Panorama has gone undercover at one of the UK’s biggest estate agencies to investigate claims it is not acting in the best interests of customers.
In tonight’s episode of the BBC investigative documentary series, to be aired at 8pm, reporter Lucy Vallance uncovers evidence Connells favours buyers taking out mortgages brokered by the company itself, over the interests of other potential buyers.
Vallance also speaks to a whistleblower who worked at Purplebricks, where staff were under pressure to sell add-on services and were incentivised by a commission scheme to get sellers to drop their house prices.
One vendor, Julie Gallagher, believes her home was sold at a lower price than it could have gone for. There was a purchaser who might have offered more for it, according to an undercover investigation by BBC Panorama.
Her Connells estate agent appeared to sideline this potential buyer in favour of someone else who had agreed to take out an in-house mortgage.
Panorama says that mortgage was worth in region of about £2,000 to Connells, while the company potentially stood to make £10,000 in total by arranging add-on services and selling the buyer’s property too.
“She sat on this sofa… and said she was actually working for me and she obviously is not, she’s working for the company’s ends,” says Julie. “How dare Connells do that? Just appalling.”
Panorama decided to investigate the company after speaking to more than 20 independent financial advisers (IFAs) and mortgage advisers from across England and Wales who had concerns about how the company operated.
During Vallance’s six weeks working at Connells in February, she found evidence that the senior branch manager favoured prospective buyers, if they were planning to take out Connells in-house services, like conveyancing or mortgages, because it made more money for the company.
Panorama also investigated Purplebricks, following concerns it had been trying to attract sellers by overvaluing properties.
Once a customer was signed up, staff then tried to convince them to cut the asking price, earning commission if successful – a former sales negotiator told Panorama. The whistleblower, who worked for the company between June and October 2024, also filmed online meetings for the BBC TV show.
Both companies said they treat customers fairly.
Ahead of today’s’ show, Trevor Absolom, director at Green Fern Mortgage and Financial Services, took to social media to state: “We all know the main agent [that offers their in-house broker and conveyancing services], but many others continue to do this.”
To find out more, watch Panorama tonight on BBC One at 8pm.
This programme will be available on BBC iPlayer shortly after broadcast.
Comments (44)
Having worked for an estate agents owned by Connells in Warrington I have witnessed manipulating sales, lost keys and staff being put under pressure to get valuations, mortgage appointments and get price reductions this as I found out was to line the managers pocket with a large lump sum bonus every quarter, there was discrimination against potential buyers and breaches of GDPR. I left the job as the underhanded tactics left a bad taste in my mouth. Overpricing properties to get the instruction people being charged different fees based on what the manager could get away with depending on the client. False promises to the vendors were made again to get the instruction. It truly is an appalling industry and I echo everything aired in the documentary. There needs to be more checks on these estate agents who in my opinion are crooks.
I’m not sure the finger can just be pointed at Connells or other corporates this is also going on with some independents, having just sold my house and trying to buy another, some of the tactics being used are eye opening including ‘having to be qualified’ by their chosen broker, told by a highly respected local agent that my offer would be seen in a better light if I used their chosen solicitor and don’t get me started on getting my offers confirmed in writing – 3 local agents (not 1 of them corporate) just didn’t do it and yes I did disclose I was an agent. Sadly breaches of the code are commonplace throughout the industry.
All agents should be qualifying offers, this is not conditional selling. Are you telling me as an agent, you just tie up chains without being certain a buyer is able to secure the mortgage? Would you take an AIP as gospel truth and potentially waste months of time with someone who cannot buy? Why wouldnt you do this when a 10-15 min call with a broker would confirm the availability of finance?
AIPs are not exactly worth the paper they are printed on when they can be obtained online in some cases without actually having to provide any proof of what is being inputted to get said AIP.
Its when you start leveraging the buyer to use your broker in return for being the successful buyer, that conditional selling becomes relevant.
There are elements that come close to looking like conditional selling, saying it will put your offer in a better light is still not conditional selling, its a statement of fact. When you have two offers and one of them from someone who has been completely transparent about their finances and have had their offer qualified is always going to look better than someone who is cagey/opaque and not willing to have their finances looked into by a broker. Speaking with a broker doesn’t obligate someone to use them.
Frankly anyone who is opaque or resistant re their financing always raises a red flag for me. Personally I don’t care where you do your mortgage, we just want to know you can afford the house and not waste months of ours or the clients time.
The cost of a fall through sometimes can also be dis-instruction, if a client was to find we hadn’t qualified the offer, I would expect them to serve notice if the sale fell through, conversely I have take business from other agents when sales like that have fallen through. Qualifying safeguards ours and the clients interests.
Underpinning all of this, the Ombudsman is very clear we have to qualify offers, in 90% of cases that is all agents want you to do. Obviously we would prefer it if you used our recomended broker but that choice isn’t and shouldn’t be forced on you.
I was playing a drinking game where I had to drink every time I saw conditional selling. I truly expected to be bladdered! Had a sip when I saw the email from the manager in West Midlands but sadly I am stone cold sober! From 6 weeks in a branch the best the journalist found was a call not returned to a cash buyer who sounds like they were never serious about offering!
Agreed; Panorama have not given enough context or colour. It’s unfair on the rest of us to be tarnished with the same brush. Which is exactly what this programme has done. And that cash buyer who tried to call once. Come on. If they were serious then they would have rang several times and emailed. Chances are they weren’t actually 100% cash. Or cash from sale of a house that isn’t on the market. Buyers are liars….
Let’s be honest, everyone in agency would do the same.
An offer, the only offer, from their own vendor with a cash buyer thinking about it. They didn’t offer, what’s the problem?
My current employer holds a weekly call on “MTV” – Maximising Transactional Value. I have to explain why buyer have not done a mortgage through us and why I sold to them if they are not. This is weekly. On every sale. [Sentence removed as it breached posting rules] If anyone from BBC are looking at these comments, get in touch. You can work in my branch and see what pressure to get mortgages looks like. What pressure to sell to mortgage buyers using JM to do their mortgage. That’s worth a BBC program.
That’s a fair old dig at your employer — and some serious claims about systematic pressure [[name removed]
You do realise Eye’s two-stage authentication was introduced so someone [name removed] could, in theory, request your details?
Certainly brave. Wise? I’m not so sure.
If “maximising transactional value” doesn’t sit right, there are always alternatives — eXp, ewemove… plenty of models where you choose how you work. If one employer’s culture isn’t to your liking, find one that is.
Being honest, yes I did face those pressures and doubtless a younger version of me would have steered sellers toward someone we had a commercial interest with IE a mortgage to be done. Frankly it never sat right and the emphasis on this was very heavy in the Sequence company I worked for.
However, I made a choice to leave that environment and find a better employer, its as simple as that really, any decent agent is not short on career options. We either choose to stay and work for employers like this or go elsewhere.
Thankfully I never had weekly MTV calls, but I believe any company that does this and makes staff explain each and every deal where there isnt a commercial interest and explain why you sold to them, is a part of the problem.
Nowadays I work for a far better independent where these pressures are not present, yes we sell mortgages, yes we chain build, but we are not conditionally selling those services, we sell them on the value of those services not through coercion.
Totally agree with you ManU4life. The pressure from above is the issue. No pressure = no need to get the mortgage leads. And why is there pressure? Because the bods above want the money from the mortgage services. it’s as lucrative, if not more than EA fees.
It will be interesting to see if anyone was silly enough to have put this in writing to consumers i.e. your offer will only be accepted if… That will surely be quite an easy law suit which could open the flood gates. No doubt some lawyers will be ready to launch an action.
Fuxtons and Duxters must be breathing a sigh of relief.
This is from October 2013, Channel 4’s Dispatches programme.
The unauthorised sales practices of staff working for major estate agencies including Countrywide, Connells and Spicer Haart have been exposed in an investigative documentary.
As part of Channel 4’s Dispatches, broadcast last night, an agent from Countrywide, the UK’s largest estate agency group, was secretly recorded telling a reporter that his firm had exclusive rights to promote the second phase of the Help to Buy scheme.
The agent told Channel 4’s reporter: “The scheme kicks in from next year but because Countrywide does so many mortgages for the main lenders they’ve given us the go ahead on it now.”
A spokesman from PalmerSnell, part of the Countrywide group, issued an apology on behalf of the “one branch” which had deviated from agreed marketing material regarding Help to Buy.
Abbotts estate agents, also part of the Countrywide group, was later exposed for advising the sale of buy-to-let mortgages to buyers who were unable to obtain residential loans. When asked by undercover reporters what options were available when the employment history they provided were insufficient for traditional mortgage lenders, the agents proposed the route of buy-to-let – saying it was “a bit naughty.”
The programme also featured several secretly filmed visits to estate agencies by an undercover reporter posing as a homebuyer.
On one such visit to Barnard Marcus, part of the Connells group, the reporter was informed that using an in-house mortgage adviser would result in the buyer getting to view properties earlier than those who did not.
Further to this ‘priority viewing’ practice, Felicity J Lord – a member of the Spicer Haart group – said it would recommend offers from buyers who opted to use the agency’s in-house mortgage broker.
A Barnard Marcus member of staff also told an undercover reporter they would remove a property from the market once an agreement was in place to use an estate agent’s in-house mortgage adviser.
Both estate agencies offered a response to Channel 4 in light of the revelations.
Barnard Marcus said: “Our in-house services are entirely optional. We treat all buyers equally, regardless of whether they use additional services.
“We take allegations of pressurised selling very seriously. We have a legal obligation to qualify buyers and forward all offers in writing to vendors.”
Felicity J Lord said: “We seek to act in the best interests of our customer, the seller of a property at all times. It is not our practice to discriminate against any consumer because they decline to buy in-house services.
“Our mortgage advisers compare rates across the whole of the market in order to find the best deal for buyers.”
A spokeswoman from Countrywide Mortgage Services says: ”We do not condone such actions and take these matters very seriously. Once this matter was brought to our attention, we took immediate action and implemented our internal investigations process. The individuals identified have been suspended pending formal internal investigation.”
They were using abominable tactics in 2004! I went to an open viewing of a property and put forward a great offer. I had a fully refurbished and modernised terrace home about to go on the market that I knew would go quick (it did! First viewer offered almost the full asking price and had no chain behind them). Because I did not yet have a buyer, they wanted to view my home and came 2 days later, got me to sign up with them. Now bear in mind, my house was a straight on to the public footpath mid terrace and the agent had parked RIGHT OUTSIDE MY LOUNGE WINDOW. After going through everything and getting me signed up, having told me he would recommend the Buyer go with me as he too thought my house would sell quick, he got in his car, did some paperwork, picked up his phone AND RANG ME TO TELL ME THE OFFICE HAD JUST THAT MINUTE RUNG HIM AND TOLD HIM THE SELLER HAD SOLD ELSEWHERE – LYING TOAD!!!
He knew before he even got to me I had no chance of that house but lied through his teeth to get me signed up. I told him I had watched him whilst he sat in his car and knew his office had not rung him because he had only just picked his phone and rang me straight away on it, told him to tear the contract up there and then whilst I watched him from the lounge otherwise I was going to go to the media and expose their abhorrent behaviour. Oh and by the way I am a residential conveyancer so guess which firm WILL NEVER EVER GET A RECOMMEND FROM ME TO ANY FRIEND OR CLIENT!
How stupid can agents be – A professional woman, decades in the property market, both as a doer upper and re-seller, and as a property lawyer and they lie to me – how can I ever recommend someone I cannot trust.
And BTW a member of staff from the same branch set up his own agency some time later, and I caught him out on lies too!!!
Going to an open house in the first place sounds like there was a huge level of interest for the house you wanted/offered on. Therefore there is no surprise it went under offer very quickly. And you were just too slow. Then throw your toys out of the pram calling the agent a liar. Moral of the story – get your house on the market and secure a buyer before you view and fall in love with a house…
LOL clearly a response from an EA who did not read it carefully – that agent KNEW the house was sold elsewhere before he stepped over my threshhold, lied to me about recommending my offer when he KNEW it was sold elsewhere, lied to me saying his office had JUST THAT MOMENT rung him to say sold elsewhere – he was outside my damned house in his car, picked his phone up and rang me to lie to me – get real or get lost! As for throwing my toys out of the pram, how demeaning of yourself to even suggest that. I have been in the property game for almost 50 years as both a residential conveyancer and as someone who buys old houses, lives in them and does them up (my brother has his own building company and is a Master Carpenter – his clients wait 2 years on his list because he is so good), so I knew my house would sell within days – which it did! I know my business, I know houses, and thanks to my profession I know way too many disreputable agents. I can tell you which ones will undervalue for a quick sale, which ones will overvalue and then get you to reduce within just a few weeks, which ones will hard sell all the “add ons” and those few who are actually truly independent, value their reputation and do their utmost to be honest and above board for their client and for the buyer. Go troll somewhere else 🙂
BTW the viewing was a Saturday afternoon 3 p.m. Connells came to my home 10 a.m. on the MOnday – so a little over. 1.5 days cos they did not work Sundays.
My home went on the market with my preferred Agent on the Thursday. A viewer the next day and deal struck. My point is proven. Goodbye.
I’d suggest that Connells have been the lightening rod but I suspect there will be many readers of this article who are thinking ‘there before the grace of god’ !
As has already been said, Connells have been doing this for years. Can guarantee a directive from the top dogs will be sent to the branches, telling them to stop this behaviour at once. And then a week later the area manager will confirm they’re to start doing it again.
As for the Purplebricks thing, this was never something we did when I was there, and so it must’ve been brought in by the new owners. Of course you’d have to discuss price reductions with some customers, that’s just EA, but it was never a tactic to win instructions or incentivised.
I had my offer accepted by the repossessing bank, gone to the trouble of getting a survey done and appointing a conveyancer.
Only for the bank to instruct the estate agents who were handling the sale to hand back to the original owner. I wasn’t given the opportunity to up our offer.
The original owner must have come up with the funds to reverse the banks repossession or something fishy is going on.
Connells miselling mortgages is not news, I worked there 10 years ago and it was happening then, it will keep happening until the company faces proper sanctions, Panorama can expose what it likes, nothing will change Connells will ignore it this time like they did last time and the time before that. Nothing will change unless criminal sanctions can be levelled at the board.
Staff are trained to conditionally sell, I know because I went on the training! I don’t miss my time at Connells, specifically Barnard Marcus, but it’s all the same animal.
Well quelle surprise !! Connells have been in trouble for some time now hence why the old guard exited a few months ago. They could see what’s coming !!!
I think you have this wrong-it was that board and the direction of that board in my opinion that created the toxic culture.
However, maybe that’s why they were ejected
I’m not reading this as the “Gotcha” they think it is, though I’m sure more will be revealed in the show this evening.
Open house had 15 viewings, 1 actual offer. Cash interest says “they are undecided” after two days to think about it, mortgage buyer, who the story suggest is potentially sold through the branch, offers on the house and is negotiated higher by the branch? Isn’t this a no brainer for any property professional to secure an acceptable offer to allow their vendor to move onward?
Do you wait and risk losing the interest and then take a lower offer as the time/interest decay of the listing takes effect?
Assumptive language is being used to describe the “POTENTIAL” interest from cash buyer who “APPEARED” to have deeper pockets, was there a formal offer? did they see proof of the “deeper pockets”?
Don’t get me wrong, we all know the bigger corporates and what can happen but the panorama article appears lazy, loose and ill-written if they are trying pin them down on this…
You clearly haven’t read the reports properly. The cash buyer tried to call the agent, and they failed to call them back…I bet that was an accident eh?!?
It’s deeply troubling—but sadly not surprising—to see Connells Group and its subsidiaries like Sequence, Hamptons, Bairstow Eves, and others under scrutiny for conditional selling. Forcing or coercing buyers into using in-house mortgage services under the guise of “progressing the sale” is not just unethical—it’s a blatant abuse of market power.
This kind of behaviour undermines trust in the entire property industry. Buyers should be free to choose their own financial services without fear of losing a home. When the UK’s largest estate agency group engages in these tactics, it sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of the market.
Regulators need to step in with more than just warnings—there should be real consequences for these practices. Consumers deserve transparency, not manipulation.
Coercion or selling?
I work for a very large independent and the honest truth is that other brokers and conveyancing companies who we don’t have referrals with don’t communicate with us! So that means it’s harder to progress and higher risk of falling through because it stresses everyone out. That’s a fact. So until everyone stops being so petty and starts doing their job properly it will be true that using the in house services of the agent your buying though will be beneficial.
Now do Modern Method of Auction otherwise known as ripping of buyers and vendors
Completely agree.
What is the basis for this claim please?? Sellers and buyers both enter the process fully aware of how it works and the costs involved. They choose Modern Auction in order to achieve a secure sale and a relatively quick completion. There is absolutely no suggestion that either party is “ripped off” as you put it. You obviously aren’t aware of the process and how it is sold to the customer (if done correctly)
“If done correctly” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there, also if you think its a secure sale you obviously aren’t aware of the process
I’ve been working with this method of sale for many years, and I am very well aware how the process works thank you very much. Most “traditional” auction companies are now charging buyer’s a fee, whilst sometimes also charging the seller. Old fashioned “exchange on the hammer” auctions massively limit the type of buyer who is able to buy through them, thus reducing the potential price achieved. You need to drag yourself into the 21st century.
The modern method of auction is an absolute con, we have taken on two properties that were listed with Iamsold, both of these properties we listed at higher prices than the previous agent had them on for with Iamsold, we sold them both within 4 weeks at prices higher than Iamsold were asking. Somethign to do with charging a buyer a fee of between 4-4.5% seems to really put them off! Also this is well out of canter with usual fees charged by agents which are in most towns between 1- 1.5%, so potentially Iamsold is operating fees four times higher for the same service, very few to no sellers are going to agree to pay an agent between 4- 4.5% so the fact that the fees are this high and are set by people who have no say in appointing the agent or the method of sale but have the fee stipulated to them is grossly unfair, you may not see it Billy, but I know several legal professionals working in property who see The Modern Method of Auction as a future PPI type scandal, also most sellers expect the deposit to be theirs, but are surprised to learn the agent and auction company keep it, I’m certain in most cases Iamsold is being Misold.
Nail on the head there SurreyEA.
When you are signing a vendor up for Modern Method, do you explicitly point out to them that the astronomical fee will be factored into the offers they receive, effectively coming of the purchase price. ? Do you make the vendor aware that if the sale falls through the fee is pocketed by the EA and Auction Company? Do you point out that if it falls though a couple of times you keep getting paid and the vendor keeps getting nothing ?
Maybe i am old fashioned but being rewarded for failure at a clients expenses doesn’t sit well with me.
Additionally, buyers have to pay SDLT on top of the fee they pay to the auction house, which buyers understandably deduct from the figure they are prepared to pay for a property. This together with the disproportionate fee (which SurreyEA explains above), and the low number of buyers prepared to get involved in auctions means sellers are likely ending up with less in their pocket after selling ‘for free’ via a MMoA compared to selling with competitive agents who sell on a no sale – no fee basis.
Having worked at Connells this is common practice in all branches and forms a large part of staff targets.
what Connells, no never. I bet the recently departed hierarchy will be watching with interest and waiting for that knock at the door from the authorities !!
to be fair, it’s probably a relief to the new regime that they can now just blame the actions of the previous board
The promotion/sale of the ridiculous Lifetime Membership Fee also needs investigating.
My client was bullied into a “Lifetime Membership Fee” – I asked what it was for – “access to their broker for their lifetime” – seriously? What happens if said broker was a lazy one and client’s circumstances become complicated – they don’t want to help people who don’t have straightforward finances.
On top of this, the transaction was shared ownership – the housing association said my client didn’t qualify for shared ownership – my poor client was in tears. On top of that there is a practice in Milton Keynes to add on a “premium” for shared ownership properties over and above the RICs valuation which they offer to sellers. No one mentioned this on the memorandum of sale, both sets of solicitors were oblivious to this (even though my client was willing to pay) the seller went without their uplift for the sake of completing before Christmas. £7,500 is still not pocket money to let go of just like that.
It seems most estate agents really don’t have a clue what they are doing!
I really don’t know what’s happened to the Comnell’s group.
In the last decade it has just been about making as much money as possible and how you do it is less important—certainly not the cons I knew
“The last few years”….. I have been in the industry for over 30 years and they have ALWAYS done it.
I remember investigations into Connell 20 years ago and they have never changed.
Pretty much the entire corporate agency business model is based on it and always has been.
What do you think they bought Countrywide for? Why do/did financial institutions buy estate agents?
Panorama need to look beyond Connell to see that it is not just that brand but all the other Sequence Group ones; however many that there are.
I started my career with a corporate agent 30 years ago, and they were doing this then. They never tired of telling us that it was only the financial services that kept the company afloat. I also worked for a Connells group agent around 5 years ago, and mortgages were priority number one there as well. The corporates are a disgrace and always have been.
Not exactly a surprise to any of us agents is it really? It’s been going on for years and there’s been no enforcement so they’ve just continued to do it!