OwnerSellers, which says it is the only free online agent in the UK, has been kicked off Rightmove.
EYE featured the firm in our newsletter yesterday morning, with its expulsion from Rightmove announced by the evening.
OwnerSellers charges 0% commission although does charge for add-ons such as EPCs and boards, saying that it enables sellers to “sell their properties . . . themselves”.
Rightmove and Zoopla logos have featured prominently on the OwnerSellers site.
Last night a Rightmove spokesperson said: “We have a strict vetting process before an agent can join Rightmove, to ensure that they offer an agency service in keeping with UK industry legislation and Rightmove’s terms and conditions.
“We re-vet a number of agents each year to ensure they still comply with our terms and conditions.
“Upon re-vetting this customer Rightmove was not satisfied that their current business model adheres to our terms & conditions, and they are therefore being removed from our site.
“They have also been asked to remove all Rightmove branding from their own site and any marketing materials.”
Last night, OwnerSellers still carried reference to advertising on Rightmove on its site.
Zoopla has said that the agent has a compliant business for membership purposes.
Online firm being re-vetted by Rightmove says sellers could have saved almost £2bn in fees
Comments (35)
“Could you imagine Sarah Beeny or the Purple Bricks guy saying we ca sell your home for £nothing”
Yes, actually – I could.
Allow me to do the maths for you.
One ‘freebie’ out of 20,000 at £1000 each would have a nett impact of £0.05 on the other 19999.
I’ve seen Agents do £500 inclusive on a £500,000 property just to win a board position from their main competitor – so why wouldn’t Johnny the LPN do a freebie or two to gain traction?
Boards breed boards, Mr Mealham – or have you forgotten?
Boards do breed boards. Equally VC’s grow exits and at the mo there are many VC’s punting models that don’t stack up, or aim to replace Gumtree, free ads etc etc for DIY landlords and DIY sellers.
This is an interesting one.
They seem to have been able to drop in and out of Rightmove. They WERE listing their properties on RM; then via eMove(UK)… then back to RM again – and now off once more.
I’ve spotted at least one of their listings on the books of a ‘PAYG Agent’.
Looks like they’re back on the radar… I need a bigger dish.
A MUCH bigger dish.
*** My guess is that it wasn’t PIE or agents on here that got the NoCost (OwnerSellers) booted off RM, But likes of the big VC backed budgets who say on costly TV adverts we can save sellers £housands.
Could you imagine Sarah Beeny or the Purple Bricks guy saying we ca sell your home for £nothing
Or the House Simple advert guy saying ‘Don’t use HouseSimple at £499, use OwnerSellers and you can 1. save the price of a new kitchen AND 2. GET A HOLIDAY THROWN IN TOO
My guess is the current budget models don’t like the ‘You can save message’
Remember that Company that used to adopt the same attitude towards Agents……what was its name again,,,,,,oh was it Yellow Pages?
Really rightmove and zoopla should think what the world will be like if there are just online agents, not paying multi branch advertising fees and then once they are big enough, being an online model perhaps they wont even need rightmove or zoopla any more. Perhaps they should think about their own futures if not of the industry as a whole’s futures.
femaleagent88 – Rightmove and Zoopla (though in my view RM is the most likely candidate) will one day morph into a portal/online agency that private sellers use directly.
Think about it – say 1.5 million properties listed each year. At say £250 a pop. £375 million. Nice business.
Won’t happen that way.
1. They wouldnt have 20,000 agencies man ppwer to head the workload.
2. If they did have all those listings and offered ancillary intermediate passive services. All vendor provided incorrect info they’d become responsible for which could equal £5k plus per offence
Agents leaving would go elsewhere.
£250 is very budget and provides no agent hand holding for sellers. Many people want a hand holder who can negotiate a best offer up.
I think you’re onto something with either Rightmove or Zoopla going direct, however, I don’t think it’ll be Rightmove.
Look at the acquisitions made by Zoopla. If you align their data stack they have portal data, agent data, sellers data, landlord data, buyer data and tenant data. Though PSG, MoveIT, uSwitch, BrickLane, along with various partner initiatives (Samsung, Veiweet) they have all the additional consumer financial information. They have access to utility, broadband, mobile, insurance, and banking.
They actually have all the pieces of the jigsaw to make it happen…
@ Moolamarkie
RM don’t need to. They support lower cost models (eeeasy, eMeve, mauvebricks, twoPillows, simpleHouses, Settledido) and so on. All these create a near FSBO platform at arms length.
Why would RM want to worry about CPR’s / BPRs, 1979 EAA, AML, redress etc etc
**** My guess is that it wasn’t PIE or agents on here that got the NoCost (OwnerSellers) agent booted off RM, But likes of the above who say we can save sellers £housands.
Suddenly the ZERO FEE and £99 sell your home model agents become a threat to those wanting to charge £hundreds
What must some of the above spend ?? Millions – maybe they started shouting first as their ‘We save home owners £housands’ suddenly becomes expensive
Ah at last the light is coming on.
Yes it could happen and maybe dependent on what transgresses with on-line only portals like PB etc. Countrywide have thought about it! Saying it won’t reminds me of Chamberlain, wishful thinking.
femaleagent88
BEFORE YOU GO OFF ON ONE – I’M ON YOUR SIDE WITH THIS ONE!!
“Perhaps they should think about their own futures if not of the industry as a whole’s futures.”
What you posted are the correct words – however, as Eric Morecambe said, “just not in the correct order.”
Without the industry the portals have no future.
But – without the portals the industry COULD survive. No doubt survival of the fittest, yes – but survival nevertheless.
What is ‘wrong’ with the portals has been hammered out here (and EAT before Ros Nick et al created EYE) for years.
Suffolk Agent made the most salient points above.
Don’t worry – I’m not saying for one second that OTM is the answer. It is one potential answer to part of a part of a much bigger question.
One way or another – we need to ascertain the answers before it is too late…
…assuming that point has not already passed.
I don’t think it has already passed, its in danger. I would say that 2016 is the year agents have started to wake up. OTM looking back has mishandled …. hasn’t shut up the critics. It needs to change course from just being a portal or just seen to be another one. Its values, what it represents to agents (its members now and future) and the public perception that it is the one, all agents should be on. During 2016 there has been so much guff that is a mountain of ammunition it can fire to support its values against it competition, who frankly have shot themselves so many times the work has been done for them be it web portal or on-liner only. But I hear no cannons going off, not even a blank being fired. Just get the message over to those that matter NOW not in 5 years time. AM take control of the market and use the ammunition that has been handed to you on a plate in COMMUNICATING with not just agents but possibly more important the public to make them understand why they should be using an OTM agent. You need an efficient marketing (team) department using every conceivable outlet 24/7. A couple of missed TV ads (not seen one recently) would cover the costs of setting up such a team? You need to evolve from just being seen as any portal. Xmillion hits a month is nonsense on its own.
Certainly a decision to applaud however one can’t help thinking that OwnersSellers has been made an example of as a result of public opinion as opposed to Rightmove ACTUALLY policing anything.
In addition, in what could be another headline for Ros: “Agent partially agrees with Trevor Mealham” I would also say that it shows how seriously Zoopla actually consider this issue in the fact that they haven’t acted on this or any other case, or perhaps more importantly, see nothing wrong in OwnersSellers listing with them.
I can only conclude that we await the news that Zoopla are now taking private sellers listings.
Applauds.
@RealAgent
I think the main thing stopping Z taking FSBO listings is that they could be responsible for CPRs and Omissions.
Thus all the time budget agents or list only list in Zoopla it gives them arms length reach from potential fines for inaccurate property information.
No suprise that Zoopla are not taking action ,yet more proof that agents are not high on their priority just profit.
we collectively and blindly created the monster that is Rightmove have we learnt nothing.
Yes I support On the market as with out it we will be bled dry.
crash helmet now on and post!
28 likes to date. Blimey you weren’t expecting that. The anti-mob are probably too busy trying to rectify their portal juggling now the games up. I think it has started to sink in with many, even those that won’t openly admit it ….. the future for the high street in OTM. All it needs now is for OTM to be so high profile advertised that an agent wouldn’t dare not join and their customers start complaining why they are not advertising with OTM. That’s the key …. AM should be 24/7 on buses, taxis, trains, bill boards .. the list is endless. Forget about only using TV, it is expensive and limited viewing. Someone with a credited marketing experience should be a major player on the AM board.
Ummm how many ‘agents’ or list only models does Zoopla turn away? None?
Agents have invested hundreds of millions to reach where?
High portal costs and free or low cost models to cut them up.
Big portals are taking the pee. Only acting (if they do) when pushed by the majority of hands that feed them.
WHICH research Sept showed only 4 in 10 homes found on main portals achieved sales.
Maybe its time for agents to put more into the other 6 in 10 ways properties sell.
There will always be 40% of houses not sell Trevor, as:
1. We allow people to try and sell, even if they don’t really want to.
2. We are an industry of “*****”” (rhymes with parts) by this I mean we will list almost anything no matter what.
3. There is no penalty for “not selling” most of the time so we encourage number 1.
4. So many properties are dual and even triple listed and I am sure the stat bods do not look at the unique stock levels.
HIPS had the potential to be such a great idea but so poorly executed allowing big companies to rip people off, however when they were about my stock was pretty damn good!
For now however, we will always have unsold stock and they keep the phones ringing oddly!
WELL DONE RM though! Z will never change and OTM keep watching and learning! RM are become more Agent friendly by the minute or certainly with me they are.
No Ric.
I didnt say 40% fall through. …..
90% start their search online. BUT of properties that complete (SOLD) only 4 in 10 comes from portals
http://www.which.co.uk/news/2016/08/only-four-in-10-find-new-homes-on-property-portals-451429/
As with most statistics, they’re open to interpretation and selective presentation. Respondee demographics is likely to have had some influence as I can’t imagine many millennials have even heard of which! I’m also raising a wry smile as I’ve just completed an online survey (bike related) just to get to get entered for the prise draw so I’m not that fussed about my answers.
I am slightly confused by the numbers though. If 90% start their search online. i.e. that’s their very first activity/step on their moving journey, regardless of what else happens on route (board, office visit, local paper, recommendation), 90% (9 out of 10) of completions can legitimately be attributed to the originating online activity.
The bit that’s interesting isn’t the 6 in 10 from other sources but the 1 in 10 who did not start their property search online.
@ Moolamarkie
We did a trial with 6 independents and a Countrywide office. The main agent (a Countrywide) had 2 weeks head start on marketing a property top end of £400k and placed it on RM and Z.
6 Independents (from 3-14 miles away then added it to their windows, mailed /phoned out, placed in local community magazines that CW didnt do.
The sub agents picked up another 9 viewers.
In total there was 3 offers. The highest being £35k higher than another corporate had valued at. The vendor paid 1.5% rather than 1%, but was very happy to do so, rather than budget or sole agency.
We then helped he purchase her next home at £17k less than asking price.
So the 6 in 10 is quite an interesting metric too.
“6 Independents (from 3-14 miles away then added it to their windows, mailed /phoned out, placed in local community magazines that CW didnt do.”
Did they add it to their websites or own portal listings?
You crow about the 9 viewings that your “sub agents” brought to the table – but fail to state how many viewings the CW agent secured themselves. You fail to state how many of the offers were received by the listing Agent; and where the accepted offer emanated from.
“We then helped he purchase her next home at £17k less than asking price.”
Oohhh – look out, Mr Pryor – you’ve got competition!
£17k on what? If it was a similar price to what they were selling for, that would equate to less than 4% of asking price. Hardly worth writing home about – and maybe Mr Pryor’s job is safe for another week.
Now – I’ll take my microscope and leave… I think it’s done enough damage for one sesh.
PeeBee, CW had 2 weeks head start and achieved 7 viewers 1 offer. The sub agents POST THE RM Z head start achieved 9 viewers 2 offers.
By having 2 more offers from agents in different areas to the CW office, £35k more was achieved than another corporate valued at.
By having the two independents offerers we managed to get the property under offer another £15k than CW’s original offer came in at.
The seller paid 1.5% rather than 1% sole agency
On the clients purchase (and I said she, PeeBee, you’ve given her a sex op above, and for sure that wasn’t part of the service). She would have paid £300k, instead we achieved £283k.
£17k is worth having. Equally if adopted, a 20% comm based on the saving would be better than a typical 1% sole agents fee on the same £283k stc
“…you’ve given her a sex op above…”
Please point me in the general direction of where I made this catastrophic gender error, Mr Mealham.
You have not answered my first question:
Did they add it to their websites or own portal listings?
I respect of the “saving” you made – two possibilities here…
1. The property price was overinflated to leave room for negotiation down, or
2. The Agent you were up against was a completely cr@p negotiator – and therefore shouldn’t have been trusted with his/her vendor’s property in the first instance – although the vendor had the last word on what is accepted.
What we will never know is whether someone else might have been able to squeeze a £20k reduction.
“WHICH research Sept showed only 4 in 10 homes found on main portals achieved sales.”
NO IT DIDN’T!
The “research” claimed that only 40% of sales were directly attributed to the buyers seeing the properties on the main property portals.
Although you correct yourself in your response to Ric, this is at least the second time that you have misrepresented the results of the Which? ‘survey’ here on EYE, Mr Mealham.
You really should try to at least get the basics right. If I’m picking up on this, others will too.
PeeBee – do as you wish with your finite magnifying glass. The fact is, there are other valuable ‘away’ from portal tools agents should poss put more funding in to.
RM and Z are VERY good at what they do. But truth is they miss many other bases that agents do without them.
Mr Mealham
What I do with my magnifying glass matters not one jot.
The exact same jot, by the way, as that your post in relation to the Which? report matters not either.
You state above that “90% start their search online.”
You have, therefore, allowed yourself to yield to the same ******** you are trying to discredit.
Disagree? Think about it.
And I could harp on that the client I helped I clearly said was a she and you said a he. Now was your comment ********?
Help me out here, please – WHERE did I say ‘he’, Mr Mealham?
A good start. Perhaps Rightmove will now kick off the UKs’ most prolific abuser of the law and Rightmoves’ own policies (then again, as the firm in question has a huge spend with Rightmove, perhaps we shouldn’t hold our breath)
*** My guess is that it wasn’t PIE or agents on here that got the NoCost (OwnerSellers) booted off RM, But likes of the big VC backed budgets who say on costly TV adverts we can save sellers £housands.
Then I would say you are doing EYE a disservice, Sir.
You don’t seriously believe that the Bruces; the Ellices and the Quirks of this world are picking up the phone and bleating to Messrs Shipside, Chesterman et al that a cheaper agent has to be dumped ‘cos it’s costing them an instruction every nineteen weeks, do you?
Ros and the team at EYE should be congratulated and thanked for their invaluable efforts on behalf of what is, partly at least, an unappreciative and cynical industry.
I think Ros does a good job. But commercially the last thing the big budgets want is the ‘We can save you a fortune when selling’ punted cheaper.
I believe the biggest companies playing on ‘we can save you thousands’ will be the first to shout when their own strategy is used against them.