Agents’ Mutual, due to launch OnTheMarket in the new year, has responded to the lodging of a complaint with the Competition and Markets Authority.
Oneline agent Russell Quirk of eMoov – which will be banned from OnTheMarket – has complained, saying that the new portal will be anti-competitive.
His complaint is apparently on two grounds – first, that Agents’ Mutual is a cartel, and second that it works to the detriment of consumers by excluding online estate agents.
However, yesterday morning Agents’ Mutual wrote to members and those who have registered interest saying it is unworried by the complaint.
The email, titled “Statement on Agents’ Mutual strategy and Competition Law”, says:
“From recent public comment, we understand that a complaint may have been made with the Competition and Markets Authority, alleging that aspects of Agents’ Mutual’s agreements with its members are anti-competitive and illegal.
“At the outset, Agents’ Mutual took appropriate legal advice as to the legality of its model and contractual terms.
“In the light of the advice received, the directors are satisfied that the company is operating within the law.”
Comments (39)
Funny old world, funny little man – lots of chat about changing the world, budget firms are the way forward, customer doesn't need us, world doesn't need us and then we form http://www.onthemarket.com and he's peeved he cant be on it……….unless…..he's much cleverer than he sounds and looks and knows its going to fly and realised he needs to be on it? or hes just a gob on a stick that like a bit of fisticuffs. – Jonnie
I'm told that a business (AM for example or your own business) is perfectly entitled to say who it wants to do business with and is not breaching any competition rules. It is another matter if a group of business ie web portals like RM, Z and AM got around the table to rig the market for themselves jointly. That is not happening and the advertising market has a free choice with many web portals to use. Do not get confused with "membership" and it's benefit for members being a cartel, so my lawyer tell me.
Here's the thing Mr Quirk…… I may have to lodge a complaint that your are NOT an estate agent…… you are an Online Shop Window! Just an Online Shop Window!
Mr Jury, a question for you. What would happen if every single agent with a high street presence decided to move in to a serviced office or work out of their study/bedroom,all charge precisely the same fees as you do now, all spent the same money on our websites, marketing, social media and are all on rightmove and Zoopla and covered the whole of the UK. Where would that leave your business. Surely if your model is so good we should all be doing it right if not for us then for the benefit of the consumer?! The truth is that without the high street model you have no business and you need high street agents to keep on the high street to keep you in business.
An interesting debate. I feel so sorry for this very likeable chap, Mr Quirk. We will miss him. Fortunately for everyone else – they won't miss him or his marginalised little business.
Indeed however looking at the posts from Mr Jury above, it seems Russell is not the only one to suffer with "Napoleon complex" in that company.
Agents Mutual discussions really bring out the best in people
…or the worst, depending on which side of the fine line they stand, Mr Jury.
Or what they stand to gain from their stance.
Love the comment, by the way, on your personal blog site – "Despite working in the automotive industry recently, I know very little about cars. Infact, I’d go as far to say nothing!"
Guess some things never change, regardless of where you choose to hang your hat… ;o)
To be fair PeeBee his probably an expert in t'internet and everything tech related. Of course Mr Jury knows ****** all about being an estate agent.
How enormously satisfying is it that we agree on something, on an AM-related thread, Paul H? ;o)
It's true, my car knowledge is shocking. It made little difference to the sterling marketing work….. and that still applies here.
"It made little difference to the sterling marketing work….. and that still applies here." Oh – and a pathetic attempt at feather-fluffing on an industry-centric forum page now constitutes "sterling marketing work" does it? You and your marra from a certain other online Agent live in another world entirely, sunshine. Best place for you, I reckon.
I am for anything that breaks the hold of RM & Z but to say that an internet agent isn't a real agent and cannot do the job "Properly" because it hasn't got a high street presence, is like saying to Amazon that because it doesn't have a shop, it is not a "Proper" retailer.
At the end of the day, if you don't like my rules, it doesn't mean I am doing something illegal, go and play with someone else or stay where you are.
Its interesting to see this coming out. Ive spoken to a friendly lawyer, he thinks its questionable at best and probably wouldnt stand up if challenged.Interestingly he did say that whilst they are small they would probably get away with it .He said if they became a dominant market player they would be breaking the law to impose an anti-competitive rule and would be forced to drop this. The interesting thing , there is no strict definition of dominant, more property on , more agents on in an area. Say, for example, everyone in Wales where to sign and one Welsh agent left challenged this in January would the rule change to "one other portal….unless your in Wales . Intersting times, if it works the logical assumption is that we end footing the bill for a third portal
Jeez is there an app for this guy? Russ, Instead of throwing grenades then running zig zag how about you give me a hand with the zip on the back of this gimp suit. Dude I’m not about to explain anti competitive or cartel, you can google that yourself but Russ needs to figure out which g*d to pray to. Come on, are we talking integrity because all my trailer park cousins have a PS4 but that’s not the same right? I mean, right off the bat RM wont allow competition from private sellers so I’m guessing Russ already hugged that one out. Look, AM portends a shift in agency similar to Russ & co’s arrival but that conversation gets nixed with words like choice and that’s cool but dude, when you take the b*tch out his mouth his words don’t have any currency and I’m guessing his complaint will break into a thousand pieces if stared at really hard.
Another brilliant post, shame that Mr Quirk doesn't stick to his task in hand, unfortunately trying to bring this to the attention of the public simply brings him bad publicity as it appears that he is desperate for high street agents to operate alongside him on the main 2 portals, If the high street agents move their stock off the main portals then he is, by his own admission here, stating that his model would go down the pan.
Wasn't it Groucho Marx who said "I wouldn't want to join a club that wanted me as a member"? Well Mr Q, this club doesn't want YOU but you still want to join but you can't so you're throwing your toys out of the pram. Pathetic.
One web site doesn't constitute a cartel when there are so many more to use. Just nonsense. Get over it.
Frankly I think that the fact that AM/OTM have even had to make this statement is ridiculous. How many people got their lawyers to check out the Terms and Conditions when they signed up for R or Z?! How many people joined Primelocation when it had a one portal rule? This whole debate is being whipped up by a few bitter men who realise that their whole business model relies, not on its own merits, but from hanging around in the same neighbourhood as estate agents who actually do the job properly. Had they just bided their time, who knows, maybe their business would have been sought, but instead, they believe the way to approach this is to try and smash in the doors. I have little time and no respect for people, who look for nothing more than feeding their own ego's and act like a children trying to ****** food before its offered.
Clearly I should have used the word grab…..how amusing.
The fear mongering coming from certain quarters regarding the legality of the proposition astounds me. Common sense tells me I would have to be off the scale paranoid to think that subscribing agents could be held liable were it to be found that the terms breached the competition act. I mean come on. Clearly OTM have taken legal advise from a very qualified legal office regarding the proposition. Fight it if you want mr Moov, I trust you have access to quality legal representation, and mountains of cash…..
Oh, dear… this is all getting messy now, isn't it? 58 days to OTM-Day; the ONLY things that the vast majority of the public "know" is what they read on the likes of here. And included in that 'majority' are, I would suggest, a major proportion of AM Members clients. A saddening reflection on our industry, if you ask me… which I know you're not…
Absolutely spot on. As a result I have now emailed OTM advising them that I will not be joining in the new year but will review progress over the first quarter. Worryingly, I know that I'm not alone in this with a number of silver and even gold members that I have spoken to looking to review their commitment. No teaser campaign, no marketing, no education of the public at large and a pretty poor landing page to direct traffic to that says nothing. A real shame as I was a huge supporter.
You were a "huge supporter", really.
Yes, I was and to a certain extent still am. I encouraged many to join but, currently, I feel let down by the proposition and how it is being rolled out. If I'm wrong, I'll be over the moon and be forced to join as a bronze member (with my tail between my legs) at some point in 2015. As things stand however, I feel its just to big a risk for me, particularly when neither of my main competitors have plans to go with OTM.
Yes I completely understand that as previously being a "huge supporter" that you would now rather sign up "at some point in 2015" and are encouraging everyone to do the same.
Not encouraging anyone to do the same in regards to holding fire.
Isn't different views interesting. I've had the forms to join OTM on my desk for a few days but despite having quite a positive view about OTM hadn't actually signed them. Having seen this level of relational aggression from the online only fraternity (and portal employees) especially, convinces me they are extremely concerned by it. As far as teasers and pre marketing why would you want to do that before there are properties to see. Its coming in January, at that point it surely will be launched with a fanfare and I for one intend to ensure my vendors properties pick up that extra attention. So I'm currently getting the posters done announcing that our properties are on it, to tell them about that fact. I also want that marketing advantage for my company and leave any of my competitors that have hesitated, saying to sellers " yeah but they are now only on….." which as we all know is always likely to be a weak position to attempt to defend.
So when you write of all of your vendors, as your obliged to do, to advise them that the contracts signed promising advertising on RM/ZOOP are now null and void, what exactly are you going to tell them about OTM?
write "to" …. as "you're" obliged to do…
Many thanks. Should have double checked before posting. Just happy there are eagle eyed DICtion and grammar experts like you out there. I'd be lost otherwise.
Look on the positive side he will save himself a lot of wasted money!!!
"Go and buy yourself a high street presence…" Interesting. Who will adjudicate on this little can of worms, and how will they do it? Could be a lot of fun. For example, who decides what constitutes a "high street?" If it's the one with the likes of Boots and M&S and Debenhams on it, then an awful lot of "traditional high street agents" could already be seriously misrepresenting themselves. Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe them as "back street agents…" Or, perhaps a simple shop window – with all the serious business being conducted out of an office block or industrial estate elsewhere – will suffice to satisfy the OTM police. It certainly ought to – after all, plenty of "traditional high street agents" also claim to cover areas from so-called sub-branches that are nothing more than a bit of plate glass with a few properties stuck on the back. If I were Russell Quirk, I think I'd be inclined to take this first appeal as far as it would go – and then rent a window off a local newsagent and try again…
Would be good to understand their advice as I'm hearing a contrary view from other places.
And would also be good if the statement had said "… the directors are satisfied that the company and participating agents are operating within the law.”
Roz – could you ask them to update the advice and confirm the statement above would be correct, or is their advice that participating agents should seek their own advice?
This is an important point.
EHenderson – it would be reasonably expected in the light of recent events that AM would take further advice in any event. Furthermore, getting confirmation of a statement might provide comfort those who blindly follow – but it certainly won't indemnify them against any potential legal action that may be forthcoming. I sincerely hope that their previously sought advice is correct.
Hasn't a clue what he is talking about. There are more than enough web portals for him to use. He can still use RM and Z for example …
why would any agent want to be on three portals ?
An online agent complaining about OnTheMarket? Simple, go and buy yourself a high street presence and you can join in.
Imagine if RM and Z did the same.