Spicerhaart is threatening to sue rival chain Countrywide over what it calls “an attempt to poach its customers” before next Monday’s launch of OnTheMarket.
Spicerhaart says it will, if necessary, seek a High Court injunction, claiming that Countrywide agents have written to Spicerhaart clients claiming that Spicerhaart is withdrawing from both Rightmove and Zoopla. Three letters, apparently sent from Countrywide brands Blundells, Mann and Abbotts, have been produced by Spicerhaart (see below).
A spokesperson for Spicerhaart said last night: “Agents from Countrywide have written to Spicerhaart clients suggesting the group is withdrawing from both Zoopla and Rightmove portals.
“Spicerhaart, a founder member of OnTheMarket, in fact revealed in December that it will be retaining Rightmove as its other preferred portal, and is viewing the unsolicited approach as potentially libellous.
Paul Smith, CEO of Spicerhaart, said: “This is a scurrilous attempt to perpetrate a deliberate plan of misinformation.
“We have already announced our intention to retain Rightmove and join OnTheMarket which will be run for agents by agents, and we believe that listing all our properties on the new portal will be in the best interests of our clients.
“We predict that within a year OnTheMarket will be the second biggest portal in the UK and be the biggest in five years.”
Eye has invited Countrywide to comment.
Comments (64)
Wow what a great debate . Haart and their aggressive attitude towards marketing and poaching other agents properties is renowned so part of me says this is revenge, but as is pointed out the wording is misleading . And in regards to rightmove and zoopla, they have had agents over a barrel in regards to pricing and fees we pay to them . Otm raises competition and choice . Let's not forget though that online will portals are not the only way is agents sell property. It's a part of it, but not the only way . Countrywide have gone a bit too far here .
Sorry, but this is so funny. Imagine writing to a competitor advising their clients that they are about to be withdrawn from the second largest property portal in the UK….and then getting upset about it. If they are annoyed about this, look out Purple Bricks :-).
It is the part of our profession that I despise fellow estate agents?….. nooooo! …… weak Sales People!!……sending Touting Letters to fellow estate agency clients! These Touters are quite bluntly the filth of our profession…… I just can't lower myself to their filthy depth, if I could my Touting Letter would read "Dear Client of Filthy Estate Agents (they who purport to be estate agents), I enclose a copy of a letter received by one of our clients from your Filthy Estate Agent! Can I suggest that as they have not yet sold your property or others on their books, why are they not spending every breathing minute of their Filthy Touting Lives endeavouring to sell your property and others on their books, rather than trying to gather other properties from Professional Estate Agents who take pride in their profession and focus 100% on their clients……". As I say….. after almost 30 Years in this industry I still find The Touting Agents to be a filthy blight on our profession and those that engage in this practice make my skin crawl! Shuffle off back into your filthy caves where you belong! On a much cheerier note, congratulations to the many, many estate agents who strive to promote the positive aspects of estate agency and our profession!
Never touted for business? mmmm…missing a trick me old china!
This is a fascinating debate which I have various comments on. Firstly to those who are staying on Zoopla, we have a network of 4 offices which are market leaders. We conducted a survey to see how many of our actual purchasers (completions) originated from Zoopla and Rightmove before taking any decision on moving. Of the buyers that came from web enquiries the percentage of sales attributed to Z were 10%. With OTM entering the market we believe that THIS year they will help us sell more houses than Z ever have. If you only look at traffic you are missing the point of marketing.
To those arguing over Autotrader, have you ever heard of ebay?
To those saying that coming off one portal is in the interests of the company (ie cost reduction) not in the interests of their clients, firstly how do we manage to reduce fees if we don't reduce costs; secondly and more importantly are your staffing levels in the best interests of your company or your client, if it's the latter then you should be employing more negotiators as the more people you have, the better the service you can provide. As a business owner, of course you take decisions that are in the best interests of both clients and business in different measures. That's why some agents advertise more in papers than others, some have better offices, some pay better wages for better staff, etc etc.
The argument for OTM is compelling if you actually take the time to properly research it, and then work it properly once it's launched; this is probably the second most important marketing event in the Estate Agency business in the last 30 years.
On the note of Countrywide/SpicerHaart I don't understand the reference to 'Z now RM later', perhaps someone could explain as I've evidently missed it. Otherwise the CW letter is a straightforward lie and indefensible, regardless of what SH have done in the past. 2 wrongs don't make a right, so anyone saying that SH have adopted similar tactics previously are evidently happy to break the law as long as someone else does it first. Where does that leave us – with the reputation that many Estate Agents have cultivated for themselves for years – untrustworthy and dishonest. Good luck with that approach!
Is it just me, or is the signature of all three letters the same??? Surely the same branch manager doesn't cover South Yorkshire, Kent, Essex and work under three different managing directors??? Something fishy here!
**Spicerhaart not liking a bit of competition Claxon**
The same firm that uses please call me urgently on business cards still… (lol)
I am sure that as Spicerhaart clients are so impressed with the service received they will just put the Countrywide letters in the bin.
Made my day.
All of our vendors have received the same letter. I have referred the matter to trading standards as it is blatantly not true. These are the desperate actions of a desperate agent. Bring it on….
Pot, kettle, black…… no need for any more comment on the topic really.
Paul contradicts in the above saying his clients have been misinformed (accepted on the fact if Countrywide said Spicer were withdrawing from both) yet he says OTM wont be at no.2 for a year. As such OTM in his view is behind Z for a first year. As such should he KNOWINGLY be compromising clients property exposure?
All's fair in love and war.
A clear breach of Business Protection Regulations 2008. Oh dear Countrywide hope you have a big and very deep pocket.
Equally agents who do not explain OTM ranking, exposure and why agents are coming away from a higher ranking portal be it RM, Z or AN Other could lose clients for breaching the offering clients signed up on and as such could need deep pockets re CPRs to do the best for their clients should they wish to fight clients walking away to other agents.
Can you explain where it says that in CPR's. Unless the agent has an agency agreement with the vendor that they will only use a particular named web portal, which they will not now use, they are not in breach. Unless the terms actually gives specific "marketing names", it is at the discretion of the agent where they market. All the agent has to do is confirm with the vendor, if applicable they are changing portal, most cases the vendor will not jump ship, particularly if OTM is an addition. The old red herring of not serving the vendor best exposure is backstreet lawyers garb.
@ woodentop – the answer is YES I can
It's based on transactional decision. If the seller saw RM and Z logos on letterheads, windows cards, on the agents website etc, it's fair to assume the average consumer would expect the agent to advertise on them.
Alike if an agent showed a TPOS logo rather than a PRS logo the average consumer would expect the agent to be a member of the shown redress.
Not totally convinced but I see your point. The contract is the point in question in law stipulating specific marketing. The inference is a good argument though and one good reason why an agent should never stipulate marketing other than "at their discretion". Never seen the point in adding another business to my letterheads, (saves reprinting later) and hasn't harmed my business.
Agents going to OTM have more than enough templates from AM to advise their customers if they are switching and to have spoken to them on the dog and bone. Most are at this time staying with one of the others which may be only the marketing they have displayed before anyway?
I wrote the CEO of Countrywide yesterday to tell them the same thing. I await their detailed reply. I had several of my offices report that those letters had been sent to our clients and I rang 3 Countrywide offices and spoke with the managers. None knew anything about the letters ( I believed them) despite them being signed as "Branch manager" (no name) and with their local telephone telephone numbers. Despicable tactics from a PLC.
Even more despicable are the agents in my area who STILL less than one week from launch are advertising Z logos on their website, not informing potential clients that they are dropping Z and falsely claiming that all "leading local EA's are joining OTM" when by far the biggest regional in my area is not an AM member. This is all far worse than the semantics of the CW letter.
You like a play on words Harree, if we ignore the fact that if the agents in your area have paid then they are fully entitled to advertise they are on whatever website they currently subscribe to, then they are also fully entitled to describe themselves as leading are they not. They are leading the way in your local market in joining a new portal. The agents you represent can't have it both ways. Oh sorry I meant the high street staff you work for of course.
My own estate agency RealAgent. Wrong in your assumptions yet again.
Consumers who wish to support their agents on a prime and way back portal must have THEIR choice to move away and retain exposure they wanted. Or to support their agents choice. Could save agents money, but equally cost sellers better offers. Consumers must have a informed, fair and honest view to decide upon.
Completely agree Trevor……. decent agents explaining their marketing and then getting on with the job at hand….. consumers have choice and no sale no fee should be reminded on every valuation as a pretty big motivator……. What do you think about the letter from CW……. would every average person read this as SH are only dropping just one portal OR potentially think they are dropping both?
Having spent a fair bit of time at Countrywide in the 90's I'm pleased to see nothing has changed!…..If Spicer Haart are servicing their instructions properly, they have nothing to fear from this letter, in my view, whichever way you read it. The way corporates posture in these sorts of arguments makes me glad I don't work for one any more.
That's the crux of it and the same with any tout letter, if you provide the service you offer then you have no worries about agents touting your stock. in 1 week on the run up to christmas we picked up close to 20 tout letters from a number of agents at just 1 property!
I absolutely love it when Spicerhaart play the victim and go up in arms about something. The very firm that canvasses, door knocks, over values, over promises and falsely advertises.
I hope they have their facts right this time as we all know how well the Fine brand did on their day in court.
Not a lot of love for Spicer haart on here….
It's a fact that they won't promoting on RM and Z … "and" is the key word. They will only be promoting on Z. As long as CW don't mislead verbally when they are contacted I doubt whether SH have done anything wrong. The fact that SH read the phrase as meaning they are coming off BOTH RM and Z is their problem.
Should have read I doubt that CW have done anything wrong.
Try again, you're still making little sense to me. Before you do, read the letter again very slowly and don't worry if your lips move, some people do that.
Property Pundit, I suggest you read the phrase again. The key words that CW have omitted is "both of" ie., "they will no longer be promoting their properties on both of the UK's two largest property websites RM and Z" by saying "they will no longer be promoting their properties on the UK's two largest property websites RM and Z" they are in fact making a TRUE statement because SH are only promoting on one of the UK's largest websites, Z. It might be semantics but any half decent lawyer or barrister could come up with dozens of commonly used phrases which can be interpreted in more than one way. I suggest you take your blinkers off and read the letter again.
Have to agree with Harree, play on words but technically correct.
Have to agree with Property Pundit, have you actually read that letter properly? You cannot seriously read that in the way you are suggesting OR you are a CW employee and all is now clear.
Ric, you make me laugh. First you accuse me of being an online agent, then a Zoopla rep and now a CW employee. All because you don't agree with my opinions. Why can't you get your head around the fact that I am a high street agent who – like many others – disagrees with AM's restrictive one portal rule? Disagreeing with me is fine, but your false allegations simply make you sound paranoid.
Fair point I have said you work for all three at some point…… so as a High Street Agent, would you write the letter CW did "word for word" and feel happy you were 100% accurate with the phrasing………. I am glad other agents don't agree with me, winning business would become harder in some ways, as I would not offer a different view point, opinion or service BUT to say you think that letter is saying SH are only dropping 1 of the 2 and not both is bonkers….. and you in my mind are the kind of High Street agent who would agree to say or write anything to win business……. that is just not my style!
Ric, I can assure you I am meticulous about what I, my staff and especially valuers can say or write. And YES I would be happy to write that letter word for word because it is true – for reasons I have pointed out previously.
I don't understand why Rightmove are allowing themselves to be used as a stepping stone to advertise OTM, who will drop them as soon as they are popular enough. If their prediction is right they will be the second largest in a year and the largest in 5. Rightmove and Zoopla have spent millions in advertising to get where they are, why not let OTM spend their £8 million budget on advertising and see how far they get with that.
Because Rightmove has a vested interest to see OnTheMarket outperform Zoopla in the short term, and is smart enough to realise that the likelihood that OnTheMarket gets enough traction that agents might actually drop Rightmove is infinitesimally small.
Typical agent tactics. Makes me laugh really as in this business it has always been the case of "If they are doing that then we must do that." The same can be said for property portals, opening hours, fees and local paper advertising. It's almost gotten to the stage where by instead of sitting back and seeing what works best for your individual business, we just follow each other and the reason for this is because whenever an agent does stand up or stand out by trying to do something different it instantly gets used against them and they get shot down. Surely it's about time people picked an agent based on the service they provide and NOT because the other agents aren't on this or don't do that.
Hilarious – until recently I worked in a senior position at SH for 12 years and know there working practices inside out. To say 'Pot, Kettle, Black' is the understatement of 2015 so far.
SH the company who spend MILLIONS of £££ a year on methods in "an attempt to poach customers" Infact practically there entire business model is centred around poaching business already on the market with other agents instead of improving the seriously lacking areas they should be focussing on (employing 'ethical' regional partners for starters)
Well done bully boy Smith – how does your own medicine taste???
I must admit i did smile when i read it was SH! Saying that i beleive CW from what i hear was a more regional thing decided at branch level rather than head office.
Pot – Kettle – Black were my first thoughts too! But what a professional letter! Three different companies, three different locations, same 'digital' branch manager signature, no office addresses or Branch Manager name, and I'm sure I've seen that signature somewhere before… Let me think! 😉
Granted the wording is out of line, but surely you have to expect that if you are dropping one of the big 2 your stock will be targeted, and you have to understand that you will lose some…that is an absolute given. If you believe long term this will be better for your business then suck up the loss now and play the tortoise and hare game. Which Spicer have the funds to be able to do, not sure the same can be said for everyone.
Agreed Barrett_A ……. and we all get touted from CW everyday and have done since the day each of us opened our business doors…………………….. But targeted with accurate information…….. not misleading text which creates an agency war and therefore a client caught up in the middle of something they should not be………………..I think the biggest crime in the above will be if Spicerhaart DONT take it further……….
Agreed, like I say the wording on that letter is our of line, misleading and wrong. However would the vendors perception of the situation be that different (or indeed should it be that different) if it was explicit that it was just Z that they wouldn't be displayed on? the crux, only in my opinion, is that the vendor is going to have reduced exposure for their property whilst their agent tries to help establish another portal – that only has the AIM of delivering the same that Z already does deliver in the short term. I don't think anyone that says they are joining OTM this 'for the long term good of my vendors' is being honest – I absolutely do get why they are joining – but it isn't in the interest of their customer.
Hi Barrett_A – Thanks and agreed………..As a No Sale No Fee industry, we are all acutely aware the client is the boss and can fire us at any time……………….so no AM agent has gone into this blind and are now simply realising like I always have that you only need one portal and the one which works best for you and your clients………………………….So the one other rule, allows the agents to not compromise their clients and stick with the portal which performs best for them now (forget the brainwashed crowd, who think you have to be on 2, my areas competitors will agree I didn't need it)………… We are all sometimes a bit scared of admitting we would all like to make more money and sometimes when increasing fees and listings becomes virtually impossible you have to look at a different plan…….I am increasing my costs considerably to support OTM and not increasing my fees so my clients are benefiting from this…………………….. HOWEVER if the time comes when I can drop RM for OTM and I can show MY CLIENTS I will still sell as many houses (including theirs) as I do now because the websites are simply an additional tool, then I will…………………………… and it will be for the good of my business! and why not?……………….. BUT remember No Sale No Fee, lots of other agents and public choice………………….. so I will have to work hard and show my clients my business choices will not effect their chances of selling……as I do now with RM only and not Z………. So yes, eventual goal for Ric "earn more money" (after all I am a business and not a charity) but to earn more money I have to continue to sell houses……simple No Sale No Fee…… (one problem is the good market and rising prices is making the entire OTM/RM/Z debate sound more like we need the websites to do our job….and that's just not the case, pick up the phone and talk to your buyers)
I can completely understand why Haart are upset about this. Tout letters are part and parcel of the business but suggesting that they are coming off BOTH RM and Z is just plainly untrue. All those of you that have come out and defended this action should be ashamed. A lie is a lie whatever your views on OTM happens to be.
Zoopla first……..then Rightmove! You cant have it both ways just because it suits.
But they aren't off Rightmove YET.
Exactly James and Disillusioned is clearly so consumed with his obsession its pathetic really.
I agree…and then Countrywide by the look of it!
erm……..It also says "they are on all the major websites" WRONG come 26th January there will be a compelling argument for OTM is more major than Z….. so just get ready to draft the letter "1,000's of agents have come off Z for a reason ask yourself WHY? I notice you are still unsold and still on Zoopla, the two may be linked! If you would like to know how Zoopla may be working against you and therefore your agent contact bla bla……"
Come on Ric , when globrix launched they had every property in the UK on it , was it instantly more important than Rightmove .. Mmmmm no. Fact is you can shove as many properties anywhere you want but if you don't get people viewing them it don't count for diddly squat .
danny, I do not list properties on websites and wait for the phone to ring for a viewing request…………………….. Nor do I ever go on a valuation and talk for more than 15 seconds about the internet….. no need!………………….so thanks for point out the viewing bit………………………….do I go on to say viewings count for diddly squat also!!! Offers and the right offers are what count…………I could pay £20 per viewing on every property and to increase viewing levels but it won't get me anywhere 1, viewing 1 good offer or 20 viewings just because you have a viewing target to hit? I know what my vendors prefer………..lets not get in a debate about selling property……. Above I was talking of how any tout can be countered by another tout……..but a decent agent will pick up the phone rather than send a dear homeowner letter anyway……either way the CW letter is misleading FULL STOP!
Globrix was taken over by Zoopla in order to remove the competitive threat, so it hardly failed.
At that time, Globrix had no real USP. OTM does. People will have to use OTM along with one other portal to ensure they get the entire picture. That was never the case with Globrix and also why the "one other portal" rule is necessary.
I wouldn't worry, when it gets to court we will probably find out Rightmove wrote the bl00dy thing!
It doesn't matter who wrote it. It's not true and the company that sent it out know it's not true. Countrywide are trying to be too clever by half IMO. Eventually, my intentions are to drop both Z and Rightmove IF (and it's a big if) conditions are right.
I notice that the same branch manager is able to run 3 different branches in 3 different areas… Amazing… Snap him/her up Paul Smith!
On a serious note, this is to be expected and no different to some of the 'tricks' used by Spicer Haart in the past I'm sure.
The fact is, by dropping one portal right now, all estate agents choosing OTM are reducing the number of people seeing their clients' property (fact) in order to eventually reduce the agents' costs. It is not for the benefit of the client in the short term. It MIGHT benefit the client in the long term but I don't believe it will work… Does nobody remember Property Live ? I don't want to fund it, to find that in 5 years time I've blown the best part of £100k+ on it for my 4 branches.
A quick quiz for you all…. Can anyone name me another car sales website which does the same job as Auto Trader to find buyers??
– Or a Cola that can better the invincible Coke? Or a burger to topple the mighty McDonalds? Dream on! Rightmove have it in the bag and OTM are helping to tie the knot!
No one subscribing to OTM is dropping one portal! They are keeping one and adding another. Its clear from your readiness to accept the status quo that you don't own a business because there is not one estate agent owner reading these pages that thought "oh there are already a few agents in this town I won't open here!"
Can anyone name me another car sales website which does the same job as Auto Trader to find buyers??
You are not comparing eggs with eggs. A new entrant into online car sales will need to win the business of the owners of the cars. The current portal duopoly need to win the business of Estate Agents, who hold the stock that will be listed. No agents = no stock, no website, no business. A new car site can't control the stock it needs, it can only try and win it. One thing people seem to continually forget is that vendors and landlords employ us to let or sell their property and put there trust in us to get the job done. They want us to get best price and the best buyers / tenants as well as making sure the transaction goes through and also runs smoothly. How we do that is up to us, that's what we are employed to do. If we don't get the job done then then the Vendor or Landlord can simply instruct another agent. We have controlled the way our business operates since inception and we have always chosen what papers or online mediums we advertise on. Being on RM or Zoopla never comes into the equation and it certainly isn't the driver in the Vendor / LL decision making process. It's in the mind of the agent. If you get into a situation where a client is telling you they want you to go on RM or Zoopla, then you need to change jobs. Clients buy into you and trust you, all the whistles and bells that you have behind you to help you do the job are secondary, you don't win business by telling people how many portals you are on and where you advertise etc. They buy you and the rest of the stuff comes free. Mark my words, come the 26th, you will agents in your offices that come back from valuations, which they didn't get on, with the excuse that it was because we are not on Zoopla or RM. All that has happened is that they now have another excuse to use, rather than facing reality that the vendor either didn't like them, didn't trust them or didn't have confidence in them! There are no excuses guys, so don't look for them. We hold the key to shift the power in the portal world from a place we have no control to a place where we have total control. As we are asking questions, if a new magazine appeared on the streets tomorrow, would you seek the permission of your clients to advertise in it or make a business decision that was right for you and your clients………………..
Ha ha ha ha ha! Hilarious. Paul – reading this letter there is absolutely nothing incorrect. You are just throwing your toys out of your plan because you can't face up to the truth. You are potentially damaging your clients today because you perceive your clients tomorrow will benefit. Well, news for you Paul – your clients today generally won't give a damn and you risk losing them. No point crying about it.
Wrong Mr Henderson. The opening paragraph is inaccurate, misleading and potentially libellous. Clearly this letter has been conceived at senior management level within Countrywide and says much about their business ethics.
Inaccurate. How? Oh, and I am a 'Miss' thank you very much. Given the absence of imagery, I will forgive you…
Apologies for gender bender Miss H! The letter implies that the agent is coming off both RM and Z which we all know is untrue.
To quote a favourite saying on here, 'Zoopla first, then Rightmove'. So is the letter right?