deciding what to do with taxpayer’s money.
If traditional agents have an issue and don’t think the authorities are doing enough then they should get their hands in their own pockets and bring a private criminal prosecution or a civil case for damages. If AllAgents can raise close to £50K then why can’t traditional agents? As far as I can see traditional agents are the main people complaining to the ASA and in my opinion you have got away with a lack of transparency for a very long time and are still doing so. Some of you actually guitly of misleading yourselves.
Hopefully if the authorities get involved it will also involve more transparency by traditional Estate Agents in regard to how their comissions are calculated. I’m really not sure that you should be allowed to charge a percentage of the asset being sold or charge people different amounts for the same job depending on their ability to negotiate. More regulation is required in my opinion.