It’s been another hectic week for the industry, here is what has caught our eye.
First: Brexit
There are five stages of grief and loss. Denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.
It looks like when it comes to Brexit we are now in the bargaining stage.
First Zoopla boss Alex Chesterman was named by the political insider website Guido as being one of those behind a legal challenge to Brexit.
City law firm Mishcon de Reya is launching the challenge with the backing of a number of businesses which have not been named publicly.
A statement from Zoopla said: “Zoopla is not involved in this matter. The action by Mishcon de Reya is being supported by a wide range of people including businessmen like Alex, academics and others who want to make sure that the correct constitutional process is followed since our withdrawal from the EU is complicated and we need legal certainty for the benefit and unity of all UK citizens.”
Those backing the legal action are demanding that an Act of Parliament is passed before Article 50 is invoked.
One international agent, Black Label Properties, is taking a different approach to Brexit.
Black Label Properties, which has offices in London and Berlin, is offering anyone under 35 who voted Remain a new life in Berlin.
Director Achim Amann said: “We are looking to adopt two Remainians under 35 and will give them a job working with Black Label Properties in Berlin and find them an apartment to live in for six months so they can be part of Europe rather than living on the island.
“They can help with press work for the UK market and translating our listings from German to English.
“I am so angry about Brexit that I am really trying to contribute something to the people out there who are seeking other alternatives.”
KT74 commented: “The outcome of the EU referendum has been a surprise to many people but what is more surprising and alarming is the reaction to democracy at work. It is very troubling indeed to see such contempt for the will of the people although very interesting to see if our system works. Will wealth and/or dark politics be able to buy or out manoeuvre what the British people have decided?”
Second: Happy anniversary!
It’s been a year since Channel 4’s fly on the wall programme, From Russia with Cash, which showed estate agents, including members of the NAEA and RICS, apparently turning a blind eye to money laundering by corrupt foreign buyers.
Both bodies announced their own investigations. However, it now appears we will never know the results of the NAEA’s probe.
As the year has gone by, we have repeatedly asked both bodies about their investigations, asking for the latest updates yesterday and whether any members had been expelled.
An NAEA spokesperson said: “We can now confirm that the investigation into the documentary From Russia with Cash is complete.
“It would be inappropriate to comment further in respect of this matter and all details pertaining to the investigation will remain confidential to the National Federation of Property Professionals.”
Smile please wasn’t happy: “What a complete joke! Swept under the carpet. Showing all the NAEA is really only buying credibility.
“How can the public trust or take them seriously?”
JWVW played a bit more fair, saying: “It was a shoddy, cheap programme aiming at low hanging fruit. Best forgotten about because it was a set-up – a con – and 99% of NAEA agents are actually good eggs. The more interesting expose would be the bent lawyers and accountants who act for the real money launderers. That said, badly played by the NAEA.”
Third: Post Brexit
Should overseas investors be banned from buying up UK property? That is the latest debate on The Arena forum.
JSSoxted58 said: “Now that we are out of the EU, the government needs to regulate overseas buyers from investing in UK property thinking that they can make a good yield at the cost of the UK residents – we will become a nation of rentals to overseas landlords and all the UK property will be owned by overseas investors if we are not careful, driving the prices beyond the reach of all the UK.”
Join the conversation to let us know what you think.
Comments (2)
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/from-russia-with-cash/on-demand/60105-001
Anybody that missed the documentary.
Disappointed to see my comments were judged to be unfair, a number of readers indeed agreed with me by way of likes.
How was i unfair?
Are the NAEA not there to uphold a moral and legal code? Are they not suppose to inspire confidence in the public that an agent is true, fair and morally ethic?
If not what is the point of joining the NAEA? why should the public choose an NAEA member?
Yes the program was a hatchet job, and the actors played up to stereotypes.However it was clear that the Russian was looking to launder money and agents have a legal obligation to report them. It is then down to the authorities to decide if worth perusing. Every agent failed to report the individual.
Some laughed it off while others where actually looking to assist and connect the Russian with a solicitor that would help enable money laundering.
At the very best there is a serious training need that need to be addressed by all the agents. At the worse there is possible grounds for criminal prosecution for enabling money laundering.
For the NAEA to say they will conduct an investigation and a year later say the matter is closed and the results will remain confidential without any seemingly punishment or action taken is quite frankly laughable.
This sets out to agents that you do not have to for-fill your legal obligations. And the public again see no benefit in appointing an NAEA member.
Lets say it was a real Russian and the scenario was real. An offer was accepted and a sale went through. It then came out in the press and through the courts what had happened. Would you still take the line “Oh whats the problem, we just thought he was a bit eccentric” – Would the NAEA, Courts, readers of this website say “Yep not to worry you did your best can happen to any of us” or would it be “Criminal agent giving us a bad name”
I cant help but think this is a real case of double standards from a number of people / organisations.
All the NAEA had to do is come out and say the agents were not adhering to their code, and they were working with them on their training so this would not happen again and that the agent and the NAEA take money laundering seriously and this was a significant oversight.
If this was done a week after the program aired the agent would have got good PR from rectifying an obvious training need, the NAEA could have been seen by its members to help support them and the public could have felt reassured.
Instead in my opinion the NAEA did not want to upset the agent, thought it would blow away and ended up making a complete dogs dinner out of it.