CMA confirms no investigation into OnTheMarket

| Rosalind Renshaw

The Competition and Markets Authority has confirmed that it will not be pursuing a complaint against OnTheMarket.

However, it has warned that agents must not collude in deciding which portals to use or drop – in other words, warning that a collectively organised boycott could breach competition law.

The National Trading Standards Estate Agency Team, which has also had complaints about OTM, has said it is in discussions with the CMA about the portal.

The CMA would not reveal what these discussions might centre around, but it appears that they might concern agents rather than the portal.

Agents’ Mutual, which owns OTM, said it was satisfied it is operating within the law, and insisted that it is “pro-competitive”.

Russell Quirk, of online agent eMoov, filed a complaint with the CMA last October – before OnTheMarket launched. He complained about the portal’s decision to ban online agents, which he described as anti-competitive.

He also alleged that OTM, with its “one other portal” advertising rule, was essentially a cartel.

While Eye has previously reported that the CMA was not taking the complaint further, we yesterday had formal confirmation.

A spokesperson said: “The CMA has been monitoring the sector and do not currently consider that it is appropriate to open a formal investigation.

“Where we have reason to suspect that competition law may have been breached through collective agreement over the choice of portals by estate agents we will remind them of their obligations under competition law.

“We will continue to monitor developments in the sector and will consider taking further action should we think it is warranted.”

Ian Springett, chief executive of OTM, said: “It has been reported in the press that complaints have been made to the Competition and Markets Authority about Agents’ Mutual (the owners of OnTheMarket.com).

“The CMA has informed Agents’ Mutual that it does not intend to open an investigation. From the outset, Agents’ Mutual took appropriate legal advice and on the basis of the advice received its board is satisfied the company is operating within the law.

“The goal of Agents’ Mutual has always been pro-competitive, to give estate and letting agents a sustainably lower priced alternative to the dominant portals and to provide the property-seeking public with greater choice and a first-class search service.

“We will continue to work hard to offer member agents and consumers the best service while operating in accordance with all relevant laws.

“I am delighted to say that OnTheMarket.com is going from strength to strength. Our traffic in May was a new record of more than 4m visits, and our multi-million pound marketing campaign continues to roll.”

Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the National Trading Standards Estate Agency Team (NTSEAT) told Eye: “We can confirm that the we are in discussion with the CMA following complaints received regarding the OnTheMarket property portal.

“These discussions are being held as we have a duty to keep under review social and commercial developments relating to the carrying on of estate agency work and related activities (by virtue of s25(2) of the Estate Agents Acts).

“The CMA is responsible for anti-competitive practices in markets.

“We will provide an update on our enquiries in due course.”

Under s25(2) of the Estate Agents Act, it says this about the duties of the industry regulator (which was at that time the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading, but which is now NTSEAT):

“It is the duty of the Director, so far as appears to him to be practicable and having regard both to the national interest and the interests of persons engaged in estate agency work and of consumers, to keep under review and from time to time advise the Secretary of State about –

“(a) social and commercial developments in the United Kingdom and elsewhere relating to the carrying on of estate agency work and related activities; and

“(b) the working and enforcement of this Act.”

x

Email the story to a friend!

More top news stories



108 Comments

  1. Robert May
    June 5, 2015 at 06:53

    40- love, Springett!

    Report
    1. Property Ear
      June 5, 2015 at 08:01

      Game, set and match Rightmove

      Report
      1. Paul H
        June 5, 2015 at 08:07

        The Rightmove V OTM match hasn’t started yet, this is just the warm up.

        Report
        1. Property Ear
          June 5, 2015 at 08:47

          – don’t think Rightmove need to get kitted up for this one!

          Report
          1. Robert May
            June 5, 2015 at 09:22

            Tech years are the same as dog years; at 105 Rightmove has been a pet (not a faithful friend)  its looking tired, it’s time to  get a puppy!

            Report
            1. Property Ear
              June 5, 2015 at 10:01

              Methinks you’re ‘barking’ up the wrong tree Robert! (Sorry!)

              Report
              1. Robert May
                June 5, 2015 at 10:31

                Don’t be sorry, Rightmove, Zoopla and OTM are Generation 3   agency tech, reliant on logic, category matching.
                I have built G5 tech and have demonstrated how natural, adjective  tag searching will put agents at the centre of search rather than the portals.
                You are about 12 months behind the ball,  the early adopters were doing the denial bit last year, they got proper angry with me last summer and have moved onto the acceptance bit of the curve.
                It isn’t quite time for the old girl to visit the vet, there are a few good years left in her yet but now is the time to start thinking about the inevitable.

                Report
                1. PeeBee
                  June 5, 2015 at 13:44

                  Seems like ‘Property Ear’ has a finger jammed in it, Robert… you can almost hear the chorus:

                  …LaLaLa I’M NOT LISTENING…

                  Report
                  1. Robert May
                    June 5, 2015 at 15:06

                    The beginning has begun! I just confirmed my first order,  the deposit has  been paid to  Agents Giving and the Invoivce is in the  typing tray, Yay!

                    Report
                    1. PeeBee
                      June 5, 2015 at 17:57

                      CONGRATULATIONS, Robert!

                      Hope the first bite of the diplodocus is sweet meat! ;o)

                      Report
                2. GlennAckroyd
                  June 5, 2015 at 22:48

                  Hi Robert, intriguing. Could you email me a link to your site to see your solution? Thanks; glenn@ewemove.com

                  Report
  2. Paul H
    June 5, 2015 at 07:07

    And after all that effort from Mr Shinerock!

    Report
  3. Typhoon
    June 5, 2015 at 07:13

    Common sense at last!

    Report
  4. RealAgent
    June 5, 2015 at 07:18

    Not really much of a surprise… well to anyone other than Russell, Simon and Trevor that is!

    Report
    1. Trevor Mealham
      June 5, 2015 at 12:38

      Real Agent – please see down below. Ros paints a good picture for AM/OTM. Her skills as a writer shine. But there’s always two sides to a story. Read close and lots of the bits reported contradict. CMA haven’t said they’ve gone away. TS and CMA have said they are discussing and monitoring. That’s NOT going away. Thats still on the case.

      Report
      1. RealAgent
        June 5, 2015 at 12:59

        Trevor you have been extremely guilty of playing the same record over recent months and it is now time for you to stand up and accept that they key wording here is that the CMA have confirmed they will not be investigating. This of course is what most sensible agents knew ALL of the time but the story as written now confirms that. You were wrong and  its a reflection on you as an individual that you can’t accept that.

        There was a bandwagon proliferated on this thread desperately hanging on to that Trading standards were involved but it also spells out that they were responding to COMPLAINTS. These undoubtedly would have been from Messrs Emoove and alike. A complaint does not offer substance it is simply that; a complaint.

         

        Report
        1. Trevor Mealham
          June 5, 2015 at 15:06

          RealAgent – what proof do you have?? An article??

          I have emails saying CMA are monitoring. Until CMA have gone further NO ONE will know what they are monitoring or what they DO NEXT.

          Have you seen a CMA letter that says that – NO. The CMA have said that they are monitoring.  Monitoring leads to 1. walking away or  2. investigation.

          Report
          1. NewsBoy
            June 6, 2015 at 09:04

            Let’s trust that they continue to monitor the online agents as they seem to hold little or no interest in any of the regulations. Come on OTM, you are a very good looking White Knight.

            Report
  5. The Outsider
    June 5, 2015 at 07:27

    It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.  OTM haven’t done anything wrong.  Wait until the agents mutual element kicks in and that’s where the issue of collusion will start.

    We’re still waiting for that part though, so maybe it’ll never happen!

    Report
  6. GPL
    June 5, 2015 at 07:37

    ….and we move on

    OnTheMarket.com launched 26 Jan 2015…. 5 Jun 2015, still moving forward.

    The only anti-competitive  aspect I could see was The Duopoly slicing the market in 2 between themselves.

    I freely joined/invested OnTheMarket.com as I met their requirements being a High Street Estate Agent.

    Online only agents are not directly compatible to my business. End of.

    Report
  7. HarryN
    June 5, 2015 at 07:39

    I’m a little confused here. You seem to be a bit excited that everything’s going to be ok, but is it?! Despite the reassuring headline (assume written by Springer), did you not read the words:

    “The National Trading Standards Estate Agency Team, which has also had complaints about OTM, has said it is in discussions with the CMA about the portal.
    The CMA would not reveal what these discussions might centre around, but it appears that they might concern agents rather than the portal.”
    A bit early for high fives, and more evidence that this website is in Agent Mutual’s pocket.

    Report
    1. GPL
      June 5, 2015 at 07:59

      HarryN…… which Panto are you starring in this Xmas?…. as Wishy Washy!?

      Don’t forget to remove your End of the World is Nigh sandwich board…as you go thru the stage door.

      Report
    2. RealAgent
      June 5, 2015 at 08:55

      Responding to complaints Harry, as they have a duty to do. I suspect those complaints were from three I have already mentioned but I am sure its not too late if you want to get yours in.

      Report
    3. Trevor Mealham
      June 5, 2015 at 15:21

      Dead right HarryN – at last someone who can read the important bits.
      TS raised concern – CMA are monitoring – CMA have NOT gone away.

      Report
  8. Peter Green
    June 5, 2015 at 07:42

     
    It is interesting how the CMA has warned agents not to organise a boycott against the “portals”, as this could breach competition law ! 
     
    At the same time they i.e. the CMA, allow Rightmove to enjoy such market dominance that it can increase its prices to agents with virtual impunity.
     
    Does the CMA have a blind spot with regard to the portals or are they (like so many others) so anti-agent that they don’t give two hoots ?
     

    Report
    1. Paul H
      June 5, 2015 at 07:48

      Exactly, in fact Zoopla said last year that they plan to raise fees in line with Rightmove, that sounds more like a cartel to me.

      Report
      1. danny
        June 5, 2015 at 09:11

        Where did they say that Paul, seems to me to make no sense to come out and say “well charge as much as them” sounds to me like you’ve just made something up out of something you’ve read?

        Report
        1. Paul H
          June 5, 2015 at 09:40

          It was said last year prior to the IPO launch and was aimed at investors.

          Report
        2. PeeBee
          June 5, 2015 at 09:52

          I think you’ll find it was well covered here on EYE mid-last year, danny.

          Try rummage4.com – it finds what you want – fast.  Take Ros’ word for it, if not mine.

          Report
    2. Trevor Mealham
      June 5, 2015 at 15:08

      Very interesting Peter. didn’t AM organise a campaign that AM agents should boycott many named porrtals with a one other portal rule  🙂

      Report
  9. Jonnie
    June 5, 2015 at 07:52

    Not Quirky boys week, let’s just have a summary of it. He’s been gobbling off about how brilliant he is, got all shouty about OTM because he can’t be on it, the people that decide who’s right have come back and let him know he’s…….what do they call it?…ah, that’s it – wrong – Jonnie

    Report
    1. wilko
      June 5, 2015 at 11:25

      I  don’t think he’ll be able to show his face on here again……a bit like Easy Chris when he was proved wrong.

      Report
  10. SimonShinerock
    June 5, 2015 at 07:58

    So everyone reassured and happy then? I guess people only see what they want to see hear what they want to hear and read what they want to read, you are all responsible adults, you make your bed …

    Report
    1. GPL
      June 5, 2015 at 08:03

      As I’m not worried I don’t need reassurance.

      I certainly can’t take your views seriously.

      Report
    2. Paul H
      June 5, 2015 at 08:04

      You claimed that only 2000 would be #OnTheMarket at launch and that OTM agents would lose market share whilst participating in an illegal cartel.

      You have no more cards to play Simom, why not just admit defeat.

      Report
    3. RealAgent
      June 5, 2015 at 08:41

      You know people would have more respect for you Simon if you just admitted that your constant attempts at scaremongering were simply wrong.

      Report
    4. wilko
      June 5, 2015 at 11:31

      Simon……And you did say you were totally wrong about Houser, so why not apologise for your unjust, unproved accusations about OTM?

      Your thoughts about the investigation into unfair practices (against consumers) of U Switch would be appreciated as well.

      Report
  11. marcH
    June 5, 2015 at 08:39

    …..and not a squeak on this subject in that second-rate rag EAT which often acts as a mouthpiece for SShinerock who must be choking on his generous helping of humble pie today 😉

    Report
    1. PeeBee
      June 5, 2015 at 08:47

      Sssshhh, marcH – they’re still trying to figure out how to close comments on Mr Shinerock’s “Industry View” from yesterday.

      Although in fairness, they’ve pretty much already ‘closed’ the site’s door to all but the anti-OTM Brigade and Shinerock Schmoozers as it is…

      Report
  12. RealtorUK
    June 5, 2015 at 09:02

    What is an online estate agent? Virtually all agents are Internet savvy and have a website. The only difference is high cost or low cost, low cost means low service and eMoov is in that category. Starting a legal battle against a portal that won’t let your business join is childish and in this quirky attempt to start a race to the bottom for pricing these discount chaps are only bottom feeders.To get decent service from agent with staff who won’t leave the office is impossible for any agent

    Report
  13. Harree
    June 5, 2015 at 09:12

    I was at my local AM recruitment meeting when the AM rep said if there were any discussions about which portal would be dropped he would have to leave the room. Does anyone honestly believe that absolutely no collusion has taken place between AM and AM supporting agents, or between various local AM supporting agents, on which portal to drop?  If it has, that breaches competition law. As others have said, if I was an OTM agent I wouldn’t be giving it high fives yet. There are various facets to competition law and IMO anti-competitive agent collusion against Z is a potential bomb under the surface.

    Report
    1. simonh
      June 5, 2015 at 10:04

      I would have thought if there was going to be any collusion then the target to drop would have been the dramatically higher priced RM.  Or am I seeing this all too simplistically?

      Report
    2. smile please
      June 5, 2015 at 10:06

      To me OTM only works when all the agents decide to come off RM (and recruit more). I still struggle to see why this is a cartel as not every agent in every town will be on it? onliners corporates and probably a number of independents will still advertise on RM – In essence you could argue the consumer has more choice or a clearer choice.

      Report
    3. GPL
      June 5, 2015 at 15:34

      haree?… you’re talking b@&))ocks!

      collusion?…. in your mind haree, in your mind!

      keep whistling the X Files theme tune whilst you type/post!

      collusion, conspiracies…. that Alien Spacecraft that beamed you up haree?…. those experiments on you! dear oh dear…. you are scarred.

      Report
      1. NewsBoy
        June 6, 2015 at 09:09

        The only collusion against Hoopla is because they are useless in our area. Let’s get the competition down to one and then move onto Wrongmove.

        Report
  14. Gump
    June 5, 2015 at 09:21

    Slightly off topic – I went to see my daughters at the weekend and my youngest (14) proudly announced that she had seen a one bed flat she wants me to buy for her, naturally I quashed the idea as quickly as possible it was £220,000!

    I asked her where she saw it so she grabbed my ipad and brought up OTM (I was a little surprised tbh) so I asked why not rightmove or zoopla to which she said “who?” Turns out she saw the tv advert. So looks like OTM has a fan and in 4 years she will be old enough to buy, which is something i’m looking forward to very much 😛

    Report
  15. Harree
    June 5, 2015 at 09:33

    RealtorUK … so low cost automatically means low service … so presumably medium cost automatically means medium service, and presumably high cost automatically means high service?  Wrong.  There are low cost agents (not necessarily online only) giving a far better service than agents charging double or more. And that applies to all types of businesses. Businesses the world over have dismissed new low cost competitors as ‘a cheap service no one really wants’ and found to their cost it is EXACTLY what a high proportion of customers actually do want. Early internet only operators were dismissed by the likes of high street retailers, travel companies, insurance agents, mortgage brokers etc., etc., etc., as not providing the ‘face to face personal service that the customer wants’. WRONG. It took internet only operators time to get their online service right and time to gain reputation and credibility. Many fell by the wayside but those who persisted have reaped the rewards of the lower cost base and the huge market that the internet allows easy access to. Within five years I predict there will be at least two nationally known online estate agent brands with the OL sector taking at least a 10% market share. This brand awareness, and understanding of the low fees charged, will inevitably put downward pressure of traditional agents fees.

    Report
  16. wardy
    June 5, 2015 at 09:34

    Quirk does make me laugh. To be anti competitive, first you have to be in competition. When the onliners can offer a like for like service then they can be classed as competition. Until then……..

    Report
    1. PeeBee
      June 5, 2015 at 10:01

      Jeez, wardy – welcome home, bud!

      Where the chuff you bin?

      Report
      1. wardy
        June 5, 2015 at 10:14

        Sulking because I didn’t get an invite to the property eye knees up 🙁

        Report
        1. wilko
          June 5, 2015 at 11:52

          Which knees up….the Xmas one or the Spring ball a couple of weeks ago?……Pee Bee turned up in a kilt to the latter……it was an epic get together……hopefully see you at the next Christmas party?

          Report
          1. wardy
            June 5, 2015 at 13:39

            It gets worse!

            Mind you, PeeBee in kilt? I want a strict dress code enforced before I show up.

            Report
            1. PeeBee
              June 5, 2015 at 16:06

              NOW HEY!

              Don’t knock it if you ain’t tried it, pal… ;o)

              Report
  17. wilko
    June 5, 2015 at 10:23

    Interesting to hear this morning that u switch is being investigated with other comparison sites into allegations of unfair practices which could be to the detriment of the users!

    Basically they are looking into comparison sites favouring companies/deals on the basis of how much commission they receive from the advertisers rather than what actually is the best deal for consumers.

    It has lead to a large slip comparison sites share prices.

    I wonder how the Zoopla supporters feel about this, now that their accusations of “cartel” have been dismissed by the CMA regarding OTM and it is in fact one of their companies that is in the spotlight for alledgedly not looking after consumer interest?

    Report
  18. Trevor Mealham
    June 5, 2015 at 12:33

    Very well written for the AM cause, but maybe not as accurate as it could be. Words can be strung to create different user understanding.

    The article fends off in lines 1&2. The fact is that the CMA haven’t taken action which could follow.

    2nd para, suggests agents shouldn’t drop or boycott – interesting as AM suggested agents SHOULD drop RM and Z when it launched. Ummmm

    For the National Trading Standards to have discussions, then TS professionals that deal with unfair trade issues, obviously upheld concerns.

    If the CMA are monitoring or looking into a concern, it could lead somewhere/ or not. At this stage they are saying they are monitoring the situation.

    Agents Mutual has its own opinion. To other this opinion is incorrect. Others of us get involved in CPRs and BPRs and the other estate agency regulation. Has anyone in this forum read CMA guidance first hand on cartels? I have.

    The one portal rule and the online only agents rule, and the one that a MD might put on staff to have to act against best consumer interest in line with the 79 Estate agents Act – don’t sit well. Restraining consumer best interest for a service providers best interest can compromise laws and rules lay down.

    PIE has said a complaint has not been taken forward. They also say do not consider it appropriate to open a formal investigation. GOSH – I’d like to see that word for word if I was an OTM agent. I can’t imagine CMA would say this when they are monitoring. maybe PIE is bending words here. ……….

    The article says CMA will further monitor. No smoke – without fire maybe? For sure the article doesnt say theyve closed monitoring and gone away.

    Ian Springett claims to provide a lower priced portal for estate and letting agents falls over for the fact that there is an AM rule that excludes many agents who are online only. That’s exclusion – cartel like actions.

    The recent Trinity + agents ‘cartel’ was quite mild, yet even Hamptons got caught out and they have one of the biggest estate agency legal teams out there.

    Report
    1. wilko
      June 5, 2015 at 13:11

      “A spokesperson said: “The CMA has been monitoring the sector and do not currently consider that it is appropriate to open a formal investigation.”

      Honestly…. what more do you really want/need!!!!!!!

      And you accuse Eye of writing it for the AM cause…..! Why hasn’t EAT done an article ??????

      Sometimes, Trevor you are just plain ridiculous with your conspiracy theories…..how about looking at the facts and stop seeing things that really aren’t there.

      Report
      1. Trevor Mealham
        June 5, 2015 at 15:10

        Wilko – blinkers to you sir. Ive shared facts. I can’t make you accept them.
        The CMA have said they are monitoring the situation. They have NOT gone away.

        Report
        1. wardy
          June 5, 2015 at 16:14

          ”the fact that there is an AM rule that excludes many agents who are online only. That’s exclusion – cartel like actions.”

          That’s opinion I’m afraid Trevor, not fact. What you see as cartel like, many of us see as a simple requirement.

          Report
    2. smile please
      June 5, 2015 at 14:00

      “Ian Springett claims to provide a lower priced portal for estate and letting agents falls over for the fact that there is an AM rule that excludes many agents who are online only. That’s exclusion – cartel like actions.”

      I want to be an astronaut but i cant as i do not have the qualifications or training – Thant make NASA a cartel?!

      BTW i am not on OTM (or harbor any interest in going to space) just sick of these silly comments that its a cartel!

      Report
      1. Robert May
        June 5, 2015 at 15:09

        Comment of the week! 😆

        Report
      2. Trevor Mealham
        June 5, 2015 at 15:16

        So ‘smile’ what stops you and others being an agent. I dare say most in this forum would struggle to be a man on the moon.

        But – Many who can trade lawfully as an agent are not allowed to be in AM as they are 1. online only or 2. wanting to be on some portals on AM’s ban list.

        I don’t think RM, Z insiste on rocket ownership to join. I know at INEA, not having a rocket doesn’t exclude membership 🙂

        So if something is fit for purpose – WHY would it be banned. …..

        All said with the CMA monitoring – I dare say many agents would think twice if they hadn’t joined as to if they now wanted to.

        If monitoring leads to CMA action which no one knows yet, may be a good time to sit back and watch.

        Report
        1. smile please
          June 5, 2015 at 15:56

          Okay without bias here we go.

          I am a high street agent, i can join if i want but i choose not to.

          I think OTM / AM are fine not including online only agents as they do not offer a like for like service.

          It would in my opinion be unfair if a branch / chain offer the same as a number of other agents within a town are not allowed to join but this is not the case.

          What OTM / AM have done is not say you are not allowed to join, what they have said is if you meet our criteria you are welcome to join.

          Nothing to stop the likes of eemove, purple bricks or a bedroom agent opening up a high street office and then applying to join.

          The same as if i want to go into space i can go to university, i can start at NASA and work my way up.

          Thats about as simple as it is. If an onliner opens a branch in every town they operate in, have if staffed full time and still they are not allowed to join then i may agree it is a cartel.

          Report
          1. Trevor Mealham
            June 5, 2015 at 16:13

            All agents now do online. In INEA we have online only and online in offices.

            Some of our online only agents do like revenue to some Hg St agents.

            Looking out into a High Street doesnt mean viewings and offers get followed up any differently.  Even their FS boards look alike.

            I don’t endorse budget agency. But there are some very good online only agents out there achieving higher fees than some Hg St agents based on premium service.

            Report
            1. smile please
              June 5, 2015 at 16:21

              Yes exceptions to every rule,

              There are some truly awful high street agents.

              But if you want to belong to a club you need to abide by the rules. AM’s rule is you must trade as a traditional high street agent. If you don’t like it don’t join!

              – Cant see why all the fuss on wanting to be on OTM anyway, most onliners are knocking it so why kick up a stink they are not allowed on it?

              Report
              1. Trevor Mealham
                June 5, 2015 at 17:23

                The club bit supporting anti-competitor rules= CARTEL

                Report
                1. Paul H
                  June 5, 2015 at 17:38

                  Why not set up an agency and join the Cartel Trevor, just for a laugh. Only catch is you’ll get a handful of people(literally three people) try to accuse you of being part of an illegal set up and a dodgy business owner!

                  Go on just for kicks!

                  Report
                  1. Trevor Mealham
                    June 5, 2015 at 18:14

                    @Paul. We already have several hundred members. AND its fully regulation compliant Paul. In fact we sit i  on many givernment estate agdeny consultations. Never see you at them though  🙂

                    Report
                    1. Trevor Mealham
                      June 5, 2015 at 18:17

                      Gosh big fingers. Little keyboard.  We sit in on many government consultations Paul. We’ve also had advisories adopted in favour of best agency and consumer practices

                      Report
                    2. Paul H
                      June 5, 2015 at 18:34

                      “Never see you at them though”

                      Thats because I spend my time making sure that me and my team are selling and renting the properties we have on rather then have to enlist the help of other agents to help.

                      Report
                    3. Trevor Mealham
                      June 5, 2015 at 23:15

                      Shame Paul. If you did some main/sub agency you’d see consumers would do better from this better type of traditional agency. Mind you, never too late to learn better agency  🙂

                      Report
                2. smile please
                  June 5, 2015 at 17:43

                  Oh Trevor, at least your parents named you correctly!

                  Report
  19. SimonShinerock
    June 5, 2015 at 15:17

    I realise my opinion irritates and incenses many of you. The CMA has a resourse issue like all Quango’s. It will give a business a certain amount of rope before it acts in the hope of saving money and time. If things go formal it’s too late for negotiations. Compare this to plea bargaining if you like, or settling with the revenue without going to a tribunal. One thing is certain though, Ian Springett personally told me his strategy was to target Zoopla, of that there can be no doubt, ask him the question Ros see what he says.

    Report
    1. Paul H
      June 5, 2015 at 15:31

      Chestertons are still on Zoopla as are many other agents. No one at Agents Mutual has told me to drop Zoopla Simon, I made my own choice as did 1000’s of other agents.

      We are all grown ups as you said earlier in this thread.

      Report
      1. Trevor Mealham
        June 5, 2015 at 15:35

        Paul if agents support AM’s banning some other lawful agents simply for not having a bricks and mortar Hg St office, then you could be seen as culluding.

        So its not just where you are. But supporting where you are that bans others who can’t be there

        Report
        1. Paul H
          June 5, 2015 at 15:39

          Trevor, with the greatest respect your talking complete and utter tosh and clutching at straws, simply as you have been spouting on here and twitter for the last 4 months that OTM is a cartel and now you’ve got egg on your face.

          If you want to earn some respect why not man up, admit your wrong and stop pursuing this non sensical route.

          Report
          1. Trevor Mealham
            June 5, 2015 at 16:16

            We’ll see. So what do I get when your wrong?

            Report
    2. Gump
      June 5, 2015 at 15:37

      I’m quietly confident a “he said, she said” with no proof case has never gotten to court………ever

      Report
  20. wardy
    June 5, 2015 at 16:28

    Just out of curiosity. Would any of the onliners be happy to pay a higher membership fee to OTM being that they are unable to promote the portal from a high street premises?

    I wouldn’t be a happy OTM member if an onliner paid the same subs as me but didn’t help to promote the site.

     

    Report
    1. smile please
      June 5, 2015 at 16:35

      Wardy,

      Not a bad idea kick the Cartel rubbish into touch.

      “You can join onliners but will cost you 20k per month”

      failing that open a high street offices where you operate!

      Report
    2. Trevor Mealham
      June 5, 2015 at 17:25

      So Wardy. Within the group you wang rules for some and different for others um. More cartel like restraints

      Report
      1. wardy
        June 6, 2015 at 09:36

        I’m just saying that perhaps OTM membership fees take in to account the added value that agents bring to the site because they are able to promote from their windows. An onliner cant do that. Would that be fair?

        Report
  21. B6RKY
    June 5, 2015 at 22:53

    My head is ready to explode after reading this thread! I am more confused than ever. Questions, questions:

    1. I am not on OTM. Has this helped me to decide to be? Will I sleep soundly because I’m not?

    2. Should I want to be on OTM because the Onliners want to be on? Do they know something I don’t? Have they spotted something I haven’t? Are the onliners a shady, scarymongering entity with their own agenda? (at least I know the answer to that one.)

    3. Do the Onliners want to be on OTM or do they want to bring it down? Will they change their tune if they are allowed to play with the big boys? There seem to be continuous mixed messages here and more Bullshut than at I thought possible. What do they want???

    4. As OTM holds at best third place in the portal pecking order, and even by their own aims doesn’t expect to be number two until Jan 16, how can they be considered a cartel? It is not as if they are restricting a massive part of the market in any way as the fact is that most of us (75%?) have chosen not to be on it at this time. Is their aim to become No.2 portal (short term) and N0 1 (eventually) proof that they want to be a cartel? Why shouldn’t they want to move up the pecking order?

    5. Is the OTM/RM/Z issue about to become irrelevant to all of us when Rummage4 takes over?

    6. Will Rummage4 be deemed a cartel at some stage when it has destroyed RM/Z/OTM? Is Robert sat stroking a cat like some Bond villain about to cause the world to collapse?(at least our version of the world) And will this mean we have to start this thread again?

    Hmmmmm………lie down………….dark room……..thank God its Friday…….S##t we open Saturday and Sunday anyway!

    Report
    1. PeeBee
      June 5, 2015 at 23:06

      Gets MY vote for ‘Comment of the Week’, B6RKY – just to see how they fit it all in! ;o)

      Report
      1. Robert May
        June 6, 2015 at 00:55

        I am disapointed you didn’t point out I am one of the good guys Peebee, still working to make things better 21 hours after I started this morning!

        Report
        1. Robert May
          June 6, 2015 at 07:47

          You probably  also ought to point out R4p works is fully compliant with the aims, objectives  and ethos of Agents Mutual; putting Agents first.

          Report
          1. B6RKY
            June 6, 2015 at 16:31

            Sorry Robert I didn’t mean to imply you’re a ‘baddie’. I just had a vision of you being a mad genius looking down on the ‘portal wars’ with disdain. You are so clever I can’t follow some of what you tell us. I will happily read your idiots guide (if you produce one) in the hope of true enlightenment.

            Report
            1. Robert May
              June 6, 2015 at 20:20

              You’re good BGRKY! I am loving that character. So much more exciting  than the real thing.

              Report
              1. Robert May
                June 7, 2015 at 07:17

                It’s funny (and spooky) how your head works!  B6RKY I had a great dream as a result of your post yesterday. I was Q building the brilliantly odd stuff to defeat villains. Even more weird I got up, tested what I dreamt about and Language Timothy me it only blooming works!
                Peebee mate you are in so much trouble! My tech shows you up on 5 portals and that is just on page 1 of the results. In fairness to you I think it is a bit like the Houser thing where someone is doing you a favour so they can have content and do themselves a bigger favour by building a business  on the back of you winning instructions
                Thanks B6RKY you inspired a wicked feature which actually is mad genius!

                Report
                1. B6RKY
                  June 8, 2015 at 08:49

                  You are now officially designated ‘Q’, Peebee is ‘M’, I am agent ’00h’. Who are ‘SPECTRE?’ and most impotantly who is Miss Moneypenny???

                  Report
                  1. Robert May
                    June 8, 2015 at 14:03

                    I love the humour!

                    Moneypenny is Ros for sure. As for Spectre…. They know I know. I know they know I know.  If you keep an ete on my dislikes and watch for peak activity you will know too.

                    Report
                    1. PeeBee
                      June 8, 2015 at 16:01

                      This takes me back to a 70’s one-hit wonder by the Flying Kursalls or some other memorable name…

                      Report
                    2. Robert May
                      June 8, 2015 at 16:16

                      One hit wonder? Kursaal Flyers

                      there is whole album on youtube “She knows you know”

                       

                      No that’s not it that was  Hilda Baker

                      Report
        2. PeeBee
          June 6, 2015 at 10:07

          Apologies, Robert – I didn’t want B6RKY – or anyone else for that matter – to get the impression I’m your BDM… and let’s face it I’ve been singing your praises quite a lot recently so anything’s possible!

          Singing your praises for all for the right reasons, in fairness…

          It’s a huge feather in your cap that B6RKY brought up the subject of Rummage4 though, innit!

          Either that or I’m a Svengali character and all these nice folks are dreaming about Rummaging thanks to my subconscious ‘fluence I have cast upon them all… ;o)

          One way or another – word is spreading.   Keep it up!

          Report
          1. Robert May
            June 6, 2015 at 20:23

            You’re good too though I am giving full credit to Barclays Bank for the subliminal advertising;  their Digital Eagles ‘voucher’ advert is working over time for me.

            Report
  22. Trevor Mealham
    June 5, 2015 at 23:19

    Well time will tell. The CMA HAVEN’T gone away  as the article wrongly implies. They are monitoring the situation. In the end they either will or wont act. Time will tell.

    Report
    1. Paul H
      June 6, 2015 at 09:49

      “The CMA HAVEN’T gone away”…OnTheMarket is not under investigation, full stop. Nor is Rightmove, nor Zoopla, nor INEA. But your right the CMA havn’t gone away and could change their minds and investigate an of those 4 club’s at any time.

      Report
      1. PeeBee
        June 6, 2015 at 10:20

        Funny you should say that, Paul H – the fact is that Mr Mealham is chucking an awful lot of stones around at the minute – I really hope he has total confidence that his own house is made of toughened glass…

        Report
        1. Paul H
          June 6, 2015 at 10:21

          I was thinking the same PeeBee, lots of stones/accusations for someone who is also the owner of a ‘club’!

          Report
  23. GPL
    June 6, 2015 at 10:18

    I would be appalled to think that an Online Only Estate Agent can be legitimately compared to me/my business – a High Street Estate Agent with the local experience, local knowledge, high street premises, quality of service, actual performance based fee – rather than pay me up front for nothing!

    They/Online Only are not Estate Agents nor should they compare themselves so. I am a member of OnTheMarket.com to ensure a clear difference to the consumer between my/my business and Onliners! I certainly don’t wish Onliners to piggy back onto my profession and effectively mislead consumers that they are selecting like from like.

    There is a market for Onliners…. and there will always be a market for good traditional local High Street Estate Agents. That’s fine, however let’s ensure our industry is NOT DUMBED DOWN to some sort of Drive Thru Burger Estate Agency Business.

     

     

    Report
  24. PeeBee
    June 6, 2015 at 10:26

    Above, Trevor Mealham stated

    “So Wardy. Within the group you **** rules for some and different for others um. More cartel like restraints”

    Well done, Sir – with those words you have just incriminated BOTH of the major UK portals you seem to favour.

    They’ll be soooo happy with you for that.

    Report
    1. Paul H
      June 6, 2015 at 10:39

      Hold on PeeBee, by all accounts (and Mr Mealham’s own words) “the onliners shouldn’t be allowed on”, that sounds like a Cartel to me.

      Report
      1. Trevor Mealham
        June 6, 2015 at 12:19

        100% PeeBee. And Paul ONLINERS SHOULD be allowed. In fact I dont know ANY offline agents. Do you?

        Report
        1. Paul H
          June 6, 2015 at 13:32

          Trevor, Ok slightly wrong on the wording, but you have said repeatedly that “budget agents” should not be allowed on the web portals or have you now changed your tune?

          Report
          1. Trevor Mealham
            June 6, 2015 at 23:08

            No Paul. Oftsn you will find me saying I dont agree with budget agency. 1. Its not hard to get decent fees. 2. Often budget agents who  can’t negotiate a decent fee often would struggle to  egotiate a bezt deal for clients.

            Im a pro active supporter of traditional agency

            Report
  25. PeeBee
    June 6, 2015 at 11:08

    I believe Ros forgot an important line to the article:

    Following the release of the news, Mr Russell Quirk offered the following comment – ” “.

    There – that’s better…

    Report
  26. Woodentop
    June 6, 2015 at 12:23

    Oh my so many back street lawyers who do not know a thing about law! Opinion isn’t law, so it may be better for those that hark on with innuendos and opinion about being anti OTM need to look very carefully in the mirror, for it often can rebound on you. Russell shot himself in the foot, NTSEAT didn’t take legal advice before making the complaint and isn’t Russell closely associated with NTSEAT? OTM has not breached any competition law and the CMA has confirmed they have rejected the complaint without even needing to investigate …. hello, doesn’t that for the non-believers say something about the legal view! Agents have a choice to join or not. No-one is holding a gun to their heads. Many industries do the same. This story is all about a complaint that is sour grapes. I do not see these same people complaining about the web site for new homes builders (no agents clause). As for all the hot air over the consumer not getting a fair representation in the market place, TREVOR read and learn, the customer is not the vendor, the agent is the customer of the web portal ,…. period. It is for the agent and the vendor to agree on marketing and as well all know, the agent has in most cases the discretion to advertise wherever they like in their terms and conditions. Don’t try and twist the EA Act to your tunnel view, because if your principle is right then every agent in the country would have to be on every web portal …… just nonsense.

     

    Also isn’t this complaint hypocritical? Just look at what the letters NTSEAT stand for. Is this not a self proclaimed organisation. I know they are currently  under legal review by one trading standards authority over misleading advertisement and being used by agents that won awards which are alleged to been one horse race to the detriment of other agents and the public perception.

    Report
  27. Trevor Mealham
    June 6, 2015 at 23:24

    @ Woodentop – Sir your wisdom is gold dust

    NTSEAT is Trading Standards. It stands for National Trading Standards Estate Agency Team  🙂  so definately NOT a self proclaimed organisation, but the policing arm of UK Trading Standards for property sales and lettings professionals.

    CMA have NOT confirmed they are not going to investigate. What they have said is that they are monitoring Agents Mutual/OnTheMarket. This means they have NOT gone away and may or may not investigate. The PIE article is misleading. FACT

    Agents do have to abide by UK regulation as set down by government bodies. Main legislation includes CPRs and BPRs and the 79 Estate Agents Act. There are approx 20 other bits of legislation also.

    What is wrong, is for any agency service/s providers to lay down their own rules in favour of rules agents have to abide by as laid down by UK government.

    Woodentop. best to research before making really stupid comments. Then again don’t as its quite funny and comical   🙂

    Report
  28. Woodentop
    June 15, 2015 at 13:30

     
    For the record:
     
    Powys County Council’s and Anglesey Council’s Trading Standards Service submitted a joint proposal to deliver the NTSEAT, which was the successful bid out of six considered by the National Trading Standards Board (NTSB).  The council is now delivering this new team of behalf of the NTSB, who will provide the council with £178,000 a year as part of the three year contract. 
     
    Not exactly an election out of all the councils in the UK or picked because of their expertise in the first place?

    Trevor do you have an interest with INEA?
     

    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.