Agent Chris Wood, who had been given until tomorrow to give assurances that he will comply with a recent Advertising Standards Authority ruling, has officially confirmed he will not give such assurances by the deadline.
The ASA ruling of earlier this month requires him to take down a recent tweet, and a blog which has been on his site for three-and-a-half years.
He now faces being referred to the industry regulator NTSEAT.
The tweet claimed that customers of Purplebricks in mid and west Cornwall lost around £64,000 between October 2016 and October 2017.
The blog, dated December 15, 2014, said that “cheap agents” could have cost sellers up to half a billion pounds in wasted fees.
On July 11, the ASA published its ruling saying that Wood’s agency, PDQ Estates, could not substantiate the claims and that these must not be repeated.
Wood – who used Zoopla data to try and back up his claims about Purplebricks’ sales in parts of Cornwall – has, however, refused to take down the claims.
A new blog on his site has appeared since the ruling, which describes it as “bizarre”.
In it, he also alleges that in a number of Truro postcodes, 41% of Purplebricks’ listed properties have sold.
Late last week he was given the deadline of tomorrow by the compliance team at the UK Committee of Advertising Practice.
The email told him that it required signed assurances that he is willing to comply with the ruling and provide a “reasonable timescale” for doing so.
It said that if Wood fails to give assurances, then the case will be referred to the National Trading Standards Estate Agency Team.
However, Wood said he will not be giving the assurances, and on Friday he was told by the ASA: “We will proceed accordingly.”
Last December, the ASA specifically warned in an enforcement notice that it would be scrutinising estate agents’ advertising after ‘repeat problems’.
It would if necessary refer agents to NTSEAT.
NTSEAT also issued a statement, saying it would use “the full extent” of its legal powers should it receive any referrals from the ASA.
However, despite the noise, it appears that no adverts by agents have been put under special investigation.
By complete – but as it turns out, timely – coincidence, very shortly before the ASA’s ruling on Wood, EYE asked NTSEAT whether any referrals have been made so far this year (journalists have a habit of chasing up stories at intervals marked in their diaries).
We were told no.
We were also told that referrals would only be made in cases where agents had been ordered to remove or amend claims by the ASA, but had not done so.
However, it now appears that Wood’s firm could be the first.
Comments (16)
Actually, like many, I am bored of PB’s claims.
Life is so much more simple?
Do not believe anything that PB claim until they are able to substantiate it?
Shame the regulators ignore this rather simple rule?
If they need evidence:
How come PB state that their total marketing costs including their portal costs were £332 per instruction over their last accounting period when TV and other marketing costs appear to show an addition £326 per instruction?
Are they hiding this from their investors?
If so, are they likely to deceive their users as well?
Blimey, Dom and Ducky are back in town. !
Presumably it’s too hot on the golf course for dompritch and the Ducky pond has dried up. Meaning they have nothing better to do than troll along here and wind us up.
>In light of ASA rulings other advertisers have amended or clarified their advertisements. Am I alone in being rather confused that there appears to be a different set of standards applied to different sections of the industry?
Isn’t Chris saying that he’s made the amendments – the only difference being that he’s refusing to confirm this to the ASA?
Hardly the rebel agent if that’s the case. Just wasting everybody’s time.
“My 2014 blog post (link below) was amended and a clarification issued in light of the ASA ruling and the statement made by ZPG to the ASA.”
The ASA have been informed of the amendment. It seems that they have chosen to ignore this. Rebels rebel against the rule of law. I like to believe that it is the Laws of the land I am trying to persuade others to uphold and enforce.
Chris, if you’ve amended the site and tweet so they are no longer misleading then all that will happen is that either the ASA will realise this or Trading standards will.
No real drama.
The thing that is confusing everybody is the fact you are publicly saying you won’t make the changes when you already have 🙂
Oh but its is always drama with this chap cyberduck, anything for a headline 🙂
‘ Drama ‘ Greek origin from the word ‘ dran ‘ meaning do or act, no shame there.
How’s that punt on PB shares working out for ya?
While your stance is admirable, are you sure it is worth taking this fight to PB on your own while other agents stand around patting you on the back, without risking any of the repercussions?
Thank you for your support and you are not the first to offer such (probably very sensible) advice. I may be somewhat of an idealist however, I was taught and taught others, that to achieve outcomes that some might regard as impossible, too dangerous or simply not worth the apparent risk you should evaluate the risks, ensure you are properly prepared, stand up, lead by example and dare to win. People will either follow or they won’t, at least you will have tried.
Better to retire an old has been than an old never has been 😉
His stance?
He has complied with the ASA ruiling, all this is just grandstanding as is usual with this chap.
If it’s not the ASA or PB it’s the NAEA who he seems to quit publically every few years. It all becomes slightly tedious.
PB use the law to their advantage –
Make a claim -> get reported -> ASA ask to remove -> remove claim….wait a few month few a slightly different claim (might get through might get reported).
This is very cheap advertising and gets customers.
But to take the moral high ground and fight it against a large organisation is futile and only for the moral objection, but takes away time for business.
Take it blog post down -> wait 2 months -> write blog post about the next town down the road or a national article (might get noticed and might not)
Rinse and repeat!
Dear Mr Woods,
Pick you battles, it’s a war that will take a few attempts to put the general public straight on the rights and wrongs of selling using professional agents V’s on line call centre alternatives.
You need to be around to keep the war going, don’t take one for the team unnecessarily
My 2014 blog post (link below) was amended and a clarification issued in light of the ASA ruling and the statement made by ZPG to the ASA. In light of ASA rulings other advertisers have amended or clarified their advertisements. Am I alone in being rather confused that there appears to be a different set of standards applied to different sections of the industry?
My 2014 blog clarification issued in full:
2014 blog post https://blog.pdq-estates.co.uk/2014/12/15/cheap-agents-could-cost-uk-consumers-half-a-billion-in-wasted-fees/
All the best Chris, at least someone has the balls to stand up whatever the outcome.
Industry regulator NTSEAT are a waste of time anyway. That’s why firms like PB can mislead the public as they know nothing can be done.
Really good to see the ASA have the balls to harass a one man band who at best (with all respect) has an impact on his local market, but dont have the gumption to deal with a company that spends hundreds of millions misleading the public.
Some companies really are above the law.
All the best Chris