An estate agency whose properties have not been listed at OnTheMarket for 18 months, but which has continued to pay the monthly subscription, is demanding reinstatement.
CDF Estates, a single-office business in Nottingham, says it supported OnTheMarket from the start.
However, on June 5 last year, it was told that because it was advertising with other portals, its listings were to be taken down from OTM.
At the time, OTM’s ‘one other portal’ rule was universally in force for all its member agents.
However, branch manager Elaine Foley has been infuriated to find out that several large companies recently signed up to OTM are on all three portals.
OTM dropped its ‘one other portal’ rule when it listed on AIM in February, but the requirement was – and is – still in existing contracts. There were some 5,500 branches on OTM at the time of AIM listing, compared with over 11,500 now. The new recruits do not have to observe the ‘one other portal’ rule and are mostly on free trials.
Foley told OTM in an email last week: “I find it incredible that you would offer this benefit to new signings and yet fail to offer the same to companies that supported you from the beginning.
“I would expect to hear from you by return that you are reinstating our adverts immediately.
“After all, you are taking our money.”
The response to CDF Estates came in the form of a telephone call saying that OTM would not list the properties on the same terms as offered to new clients, unless CDF signed a new contract.
Foley told EYE: “We supported Agents Mutual when they started, however they did not keep the promises they made regarding providing a viable product.
“We originally adhered to their conditions, however we were receiving maybe one or two leads a week and the leads we did receive were non productive.
“If we had continued using them in this manner, we would no longer be in business and at least three people would no longer be employed.”
CDF Estate, which still displays the OTM logo on its website, pays OTM £354 per month. The amount covers a second office which has now closed – something that Foley says OTM is aware of.
She said: “We will continue paying until the end of our contract (January 2020) as we committed.”
She said that she would not have taken the matter further, had OTM been “reasonable” and reinstated the firm’s listings. Were her firm to sign a new contract, she said it would need to be a rolling one, as there is with Rightmove and Zoopla.
OTM said it would not discuss confidential contractual issues with individual agents, but a spokesperson said: “Firms representing a clear majority of our listed branches at Admission to AIM in February 2018 chose to sign new five-year listing agreements, which do not include an obligation to observe the one other portal rule.
“Those agents who chose to remain on their existing contracts remain subject to the terms of those contracts, including a commitment to observe the one other portal rule.”
The ‘one other portal’ rule is due to be back in the spotlight later this month when Connells brand Gascoigne Halman challenges last year’s ruling that OTM did not breach competition rules.
Comments (23)
We did not join OTM at the outset – primarily due to their 1 other portal rule – and the fact we could not see value in paying for yet another portal.
I’m very disappointed that OTM is making the people who helped them into the market stick by a stupid rule that saw them not able to launch their business properly – to the extent they only way they could grow their business was to give it away for free – and not have any ridiculous rules around other portal subscription.
We took up the free offer and I would like to see OTM survive, grow and push Rightmove out the market place. Rightmove are beyond ridiculous in every way and do not deserve the business they currently have. However OTM is going to have to be very careful how they proceed of they will end up being as hated as Rightmove.
OTM need to grow in an honourable way and show they are building a business that will work with agents, assist business growth and get their own rewards through providing an excellent service at a decent and realistic price, not just look out for themselves and their own purses – and not care 2 hoots about their clients that put them there in the first place.
The only legal recourse you may have would be equity and promissory estoppel. But I think that’s a long shot.
I am really sorry that you have been so poorly treated by OTM. It does seem to vindicate our scepticism from the inception. We had nothing to do with them until they offered us free listing for 12 months last March. We will evaluate the leads generated at month 9 and offer them a proportionate fee to that we are paying for leads from RM and Z. They can take it or leave it.
I and many other Agents, were given an assurance, that if we signed up (v1), then our subscriptions would always be more favourable than later joiners. In my opinion, that constitutes a breach of contract, because we all know that it didn’t work out that way.
I and many other Agents, were given an assurance…
If you have that in writing, you have a strong case. If not, then it was a sales pitch.
Dear All
Thank you for your support.
We would appreciate some ideas of where we can take this next as we are sure that there must be others out there in the same position. Just because we are small we should not be ignored and taken advantage of.
Unfortunately, there is little you can do – you signed a contract. You can argue that it is unfair, but that cuts no ice legally.
However, OTM will need to build bridges with you, and others who have not signed the new contracts,if they want your business in future – so you have the opportunity to negotiate a better deal going forward (ideally you need to get together as a bloc to really squeeze the best terms out of them).
What a shambles. I’m not sure how OTM are supposed to be the future if they are insistent on shafting the very members that supported them from day 1. If they are prepared to do that, what will they do to all the new ‘free’ members?
Obviously, if this was a Rightmove or Purple Bricks article there would be about 300 comments on it by now 😀
The decision to hold founder OTM members to the one portal rule is a disgrace.
The one portal rule was a rotten idea in the first place, was reneged on by OTM after the float and to hold original members to the rule and place them at a disadvantage to the free trial EA’s beggars belief.
Elaine, You have my sympathy.
As a Day 1 OTM V1 Gold member I remain locked in to the One Other Portal Rule until my Original Agents Mutual/OTM contract expires in 2019. I continue to abide by my OTM Contract until then.
My monthly payment (along with other V1 Members in the same situation) continues to support OTM and it’s ongoing pursuit of New Members with Free Sign-up etc
My Company provided a Loan (along with many other OTM V1 Members) in order that the then Agents Mutual/OTM could get off the ground. We generally know the story after that. I can’t say in one sense that I don’t want OTM to succeed ….however they effectively sh*t upon their Original V1 Members with the shackle contract if one didn’t agree to OTM V2. That Loan which was in real money was then forcibly converted to a Shareholding in V2.
I remember Ian & his “Roadshows”, his headline talk of the £5? share price & the 100 Million Investment… as we know, that didn’t happen, an honest/realistic forecast would have been better however Ian was in “Sales Mode” so it wasn’t likely that “realism” would get in the way of a “fantastic future!”.
However, I can’t deny that there is Good News, in terms of OTM V2 growing its numbers. Ian Springett, Helen etc have done nothing to build bridges with those that they sh*t upon so it won’t be surprising to witness those that have been unfairly shackled simply walking away. At least I know that I honoured my OTM V1 Contract despite Agents Mutual royally shafting me and other V1 Members in a similar position.
The Portal World has a challenging future in my view, let’s see what the future holds for Rightmove, Zoopla & OTM. OTM had the opportunity to unite Our Industry with V1, it took the a different route/agenda with V2, time will tell if OTM are indeed just another Rightmove in disguise. The “shabby” treatment of OTM V1 Members to date suggests that OTM V2 may turn out to be no different than Rightmove.
Despite the aforementioned… I continue to pay my Contracted Monthly Subscription to OTM. That’s what being “honourable” means.
GPL. Same here, agree with all your comments. Strangely enough I am getting only my second ever visit from OTM rep in coming weeks. Are they going to try and build bridges. I doubt it.
Sadly CDF…. you will recognise OTM/Ian Springett & Co from some distance, they are in fact positioned on the other side of a very long bridge, either sawing furiously with great vengence or setting bonfires …..they are skilled at destroying or burning bridges, NOT repairing them.
I don’t have the energy to spend on OTM and its “Zero Interest” Policy with regard to OTM V1 Members – their focus is on something much brighter …..the dazzling glint of that “Millionaires Club”, if they can just get OTM V2 over the line. Self-interest unfortunately!
Fair play GPL, IMHO, I would looking at all legal angles to get that agreement null and voided.
No listing, no payment, that’s how it should be treated. If OTM presented a level playing field for all, they’d probably get more support.
No listing, no payment. No payment no listing.
OTM V2 is just another Rightmove in waiting…
Unreal, and people want to support OTM?
Have you been shafted by Rightmove? Don’t worry, OTM will just shaft you a little less
If only the UK public knew that “Prexit” is every bit as big as “Brexit”
(Portal-Exit… come on, you smiled, you know you liked it?) #Prexit join me.
Crowd funding for the #Prexit campaign starts tonight. Target £100m.
But Ric…you haven’t said how much of your #Prexit vehicle that £100m will buy….I trust you are being fair with your valuation and offering at least 0.5% equity in this valuable enterprise!! There you are 2 mentions of #Prexit and it is now officially a thing!
0.5%… hahaha…I am talking 0.05% as after all I will be making a profit in 10 years!
How is any of this even remotely fair? How is it fair for founder agents, those that supported OTM when it needed them most to be tied into an agreement that punishes them against their competition. it is in these types of situation that i really wonder when the freebie period ends if all these new sign ups will remain…i would imagine those smaller agents that havent been given “incentives” like some others will be off.
This is where OTM really p*** estate agents off.
OTM should refund this agent from February where the one other portal was removed and also reinstate their properties on the site.
I want OTM to survive and things like this doesn’t help the cause.
Well said…but there are parallels. Look at the investigations into the insurance industry, where long standing customers have the worst terms, the newbies get all of the incentives and cheap policies.
The devil is in the contract and of course, now they are regulated by the City, and with legal action pending elsewhere, they will be very tough to uphold their income stream and ‘value’
We are suffereing the same fate, being early doors, and have to maintain our 1 other portal only. It sticks in the throat and doesn’t help engender good will. But rest assured, Z and Rmv are even worse in their own ways. At least OTM gives agents a little leverage if only the mass would support it. That was always going to be the problem with having Springett there and the fact that developers expect all of the big agents and corporates to be on RMV. The big boys need to wade in!