A local authority has successfully prosecuted an agent for putting fake listings on Zoopla.
The use of the false listings kept a property at the top of the search on the portal’s website, says the council which brought the prosecution.
Islington Council in north London took Down2Town, of Caledonian Road, in north London, and its director Ilshad Ali Sumum to court, after listings appeared for rental flats that were not on the market.
Islington’s Trading Standards team was contacted last year after a concerned resident noticed their home was listed for rent on the Zoopla property website, although the property was not actually available.
Investigations revealed that the letting agent had entered into an unwritten agreement with a landlord to let out a different home in the same block.
The agent went on to falsely list other flats in the block – including the home of the concerned resident – as available for rent.
These false listings kept the block near the top of the search on the Zoopla website, which helped to market the flat which was actually available for rent.
At Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court, Sumum pleaded guilty to two offences under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.
He and Down2Town were each fined £2,000 and costs of £1,250, and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £100, a total of £6,600.
Cllr Diarmaid Ward, executive member for housing and development, said: “More and more Islington residents rent in the private sector, and we want to make sure they have decent homes and are treated fairly.
“In this case, flats were falsely being advertised for sale, a practice sometimes also known as ghost-listing.
“This not only misled those looking for homes to rent, but also caused understandable distress among the residents who discovered their homes were being marketed without their knowledge or consent.
“Most letting agents in Islington behave responsibly, but we will take action against those who break the law.”
EYE believes this may be the first time an agent has been prosecuted over putting faked listings on a portal, even though the practices of ghost listing and portal juggling are thought to be common.
Comments (16)
I was looking for rental property recently and realized most of the adverts on zopla and rghtmove are fake – in the sense when I call up the agent to arrange a viewing they would say ‘oh it as been let agreed just y’day’ and the advert continues to be online even after 3 or 4 weeks. Initially I used to think oh I just missed it, it was a perfect property for me, then as I started inquiring more and more properties realized it is a normal practice in real estate market placing false adverts. Well eventually I found the property suitable for my needs but I was really disturbed and frustrated by what I found out about this practice and all bigname agencies also do this.
Complaining to council or asa.org is something that I found out a would be tenant can do. I will definitely lodge a complaint for the adverts which I was told let agreed and are still online. But given that will take its own time not many would be tenant facing the same problem might be willing to do it. What else can be done ?
And if the #portaljuggling was used to misrepresent the recent success or otherwise of a business to secure funding from investors or, say, float on the stock market, would than not break the odd law or 2?
Sure does, more than one. It is fraud but is there anyone policing ….. er no.
Does this mean portal juggling just became case law? Anyone aiding and abetting a firm breaking the law is complicit to the crime? Perhaps it will stop now.
Just wondering if case law requires a higher court, perhaps a bigger case. Perhaps one where a firm has multiple false listings.
I doubt it but it’s a good start. Perhaps trading standards are a better place to complain to than all the other acronyms.
Perhaps with a local prosecution secured, the principle and fine established a county court case could/should follow. If only there were a detailed and documented body of evidence showing say 40 or 50 cases per night over a sustained period of time…… oh await a minute there is!
Case law is usually established by higher courts however, in this situation, it isn’t required as the offence/s are already clearly defined under existing legislation.
Am I right in thinking that individuals working as franchisees would be the ones prosecuted and not the franchisor/ employer who would otherwise be vicariously liable? That would be a worry for a negotiator/ expert who has naively taken on a whole heap of responsibility they weren’t aware of.
Quite possibly both, also the portal for permitting an advert that was not compliant with advertising standards and, potentially, the owner of the property as well.
As this was in a Magistrates Court it does not create a precedent, although the case here seemed pretty straightforward in any case.
This case is also quite different from portal juggling. The agent involved knowingly published fake advertisement.
I don’t think that portal juggling (adding and pulling genuine listings) is illegal, at most it may be a breach of the portal’s T&Cs. It exists because portals display the date the listing was added and may display these listings first.
And if the #portaljuggling was used to misrepresent the recent success or otherwise of a business to secure funding from investors or, say, float on the stock market, would than not break the odd law or 2?
Portal juggling is a clear breach of Consumer Protection Regulations Act law (amongst others) as well as a number of associated industry codes, rules and guidelines.
An ad can be published on a portal at any time.
The date the ad is published (which is what is displayed on a RM ad) does not carry any information apart from what it says. It does not imply that a property has been put on the market on that date, which seems to be the assumption of many.
There are 5 detectable and now monitored and recorded levels of portaljuggling,Those practising the deception use some, a combination or all 5 methods of gaming to give themselves short term advantages. This case will give confidence and cash fines to any authority undecided whether it is a crime worth pursuing.
At £6600 per property one region of one firm would be racking up a fine of £462,000 for their activity on Monday night alone.
still not sure why zoopla refuse to put new priced property as a new listing like rightmove do.
rm sucks but at least they keep agents stock looking fresh.
also, good news..becos of onthemarket iam now on rm an zoopla….thanks to all idiots who stayed on rm instead of ditching them when otm was born.