A new undercover operation by Which? is said to show that some estate agents are misleading home buyers about their in-house mortgage broking services.
A total of 29 branches were visited in April by researchers posing as first-time buyers. The branches were in Birmingham, Colchester, Maidenhead and Maidstone. The names of the agents have not been revealed.
Of the 22 that offered in-house mortgage services, not one said that the buyer had to use them.
However, according Which?, six (27%) said that using their own in-house mortgage broker would make a beneficial difference to the property purchase.
Three said that their in-house broker would get the buyer better deals than they’d find elsewhere, and one said it would make the home buying process quicker, and one said that the seller might accept a lower offer.
Reasons given for an in-house broker making a difference to their purchase included:
The sale won’t fall through so you’re in a ‘better position’; it will be quicker to get a mortgage or to complete the purchase; the agent can keep an eye on progress and keep clients updated; clients are more likely to accept an offer from buyers getting their mortgage in-house; the process is smoother; sellers may be more willing to accept a lower offer.
Which? also said that its undercover researchers asked if the agent would receive a referral fee if they used the recommended broker.
Half of the agents said they would, six said they would not, and seven were unclear.
The new research follows a survey by Which? in December which found that 17% of potential buyers said their agent would not be allowed to go on viewings unless they used the in-house broker.
Which? has its own mortgage advisers.
Comments (36)
On the subject of conveyancing:
“For clients referred in England & Wales Which? receives a fixed fee commission for each customer that completes a conveyancing engagement.
In order to track this, Which? receives information relating to uptakes of Shoosmiths’ services.
This doesn’t affect the price you pay; the 5% discount you receive is deducted from Shoosmiths’ standard fee.
The fee we receive covers the cost of running our site and goes towards the work that we do campaigning on behalf of all consumers.”
Yeah… right.
Twitch!
verb
Give or cause to give a short, sudden jerking or convulsive movement.
Could this lead to a loosening of the bowls?
Which? started off with the right intentions but as with everything they started to look at revenue streams and now they are just advertorials for their own brand.
Parasites ? That’s a bit strong Mr Higham
Which? also offer Conveyancing services and receive referral fees … so by your definition, they must be parasites too ?
From the article above:
“Three said that their in-house broker would get the buyer better deals than they’d find elsewhere…”
Form the WHICH? website:
“WANT THE BEST MORTGAGE DEAL FOR YOUR NEW DEN?”
Do the words ‘pot’… ‘kettle’… and ‘black-@r$e’ spring to anyone else’s minds?
Typical PeeBee.
Another fraudulent & hypocritical post. Trying to deflect from the multiple points being made in the article that Estate Agents are misleading buyers by focusing on one point.
Also, it’s not the pot calling the kettle black unless Which? are not able to provide access to the best mortgage deal is it? They weren’t even saying those 3 Estate Agents were misleading anybody so congratulations on twisting things so that you can deflect from the other points made and the overall message that members of your industry are misleading home buyers.
“The new research follows a survey by Which? in December which found that 17% of potential buyers said their agent would not be allowed to go on viewings unless they used the in-house broker.”
At least Chris Wood admits it’s a problem.
I think the problem here is that like many industries there are rogue who use the benefits of a service offered to twist a potential clients arm.
There are huge benefits to a buyer doing their mortgage with a good mortgage advisor, if this is in house then the process should run smoother and that is an advantage to not only the buyer and the seller.
Where the situation gets abused is certain companies (and we all know who they are) informing potential viewers that they must see the mortgage advisor before they view the property as this is what the vendor wants. At this stage, the vendor really couldnt give a damn.
I will say one thing however, almost certainly it is more beneficial for a buyer and seller for them to do their mortgage with the estate agent, than it is Which?
You still smarting that I have ‘friends’, ducky? That still eating at you, is it? Looks from where I’m watching like it’s burning you up real, real bad.
You’re almost a roased ducky.
It’s completely clouding any reason that might once have existed.
It’s coming across as almost a hatred. Of what? Of Estate Agents? But not all of them – just those that work out of branches, apparently. Oh – and maybe all ‘online’ Agents with the exception of your #Fanboy_Fave Purple pals. And why?
So here we see the most recent, typically scattergun approach taken by our resident #bunnyboiler – the one and only ducky.
Deflection… blinkers on and La-La ears filtering out everything other than the noises he wants to hear to then adapt them to what he wants to be heard…
The fact that your bird-brain can’t control your beak should mean you keep it closed – but you simply ain’t capable of any type of rational, joined-up thinking.
Purple-tinted goggles ain’t fetching, ducky – and they certainly aren’t going to do your vision any favours. Inasmuch as your feeble, infantile attempts to score points are mildly irritatiating, they carry no weight whatsoever and I have the backing of many industry friends here on EYE.
You see, ducky – friends watch over each other. Now I don’t expect anyone with social ineptitude to understand how that feels for obvious reasons – but I would hope that were I in such an unfortunate position I would deal with my rage in a very different way that you have tried to make ripples in our pond. But of course you can’t see that reality. It doesn’t fit your agenda. But – reality it is. Your ego has dragged you into waters completely out of your depth
Especially considering the number of two-barrel shots you’ve been dealt, both here on EYE and your other playground on LSE. You’re shot full of lead and the water’s you’ve paddled into is too deep for you to keep your little ducky head above the surface.
You’re going down – and the only thing that will stop your ducky dive into the murky depths is the bottom of the pond.
Jesus… ”stay off the ice bro…’
Um, how is it fraudulent? I disagree with your hypocritical jab, but I can see where you could make that assumption. But fraudulent?
adjective: fraudulent
obtained, done by, or involving deception, especially criminal deception.
“fraudulent share dealing”
unjustifiably claiming or being credited with particular accomplishments or qualities.
CountryLass, it is PeeBee who is the fraud & hypocrite. It’s a common theme. He’s even been found out to contradict himself. Any criticism of his beloved profession and he’ll try and turn the attention on somebody else. In this case Which?
You will see by his crazy reply that he knows he has no argument.
God knows what he is going on about in his little rant.
But that post is not fraudulent. Which? made a statement that Agents had said basically the same thing that is on their website. That would be hypocritical of Which? to chastise Agents for doing the same thing that they are.
I’ve never found his posts hypocritical, the last one is a touch ranty, I’ll give you that, possibly as you seem to nip at his heels whilst not really having any evidence to back up your statements (that I have seen, I may have missed it if you have).
‘I may have missed it if you have‘.
We’re all waiting to see it (PS; he never has any).
CountryLass,
Which made a lot of points. The fact that PeeBee focused on one of them, conveniently ignoring the rest and then trying to focus on Which? for providing mortgages which is a bit different from misleading homeowners don’t you think?
It’s typical behaviour from PeeBee. Ignoring the actual point being made and trying to make out somebody else is the one doing wrong.
>Which? also said that its undercover researchers asked if the agent would receive a referral fee if they used the recommended broker.
>Half of the agents said they would, six said they would not, and seven were unclear.
Any idea why Agents would be unclear when asked?
What do you think about somebody being told the sale won’t fall through if they use an in-house mortgage? Or that clients are more likely to accept an offer or that sellers may be more willing to accept a lower offer?
PeeBee is a complete fraud. He passes himself off as honest but he isn’t. Hypocritical because he’s quick to criticise online agents but defends his own industry and friends when they’re doing the same things.
1 – Which? chastised Agents for saying they could get the best deal, whilst saying the same thing themselves.
2 – I worked for a Corporate when I started, and knew nothing about the referral or payments from the Lender to the in-house financial advisor. And as I was not a qualified Financial Advisor I was not allowed to comment on the mortgages. I would have said that I didnt know as well. Isn’t there a quote about “it’s better to keep your mouth closed and seem an idiot, than to open it and remove all doubt”?
3 – As I stated about, some Sellers may be willing to take this offer over another. Not will, may. And the same with a lower offer. If they have two people, one with finance in place from a trusted source and one from a back-room deal, then they may take the lower one that has the better finance option. It all depends on the context of the conversation had with the undercover person.
4 – Anyone saying that a sale won’t fall through is an idiot. Even if it is a cash purchase. Providing the applicant has been honest, and the office trust the broker, then the mortgage should be fine. The sale is down to solicitors.
Please note, I am not defending the ones who insist that a buyer see their mortgage advisor, or the ones that refuse viewings or offers until they have seen them. I think that is a very bullying tactic and not acting in the best interests of their client. Offer it and let them know the benefits, but back off if they say no.
>Which? chastised Agents for saying they could get the best deal, whilst saying the same thing themselves.
But were they chastising or just relaying the 6 responses? “Three said that their in-house broker would get the buyer better deals than they’d find elsewhere, and one said it would make the home buying process quicker, and one said that the seller might accept a lower offer.”
According to the article “A new undercover operation by Which? is said to show that some estate agents are misleading home buyers about their in-house mortgage broking services.”. They wouldn’t know whether the Agent could or couldn’t so I’d give them the benefit of the doubt in regard to that being the reason they were saying home-buyers were being misled.
>It all depends on the context of the conversation had with the undercover person.
Well the information provided is that 6 Agents said there would be a beneficial difference and then the 6 reasons were provided. The natural response to the claim would be “why?”.
>as I was not a qualified Financial Advisor I was not allowed to comment on the mortgages.
Well in this case the 6 agents were commenting on mortgages if they were telling people there would be a beneficial difference. So the fact they were unclear wouldn’t be because they weren’t allowed to comment. It ‘not being clear’ suggests at least some of them said more than “I don’t know”. Really, if somebody is pushing in-house mortgages then they should be told whether there’s a referral fee and in itself failure to disclose could be deemed failure to disclose a material fact and this could in itself be classed as misleading.
>some Sellers may be willing to take this offer over another. Not will, may. And the same with a lower offer.
OK. But does it make a difference or may it make a difference? Same with most of the other reasons given.
They were telling them of the service, not the mortgages themselves.
Receptionist – Yes, the surgeon is able to perform a triple heart bypass, and this can extend the lives of those with heart conditions.
Patient – So how long will I live afterwards? What is the recovery time? What will the doctor use to knock me out, and how many will be in the operating room?
Receptionist – I’m not sure. Would you like me to arrange a consultation with the surgeon?
Which? said that some Agents are misleading buyers and then goes on to mention that they said the agent claimed they can get a better mortgage deal. Taken together, this can be perceived as chastising them for offering something they cannot deliver.
“Any criticism of his beloved profession and he’ll try and turn the attention on somebody else.”
No, ducky. Any “criticism of his beloved profession” and he will defend his beloved profession vigorously.
BIG difference.
Well go on then defend the points made in the article about Agents and which I point out to CountryLass. Try and keep it concise and to the point and I will look forward to reading your vigerous, concise and to the point defence when I get back as I’ve got an appointment.
OK PeeBee,
I take your lack of response to confirm that you were indeed not addressing the points in the article but were trying to turn the attention to something else. In this case a complete red herring in relation to Which? providing mortgages.
Should you decide to reply later I won’t see it.
Funny, that, ducky – someone asks you a question you can’t answer without completely shafting your agenda and you quack off for days claiming you’re otherwise engaged.
The second someone doesn’t respond to your quackings within two hours you’re jumping up and down claiming some kind of half-@r$ed victory.
Well, sorry for treating you to a dose of your own medicine – but I was otherwise engaged.
But this is something that, for you, there will be no victory, ducky. In reality this is a situation you should really wish you’d never stuck your feathery head and shiny beak into. Trust me – if you don’t feel like that already, you will.
No, ducky – I don’t waddle away like you do. Ain’t my style – whereas you run like a tap with a knackered washer.
Take my response… not “lack of”… and feel free to shove it where the sun doesn’t shine if you like.
Open question to the EYE readers. Can ducks use a snorkel?
Anyone for a PeeBee Vs cyberduck46 Charity Boxing Event? 😉
You want a defence?
Not too sure as to what’s to actually defend based upon the watery findings of the WHICH? ‘sting’ operation – but here you go – see if this fits the bill.
I believe that IN THE MAIN, Estate Agents offering ‘additional services’ for buyers, sellers, landlords and tenants do so in accordance with industry requirements.
In the tiny sample of the industry – around one hundredth of one percent – that WHICH? apparently dropped in on to produce this report, a member of staff in a small proportion of this tiny proportion of totally random Estate Agency branches allegedly made subjective statements as to potential benefits of using preferred additional service providers.
It seems that WHICH? have been careful to demonstrate that none of the Agencies involved made any claims that could be construed as “tying and bundling” of services (‘cos “Tying and bundling” is illegal, ducky. Did you know that?).
IF the people at WHICH? know better – and have evidence to that effect – then they should make representations to the appropriate bodies and authorities in order that they can deal with offenders in the prescribed manner.
Now – what next?
It would certainly be “beneficial” to use our in house adviser over a Which? one because you’ll save yourself £499 for a start.
Excellent point made !
Clients who go to the bank direct just get a bare minimum service – application submitted and then you are on your own mate. Our advisers work with the customer all the way through, helping with all sorts of issues that crop up throughout a transaction and on many occasions help keep a chain together. Guess Which will never report the good side !!
My respect for Which? reduced when they started offering their own mortgage advice and received financial reward. How can they offer impartial criticism?
Well, the broker may be able to get them a better deal if they have only been to their local HSBC/Barlay/Natwest branch, so that may not be lying.
The Agent should be able to keep an eye on the progress of the mortgage if they can just walk over to the desk of the Broker rather than having to try and get hold of them on the phone.
And the Seller may be more likely to accept the offer, knowing that the mortgage is being done in house.
None of that is a reason to force people to use the service though. It should be offered, with these POSSIBILITIES explained to them, and that it can’t hurt to find out if they can get a better deal, can it?
Buyer – No thanks, I think I’ll stick with the mortgage deal I have at the moment.
Agent – If that’s what you want to do, that’s fine. Let me know if you change your mind though! Now, when did you want to go and view the property?
Builders are also guilty of this. When buying my last home I was advised by Persimmon that I had to use both their mortgage broker and a solicitor appointed by them. I pointed out that I was a lawyer and that what they had just said to me put the relevant solicitor in breach of Solicitors Regulation Authority rules. My friend was told that another builder would not entertain her offer unless she used their approved mortgage broker.
We have come up against this time and again, sadly buyers get bullied into using them.
Chris and ‘Arthur’ – as a conveyancer, I agree with you both. But no one is brave enough to tackle the issue and rid us of the parasites.
Apparently there is also one big estate agent, perhaps the biggest by volume in the country, that states that you must use their mortgage advisor if you sign up with them, else the fee is more expensive.
I will state this is only what i have heard, i cannot clarify this is 100% accurate.
We all know it goes on, we have all been telling the press and regulators about it for years but nothing is ever done.
>six (27%) said that using their own in-house mortgage broker would make a beneficial difference to the property purchase.
Who is “we”? Cetrtainly not the 27% (small unrepresentative sample size) of you that offer the service and are doing it. Or it least you’d think not but there are a lot of hypocrites around.
Who are the people who have been telling authorities about this?
Can’t see anything on your blog about it either Chris.
I’ve certainly made comments in the past on here and publicly about it. I also raised the issue many times as an elected officer of the NAEA.
Posting comments on here isn’t the same as telling the press though is it? And the use of “we” suggested you were including others.
I look forward to reading your blog post about it. 🙂
O come on Cyberduck,
I have heard that PB’s telephone sales teams (Conveyancing and Mortgage) are onto users and viewers, in some cases, within minutes of registering although not 24/7 as their website now appears to have dropped?
Presumably, in the case of their conveyancing services to help speed up the process by keeping it in-house and not in any way influenced by their eye-watering conveyancing referral fees or appalling service as underpinned by the vast majority of these reviews:
https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/ezie-eclient.co.uk
PB may have come out of this unscathed because they have no branches to call in too?
I, like Chris, do not condone such practices but PB is certainly not blameless and are more exposed to a referral fee ban than any other traditional independent estate agent who would be foolish enough to jeopardise any sale by referring conveyancing or mortgage services whether in-house or to a third-party who may mess up the sale?
Probably because they have not already been paid a ‘selling’ fee so care more about the outcome?
Now that would make a good blog?