Purplebricks has a new company operating its deferred payment system.
It is Duologi, a trading name of Speciality Lending Corporation which is owned by Oaktree – the major shareholder of Countrywide.
However, Purplebricks last night said this was no more than a coincidence.
In an official statement Purplebricks told EYE: “Our customers continue to enjoy and welcome the benefits of our deferred payment option, which comes at no additional cost to them. Our customers contract only with Purplebricks.
“Duologi will pay Purplebricks and collect the payment from the customer on our behalf. There is no direct third party relationship with the customer and no facility agreement.
“Our customers have welcomed this change and as a result more of them are selecting the deferred payment option. Close Brothers have been and continue to be a strong relationship and advocate for Purplebricks.”
Comments (39)
It is a deferred payment, which becomes a loan with interest if they default on their credit card but PB have passed the buck onto the credit card company? Using the 10 month rule to side step regulation. says a lot about a business attitude. I suspect the government will soon fill up that hole, as they are doing with unethical tax dodgers. Everything about PB seems to be how to skin a cat legally? for you don’t see the high street behaving this way and they call themselves the same!
“Says a lot about the business attitude”
So very true!
BSOS23PC 😉
‘Our customers have welcomed this change and as a result more of them are selecting the deferred payment option‘
A change of supplier means more people are paying later? So some people didn’t really like/trust Close Brothers before then?
“Our customers continue to enjoy and welcome the benefits of our deferred payment option, which comes at no additional cost to them.
Yes, it does, £360 or thereabouts build into a conveyancing quote as a referral fee or £360 billed instantly if their customer decided that they wanted to use another conveyancer with much better reviews or WITHDRAWS the sale from PB?
Should traditional estate agents who already defer payment to completion of the deal now charge £360 if our customers refuse to use are conveyancers?
Mr Chris Wood name was mentioned at the annual conference with much chortling from the crowd.
There are 4 great adverts due to launch at New Years. Yes dawn french voices two of them.
So what did they say about him at the Purple Fest?
Probably something along the lines from Scooby Doo; ‘We’d have got away with it if it wasn’t for that pesky Chris Wood’.
Dom, can anyone go to the annual conference or is it restricted to invitees, PB employed or ‘tied’ self-employed LPE’s only?
Will these new adverts boldly and compellingly include this weeks ‘informal resolution’?
With regard to Chris, if PB bothers to mention your name at their annual conference it suggests to me that he has done a very good job at rattling ‘Ron Hubbard’?
“Yes dawn french voices two of them.”
Something the lady may not look back on as a highlight of her superb career.
“There is only one thing worse than being talked about and that, is not being talked about” – Oscar Wilde
If I could double like – or more – this comment Chris I would!
Pass the bucket.
Why, are you going to a funeral?
It’s official, he is an LPE!
Yawn I am not an employee nor ever have been of PB.
You let it out the bag, no-one believes you.
Nor are LPE’s 😉 They are self-employed and, thus, in law- required to have independent redress, ICO registration and HMRC AML registration and, if introducing/ selling loan agreements, FCA registration as well. QED. Merry Christmas Dom.
I wonder how many customers have defaulted on the deferred scheme?
Irrelevant of the ethics of it can we stop calling it a loan it is not a loan.
loan
ləʊn/
noun
1.
a thing that is borrowed, especially a sum of money that is expected to be paid back with interest.
You are correct, it is paid back with NO INTEREST in the property whatsoever.
Shame really, that it is the wrong kind of NO INTEREST.
It can’t be paid back as it was never borrowed!
nice pun though
“It is not a loan” (credit:Michael Bruce – Watchdog, 2017)
Or – to put it another way…
“IMPORTANT INFORMATION – NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OR TRANSFER
You agree that Purplebricks may pass any information provided by you to an appointed third party to collect any payments due from you in accordance with these terms and conditions and agree that Purplebricks may at any time transfer or assign its right to receive payment from you to a third party who will collect any payments due. In such circumstances, you agree that such third party and / or Purplebricks may carry out identity, credit and regulatory checks. Don’t worry, these checks will not publicly appear on your credit file. ” (credit: Michael Bruce – via his company’s published Terms and Conditions, 2017)
Oh, but it is! https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3oqJKVfbDXJSWpkcWhrUGJTV3c/view?usp=sharing
I’m sure it can be argued both ways so really a non-issue what it’s called. It’s quite clear when you sign up that you have to pay either immediately or later.
More important things for most people to spend their time on and I hope that includes Trading Standards as they are funded by taxpayers.
You miss the point. If (as seems clear) Purplebricks are facilitating loan agreements then this is a seriously misleading statement and the LPEs’ concerned must be registered with the FCA.
It’s not a loan!
The agreement is not regulated so no need to be FCA registered
Did you look at the screen grab of the agreement taken from the BBC Watchdog program? Unless they have changed the way to spell ‘deferred facility’ to ‘L-O-A-N’, it looks fairly self-evidential to me 😉
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3oqJKVfbDXJSWpkcWhrUGJTV3c/view?usp=sharing
It’s not clear otherwise people wouldn’t be coming to different conclusions. It doesn’t have the normal characteristics of a loan and assigning a debt doesn’t mean the debt was the result of a loan. In this case it’s the result of agreeing to have your property marketed.
If you get a plumber to do a job your’re indebted to them and they can assign that debt to a third party for collection.
And yes, I’ve seen the screen grab. So you have PurpleBricks saying it’s not a loan and Close Brothers saying it is. Then you also have customers saying they weren’t aware they’d entered into a loan. So who is right? Assuming one of them is right is just jumping to conclusions when really it is unclear.
Another trivial matter.
Trivial to you but in the world of consumer protection, it isn’t. Yet again you come running to the defence of any story about PB. Not a suprise to anyone. Your street cred is totally nuked.
So Woodentop. Is it clear or isn’t it? Is it a loan or isn’t it?
As for consumer protection, when you sign up with PurpleBricks it is quite clear what you’re agreeing to and I’m the only one out of you, myself & Chris Wood who has actually gone through the signing up process and is not a competitor of PurpleBricks, so I’ll let readers decide who is more credible rather than concern myself with your opinion.
Of course if you want to look a bit deeper at credibility and can point me to where I’ve defended PurpleBricks and been proved wrong then I’ll point you to where competitors of PurpleBricks such as Chris Wood, who come out against PurpleBricks all the time have been proved wrong. I’ll start with the letter he received from PB’s lawyers which he gave me a copy of and which he published on his Blog but had to redact about half of it. We can perhaps look at his claim that cheap agents are costing consumers about half a billion pounds a year. Or perhaps the Advertising Standards Agency decision in relation to the complaint he brought against PurpleBricks. We can take a look at some of his tweets too if you want.
Chris Wood has a track record of getting things wrong yet he’s always 100% sure he’s right. In his own words “I tend to believe I am right until I am proved I am wrong or the evidence changes.”.
And another point Woodentop (if you’re still there), in regard to your comment about consumer protection and my comment about the triviality of it all.
For the sake of argument let’s assume that despite his track record, Chris Wood is right this time and technically speaking the original arrangement constituted a loan and then again for the sake of argument let’s assume that technically speaking this resulted in LPEs requiring to be registered with the FCA rather than just PB. Note, there are two arguments there (not that I’m arguing – just saying the situation is unclear :))
How does the current arrangement with Duologi change anything in terms of consumer protection?
The conclusion surely is that these are just technical issues rather than a real abuse of a consumer’s rights? Is it a loan? Do LPEs need to be registered because they’re not employees? It’s just a debt for a service provided in the end and an obsession with the technicalities is just dealing in trivia as demonstrated by the new arrangement which easily avoids any doubt.
Oh – MrLister / P J / whatever else you care to post under
Please feel free to comment on my post above.
Just to remind myself and your other avid readers – your last words on the matter were
“…there were no credit checks and no interest charged.”
Maybe there weren’t – we will never know (and neither, Sir, will you) – but they clearly state that they “may”.
Oh – and purely for clarification purposes, there doesn’t have to be interest charged to qualify a loan as a loan, by the way.
“I’m no expert…”
No disagreement from me on that admission.
None whatsoever.
“our deferred payment option, which comes at no additional cost to them.”
http://www.propertyindustryeye.com/complaint-about-purplebricks-pay-later-option-informally-resolved-by-advertising-watchdog/
Just proves the point Chris, the purpleones know the authourities wont do anything apart from a tap on the wrist, no punishment, no fine. Just keep on pushing the mis-truths, until forced to change and then push another one. These companies treat the public with contempt, see them as a cash cow to be milked until they pass
I’m sure it has nothing whatsoever to do with the 10% default rates Close Brothers had on the Purplebricks accounts.
It’s a mouth full really…
Option 1: Our “Upfront Whatever the outcome fee”
Option 2: Our “Failed to Sell it Fee”
Note: Option 2 comes at no extra cost, coz we care!
Note: No online agents should have been offended in the making of this post. All information was posted in good humour and without intention to make anyone cry. If I have however offended anyone who has recently signed up (or indeed signed up a long time ago) for Option 2, yep you read it here first in plain terms… Option 2 is a Withdrawal fee, failed to sell it fee, how dare you change your mind fee or so what if we don’t live up to expectation fee.
Or become known in the underworld ….. Conmisery.
“no additional cost” does this have a (i) next to it which then says “subject to them using our rubbish preferred solicitors, otherwise there is an admin cost of £360.” ASA, trading standards or whoever, please take note.
And according to many previous posts the Solicitors they have to use charge a lot more money than normal, so they can pay the kickback……still #cynical marketing.