Estate Agent Complaint
Discussion
superlightr said:
I see they have removed the advert and marked it as STC. Lets hope they are not portal juggling by removing and then relisting a little time later as that's now an offence from 1.10.16
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-44676309.htmlOf course they are... they relisted on 28th September.
Well it's interesting to observe that this bunch are pulling the same stunts that are routinely used further down the food chain. That has happened probably twice where I live in SGlos. Of course when the property resides on an estate and you live adjacent and can see that nobody has moved in after six months, the rouse becomes obvious.
The objective is to make the local housing market appear buoyant when sales are slowing down. This confirms my view of all E.A's! as dodgy dealers. Don't really see how that trick works out in the middle of nowhere though.
The objective is to make the local housing market appear buoyant when sales are slowing down. This confirms my view of all E.A's! as dodgy dealers. Don't really see how that trick works out in the middle of nowhere though.
timetex said:
superlightr said:
I see they have removed the advert and marked it as STC. Lets hope they are not portal juggling by removing and then relisting a little time later as that's now an offence from 1.10.16
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-44676309.htmlOf course they are... they relisted on 28th September.
Just looked at their new listing - nothing in it about the disclosure? have I missed it?
I'm sure TPO would be interested on the above 2 points.
One of my local agents advertises with outright lies on the particulars. When we moved here we rented for a while, then the owners decided to sell it. The house was originally 4 bed, but the 4th was converted to an en-suite shower-room many years ago. It was also badly in need of a £20-30K spend in replacing all windows and doors, heating and water system, kitchen, shower-room and bathroom, total redecoration and flooring throughout. Most windows had massive gaps somewhere in the surround, some as much as 1cm by 40cm (max). We got it cheap as a rental, needed it whilst selling 100+ miles away, too far to commute.
Estate agent listed it as a '4 bedroom house in good order throughout'. They have also listed a house as 4 bedroom when the so-called 4th bedroom was in fact a utility room, complete with boiler.
Estate agent listed it as a '4 bedroom house in good order throughout'. They have also listed a house as 4 bedroom when the so-called 4th bedroom was in fact a utility room, complete with boiler.
superlightr said:
timetex said:
superlightr said:
I see they have removed the advert and marked it as STC. Lets hope they are not portal juggling by removing and then relisting a little time later as that's now an offence from 1.10.16
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-44676309.htmlOf course they are... they relisted on 28th September.
Just looked at their new listing - nothing in it about the disclosure? have I missed it?
I'm sure TPO would be interested on the above 2 points.
Vroom101 said:
superlightr said:
timetex said:
superlightr said:
I see they have removed the advert and marked it as STC. Lets hope they are not portal juggling by removing and then relisting a little time later as that's now an offence from 1.10.16
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-44676309.htmlOf course they are... they relisted on 28th September.
Just looked at their new listing - nothing in it about the disclosure? have I missed it?
I'm sure TPO would be interested on the above 2 points.
https://www.tpos.co.uk/members/news-articles/item/...
On 1st October, The Property Ombudsman (TPO) scheme will issue updated versions of all its Codes of Practice in order to address emerging industry issues; primarily the manipulation of internet portals, coined ‘portal juggling’.
On 1st October, The Property Ombudsman (TPO) scheme will issue updated versions of all its Codes of Practice in order to address emerging industry issues; primarily the manipulation of internet portals, coined ‘portal juggling’.
The practice known as ‘portal juggling’ accuses agents of misleading consumers by removing and re-listing homes on property portals, enabling them to hide price cuts and give the impression a property is new to the market when it is not.
Other revisions to the Codes include:
Disclosure on pre-contract deposits – to clearly define the actions required to ensure all parties involved in a pre-contract deposit arrangement have agreed to the terms and conditions attached to the payment.
VAT on fees – to ensure all fees and charges are quoted inclusive of VAT.
Disclosure of referencing – adding the provision that landlords receive all relevant facts, regardless of whether the tenant has met or failed to meet the referencing criteria.
Gerry Fitzjohn, Chairman of the TPO Board, comments: “The decision was taken to carry out a full review of the Codes to reflect market developments and provide clear definitions of unfair practices. Our Codes already state that all advertisements must be legal, decent, honest and truthful, but now go one step further to clarify that ‘portal juggling’, in its various forms, is misleading to consumers. Evidence of member agents found to be carrying out such poor practice could be reported to the Disciplinary and Standard’s Committee (DSC), NTSEAT and/or local Trading Standards.
As the industry changes, it’s necessary to release new versions of our Codes to ensure agents fully understand their responsibilities and adhere to best practice.”
The Ombudsman, Katrine Sporle, will apply the new Codes of Practice when reviewing consumer complaints about events that have occurred after 1st October 2016 to determine whether or not a TPO registered member has breached the high level of standards required. Issues detailed in the new Codes will be covered in greater depth at TPO’s annual Conference ‘Raising Standards’ on 12th October at the National Conference Centre, Solihull.
The working group for the revised Codes involved trade associations, representatives from large and smaller agents in both sales and lettings and a representative from TPO’s independent Council. All TPO Codes of Practice have been revised including: Residential Estate Agents, Residential Letting Agents, Residential Estate Agents (Scotland), Residential Letting Agents (Scotland), Buying Agents, Property Buying Companies, Commercial and Membership Obligations.
Please visit www.tpos.co.uk/members/codes-guidance for all updated TPO Codes of Practice.
From here - http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/a...
Of course they are... they relisted on 28th September.They may have relisted just within the legal time frame but its not within the spirit of whats allowed.
Just looked at their new listing - nothing in it about the disclosure? have I missed it?
I'm sure TPO would be interested on the above 2 points.Report it to the portals as well. See the link I posted above.
The remedy is very simple. Agents should be compelled to state whether it is a relisting.* Buyers would then be alerted to ask why and ask pertinent questions to find out the reason. In this case it was STC and the buyer (the OP) withdrew when he found out about the proposed improvements to the A428.
* I can't find anything anywhere on F&C's webpage which discloses this - http://www.fineandcountry.com/uk/search?tag=&l...
article said:
There are some basic checks buyers and sellers could do such as checking the listing history on a portal and asking an agent about the marketing history. They are required to tell you the history of the listings under the Estate Agents Act.
superlightr said:
timetex said:
superlightr said:
I see they have removed the advert and marked it as STC. Lets hope they are not portal juggling by removing and then relisting a little time later as that's now an offence from 1.10.16
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-44676309.htmlOf course they are... they relisted on 28th September.
Just looked at their new listing - nothing in it about the disclosure? have I missed it?
I'm sure TPO would be interested on the above 2 points.
The remedy is very simple. Agents should be compelled to state whether it is a relisting.* Buyers would then be alerted to ask why and ask pertinent questions to find out the reason. In this case it was STC and the buyer (the OP) withdrew when he found out about the proposed improvements to the A428.
* I can't find anything anywhere on F&C's webpage which discloses this - http://www.fineandcountry.com/uk/search?tag=&l...
AyBee said:
I think the biggest issue here is that the Developer has stated that he's suprised the Agent didn't tell you about it. That shouts to me that the Developer told the Agent and the Agent decided not to disclose the information...
Agents at the high end of the market really should know better than this.superlightr said:
The more you look on this one there more there is to uncover I think. I would let TPO sort it out.
The TPO says: "The Ombudsman, Katrine Sporle, will apply the new Codes of Practice when reviewing consumer complaints about events that have occurred after 1st October 2016 to determine whether or not a TPO registered member has breached the high level of standards required."
So by relisting the property two days before the deadline, have they got away with that one?
Also, do they have to mention all 'material facts' in the website blurb? I would imagine it would be impractical for an estate agent to list everything in the listing. Is it acceptable as long as they inform the potential buyer when they initially enquire about the property?
Vroom101 said:
The TPO says:
"The Ombudsman, Katrine Sporle, will apply the new Codes of Practice when reviewing consumer complaints about events that have occurred after 1st October 2016 to determine whether or not a TPO registered member has breached the high level of standards required."
So by relisting the property two days before the deadline, have they got away with that one?
Pass. "The Ombudsman, Katrine Sporle, will apply the new Codes of Practice when reviewing consumer complaints about events that have occurred after 1st October 2016 to determine whether or not a TPO registered member has breached the high level of standards required."
So by relisting the property two days before the deadline, have they got away with that one?
Vroom101 said:
Also, do they have to mention all 'material facts' in the website blurb? I would imagine it would be impractical for an estate agent to list everything in the listing.
So do I, but I reiterate my earlier point that all agents should have to declare in their blurb that it is a relisting.This should then be picked by Rightmove/Zoopla/etc. Caveat Emptor!
It's not rocket science and would be a red flag to any buyer with their head screwed on the right way round.
1st question: why? Answer: the buyer pulled out. 2nd question: at what stage and for what reason? Answer: ...
If agent knowingly lies re Q2 then they will be up to the neck in the smelly stuff.
Vroom101 said:
Is it acceptable as long as they inform the potential buyer when they initially enquire about the property?
From where I'm standing, yes.Whats the problem with the agent re listing it, any buyer with an internet connection will know its been re listed and will ask the question as to why. At that point the agent has to come clean, probably cleaner than "didn't like what came up in local searches"
The idea of Rightmove etc is to get people to view the property, the brochure is just a brochure, its not part of the contract; does the agent have to spend a night in every property just to check that the neighbours three doors down don't have a cockerel or dogs that yap all day. If you are sufficiently bright to have the buying power for a decent house then shirly you can spend ooh maybe an hour of your busy life doing some research.
Eventually we will be given a seperate list of medical consequences every time we buy a beer or chocolate. Nobody should be lied to, but we really don't want to get to the point that every mirroe has a sticker saying "images may be reversed when viewed through this"
The idea of Rightmove etc is to get people to view the property, the brochure is just a brochure, its not part of the contract; does the agent have to spend a night in every property just to check that the neighbours three doors down don't have a cockerel or dogs that yap all day. If you are sufficiently bright to have the buying power for a decent house then shirly you can spend ooh maybe an hour of your busy life doing some research.
Eventually we will be given a seperate list of medical consequences every time we buy a beer or chocolate. Nobody should be lied to, but we really don't want to get to the point that every mirroe has a sticker saying "images may be reversed when viewed through this"
Rangeroverover said:
Whats the problem with the agent re listing it, any buyer with an internet connection will know its been re listed
Are you sure? I thought only those people with property bee can tell if a property has been re-listed. If an agent takes it down and then re-lists, how would someone know unless they'd been following that property?Actually in all of this, the property was originally marketed some time ago and was on our 'shortlist' but as we hadn't sold ours we weren't in a hurry to view / offer. It did, then, go 'under offer' and a sale was obviously proceeding.
It came back on the market when that sale fell through. We were aware a sale would have fallen through, and asked the agents why at the time (standard question I would have thought!) before, after a couple of viewings, making an offer.
In my experience, agent's answers at this point can be too vague to be of any real help, and there's obviously no real way to verify their answer so you do just have to take it on face value in the knowledge that if they've lied and are caught out the consequences are severe.
It is a good point though - and in hindsight I wonder now exactly why the previous prospective purchaser did pull out and whether their circumstances were similar. I'd hope not but I've no way to know.
It came back on the market when that sale fell through. We were aware a sale would have fallen through, and asked the agents why at the time (standard question I would have thought!) before, after a couple of viewings, making an offer.
In my experience, agent's answers at this point can be too vague to be of any real help, and there's obviously no real way to verify their answer so you do just have to take it on face value in the knowledge that if they've lied and are caught out the consequences are severe.
It is a good point though - and in hindsight I wonder now exactly why the previous prospective purchaser did pull out and whether their circumstances were similar. I'd hope not but I've no way to know.
timetex said:
Actually in all of this, the property was originally marketed some time ago and was on our 'shortlist' but as we hadn't sold ours we weren't in a hurry to view / offer. It did, then, go 'under offer' and a sale was obviously proceeding.
It came back on the market when that sale fell through. We were aware a sale would have fallen through, and asked the agents why at the time (standard question I would have thought!) before, after a couple of viewings, making an offer.
In my experience, agent's answers at this point can be too vague to be of any real help, and there's obviously no real way to verify their answer so you do just have to take it on face value in the knowledge that if they've lied and are caught out the consequences are severe.
It is a good point though - and in hindsight I wonder now exactly why the previous prospective purchaser did pull out and whether their circumstances were similar. I'd hope not but I've no way to know.
ask TPO this is one of the questions you can ask the TPO to investigate. The agent does not know if or not you have been in contact with the previous purchasers. The TPO will ask for the agents file on it. It came back on the market when that sale fell through. We were aware a sale would have fallen through, and asked the agents why at the time (standard question I would have thought!) before, after a couple of viewings, making an offer.
In my experience, agent's answers at this point can be too vague to be of any real help, and there's obviously no real way to verify their answer so you do just have to take it on face value in the knowledge that if they've lied and are caught out the consequences are severe.
It is a good point though - and in hindsight I wonder now exactly why the previous prospective purchaser did pull out and whether their circumstances were similar. I'd hope not but I've no way to know.
Someone told me years ago to remember that when you buy a house you get less warranty than if you buy a box of matches........ that's worth remembering.Rangeroverover said:
Whats the problem with the agent re listing it, any buyer with an internet connection will know its been re listed and will ask the question as to why. At that point the agent has to come clean, probably cleaner than "didn't like what came up in local searches"
I never said there was problem in relisting per se. It's failing to say that it is one. Absent that, Rightmove/Zoopla/etc can't pick up on the fact.garyhun said:
Are you sure? I thought only those people with property bee can tell if a property has been re-listed. If an agent takes it down and then re-lists, how would someone know unless they'd been following that property?
Exactly. RR is making a speculative assumption A prospective buyer might not commence his/her search until after the relisting has taken place.Mr Teddy Bear said:
The point is not that it's been relisted, but that the agent advertised the property as sold, when it wasn't. That's misrepresenting the fact's and attempting to manipulate the market.
On the link I looked at it said Sold STC which is not a misrep. Subject To Contract, as any fule knows, means it's not sold at all. A buyer can pull out at any time prior to exchange. Th OP was well down the that road before the big snag came to his attention.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff