Harry Hill’s opinion piece in EYE yesterday drew a very substantial read count and many comments, most of which were supportive of his views and thoughts on where the industry will be when things get back to some sort of normality.
One reader commented: ‘Astute viewpoint Harry … thought provoking.’
Harry contacted us yesterday to ask if we could give some space to reinforcing his opinion regarding fee levels.
We are very happy to do so.
“I am very pleased that some people enjoyed reading my piece that EYE was kind enough to print yesterday, and I was delighted not to receive my customary abuse!
“The UK has, in my (may I immodestly say) extensive experience, some of the finest real estate professionals in the western world, yet our commission rates for home sales are, by a VERY substantial margin, the worst!
“Following the current, well supported, “Say no to Rightmove” campaign, may I please respectfully suggest that every great agent in the UK (and as I said yesterday – only great operators will survive post-coronavirus) sign up to another much more important campaign
“SAY YES TO SENSIBLE FEES!” which in my personal opinion should never be less than 2%.
“I am OF COURSE, not suggesting for one second any arrangements that upset local trading standards or whomsoever but simply making a plea for sanity to preserve our industry and sensibly reward its participants”
Comments (23)
We constantly find legal defects in conveyancing papers because the conveyancing was done badly in the first place. Improve the quality of the human conveyancer and more deals will fly through on the legals.
That said, we also find defects, because the owner did not have it properly explained to them when they bought, that their title has lots of covenants – e.g from shoddy volume style conveyancing with non-existent client reporting.
And Faifax87 is a little misleading in that the mortgage offer does not refer to a supplemental fee for doing the lender’s part of the conveyancing. Instead mortgage offers contain a completely redundant reference to the reminder that the borrower is paying legal fees for their purchase, which every borrower knows, obviously, and yet just reminds them that part of their conveyancing fee is mortgage work. Yet the lender then goes on to put an actual amount as a guess. Always a wrong figure.
Instead most conveyancers will ask right at the start if there is a mortgage, in fact SRA guidelines on pricing require upfront questions like this, so the lawyer then correctly quotes at the start. But there are a few law firms who won’t ask, but will keep their fees as if there is always a mortgage, and then bury in their small print an ability to pass on whatever £amount is stated in the mortgage as the legal fee. Leaves a bad taste. Of the 6 law firms I have worked in, no one does that.
Agents can charge what they like but they need to deserve it. Earn the money. Offer value, Pay your own way by getting the very best price. We witness too many who seem to just host on Rightmove, take any offer, and then go silent until their commission is paid. Like conveyancers too, the quality out there ranges wildly with agents. Conveyancers – the good ones – spot serious defects, saving catastrophe in so many cases, and are very prompt in progressing the legals on top. They are impressive. The same for so many estate agents. And they both deserve their fee. But all conveyancers and all agents need to deserve their fee. Then it can keep going up.
‘We witness too many who seem to just host on Rightmove, take any offer, and then go silent until their commission is paid‘
These agents are unlikely to survive post-COVID 19.
I think I do, but not everything is as it seems and must be considered on a case by case basis, to be frank I despise a hard charging market where granny could sell a house ( or more accurately list and generate viewings and offers ) and its just a downwards arms race on fees, if you’re there at a 2pm val and know you could generate sufficient activity to sell at the best price by 6pm because ( maybe old fashioned ) you know who’s looking locally, and your competitors ( even where less competent ) will achieve a sale if they sign on the dotted line with them (many clients/mammals do not always appreciate or listen to quality it’s drowned out by numbers ). Before anybody blathers on about not getting it right on the val and selling the message correctly, compete with me, pre or post sale, you’ll hate it whether Knight Frank or Darlows. I will freely confess to taking PB money in the past where I know its banked and instructions the be all and end all, 2% of nothing is nothing.
Price fixing is a cartel and is illegal – we all get that.
Agents cannot and will not work together for their common good – see OTM – we all get that too
Let the cheap agents be cheap and the best agents be more expensive……
I know which I am and that’s why I will endure – do you???
Having read Harry’s thought provoking piece and all the comments below, it strikes me that we have a very similar parallel dilemma in Conveyancing… their pricing is often wrong and there are a lot of busy fools, doing a sub-standard, inefficient job as a result.
Back in ‘97, Harry had the balls to launch his Conveyancing proposition with a supplemental fee for doing the lender’s part of the Conveyancing… there were howls of protest at the time that you couldn’t do this (even though mortgage offers refer to this!) but Harry and his team stuck to their guns and now this practice is very widely adopted across the industry.
A few years back, Connells Home Conveyancing started charging a £300 supplement for leasehold cases.. there were howls of “you can’t charge that” then, but again, it has become increasingly the norm. I personally would advocate a £500 supplement, to cover all the extra work involved.
During this quieter time, Conveyancers really need to do that detailed financial analysis to establish if they are indeed just being busy fools.. or whether 10 jobs priced right are going to make a better return than 20 jobs priced wrong and delivered inefficiently.
Absolute agree with what you say. However, perhaps the conveyancing industry can take the current system and make it fit for purpose. I can not believe that paying two conveyances/solicitors to argue over whether the title is correct is really very efficient. I also fail to understand how properties that have sold multiple times get held up due to title issues. If this could be improved it would make everyone’s life, especially the paying customers, a lot better.
Some interesting comments on here. I would not disagree with one single person. It is a given that fees will have to go up, and as a good established independent, that will be easier than a newer, smaller independent. Whether we like it or not, the fees have been dragged down first by increased competition in a fast moving market in the early to mid 2000’s, went up somewhat in 2008 and 2009 and then as quantitative easing kicked in 2010 and banks started pumping shed loads of money back into the housing market, they started dropping again. This is competition. Until the industry moves away from the portals and individual agents and able to build a definitive brand for themselves, then we will always be at the mercy of the latest get rich quick scheme advertising cheap fees. The public do not care!!!
This is the time for NAEA/ARLA to stand up and push for proper licensing. However I very much doubt they will do that as they have not done a good enough job of representing the industry in the past and therefore do not have a big enough membership. We will be debating fees and the industry ad-nauseum but it will not change until agents are licensed, and they probably never will be.
….you comment “The public do not care!!!” ……then work hard to find/attract clients who do appreciate the value that a “real” Estate Agent brings.
On NAEA? …….in over 3 decades I have found them to be no more than a “squeak” behind the floorboards of Our Industry.
Amidst the biggest “PAUSE” to ever hit Our Industry (we didn’t shut offices with 24 hours notice in the 2008 Financial Crisis) …..the NAEA is only known for its 4 Letters N A E A …..they are toothless, pointless and not fit for purpose, whatever purpose that is?
Sorry, to be blunt, however they (NAEA) do not represent Our Industry.
Their “Brand” is the only relevant thing they have ……lift their “bonnet”? …..they have no engine!
Agree with your points, other than with regard to the public. There will always be people who will not pay a higher fee. At the moment I would say there is a far greater proportion who pay at the lower end than at the upper end, although a quick glance at postings on here would suggest that the majority of agents who post on here are able to achieve these higher fees!
The question is what proportion this will shake out to post COVID 19? I would argue that there will only ever be a small proportion of agents who will be be able to charge above average fees. The others, by the law of average will be just below or at the average fee( more ‘poor’ agents but probably selling a higher number of properties). My point is really that we as an industry are incredibly poor at telling people what we actually do, so they think Purllebrivks do the same as a GOOD agent. We know there is a difference, but I have not seen one agent do a good enough job(myself included) of completely debunking this misunderstanding. Also, whether we like it or not there are plenty of customers of Bricks who will have had a good experience. Post COVID 29 will certainly shake things up!
We charge 2% because we ask for 2%. In one of our locations there’s 3 agents, one charges 1% and the other 0.8% and yet we list as many as them. It’s about building in value and demonstrating that you’re worth it. We have HouseSimple clowns operating in our area at 0% fees but we still win the instruction because we believe in what we do. Yes you have to adapt your presentation and mine is a lot about the ‘value’ we bring, not about ‘we do this’ or ‘we do that’ but about why at the end of the day, fees accounted for, that our vendors will have more money in their pocket at the end of the transaction by using us than if they chose the ‘cheap’ option. When was cheap ‘ever’ better?
An agent will need to adjust considerably their current service offering and justification of it to enable a rise in fees. To simply go out with a double fee and no change as to why will drive customers into the hands of competitors. As importantly the agent will need to articulate clearly and quickly the Benefits of their service to the client otherwise conversions will drop faster than a answer on pointless
Harry Hill, nor anyone else is in a ”Coalface” position to say what each Agents minimum fee should be. If an Agent can’t work out what their own minimum fee should be then frankly they shouldn’t be doing what they are doing.
There are a number of factors which affect where you aim your “fee”. I have never rated the Valuer who seems to have an average low-end fee and simply blames “the opposition”. I have a number of instances just pre-lockdown where I listed properties at my fee, which was higher than the perceived “Best Brand” Agent ……and I tackled head-on with the clients, their question of “Agent No 1 & 2 are cheaper, would you match their fees” …..Agent No 2 was made aware of what Agent No 1 was charged and simply went lower? …..the laziest form of valuing ……and a reason why I wouldn’t use an Agent who can’t even justify/negotiate their own fees. I justified my fee to those clients and they were happy to pay it.
Although, I could be generous and say those fees worked for those Agents in terms that they were happy to operate at that level …..frankly, I think not.
Anyway, my point is this. Your fee should represent what you consider “your price for the work you are being invited to do” ……to simply “blanket fee” every client with a minimum lacks integrity and respect for the client. Know your own business, understand the fee that you should be charging for the sales/marketing/negotiating work that a potential vendor is offering you.
Harry Hill operating in today’s property market would get eaten alive walking about with 2% stamped on his forehead. I have zero interest in “cheap fees?” ……my career is built around charging a fair fee for the work I am being asked to do, and when I look at my average fee per property sale, it’s very healthy, however it does represent the amount of work I am being asked to do. To band about a “minimum fee of 2%” is a Headline Grabber however it’s little more than that Harry.
…….I yield the spotlight to another view, no doubt.
Going forward in a vastly shrunken marketplace for sales, your business model whatever that may, be will probably need 2% to be sustainable. The world has changed and only those who understand that will survive and have successful sales businesses going forward.
Yes HH would lose many instructions, but his effort concentrated on those prepared to pay him 2% would outweigh the loss of ‘potential’ from the others. Life has been incredibly easy over the last 20 years, with big volumes of sales, but that has gone, because what is coming won’t pay the bills at 1%.
Forgive me “International” I never mentioned 1%.
Percentage Fees are a Red Herring …….what is your “££££” fee? That’s what matters. That’s what I work on. By all means work it back to a percentage if you wish, however, understand your fee income in ££££’s.
The reference to ‘1%’ was meant as a generalism. I take your point about £’s but over a very long career, which I still enjoy immensely, mainly because of the interaction between the large number of my employees for whom I hold a great responsibility to provide them and their families good income earning potential, I do indeed work from a percentage base, to which the vast majority of our clients can relate.
I’m sure we can compare career lengths, complexity of local market/competitors, average sale price etc, etc, etc.
My message is …..don’t get blinded by percentage fees. Monthly, Quarterly, Annually it will be the ££££’s that matter.
I took a property on the Friday before Tuesday Lockdown, and sold it on the Monday (the day before Lockdown) …… at 1% plus Vat (my local market is less!), sold at 20% over the asking price, ultimately (looks on course) to bank £4000+ plus Vat. It was a fair fee knowing the quality of property, the quality of buyer/s I had on my books, and it sold without Rightmove and I knew I would sell the property within 1 week.
It was quick work however the 1% plus Vat was fair taking into account what we brought to the whole transaction. 2% plus Vat as a set Minimum would have been sheer stupidity as it was not reflective of the work involved – don’t just charge because you think you should or can, have the integrity to Quote a fair fee for the work involved/transaction …..and if your client won’t pay it, or you can’t convince them ……then walk away and live to fight another day.
I do have a minimum ££££ Fee regardless of the value of the property as that is based on my annual forecast/calculations. I charged 4% plus Vat on a transaction because of the work/complexity involved to find the right buyer/premium and 3% on another where I even helped the client arrange her removal etc etc …….however I come back to, each Agent standing back and assessing what their bottom line per property is, and then assessing the work involved etc ……it’s not a Cheeseburger Industry is it?
I took a property on which Savills had been marketing and their fee was 1% plus Vat of a circa £500,000 value property yet after 10 months they told the client to accept a £425,000 Offer, I travelled many miles to visit/advise ……and subsequently sold it for £60,000 more than Savills had told the client to accept, at a fee of 1.5% plus Vat, because of the extra distance/costs involved and the fact that I was having to resurrect a 10 month old marketed property, and not just drop the price to sell it!
Each to their own, however let’s get back to basics of a “one size fee minimum” apart from being cartel like? is not the best way to approach each individual property sale. Demonstrate your market/property/client knowledge and quote an individual fee which reflects each situation.
The downside of the PB model for instance is the odd “good” LPE got saddled with the Upfront/Fixed Fee one-size-tricks-all fee ……when they might well have been worth more? Those? LPE’s need to get on their bike and get out of PB, beg forgiveness and show their worth in real estate agency.
Fees? ……..find what works for Your Business. Last time I looked I didn’t see Harry Hill hoofing around houses, he was in his shorts delivering Hovis, I believe he alluded to.
Harry is right yet naive.
Agents will not go back to 2% or more because they can’t help themselves and they don’t fully believe in operating profitably vs being a ‘busy fool’.
They believe that more listings = success. They crave boards. This is right unless you’re running on fees like 0.75%.
Indeed, when supply is thin one 50+ branch independent near us goes down to 0.75%.
It’s the prisoners dilemma write large every day, every valuation. Do you hold your nerve in the expectation that the other agent will too? Or do you not trust them? [And remember, you’re not allowed any agreements on fees – its called price fixing – see Eye’s past]
Also – agents aren’t very good at justifying it.
A few years ago I sold a flat in London. The chap from Marsh & Parsons came along – they stuck at 2% due to Rollings taking the policy with him from Foxtons. A sensible policy in theory but when I said ‘Why should I pay you 25% to 33% more than your competitors?’ he couldn’t answer it. His line was ‘I think 2% is cheap for what we do’ which showed he wasn’t listening to me as I didn’t think it was cheap. Its not about you, its about the vendor.
Bottom line: if everyone sticks at 2% (or 1.75%) then people will pay it. But if someone is at 1% then people will go for that. Not complex is it.
I think ratchets are the way forward, but that’s for another time.
Absolutely get your point about the M&P valuer.
Two observations.
1. He should not have gone anywhere near talking about fees until he had fully assessed your needs and wants and outlined the services that address them – making sure that you acknowledged and agreed each part of the services.
2, If he did not do that and did not understand how to present the worth of the 2% fee then the company was at fault in sending an under-qualified valuer to the appointment and they deserved to lose the instruction.
Catch 22 !
Harry is absolutely right but then…..so is Mr london 52
When I first became a salesman (which I still consider myself to be) I was taught never to speak badly of the competition and don’t even think about undercutting on price, but to have pride in succeeding due to your own personality, ability and to provide a first class product and service. That was 50 years ago!
The problem is that in recent years and encouraged by the press and governments alike, people in general are being persuaded to buy as cheaply as possible and competition has become savage with fallen standards. Entry level to ‘the industry’ has gradually lowered over the years helped even more so with the arrival of the portals.
For years I have predicted that the lowering of fees coupled with rising costs will lead to a slow death for many, but never imagined such a sudden death as we are now witnessing.
I am committed to raising the bar and agree that 2% should be the minimum and encourage all to do likewise, otherwise they will not be able to pay for the quality of staff that will be needed in a marketplace that few will have the skillset to understand and operate.
Foxtons projecting revenue down -78%. I guess they will have to raise their fees quite a bit.
Well said again Harry!
Fees go up in tough markets. No point listing below 2% or min fee of £2500, whichever is the higher.
“Fees go up in tough markets.”
Not something I’ve seen in the last three “tough markets”. Too many weak Agents drop their Fees in the scramble for any morsel going – compounding their problem further. They wouldn’t know how to negotiate a decent Fee to save their lives – yet they expect vendors to entrust the negotiation of their biggest asset to them. Laughable.
I was charging more in Fees in 1994 for sales with values between sub-£20,000 and £60,000+ than I see being charged now by some for the same properties that are £50k+ and £200k+.
“No point listing below 2% or min fee of £2500, whichever is the higher.”
Your Fees example means nothing, Jockey. A minimum Fee of £2500 is as much use as a chocolate fireguard if it costs £2501 or more to service the property and sell it.
No wonder so many Agents are dependent on Solicitor referrals – someone’s got to pay the rent and rates…
…not to mention the portal costs…