Agent Chris Wood has one minute until midnight today to comply in full with the Advertising Standards ruling in which he was ordered to take down two sets of wording, in a tweet and a blog.
The tweet went yesterday, while the blog – which dates back almost four years – has been amended twice but not taken down, according to Wood.
However, neither of these actions has been acknowledged by the industry regulator, the National Trading Standards Estate Agency Team, Wood said yesterday afternoon. He said he was unsure what action NTSEAT would now take.
The tweet referred to the number of sales made by Purplebricks in certain Cornwall postcodes; the amended blog still claims that cheap agents can lose people money.
Wood, of PDQ Estates, had previously refused to remove any of the wording.
As a result, the matter was referred to NTSEAT which has warned Wood that failure to remove the wording by tonight’s deadline will result in enforcement action under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, and the Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008.
Wood has also been told the matter will be referred to the Property Ombudsman .
NTSEAT’s letter to Wood says he could be in breach of the TPO’s code of practice.
Wood appears to be remaining defiant and is querying why NTSEAT is involved, claiming that its only mandate is to deal with matters relating to the 1979 Estate Agents Act.
He also says that he has not been formally informed as to what specific law or laws he is alleged to have transgressed.
Wood is also asking why NTSEAT has taken at face value the word of a non-statutory body, the Advertising Standards Authority.
Yesterday afternoon, Wood asked for assurances from NTSEAT that were it to investigate, it would presume innocence on his part.
Comments (19)
The correspondence in full is available here for readers to make up their own minds
https://blog.pdq-estates.co.uk/2018/09/06/why-is-ntseat-refusing-to-answer-basic-questions-as-a-midnight-tonight-deadline-looms/
Isaac Merritt Singer will be turning in his grave.
Amazed. It is past 8.30am and neither the Dom or the Duck has got on here to slag off Chris Wood. Maybe their purple masters have sent them Down Under to do a bit of firefighting?
Should have waited 4 minutes longer to post! Domnotnicebutdim appears to have left the building.
It’s not worth really giving any time for the self publicist who seems to adore yet another article.
PIE should* have locked Dom Estos and Toilet Duck in the janitorial cupboard, so we don’t have to suffer their toxic nonsense.
*edited
“Maybe their purple masters have sent them Down Under to do a bit of firefighting?”
The late, great Red Adair would run screaming from that job, AI…
Yes, indeed he would. Which reminds me of a quote he made – that would very well apply to Agency today:
‘If you think it’s expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur’.
The people in some of these organisations have greater ego’s than powers; I wish you success in your endeavors.
idiots. The **** the online ******** can get away with and Chris gets this kind of attention is shocking.
I have (and will dig out) an email trail from a well know Online Agent, whom in writing valued a property we were selling (wait for this) for a buyer!!! (ie using their “online tool”) and proceeded to defend their £30k lower opinion on price, whilst wishing me and the vendor good luck in the most rude way possible. This came to light as they then touted the property using the viewers name, as the viewer used their online tool to get an idea of price pre the viewing! So we had proof due to them mail dropping the house but addressing the letter of “ditch your agent and use us” to a viewer we were due to show around.
We contacted them to say, not great, you wanna check your touting system before I launched the attack on price opinion – The response was “our local experience means nothing and we should get over ourselves and concede the house will not sell for more than £240k to £250k” yet completion some 2 to 3 months later at £280k pretty much proved us right.
Ironically the vendor was an estate agent! (I am lucky enough to have a few local estate agency residents who use me) and the whole matter was a real eye opener for the attitude of “our valuation tool cannot get this wrong and a persons opinion, causes more harm than good” The tone of the email and contents was at best the most shocking baby like insulting attitude I have ever read in what was a simple dispute over a price opinion. (I assume though the chap was under pressure in his bedroom operation)
I will do my best to dig it out (Chris when I find it, it is all yours) and will prove in that case “IF” the vendor had listened to said online agent who was boasting first and foremost about their “cheap fee” they would without question have lost people money! May have saved the buyer, but as they are not a “buying agent” their duty in acting for the seller, would certainly have made Chris’s statement 100% true in the case above.
Thank you Ric. It’s an interesting ‘process’ with presumed guilt rather than innocence, statutory powers being given to non statutory, self-appointed bodies, and NTSEAT refusing to answer even the most basic of questions about the case and the totally new and undocumented process they appear to be following. PIE is being copied in on all correspondence.
Ric that is truly shocking.
I and I am sure others would love you to pass a copy to Ros with redacted info that could be published.
Chris best of luck. Don’t let the ******* grind you down.
Turning on all my old phones and stuff, to find the ****** thing. I have the original twitter shots now from when I went a bit in on them via Twitter, but it was back in September 2016. Argh. Will find it.
I don’t understand, if you had this potentially damaging email trail of blatant disregard for the rules and customer care why not pass it onto eye, or BBC watchdog before?
Littletimmy
Ric has made reference to this particular case several times previously here on EYE as well as other channels.
I did talk about it, quite a bit.
BBC are not the easiest to get involved in a case of “the lone agent having a hissy fit with another agent” Especially 2 years ago. (As PeeBee kindly defends, I mentioned this as it was happening on EYE and several times after, but no take up on the story, so to be honest, I move on to selling houses!)
Remember Online Agents were not in the Watchdog eyes at the time. certainly not as much as they were now. We now have a very relevant case, where I hope to be able to show Chris’s statement is true (In writing an admission they said my personal experience of over 20 years meant nothing).
I am doing my best to find the email, ironically the owner may be reading this and put 2 and 2 together and know it was their house and the Agent may be reading this hoping I never find the email. Its was classic!
PS – ROS – If you want a photo of the week, I will email you one of the most puzzling ones ever! Some of my Twitter followers will have seen it recently.
>The **** the online ******** can get away with and Chris gets this kind of attention is shocking.
Ric, remember you are only hearing one side of the story. From somebody who has been adjudged of misleading and has now amended the offending publication on two separate occasions and removed the tweet.
Some might accuse Chris of being a bit of a drama queen and milking the trivial matter to its full extent.
Wondered how long it would take for this t*rd to re-appear.
Because the purple ones have never been adjudged to be misleading anyone, have they cyberduck46……??