On Tuesday we published a story concerning the north London agency of Mark Ashley & Co and the mystery surrounding the use of duplicate photographs in the firm’s listings.
The listings appeared to share the same photographs as those of other, completely different, properties listed with other agents in other parts of the country.
We attempted to make contact with the company in order to obtain an explanation but to date have not heard from them.
If they wish to make a statement we would be pleased to receive it.
It has now emerged that both Zoopla and Rightmove have taken steps to address the issue and that Trading Standards are involving themselves
Rightmove has confirmed that Mark Ashley & Co has been removed from the portal.
In a statement Rightmove said: “This agent is no longer a customer of Rightmove due to a breach of our terms and conditions.”
Zoopla, which was the portal on which the Mark Ashley & Co properties were shown as listed has not gone so far as to remove the company as yet but in a statement to EYE they alluded to the possibility.
A spokesperson said:
““We have a zero tolerance approach towards misleading listings and will take action against agents that fail to follow our guidelines including the potential removal of their account.
“The listings in question have been removed.”
National Trading Standards Estate and Letting Agency Team has told us that they are looking into claims made on the company’s website.
Referrals about suspect practices by agents can be referred to NTSELAT by email estate.agency@powys.gov.uk, or anonymously through the contact page of their website http://ntselat.uk
Comments (9)
Anyone looking for an irony overload, I suggest you have a look at any of the Mark Ashley listings on Zoopla – there has been a warning paragraph added in the last 24 hours.
I’d tell you what it says but then I could be in breach of their copyright as I don’t have their express permission to do so.
Just don’t be drinking when you read it – I somehow doubt Mark Ashley Estates will accept liability for coffee-sodden keyboards!!
Where do @TPOmb stand on this?
According to TPO website, Mark Ashley Estates Ltd “is Registered for the minimum legal requirement for agents dealing in residential sales (UK) and residential lettings (England only).”
Does this “minimum legal requirement” require them to adhere to the TPO Code of Practice? – in particular sections 7n
“All advertisements must be legal, decent, honest and truthful in accordance with the ASA Codes. Manipulating internet portals (and other channels of marketing) to give the impression a property is new to the market, when it is not; inflating your market share by listing properties multiple times; listing properties that are not currently available to buy; or claiming to have sold a property which was sold by another agent, is misleading.”
and 7o
“If you intend to include material produced by a third party, you must obtain that party’s permission to do so prior to the commencement of marketing.”
I won’t hold my breath for an answer…
Well done PIE (& PeeBee) for helping to bring them to account and to everyone’s attention and I’m glad we have seen some action.
Hopefully 1 less bad apple on the streets and by having their wings clipped maybe they might see that they can’t continue with their “shark” like practices without going unnoticed.
I for one, will certainly keep an eye on them and urge other NW London Agents to do the same as they a stain on our industry….
Zoopla please follow the lead of RM also take the correct action and remove them!!
Thank you, LifeAgent – just a pity that your stated previous attempts to cease this Agent’s activities were seemingly brushed under the carpet by Trading Standards, Zoopla and Rightmove.
Don’t let it stop you doing it again in future – our industry is best policed by those on the coalface. But next time send it to EYE as well (sorry, Nick!) who clearly have clout with those that are supposed to be doing the job in the first place!
Firstly, thank you, EYE – for running the original article, and for following it up with this update. I firmly believe you will have made the industry a slightly better place as a result.
As for the platform…
‘A spokesperson said:
“We have a zero tolerance approach towards misleading listings and will take action against agents that fail to follow our guidelines including the potential removal of their account”.
Clearly Zoopla have had a change of spokesperson since December 2016.
THAT spokesperson stated categorically to EYE:
“Where any agent deliberately attempts to circumvent these processes and manipulate their listings to mislead consumers, we have a dedicated compliance team whose job it is to identify these rogue agents and remove them permanently from our platform.”
Why the anything-but-subtle change in stance, Zoopla?
Is the yearly subscription collected from this and other Agents who blatantly abuse your platform worth more to you than the detrimental effects of this act of manipulation to users and Agents – who pay you for the ‘privilege’ – alike?
“Why the anything-but-subtle change in stance, Zoopla?” simple, to remove all the agents who believe portaljuggling isn’t being monitored would mean quite a significant number of agents being removed from their site.
Some of the agents who are portaljuggling would fear being labelled as ‘rogue’ more than no longer appearing on a particular portal. Dropping from 3 down to two portals could easily be disguised as the outcome of a review on marketing spend.
What ought to happen now is that the appropriate redress scheme is made aware and they apply an appropriate sanction. Where perhaps an RICS firm risks bringing the intsitute’s name into disrepute they have a word too.
Rather than name names I’d suggest NTSLEAT, the redress schemes, trade associations and professional bodies remind all members that gaming the portals breaches both CPR and BPR. Rather than cause emarrassement to any particular firm or firms it is demanded the practice is stopped.
“Rather than name names I’d suggest NTSLEAT, the redress schemes, trade associations and professional bodies remind all members that gaming the portals breaches both CPR and BPR.”
I appreciate where you’re coming from, Robert – but they all did that, back in 2016. There has been no change to relevant Legislation since then.
How often do Agents need to be reminded to adhere to statutary Law applicable to their business before it becomes obvious to all they are unable to trade within those Laws?
On behalf of all the decent agents who will never comment on Eye, thank you for this Peebee. It’s appreciated!
The appreciation is appreciated, Robert – but the big ‘high five’ goes to EYE, as my incessant bleating about this issue on Tw@tter has been largely met with ‘La-la ears’ (credit: your goodself) by those that are charged with the job of ‘policing’ our industry and the listing platforms themselves – who basically thrive on the listings… whether they are kosher or not.
2020 sees the fifth anniversary of the formation of the original #portaljuggling group – a dozen like-minded individuals who wanted to level the playing field for all Agents, and improve the market for the public. Early ‘support’ from NTSEAT and the listing platforms has basically dwindled to next to nothing – and the simple steps that could be taken to practically eradicate the wholesale #RElisting activities of what is now a growing number of Agents and developers are nowhere to be seen.
If it takes another five years… or another five after that… I aim to keep banging the drum. This was one small victory – there are many more bites to be taken from the elephant that moves within the industry.
Maybe when (or IF, more’s like) one of the big players in the #portaljuggling game gets their comeuppance, things will start to roll quicker.
We’ll see.