The estate agency regulator is calling on the industry to make its views known in a review of cutting red tape.
The National Trading Standards Estate Agents Team says it will be making its own views clear, and far from asking for red tape to be cut, it is asking for more: it will be calling for its role to be extended to include letting agents.
It will also be asking for the introduction of mandatory qualifications and competency standards for estate agents.
James Munro, team leader of NTSEAT, said: “We believe this would be an efficient, proportionate and consistent approach to raising standards in the industry.”
He said that while the review is not limited to estate agency, it is an opportunity for everyone with an interest in the profession to comment on the way the industry is regulated.
He urges agents: “If you haven’t already done so, I would urge you to make your own comments.”
The review closes for comments on Friday and is here
Comments (28)
I am a firm supporter of simplifying the industry regulation, reducing the red tape and strong control over rogue agents practices.
Unfortunately, the regulator’s idea of achieving simplification is by adding more of it.
Matters of little significance are controlled and those that really matter are totally neglected.
Deposits collected and not protected, client money protection cover, just to mention a few.
I agree with many of the points Woodentop put forward as well as other people’s comments saying that we are too regulated and more restrictions would not be practical (never-mind not having the resources to enforce them).
However, like other specialized industries, there are some requirements that are mandatory and we lack them in the UK.
I started my career as a property professional in South Africa. As a country it may be argued that it has many sociopolitical problems, and it really does. However, l find the property industry there a lot better regulated and with legislation probably smaller in volume than the introductory pages to our UK legislation of the same industry, In South Africa, in order to become a property agent you must have a government licence. To acquire this licence you have to pass a state exam held twice a year. To pass this exam i had to study the exam material and attended a property course for it. I doubt that the government was putting much into it because I had to pay for everything. Without this licence you cannot even apply for a job as an agent.
Coming to London I was pleasantly surprised that I do not need any licence to practice here. Anyone can do it, engineers, lawyers, construction workers, plumbers, my domestic cleaner – anyone can practice if they wanted to. It sounded great until I got involved with agents who had no idea about basic and essential stuff that could cost clients dearly. Soon I realized that the property industry here bears more resemblance to a Wild West Cowboy County. Everyone can get into it, do whatever they please occasionally getting away with just about anything and leaving a bad reputation for the majority of good practicing agents.
i find it strange that while someone who wants to be a truck driver is forced to obtain a licence to get in a truck or work as a driver, or a gas engineer is required to have his certificate before he starts practicing – to be a property agent you are not required to have any qualification at all, yet you handle deals worth hundreds of thousands and even millions of pounds. People come into the trade, just to try, then leave, others come and go…
I am sure that you will agree with me – you cannot allow a guy to call himself an electrician if he does not know what is Line and Neutral, neither a plumber who has never heard of PTFE tape.
Why would agents need a licence? it wouldn’t make them better agents,
It’s the same as saying: Why would doctors need a diploma?, with practice and time they will become good.
Or why does a bus driver need a licence if his father is a driver and taught him how to drive?
The case with the over 50 agent who is a great value for the company (mentioned by Woodentop) may sound moving but if you look more realistically, she would have already built up the knowledge she needs to pass a qualification test.
You cannot dismiss the need for it only on the basis that a few established individuals are afraid they might not be able to pass.
I need to stress that licencing is not a cure for bad agents.
We must make distinction between bad agents and incompetent agents.
Bad agents, licenced or not, competent or not, are just that – bad agents.
Incompetent agents can be bad but may just as well be good people who may cause losses to clients even when they have good intentions.
While i am completely against most of the red tape suffocating our profession, I do believe that gaining basic knowledge and understanding of estate agency is a must for those who intend to practice in this industry.
ARLA and NALS are doing something of a sort but it is often is used as a paravan for incompetence.
Smack the sticker on the window and we are good.
If one member in the company qualifies, then all the rest are covered, weird or what?
For avoidance of doubt, I am not complaining (from a lack of licencing).
I like incompetent agents, they have served me many excellent deals on a silver platter.
Is it good for the industry as a whole?
You decide.
“The National Trading Standards Estate Agents Team says it will be making its own views clear, and far from asking for red tape to be cut, it is asking for more: it will be calling for its role to be extended to include letting agents.”
Interesting arguments, but I’m not sure that increasing “red tape” is the answer.
We do have a tendency in this country (and elsewhere I’m sure) to see a problem, pass a piece of legislation & them move-on without considering the implications or providing the resources necessary to police it properly.
It is, of course, quite feasible that more legislation / rules & regulations in estate agency are needed. However, as others have said, let’s fully police those (rules & regs) that are in place already. Then we can see the effectiveness (or otherwise) of regulatory initiatives and add to them further if need be.
Piling on “red tape”, however, is not going to be the answer, no matter how well intentioned the NTSEAT is.
I have just come back from seeing another high street agent and their reaction is as I described and I post purely for you all to consider if the hat also fits you.
They have a member of staff over 50 years and been employed for over 10 years. Considered an ultra reliable member of staff, totally honest and loves her job so much she works overtime without asking to be paid. She has no qualifications having been trained in-house by her employers who have a very good reputation and service standards. She has never put a foot wrong. Sound familiar?
The dilemma is she isn’t the brightest spark when it comes to educational qualities but is their top sales person for she has the one thing all good sales persons have, natural ability to communicate with people, something you can’t train to that standard. The employer has serious concerns that she may not pass an exam unless it is of the simplest, (which defeat the object of a good qualification?). They would be forced to make her redundant and hope they get someone just as good or as they put, not replaceable! Not good for the business or its client base.
Now look at it from her side, no job, likely to get one? certainly not within her preferred profession. Has to go home and tell her husband and family she has no job. Will she be stressed? You bet and all because someone believes that licensing is the only way and they won’t be policing it rubs salt into the wound.
Licensing is an unnecessary burden on business’s and employees when the regulations already exist to protect the public.
I trust Chri Wood will pass on the message to the working group discussions with NTSEAT.
I know of many agents similar to the one you describe and remember the passionate and well-argued debates at the NAEA when licensing was debated there. The debate for qualification was democratically won but, I remain aware of the other arguments. I will always do what I believe to be best for the industry and public.
Sadly, the NAEA and RICS are not taking any form of coherent or audible stand on this so, the industry is left with those few people who are. I won’t always do or say what everyone likes but, you can trust me to always do what I believe to be the right thing. If people disagree, there are many routes to make their voice heard.
I think the idea on paper is great and difficult to argue from a simplistic view point BUT it also demonstrates the total lack of understanding of NTSEAT and a council department of civil servants who seem to think that regulation is the end of the problems and their inability to regulate the industry. They took on a job they do not have the resources to effectively police. Far from licensing being the solution, we have so many highly qualified people in prison and people who have been in this industry for many years, very successfully and with honesty will be aggrieved to hear that a bureaucratic idea is going to be imposed on them when it is not necessary.
When you consider the number of estate and letting agents in the country and the number that are criminal it is exceptionally low, but the media has a tendency to tar everyone when one is found doing wrong. Licensing is already or coming to all parts of the country on lettings, so one wonders why the extra bureaucracy and associated costs … which will be handed on to tenants to recoup?
Dishonesty is a mind set, totally irrelevant of qualifications. Just look at all the time we have been spending filing annual licensing schemes , quarterly audits etc, cost associated and are you must saying they are not working if we need to go down the route of licensing or does it mean they will be abandoned if licensing comes in AND don’t forget we already have the rules and regulations in place, they are not policed until the horse has bolted and that is the issue …. lack of policing.
I don’t disagree with much of what you say but, qualifications as a minimum standard of entry will help reduce problems combined with effective, properly resourced, policing will help raise the standard of agency overall. Surely something to be worked for?
Agreed but the main issue will be those that have been in the industry for a long time, some very long. Agents could see good staff leave. I can think of many long serving staff around the country who will be very unhappy about another regime being forced upon them which is counter productive for both staff and employers? Winding the clock back is not good business practice. We seem to be in an era that regulation, regulation is the answer to everything. It would be far better to make new entrants need to qualify if the idea is going to be adopted, a much better idea for employee and employers. Natural phasing out of non-qualified would then be more effective for both as the years go by. Don’t forget we already have regulation to control them.
I’m not against improving standards but an industry that is already regulated and most employers train staff makes me wonder the actual logic and practical use of a blanket licence regime is a knee jerk reaction, “that’s the norm today syndrome” and as we all can see, over the last 10 years hasn’t necessarily improved standards ………….
Dishonest agents will go down the route of being forced to qualify but still do their own thing if not policed. It isn’t effectively policed today and that for me is the main bone of contention?
Its a good point you make Woodentop.
Many Financial Advisers left the industry when further “Red Tape” was brought in as they were fed up having to take exams time and again. These were no means cowboys these were good knowledgeable advisers. We now have an industry short of experienced, qualified advisers.
Again without sounding like a parrot we would be better off have the plentiful and meaningful current laws upheld and maintained as opposed to adding more.
I don’t know about you, but I know many agents who are starting to shows signs of “traumatic distress order” with the constant barrage of red tape, something I see the UK government in England Only is now looking into. Regrettably there have been many suicides within our industry with small business’s owners for decades. The constant have a go at agents from all directions and who do not deserve the attention are questioning if the job is enjoyable anymore?
The only way this will ever happen is if huge sums of money are spent raising public awareness to the point where agents need to be seen to be qualified to trade.
The reality of course is that even a qualification/licence doesn’t stop a rogue operator, they just have to work a bit harder for it that’s all.
Spot on the money RA!
And considering the government are happy for call centers to act as agents i cannot see this ever happening.
The public think they can do it themselves so they have no interest in “The Trade” being qualified.
Except that the figures show call centre agents are losing ground nationally. In the past six months this is how many homes these companies have listed (Nationally). Every single call-centre agent customer numbers are down on the previous month despite the likes of eMoov offering a >30% discount off its fees for the past two months. The public just don’t want the offering and the millions being spent to generate those numbers don’t make profitable business models.
eMoov 1728
Tepilo 2432
Easy 166
PB 9,865
Yopa 146
The public believes, incorrectly, that all agents are qualified. The NTSEAT looks set to make sure that agents are. This is to be welcomed.
I suppose that also stands for call centres!
They are classed as agents so, yes, would need to have qualifications if it is finally brought in.
Chris,
I fear this is a polarization of what online agents are doing and “Fudging Figures”
Call centers are down but are not also High Street agents listings also down? – I know my stock levels have dipped but so have every other agents round me.
The difference is, you can adjust your pricing point to reflect market conditions instantly. Call-centre agents can only compete on price and depend on volume business to make profits. If the market is shrinking they have to spend even more to generate the same volume of business/ income, making their business model very unstable and exposed.
So the body that does not have enough resources to properly police our industry is asking for further regulation that they will not be able to enforce …..brilliant!
As one of the group working with NTSEAT to try to find solutions to the current woes in the property market, I would agree that the department needs a root and branch review of it role and, more importantly, resource requirements.
I believe that now is the time for those agents who wish to see cowboys deterred from entering the industry and the bad agents already within it, swiftly brought to justice and, if required, removed from trading, to support the NTSEAT in its call.
We have two options. Sitting passively in the dark and shouting about the lack of light or, stand up and light a candle. The future of our industry is in our hands.
A rousing call to arms, Chri.
Unfortunately the candles get blown out by TSO’s rushing past important issues, like Agents ignoring the rules regarding the advertising of letting fees, on their way trying to fine them for not having EPC’s advertised soon enough! Ask any tenant what is more important to them – an EPC being show on a website or having a clear understanding of what they are going to be charged. Priorities need to be amended in many areas of “regulation”.
Chris,
What do you think mandatory exams will actually do for the industry. I agree sounds wonderful but i fail to see what benefit they can be.
Put it this way, what are exams going to allow that somebody that has them cannot?
Because if its just to practice as an estate agent the bar will be very low on these exams. I.E. which of these is a house.
Or are you suggesting a qualification to value property? If this is the case surely that is almost on par as a building surveying qualification, Circa £15,000
Then you need to ask how this will be policed, agents currently trade without PI, member of redress schemes, do not display fee, no money laundering. What do you think will happen if they are not qualified? my guess is carry on trading!
Qualifications sound good but that is all it is a soundbite.
Qualifications to a general standard of knowledge of industry law is a must have for anyone dealing with transactions that run into six figures/ relate to peoples homes. I have met many ‘experienced agents’ who don’t even know the basics and endanger the financial security of their customers and related sales/ purchases as a result.
To properly advise on the sale and asking price of a property, an agent must have a good working knowledge of the local area, construction methods, basic property faults/ blights that may affect value post survey. This doesn’t require surveyor qualifications but certainly approaching that level. The NAEA Diploma and now defunct Certificate of Residential Estate Agency from Whiteknights University were excellent courses and did/ do not cost anything like the RICS qualification.
Mandatory exams would deter the cowboys who think estate agency is easy money from entering in the first place.
Mandatory exams would ensure agents had a basic level of competence when dealing with large assets and peoples homes.
Mandatory exams would help raise standards within agency and, thereby, increase public confidence and add value to our services
With less cowboys to compete with, there could be a healthy market where consumers are well advised by competent, qualified agents who can charge a fair fee for a competent job well done. Agents could still compete on fees and service but, safe in the knowledge that there is a level playing field that can be more easily and effectively policed.
I think its a little idealistic to think a qualification will rid the industry of “Cowboys”
Who pays for these qualifications? – I think last time i checked to get a micky mouse qualification with the NAEA you are looking close to a £1000 a person. Am i as a “Small” business owner suppose to cover this for circa 20 members of staff or do they need to cover it themselves?
If the qualifications do make it mainstream how will this be policed? again they cannot police fees, ML, redress etc.
I think you are trying to bolt the gate after the horse has bolted. Bringing in industry specific exams now will only financially penalize good law abiding agents.
A better choice would be to give Trading Standards enough resources to enforce the laws that are currently in place. less tape and expense for business owners and will rid the industry of “Cowboys”.
Qualifications is a start but it can’t solve all of the problems. There is never a silver bullet to solve all problems but I firmly believe minimum standards and resourcing up NTSEAT is a good start.
Again a better choice would be enforcing the rules and laws we currently have as opposed to adding others that cannot be effectively policed.
HI Chris,
I agree with you. As a letting agent I have always maintained that the Industry must set standards to distinguish between professional letting agents who have membership of professional bodies/CMP/Property Ombudsman and those that at best do the bare minimum.
In my experience the agents that do the bare minimum are the ones hiding behind TPO, NAEA, ARLA CMP – They have signed up to so many credited bodies they do not bother any further. None of the above organisations can be described as forward thinking, proactive, innovated or good communicators.
Just because somebody has a NAEA qualification does not make them a better agent then one that does not have one. See Woodentops comments below. The 50 Year old woman who is no good at exams but is a credit to the company.
Well said Chris. Agents can’t complain if they don’t support the call to ‘Cut Red Tape’ and suggest advances to assist