Four online agents investigated by industry regulator over fees

| Rosalind Renshaw

Four online estate agents are being investigated by the National Trading Standards Estate Agency Team – the body which succeeded the former OFT in terms of regulation of agents.

The investigation is apparently on the strength of a tweet.

A spokesperson for the National Trading Standards Estate Agency Team yesterday told Eye: “We have received a complaint about four online estate agents and their pricing practices which we are currently looking into.

“The allegation received is that the estate agents are quoting VAT exclusive prices on their website.

“Our guidance states that fixed estate agency fees should be inclusive of VAT. This matter is being investigated.”

Henry Pryor tweeted the National Trading Standards Estate Agency Team, which is operated by Powys County Council, and also the property ombudsman schemes, Trading Standards Institute and Advertising Standards Authority.

Last month, Eye carried news that Adam Day, of online agent Hatched, had complained to the Advertising Standards Authority that some online agents are advertising their fees exclusive of VAT.

Day specifically named Purplebricks, eMoov, Tepilo and House Network – the same agents that were the subject of Pryor’s tweets.

The ASA confirmed to Day that its compliance team is investigating the matter, while yesterday the National Trading Standards Estate Agency Team confirmed to Pryor by Twitter that it is looking at the four agents.

By yesterday afternoon, only one – Sarah Beeny’s Tepilo – had so far complied with the Committee of Advertising Practice ruling that fees must be shown inclusive of VAT.

Yesterday afternoon, Purplebricks was showing its prices as exclusive of VAT (Sell for £665 plus VAT); eMoov was showing its prices as exclusive of VAT (Pay just £99 + VAT upfront and £995 + VAT when we sell); and House Network was showing its prices exclusive of VAT (£499 + VAT upfront).

Tepilo, however, was showing its prices as inclusive of VAT (from £595 includes VAT).

Eye reported the initial investigation here

 

powys.52

x

Email the story to a friend!

More top news stories



21 Comments

  1. IndAgent
    June 2, 2015 at 07:14

    Gosh. Gone are the days of just concentrating on doing a good job yourself and letting the rest crack on with what they want to do. It’s like being back on the playground.

    Report
  2. HarryN
    June 2, 2015 at 07:22

    Not sure that’s fair IndAgent. The rules should apply equally to everyone.

    Report
    1. IndAgent
      June 2, 2015 at 08:35

      Fair enough….. hands up to that one, however ‘living property’ is right in saying the online lot are certainly not the only ones breaking the rules.

      Report
  3. livingproperty
    June 2, 2015 at 07:45

    Thing is, even high street agents are still quoted +VAT on most things. Why aren’t these guys being investigated too? Oh yeah, that’s right, because they’re high street and not online. Most still aren’t advertising fees either, which is now illegal.

    Come on ASA – it shouldn’t be one rule for one, another for everyone else!

    Report
    1. PeeBee
      June 2, 2015 at 08:44

      “high street agents… Why aren’t these guys being investigated too?… Most still aren’t advertising fees either…”

      Clue – the answer is in your last sentence above – and that it is ADVERTISING Standards Authority doing the investigating.

      Hope that helps.

      Report
  4. M Barnard
    June 2, 2015 at 07:50

    Too true. For far too long advertisers (in many categories of business – double glazing companies are another main culprit) have flouted this ruling. The Vat ruling is not new it has been a part of the Advertising regulations for years. Publishers, and their advertising staff, who don’t ensure that advertisers adhere to the regulations are as culpable as the advertiser though. Pleased to see the ‘playing field’ finally being levelled.

    Report
  5. IndAgent
    June 2, 2015 at 08:39

    I’m surprised the purplebricks have been mentioned in pretty much every article relating to this and they still advertise as +VAT.

    and….even worse.. remember this article last year relating ti IMS who the ASA investigated;

    http://www.propertyindustryeye.com/advertising-watchdog-rules-agent-showing-fee-0-9-vat/

    Still advertising with +VAT;

    http://www.imslettings.co.uk/residential/

     

    Report
  6. Adam Day - Hatched.co.uk
    June 2, 2015 at 08:44

    For the record, I would just like to say that I mentioned 4 examples of ‘online estate agents’ in the article that PropertyIndustryEye have referenced.

    However, in my complaint to The ASA, I mentioned around 30 online agents that I had identified as ignoring the rules on VAT.

    So if you’re one of the other online estate agents, then please don’t think the relevant bodies are just going for the 4 mentioned. They’re not, they’re coming after you as well, so you might as well change your advertising.

    Report
  7. M Barnard
    June 2, 2015 at 08:45

    I notice on Twitter that Mr Quirk is still refusing to accept that his company is not complying with advertising regulations until ‘outcome’ of investiagtion. It’s in black and white Russell rule 3.18 of the CAP code: Misleading advertising ‘Quoted prices must include non-optional taxes, duties, fees and charges that apply to all or most buyers’. 

    Report
    1. Chri Wood
      June 2, 2015 at 11:57

      Mr Quirk is, I suspect, going to have another dose of ‘actualite’ in the very near future.

      Report
  8. Typhoon
    June 2, 2015 at 08:45

    Clap them in irons and throw them all in jail!!

    If they had a conscience, they would never con the public in the first place into believing it’s a good idea to even try to sell “on line only”

    Report
  9. Harree
    June 2, 2015 at 14:54

    At least online agents state a fee, albeit most without vat. Not one of my local high street competitors state a fee on their website and if you call to ask for their fees it’s easier getting blood out of a stone … “it depends on the property” and “our valuer will discuss this when they visit your property” are two of the usual swerves. And of course, when fees are quoted they are ALWAYS exc vat. I see PeeBee has made his (her?) usual pompous addition to the debate. Is there a more righteous poster on this blog?

    Report
    1. PeeBee
      June 2, 2015 at 16:09

      note to Harree

      1.  Read own post.

      2.  Ascertain your definition of “pompous”.

      3.  Look in mirror.  We will all hear it, for sure.

      4.  Listen to penny dropping.

      And, for the record, MY fees are happily quoted whenever requested, INCLUSIVE of VAT.

      Report
    2. Property Ear
      June 2, 2015 at 20:39

      A response by an agent such as “it depends on the property” is not a “swerve” – it’s a perfectly good answer. In the same way no builder will quote a different fee, as every job is different, so should an agent be able to quote according to what he or she assesses the costs of work and expenses involved with each instruction.

      Just as long as an agent quotes his or her fee, together with the vat payable, it’s ok. Any agent quoting an across the board percentage, plus of course the vat payable is open to the age old challenge – why should a seller paying 1.5% plus vat on a house sold for say £750,000, pay £7,500 plus vat MORE than a seller paying 1.5% plus vat on a house sold for £2,500?

      Think about it! Seems you’re having a pop at PeeBee just for the sake of it!

       

      Report
      1. Property Ear
        June 2, 2015 at 20:41

        Correction – …. no builder will quote the same fee each time…

        Report
      2. PeeBee
        June 2, 2015 at 20:57

        Awww… let’s not spoil old Harree’s moment of fun, Property Ear.  If he wants to vent his spleen and I’m his elected target, that’s fine and dandy.

        If he’s picking on me he’s leaving other folks alone.

        Or chasing people on bicycles…

        Report
    3. Fair point
      June 3, 2015 at 16:19

      Spot on Harree on all points. You will find many agree with you but few will say on here. I wouldn’t waste your time mentioning peebee. I think he/she likes the attention.

      Report
      1. agentgreyed
        June 3, 2015 at 16:49

        Don’t be too hard on PeeBee.  He’s just angry because his shares in Blockbuster and Woolworths have taken a hit.

        Report
        1. PeeBee
          June 4, 2015 at 23:23

          Oh… that is soooo funnneee – I can hardly breathe.  A pair of regular shining wits (or something like that, anyways).

          Best double act since Andrex and diarrhoea.

          Do you do Bah Mitzvahs?

          Report
  10. GPL
    June 6, 2015 at 09:57

    Haree & others?…. why would I ever quote any client before I have seen their property, discussed the potential sale, decided how much work is involved in selling their property, how long it may take to sell, what type of marketing is best for them etc!

    If you are in our industry you are Amateurs and I’m delighted I haven’t employed you or work with you

    Take up selling apples if you want to fix your price! Doh!

     

    Report
  11. agent orange
    June 6, 2015 at 10:25

    Just a thought for the fixed price brigade, if you were to walk into a travel agents, would you expect a fixed price for any holiday, anywhere? Or course not! only fool would expect this considering the sheer amount of variables involved…..

    Report
X

You must be logged in to report this comment!

Log In Register

Back to Homepage

Comments are closed.

Thank you for signing up to our newsletter, we have sent you an email asking you to confirm your subscription. Additionally if you would like to create a free EYE account which allows you to comment on news stories and manage your email subscriptions please enter a password below.