EYE has challenged research from insurance giant Direct Line that publicly accuses estate agents of listing properties incorrectly.
The serious allegation was made in a first press release, embargoed for this morning.
After our challenge, a second press release was issued, but only adding the word “potentially”.
Direct Line also claimed that anyone who had bought a property would know that the marketing literature is often “misleading”.
Under Consumer Protection Regulations, estate agents are legally obliged to describe properties accurately or face prosecution, possible bans from the industry, and action by the Advertising Standards Authority.
We challenged Direct Line that its own claims could be misleading.
Direct Line is claiming that 48% of homes for sale across the UK contain at least one bedroom that is “potentially” listed incorrectly based on the space standard and floor sizes in the Housing Act 1985.
As we say, the word “potentially” was added. A note has now also been put at the bottom of the press release, in ‘notes to editors’, pointing out the rooms would be too small when the number of persons sleeping in a dwelling is in excess of the permitted number.
EYE’s legal expert David Smith, partner at Anthony Gold and policy director of the Residential Landlords Association, said the Housing Act 1985 is about overcrowding in the whole property, not setting room sizes.
Smith said: “The 1985 Act is not there to set minimum room sizes – it is about overcrowding in properties as a whole.
“This works by giving every room in a property other than kitchens and bathrooms, but including sitting rooms, a notional number of occupiers and then saying that the property as a whole cannot have more than the notional total occupier number in it.
“Therefore I might have a property with two bedrooms each of 70 sq ft and a sitting room of the same size.
“Each room would have a notional occupier number of one, making three for the whole property. I could then let the property to three people and they may live in it with one double room and one single room and using the sitting room as a sitting room without breaching the 1985 Act in any way.
“I am quite sure there are lots of double bedrooms which are smaller than the size given for two notional occupiers.
“That does not mean that they are not double bedrooms.
“It just means that there must be some other space in the property to use.”
He said the Government has consulted on a minimum room size of 6.5 sq metres for HMO properties but has not taken that forward as yet.
Despite EYE showing this advice to Direct Line, it insisted that its analysis of 350 four- and five-bed houses listings across ten of the UK’s biggest cities showed that many were incorrect, and claimed that 36% of bedrooms listed as ‘singles’ are too small for anyone over the age of ten.
Direct Line bases this on the space standard in the Housing Act 1985 that says a child under the age of ten can occupy a room which is less than 50 sq ft because they are classed as ‘half a person’. However, a single bedroom should have a floor space of between 50 sq ft and 70 sq ft.
The research said that for one in six properties the double bedrooms are exceptionally small and would barely house two people. This is based on the Housing Act setting a space standard of at least 110 sq ft. The research found one property in Liverpool advertised a 69 sq ft sized room as a double bedroom.
There is actually nothing to suggest such a listing would be incorrect.
Nick Brabham, head of Direct Line’s SELECT premier insurance, said: “Anyone who has purchased a property knows the marketing literature can often be misleading, but it is concerning to see so many properties across the UK being marketed by estate agents as having single and double bedrooms which are barely fit for purpose.
“We urge buyers to check the measurements of bedrooms before putting in an offer on a house; otherwise they may find their ‘double’ bedroom barely has enough space for a bed.”
Comments (12)
If agents are selling properties that have bedrooms that are not compliant with appropriate legislation then some responsibility lies with the builders, architects and local building control who obviously colluded together to construct the offending properties.
If Direct Line want to pursue their anti agent, cut out the middleman strategy at least have the wit to come up with gufferage that isn’t so easily questioned, mocked or wrong.
We’ve had 9 years practice dealing with rubbish PR from the disruptors, this sort of cobblers doesn’t even warrant Robert’s attention.
regards to you all,
Bert (Robert’s dog)
Under Consumer Protection Regulations, estate agents are legally obliged to describe properties accurately or face prosecution, possible bans from the industry, and action by the Advertising Standards Authority.
Ah bless! it just goes to show how out of touch they are; action by the ASA if you ever did? If an agent can describe a shop 75 miles away as a ‘local’ shop because ‘local’ is a “subjective matter” I am positive they won’t take any action on anything as grey area as and mathematically complicated as the volume of a bedroom.
As it was mentioned above …“This works by giving every room in a property other than kitchens and bathrooms, but including sitting rooms, a notional number of occupiers and then saying that the property as a whole cannot have more than the notional total occupier number in it”.
H’mmm I know of councils that have made the landlord evict because the kitchen was to small and I know of another where the council took over the property and evicted the tenant who had been happy after living in the ultra modern property for several years but the kitchen was half a square meter too short for 2 people occupancy. The rest of the property was enormous.
“We urge buyers to check the measurements of bedrooms before putting in an offer on a house; otherwise they may find their ‘double’ bedroom barely has enough space for a bed”
what wonderful advice, because the amount of buyers that forget to look at the measurements of the rooms before they buy……
Do they genuinely believe the average person is that stupid?…..
Mrs Brown’s Boys has been voted the number one British comedy. Yes, the average person is that stupid.
Without even getting into the issue of why they are commenting or if they are correct or ‘potentially’ correct, most buyers I know, go on the viewing, take a look and work out themselves if the property is for them or not, including working out if their furniture will fit!
Is this the best bit of advice that one of the giants of the industry can come up with.
“We urge buyers to check the measurements of bedrooms before putting in an offer on a house; otherwise they may find their ‘double’ bedroom barely has enough space for a bed.”
Here’s my piece of advice for those thinking about insuring a car, I urge you to make sure you have a car in first place; otherwise you may find that you haven’t got a boot to put your shopping in!
An insurance company accusing another industry of misleading and false details! Brilliant! How many claims have they rejected over the years on the basis of something hidden in the small print?
Ok, whilst it’s a difficult % to prove, I’d argue they do have a point to a certain degree.
In my town alone on the internet sites some of the descriptions of properties are absolutely appalling and misleading.
I read one property write up just recently where it stated the walk to the station was “10 minutes”.
Baffling.
well, i have heard it all now! an insurance company citing ‘misleading’ details?? can you ever ‘Read’ their SMALL print!!!
Pots and kettles!!
Well done To the PIE team for challenging an ‘inaccurate’ press release.
People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones! Now thinking about cancelling the Landlords insurance on my B2L portfolio, my car(s) insurance too. Who do they think they are? I’d certainly advise buyers of insurance to check the terms of their insurance policy before buying – so long as they have a couple of weeks to do it!