‘Arrogant’ Land Registry slated by searches group

| Rosalind Renshaw

A property trade body has hit out strongly at the Land Registry, calling it arrogant.

CoPSO, whose members are property search organisations, said the Land Registry had shown “disrespect” to its customers and stakeholders.

The accusation has arisen over plans to centralise the Local Land Charges Register – taking it away from local councils.

CoPSO says this will mean less information will be available and that it will take longer to produce – warning that it could cause transactions to falls through.

Yesterday, CoPSO said the Land Registry had totally ignored negative responses by all major stakeholders to the consultation on the issue, and taken “the extraordinary step of proceeding with the legislative process before they even published the results of the consultation”.

James Sherwood-Rogers, the chairman of CoPSO,  said: “What is particularly galling is the utter disregard and disdain exhibited by the Land Registry’s approach to the consultation process which frankly beggars belief.

“Ed Lester, the chief executive of the Land Registry, is on record as saying that in future they will not just consult with stakeholders but they will listen to them.

“He has clearly failed in that undertaking on the very first occasion he has had the opportunity to put it into practice.’

In its own response to the consultation, CoPSO warned of the “huge risks” that the proposed project carries for the property market, saying it is a hugely expensive solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

Sherwood-Rogers added: “There has been much speculation that in the long term the Government intends to privatise the Land Registry.

“It can only be surmised that centralisation of the Local Land Charges Register is part of an intended ‘fattening up’ process to increase the perceived value of the Land Registry.

“In reality it is the effective nationalisation of a competitive and well functioning market as the precursor to the creation of a private sector monopoly.”

He said that the Land Registry does not understand the task it has set itself.

He said: “Will this then become another of the Land Registry’s litany of project failures that have already cost taxpayers £87m in recent years?”

x

Email the story to a friend!

More top news stories



27 Comments

  1. Robert May
    June 18, 2014 at 06:47

    Well I have to say that in the same way as Agents Mutual have a list of 'challenges' which they are using to drive their recruitment drive here is a subject very close to my motivation to help Agency; the data held by the land registry, who they dish it out to and what then happens to that data. Right here is the beating heart of the vampire that is draining the lifeblood out of the industry.

    For the whole of my active agency career one of the most valuable things I possessed as an agent was my dead file catalogue of successes and failures. A series of files confidential to me, my clients and buyers. In this day of overkill data protection it is simply madness that I or anyone else can find out the purchase price of any property simply by dialling up the website of anyone who wants to share it with me and the whole world for free. Essentially no agent has the advantage of success or knowledge over their less well trained, qualified or successful competitors. For those who have not understood what I have been saying about Agents’ use of the Duopoly rather than cost of the Duopoly here is the story that explains it. The information given away by any portal offering a free value my property service on their website is simply undermining the Agency customer base that it [the portal] relies on for its very existence. Right now I can say that there is no intention to add a “wotzit worth” feature to Local Property Index and have already demonstrated the functionality that replaces it, a feature designed to drive qualified enquiries to Agents that can value property without referring constantly to the internet.

    @Paul H, I hope you will agree that I could not have prepared this one earlier, it was only posted an hour ago. Yes I have pointed out a difference between my offering and yours but that is simply to demonstrate that I am on your side and showing Agent’s Mutual one of the things that ought to be on your agenda ahead of controlling subscriptions to the portals; exerting pressure on all portals to switch off the very often wrong valuation tools that allow the genuine parasites ( with or without premises) to pass themselves off as qualified and experienced Estate Agents.

    Report
  2. Paul H
    June 18, 2014 at 07:47

    Funnily enough I asked this question to an AM rep only two weeks ago and was told that there is no plan to have a valuation tool on Agents Mutual.

    Report
    1. Robert May
      June 18, 2014 at 09:42

      Well done Agent's Mutual. Now how about using that influential group of Agents to get the Duopoly to turn the feature off from their respective sites? You guys don't need to wait till January to start making their [the duopoly's] life a bit awkward on this subject as I am hoping everyone can now see how this one feature is being used to compete against you.
      A live and demonstrable example of Local Property Index doing what it said it would do.
      Last week looked for the best Agent I could in Norfolk to instruct on a property. I supplied an Address and requested a valuation. I asked the vendor to feed back for quality assurance purposes the whole experience as she was intent on going FSBO and saving herself £4500 in the process.
      The vendor armed herself with a Zoopla valuation and got the 4 Zoopla recommended agents to value ( all were countrywide but wearing a different colour tie) all ‘valued’ (?) the property without seeing it at the same figure, confirming what the vendor wanted to hear. She picked a not Zoopla recommend agent who did value the Property but £25k more.
      Inside the property is show room Marble and Oak, something the Corporates never saw and something Zoopla was ignorant of. A few days later in goes an agent recommended to me by Trevor Mealham at INEA. The Instruction is his at a figure that reflects the quality of the home. The vendor will probably now pay out over £5200 in fees and VAT but will still likely be over £40,000 better off. That is proper Estate Agency and no-one but a good quality agent can compete with that
      The comment from the Vendor to LPI? “thank you so much, the chap wasn't anything like our impression of an Estate Agent, really professional! “

      Whether or not that Agent sells the property is now down to him and the market. Local Property Index has just delivered a first rate service to a member of the selling public and shown how if People have faith in my knowledge of the industry I will deliver profitable instructions to Agents in the face of the strongest competition any one person in this industry could face; Rightmove, Zoopla, the impressive and well connected affinity group of Agents mutual and the corporate might of Countrywide.

      Report
      1. wilko
        June 18, 2014 at 10:58

        What has this thread got to do with land registry data privatisation?
        I must say, with all due respect, I often struggle to understand why you keep turning threads in the direction of "fee erosion" when the original article is nothing to do with it?

        Report
        1. Robert May
          June 18, 2014 at 11:48

          Sorry Wilko, without knowing your Agency profile you are either an agent who is reliant on the great data giveaway or are an agent who is suffering as a result. I am here to look after the second group.
          You might understand the mechanics of the industry in quite the detail I have to understand for my role as a service supplier to the industry but I genuinely am not manipulating just any old thread onto the subject without good cause.

          Report
          1. wilko
            June 18, 2014 at 12:54

            Thanks for the reply but sorry….I'm still none the wiser.

            Report
  3. Paul H
    June 18, 2014 at 10:01

    "Well done Agent's Mutual. Now how about using that influential group of Agents to get the Duopoly to turn the feature off from their respective sites?"….Why just have the feature turned off, the plan is to make the site redundant.

    Report
  4. Trevor Mealham
    June 18, 2014 at 10:29

    Hi Robert thanks for the INEA mention. Chris the agent mentioned is one of our top agents and one of the top most respected from 2000-2010. So yes agents who used the main portals AVMs on the Norfolk valuation did themselves a disfavour.

    So alike land reg upsetting their members. Big portals are doing bits not always in the good of their members. What idiot at what portal thought it was a good idea to open AVMs to Joe Public.

    Report
  5. Robert May
    June 18, 2014 at 10:45

    You are welcome Trevor, I like to give credit where it is due and in this case the real credit has to go to you. I asked for a good agent and you found me one.
    Perhaps as you are here Paul H can explain why MLS is a threat to good traditional Estate Agency or whether it is a just threat to AM. Everything about this story would make even the most cynical critic of Agency concede this is a masterclass in customer service.

    The problem most vendors have is they see fees as the big thing just as the Agents themselves are seeing Fees as the thing to get worked up about with RM&Z. For sure Agents need to control unreasonable costs but many would argue the Duo are actually doing the job they are paid to do and are charging a fair price for the service. This is the big difference between Paul H and I; I do not think it possible or wise to make sites like Zoopla redundant. The news of the Zoopla float suggests investors agree with me.

    Report
    1. Paul H
      June 18, 2014 at 11:27

      Ok Robert, I've let this go more than once, but can you now kindly stop pulling me up in numerous threads. You now seem to be nominating me as the Agents Mutual spokesperson as if to try to compare me and you. Why not just state your case and let everyone else decide.

      Report
      1. Robert May
        June 18, 2014 at 12:01

        With respect Paul you elected yourself into that position and have been the one giving me a run for my money. As requested I will stop. However someone other than you ought to be engaging with the audience that the reps are now recommeding subscribe to PIE.
        You have done a stirling job of promoting Agent's Mutual and I have a great respect for the effort you have put in on everyone's behalf but part of the wage bill ought now to be directed to someone full time monitoring all levels of business and social media and posting accordingly. Great job for someone posting; on PIE, Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn.

        Report
        1. Paul H
          June 18, 2014 at 12:10

          I appear to have missed the election that saw me voted in as the EAT AM chief spokesperson!!

          In fairness I would think that most of the EYE audience now know about Agents Mutual . Personally, I think it makes more sense for AM to invest more of their time in marketing themselves to people that do not know about AM yet, in other words the agents that do not read online journals rather then having someone on here and any other publication, Twitter, Facebook etc. Besides the current members are already doing the job for them.

          Report
          1. Robert May
            June 18, 2014 at 12:27

            We don't mention THAT word on here Paul, it is known as the other place.

            Report
        2. wilko
          June 18, 2014 at 13:03

          I just thought Paul H was an AM supporter, like me.
          I don't remember him ever suggesting he was anything more.
          Like I said earlier….I am getting very confused with some of the posts from Robert May and Trevor Melham.

          Report
          1. Robert May
            June 18, 2014 at 15:22

            The people in the party never realise how much noise they are making. When people like Giles post that they have had enough of PIE promoting AM to the extent where people think Ros has sold her independence it is a sign that the Am -Pro AM is getting to much.

            I have to say, ignoring Local Property Index, that if you genuinely don't understand the importance of Trevor Mealham's INEA, Team, Local Property Sharing Experts, Radar Homes, Whitegates, Northwood, Castles, Belvoir, Martin and Co, Enfields, Hunters and all the others listed as threats then you are missing the reported aim of AM altogether. It is supposed to be about all of the Agents not just some of them .

            Report
          2. wilko
            June 18, 2014 at 19:50

            Its not that I don't understand the importance of the posts…..I m sure they are very important….but I don't understand them. Like I have said before I must have missed something before with you guys.

            Report
  6. Paul H
    June 18, 2014 at 12:29

    Robert…I meant to type EYE not ***!

    Report
    1. Robert May
      June 18, 2014 at 14:49

      I don't know how you got that word past the rude word filter first time around, it is good to see the filter is fixed!

      Report
  7. Paul H
    June 18, 2014 at 23:25

    Inea, radar homes,local property index, team, local property sharing experts, hunters, Belvoir, whitegates, PeeBee, Northwood, Martin and co, Castles……

    Ok can someone please explain what's going on?

    In laymans terms please?

    Report
    1. PeeBee
      June 19, 2014 at 00:56

      OI!!!

      Why the chuff drag ME into this one??

      Report
      1. Paul H
        June 19, 2014 at 06:22

        Cut and lasted from the wrong thread apologies.

        Report
  8. Robert May
    June 19, 2014 at 04:56

    If you notice, I didn't! another mis-quote!

    Report
  9. Robert May
    June 19, 2014 at 05:24

    In layman’s terms Paul…. in an AM presentation to NAEA and ARLA, MLS and Franchises were listed as threats to Agents Mutual along side FSBO and TLBL, Rightmove, Zoopla and the Software suppliers. Effectively a good 20 or 30 % of honest and decent Agents are considered as a threat to Agents Mutual. Passive intermediaries aren't listed as a threat nor are what Ian Springett describes as 'parasites' (any agent without an Office) There has been no explanation of the threat and it is apparent that there are at least two presentations , which one is used is determined by the audience.

    Report
    1. Paul H
      June 19, 2014 at 06:24

      I have never heard a franchise be described as a threat and I do not know why they would be or what threat they are exactly.

      Report
      1. Robert May
        June 19, 2014 at 08:22

        Paul I am not making this up and do not understand it either.
        I have worked closely for 19 years with Martin & Co a few year less with Belvoir, these are good people with good businesses as I am sure all of the other franchises are.
        You are well placed to ask for an explanation of the treats. At the very least you can get confirmation that a second presentation exists.
        I will support AM to the hilt on passive intermediary Agents (PI’s pretending to be agents)and anyone qualified or not who gives the industry a bad name but I am at odds with AM over their obviously not widely distributed list of considered threats. I have been on the receiving end of threat control tactics once before; one of the portals refused to take feeds from CFP. Then once customer pressure forced them to, would make software upload changes that made the upload unworkable. Normally the changes would come through on a Friday leaving me to take calls from customers at home at the weekend.

        Report
        1. Paul H
          June 19, 2014 at 09:17

          "You are well placed to ask for an explanation of the treats. At the very least you can get confirmation that a second presentation exists."….To be fair Robert it is you as an employee of localpropertyindex that are making these claims, it is therefore down to you to substantiate it.

          I genuinely do not see how a franchise is a threat to AM, I really don't.

          Report
          1. Robert May
            June 23, 2014 at 04:55

            Paul, had the March presentation to NAEA and ARLA been something I put together you would be justified in asking me to explain it. However this is something your organisation produced and presented.

            I appreciate you are only a 1/2540th bit of Agent Mutual and are a 1/245o part that shares my own view that the Franchises groups are not a threat to professional Estate Agency (Same with Multi listing Agents they are not a threat either) it is because Page 13 exists with the title "Threats", having MLS, Franchises and Software Suppliers listed as threats the question has to be Threats to what?

            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.