Connells Group and Agents’ Mutual were in court this week.
Agents’ Mutual, which runs OnTheMarket, confirmed that the hearing related to Gascoigne Halman, the firm in the north that was bought by Connells last autumn.
A hearing in the Chancery division of the High Court was also listed between Agents’ Mutual and Moginie James for Tuesday this week.
Moginie James is an independent agent which is headquartered in Cardiff.
It told its local paper in January 2015 that it would be featuring all of its properties with OnTheMarket.
Moginie James is still listing on OnTheMarket.
We have tried to reach Moginie James for comment.
Gascoigne Halman also still has properties listed on OnTheMarket.
The firm, which was acquired by Connells last autumn, had been an early Gold member of OTM. After its acquisition by Connells – a stakeholder in Zoopla – it rejoined Zoopla.
Yesterday, an OTM spokesperson reiterated what OTM said at the time: “When it was announced that Gascoigne Halman was listing its properties on Zoopla / PrimeLocation as well as on Rightmove, we initiated appropriate legal action to address the situation.
“Gascoigne Halman remains a valued member of Agents’ Mutual and is complying with its contractual agreements to pay a monthly subscription fee and to list its properties at OnTheMarket.com and a maximum of one other portal, which continues to be Rightmove.”
OTM said it would make no further comment.
Connells declined to comment.
Comments (55)
As much as i have enjoyed reading all the verbal jousting going on, to get back on track, can i point out something? If you sign up a client to sell their property for them and you agree lets say a 12 week sole agency term and half way through, that client turns to you and says “im not happy with how you are performing, im going to a rival agent” apart from trying to sort out the issues, you would also remind them that they have a 12 week agreement and that that is a legally binding contract. if they ignored you and left/sold anyway, you would pursue your fee…
why is it then, that when a firm who signed a contract with OTM want to leave, but OTM say “no – we have an agreement” thats all of a sudden wrong?
Am i the only agent here spotting the hypocrisy?
(i dont have a vested interest by the way, in case anyone wondered)
As far I understand the two way contract had a point in it that said if you sign up before launch we will guarentee you the best rate. One year on and PIE where publishing contracts on here for £50. IF you r sole agency agreement says in it that you advertise the poperty in xx paper or make it prominent in your window or other promises and you failed to carry this through the vendor would probably seek recourse in the same manner
Agent Orange – what you need to ask is – Why were AM/OTM taking Moginie James to court??
Have AM/OTM failed to deliver what was promised? Should AM/OTM place restraints that go against competition law (Article 101 and Articles 102) under Anti-trust. Also restraining an agent in the way they operate could compromise an agent under obligations to act in a clients best interest under the Estate Agents Act 1979.
As such it will be interesting to hear the ‘why in court’ and the judges outcome.
Agreed Trevor, as with all things, possession of all the facts is often difficult. My post was intended to highlight the apparent contradiction in sentiment from some of the other people on here.
Agent Orange you hit the nail on the head. A case of don’t do as I do or should that be, as and when it suits me. TV is onto his soap box again I see with trying to find some way to ridicule OTM because they are a competitor to his organisation. The basic principle will come out in the judges award. Just think if this goes in favour of the defendants every contract with a clause could be abolished …. oh my what devastating news for so many industries all over the UK. UK market stability will crash and its struggling to survive as it is.
Also restraining an agent in the way they operate could compromise an agent under obligations to act in a clients best interest under the Estate Agents Act 1979.
Tell me, Mr Mealham – do every one of your ‘200 or so’ Members advertise on Rightmove and Zoopla?
If not – WHY not?
and ….. if they don’t advertise on OTM doesn’t the same principle apply! (and all the other web sites you can think of). The choice to advertising is not down to the vendor, it is for the vendor to decide which agent they wish to use and the service that agent will provide them with (their marketing strategy). Utter tosh to twist and refer to obligations of the EA Act.
Agent mutual have failed the consumer
Come on, then – explain to us all how they have failed “the consumer” as you put it?
(I call people ‘people’, by the way.)
We didnt join agents mutual or otm. I know agents who have had unhappy sellers who felt their homes were part invisible by being otm and just another. That’s how peebee. Consumers don’t want to be part advertised in a black hole.
The one other rule is to restrictive
Thank you for your opinion, woodentops18 – although it has given the OP an opportunity to simply ‘ditto’ rather than come up with their own reasoning.
Not trying to dodge your post – I will wait until a response hopefully comes back from ‘nextchapter’ and then we can expand on your own issue.
Driving around many of the agents who had the bulls eyes in their windows have removed them.
Taking agents to high court for something thats not working for agents like Moginie James is only going to push agents away from otm. A lot of agents are not rushing back to zoopla and both zoopla and rightmove keep letting in more cheap agents. Ourselves and a lot of our friendly competitors are about fed up with portals.
Driving around many of the agents who had the bulls eyes in their windows have removed them.
They were actually only designed to be used at the time of the launch. Many have kept them, however.
Taking agents to high court for something thats not working for agents like Moginie James is only going to push agents away from otm.
Isn’t that a personal opinion of the MJ situation rather than reported ‘fact’?
A lot of agents are not rushing back to zoopla and both zoopla and rightmove keep letting in more cheap agents.
Ahhh… how sweet does that coffee smell?!
Ourselves and a lot of our friendly competitors are about fed up with portals.
So – what are you doing – or going to do – about it?
Over 6000 branches have so far taken the OTM route…
I thought the bulls eyes were to show support. If in a window, why remove them unless the office feels its not working.
Maybe taking the stickers down stops sellers thinking its obvious our competitors aren’t on busier portals which would go against them.
As for high court, yes its my opinion. why would I join something that if it doesnt work doesnt let me out. We are fed up with portals, but at least rightmove and as I understand zoopla don’t take you to court if you list elsewhere or if you want to leave.
And yes it feels good, the coffee is sweet that we don’t have to be on all portals whther rightmove or zoopla
I dont think 6000 managers or bosses have taken otm. many managers were told unwillingly they had to have it, and many of the remainers are trying to take legal action to abort it.
it will be interesting to see what the high court judge ruled. the report doesnt tell us what the judge said and what the judgement was.
woodentops18
No doubt the ‘bulls eyes’ are a sign of support; also an aid to brand awareness. They were initially distributed solely to draw attention to those windows that were heralding a sea-change in online property advertising.
why would I join something that if it doesnt work doesnt let me out.
A Contract is a Contract. If you willingly enter into one why shouldn’t you expect to have to honour it?
And yes it feels good, the coffee is sweet that we don’t have to be on all portals whther rightmove or zoopla
So… are you stating that you are not on both portals?
the report doesnt tell us what the judge said and what the judgement was.
True – but the statement from OTM says it all I would suggest – GH remain on OTM; they are paying their money and are complying with the Membership requirements that they willingly entered into before being bought up by a Corporate Agency.
A win for common sense and fairness, I would suggest…
I dont think 6000 managers or bosses have taken otm.
I didn’t say they had.
many managers were told unwillingly they had to have it, and many of the remainers are trying to take legal action to abort it.
And they know what to do if they were or are unhappy with the decision.
Anyone have any accurate figures as to the number of Agency staff who have bailed from their posts simply because their company changed where they advertise?
I’ve only heard of one who was planning to abandon ship – and nothing has been mentioned in the months since.
Lol. I love this! Agents Mutual for the consumer and fighting for the Estate Agent. I think not. When onthemarket launched there were so many Estate Agents that thought they were in some sort of revolution and now look at it. Lots of Agents are being threatened with legal action, being taken to court, all because Agents realise the importance of Zoopla and how rubbish onthemarket really is.
When I sold a business a number of years ago I had to end contracts I had at the time and pay off those that the buyer did not wish to continue. That’s all that’s happening here, Connells i presume do not want to buy out the remainder of a 5 year contract and are trying to wriggle out of it.
Im pretty sure if you had been a supplier of Gascogne Halman you would want paying as well. To turn this into anything else just makes you look a d**k.
RA – Sums it up perfectly.
This is just one article, in a much bigger picture. Agent mutual have failed the consumer and failed Estate Agents and ontop of that they are taking people to court. I’m not just talking about this particular case but all the legal action they are taking against Agents that they were supposedly fighting for. So many empty promises and now Agents realise it’s not the right choice and they are not getting what they were promised, they are opting out. If you’re unable to see the bigger picture, that actually makes you the d**k
Less than 1% of agents are unhappy that have signed up to OTM.
Z have lost thousands of agents at circa 25%
Does that make it clearer?
More than 50% of agents are unhappy that have signed up to OTM.
Z have lost hundreds of agents at circa 1%.
We can all make stuff up!
How the hell would you know this?? Have you asked every agent under OTM??? No.
The only thing that is clear is you have vested interests in OTM.
The only thing that is clear is you have vested interests in OTM.
HOW, exactly, is that such a clear thing?
The fact yourself and smile please spend your entire lives on this forum defending OTM must point towards you having vested interests. You can’t really be that sad to spend so much time doing this if you haven’t?
FYI – I very rarely defend OTM.
FYI – I do spend time defending OTM and what staggers me is any Estate Agent worth their salt is not jumping to their defence !
I understand that those not eligible to join would not want it to succeed, but even the corporate agents should be looking a little further forward.
The fact yourself and smile please spend your entire lives on this forum defending OTM must point towards you having vested interests.
I can not speak for smile please as to whether he/she has “a vested interest” in OTM – but your statement was based upon supposition rather than surety as claimed.
I DO have a vested interest in the success of OTM – and I do what I can (within reason) to protect that interest, both here on EYE and away from the site.
In terms of my time spent on EYE… well I would have to say that it is my choice as to how long – and when – I read and post here. You will find posts of mine across probably every hour of the day and night of every day of the week if you care to look hard enough. I post on the vast majority of topics that affect the industry I earn my living from.
Now that’s out of the way – YOUR interest in this subject would be…?
Not made up though PooBoo64
circa 60 agents trying to get out of OTM Memebership of close to 7000 = less than 1%
Zoopla lost circa 5000 members since OTM launch of their 20,000 members = 25%
Not made up i am afraid.
Link please? Or is this facts from your brain?
I very much doubt they are recent figures……
In January 2015 5000 branches chose to either drop Rightmove or drop Zoopla, that number has increased to about 7400 who still have to make that choice, a two thirds /one third split in favour of Rightmove would seem a reasonable estimation so 5000 won’t be far out.
Where does the number 7400 come from??
How would a two thirds/one third split in favour of Rightmove be reasonable? How have you made that justification?
It’s just made up numbers to fit personal arguments.
None of this is factual figures that are relevant to what the article is about.
How many have Zoopla gained?
The 7400 was reported on Eye as the number of branches who have joined OTM. Those agents must have dropped either Rightmove or Zoopla. 50/50 would be an even split so unless you have anything more accurate 2/3 – 1/3 split is probably being more than generous to Zoopla.
The numbers aren’t made up to fit personal arguments they are estimations based out on the publicity and spin put out by both Zoopla and OTM the truth is in there somewhere so the middle ground is probably a good place to start.
All figures have been reported here on Eye. Feel free to go back through the many stories.
I personally up until recently kept a tab on every branch OTM had. I each month the number of offices rose. Where it has been documented in many press stories not only on this site but others Z have lost agents.
Not all of us make figures up, some of us are balanced in our views and do our research.
Although I have no doubt Robert that your figures are reasonably accurate, the assumption that you make that all 7400 MUST have dropped either Rightmove or Zoopla is not actually true. They only had to drop one if they were on both. They may have simply added OTM to their RM or Zoopla offering, as did the only agent in our area which is now an OTM agent.
I’ve had a look – nearly all are from last year. A lot has happened since those articles you are referring to.
As you quote – “Circa 60 agents trying to get out of OTM – less than 1%” – which is the joint action? What about the hundreds that turned up to the meeting, do you think they are all happy. Plus the countless others that have already been let off their OTM contract (without legal action).
As for not making stuff up – I quote from your earlier comment “Less than 1% of agents are unhappy that have signed up to OTM” – Have you personally gone around and asked every single agent whether they are happy? Yes, a lot of research has gone into that. Balanced? I don’t think so. A sensationalist comment that doesn’t speak the truth.
Also why did you only keep a tab until recently on the number of OTM branches? Is it because the figures started changing and didn’t fit your argument anymore?
Hundreds of agents did not turn up to the meeting, that is you making figures up. Not even the hosts claimed hundreds turned up.
Check out the figures in the Arena on this site from December’15 Until June’16 every month shows an increase in agents. Thats how i know they are happy. The reason i do not keep the figures now is because there was little interest in them, i used it as a barometer myself on if i should join as i was with Z up until May.
– Notice you are a new poster, the cynic would say you have a motive for posting ……
As i say some of us are balanced in our views and research. Others like you are either trying to peddle a scare story for your own means or just very ill informed. Whichever it is you come out of it looking rather silly.
No motive at all, unlike you – smile please. Just trying to balance the comments field which is so dominated by yourself and PeeBee.
I agree hundreds did not turn up – sensationalist comments are annoying eh?? Fished.
I have been reading the articles and comments a long time. Just sick of yourself and PeeBee making up facts and using bullying tactics to get your points across and try to belittle anyone with a differing viewpoint.
PooBoo64
I think you are now showing yourself up as an incredibly foolish individual.
I have very rarely stuck up for OTM in the most part i have been critical. Anybody that has been a true reader of this site will testify to that.
I am not even standing up for OTM now. I have just agreed with what RA stated that contracts are there for a reason, they are not to be broken on a whim.
And also highlighting it is you making up figures. All of mine can be evidenced very easily by anybody that cares to.
I will leave it here as you cannot reason with stupidity.
Just sick of yourself and PeeBee making up facts..
PLEASE show me a single ‘fact’ I have made up.
I can’t wait.
Just trying to balance the comments field which is so dominated by yourself and PeeBee.
Interesting – considering that the majority of my comments on this particular thread (this post included) are responses to your inflammatory postings.
‘Disliking’ something doesn’t make it untrue or make it disappear.
It does, however, highlight obvious weakness to engaging in debating skills.
Although I am sure Robert that your figures are reasonably accurate and based on facts, what you say about them HAVING to drop either RM or Zoopla isn’t necessarily correct as you overlook the fact that they may have only been on one portal in the first place and simply just added OTM to their offering, as did the only OTM agent in our area. I know it makes no difference to the general argument, just thought I would point it out.
sorry didn’t mean to say that twice, it went in the wrong place!
You are correct Bridget, I was only replying to the fact the numbers were apparently made up to make a point. Smile Please has been consistent, factual and balance right from the outset, his figures, not mine, stand logical scanning& scrutiny and should do; he has spent quite considerable time and efforts monitoring and updating numbers since long before he joined AM.
That will change over time. The argument is always the same. It doesn’t matter how many Agents have left Zoopla, it is more to do with how many consumers have heard of onthemarket compared to how many have heard about Zoopla. Those are the figures you should be coming to me with.
“Agents realise the importance of Zoopla” please can you outline the ‘importance of Zoopla’, what is it Zoopla are doing for it’s customers that makes them important?
Easy! Huge marketing budget, aquisitions with prop tech companies, wider reach to the consumer, cheaper monthly payments over Rightmove. Lots and lots of content and information about the local area etc. Consumers love that stuff and it’s a big draw. Plus, most prospective buyers from main parts of London tend to use Zoopla over Rightmove, oh and adverts on TV , radio, buses.
What about OTM?
The huge marketing budget is agents’ money, the money Zoopla receive from agents is spent by Zoopla on marketing. By cutting out Zoopla Agents could save the normal profits earned by a middleman and therefore have a marketing budget at least 20% larger, so even bigger than HUGE.
Investing in prop tech companies? Not really, the good tech systems are available directly to agents, Zoopla isn’t bringing on anything new they are not introducing tech they are simply replacing development with acquisition; someone else does the hard bit, provides the innovation, then Zoopla buys it.
The content about a local area, are you suggesting agents don’t know that stuff and don’t pass it on?
The London thing is an intangible claimed fact, not a reason why they are important.
The advertising on TV radio and Busses again not something unique to Zoopla so not an importance but it is an indicator that online advertising reach isn’t as powerful and all reaching as is claimed.
Lol. I love this!
That you feel this is a worthwhile comment speaks volumes.
That you don’t make any worthwhile comment on the article also speaks volumes.
That you don’t make any worthwhile comment on the article also speaks volumes.
Take it you were absent from school on the day they covered irony, then…
Seems like you are still in school……Grow up!
In the spirit of politeness I will invite you to lead the way.