Aspiring trade body CIELA has attacked both the members it is hoping to attract – independent agents, saying that many are breaking the law – and trade journals such as EYE, which it has previously tried to use as a promotional platform.
It claims that trade press such as EYE are running scared of Purplebricks lawyers, while attacking our readers.
In what seems like a meltdown of its own business model at the weekend, CIELA called readers who post comments “anonymous trolls” who “plague” the comments sections and said they were the “culprits” responsible for the industry’s poor reputation.
CIELA has also threatened to expel independent agents from membership – although it is not clear who may have joined the trade body which has already said that its launch may never happen due to lack of sign-up. The body has already said it is most unlikely to launch as planned this autumn, given apathy from agents.
However, CIELA (Charter for Independent Estate and Letting Agents) said it will meet agents in Bristol this coming Wednesday and in London on Wednesday week “who would like to debate the need for an organisation to represent the collective interests of law-abiding independent agents”.
In a statement at the weekend, it said that the pre-launch consultation period, designed to sound out opinion in the industry as to whether another trade body is needed, will run until the end of September.
CIELA, launched by IT supplier Charlie Wright, has filed a complaint against Purplebricks to the Advertising Standards Authority, and said it looks forward to the outcome. In its statement, it said that Purplebricks’ lawyers were simply ‘sabre-rattling’.
It said: “CIELA has not received a response to its letter to Purplebricks’ lawyers dated 17th May … sent in response to their complaint about alleged defamatory remarks in the 4th May 2017 Telegraph article. We therefore believe that this was nothing but sabre-rattling and a hollow threat. Our invitation for them to substantiate their claim stands.
“CIELA would like to draw the attention of journalists who have felt unable to publish opinions on Purplebricks to the fact that defamation action is not applicable to the expression of opinion, only to the publishing of lies. Several trade journalists have chosen not to publish remarks that the Daily Telegraph was happy to publish. PB’s legal response was against CIELA, not the Daily Telegraph.
“CIELA is concerned at how effective the intimidation tactics of PB lawyers may be with the trade press.
“CIELA has been holding in-depth discussions with founder members who, in turn, have been discussing the matter with their industry colleagues.
“The feedback has been fascinating, and has shed light on the fact that the number of independent agents who do not comply with minimum legal requirements, which is a requirement of CIELA membership even during pre-launch, is possibly much larger than anyone to date has realised.
“CIELA is not anti-corporate, not anti-online, and respects the rights of any business to exist and promote itself within the confines of the law.
“CIELA’s stand is against improper practice by any and all sectors, including, and perhaps especially, independent agents who flout the requirements.
“From now on, any member found to be not fully compliant with the Government’s minimum legal requirements will be immediately and permanently expelled.
“Next week we will publish detailed statements from a number of founder agents regarding the feedback they have received from discussions within the industry. In summary, there is astonishment at the levels of negativity towards any attempt to form a collective voice, even though there is unanimity in the belief that such an organisation is needed.
“Interestingly, the majority of negative views publicly expressed appear to come from the anonymous trolls who plague the comments sections of trade news websites.
“Initial research indicates that some of these agents are the typical law-flouters who do not comply with minimum legal requirements and may as a result be operating in violation of the regulations. These are precisely the independent agents whose conduct generates the bad press the industry receives, and they are a risk to the public. They would appear, on initial inspection, to represent a larger section of the industry than all the corporates combined, and as a result, be the primary culprits behind the poor industry reputation.
“Membership of CIELA, even at pre-launch stage, requires a legal declaration by an officer of the member company that all minimum legal requirements are being met, and as such represents an easy way for the public to avoid the criminal section of the industry operating illegally, putting their clients at risk and damaging the industry’s reputation.
“CIELA welcomes professionally-run, independent estate and lettings agencies who are happy to make a declaration that their business complies with all applicable regulations. Once fully launched, CIELA plans to poll members on whether this requirement should be actively policed, where members’ compliance with the law will be individually verified.
“Many of our earliest members and supporters are existing or former members of the NAEA or ARLA, whose minimum company membership requirements go far beyond the minimum legal requirements set out in UK law. Whilst CIELA supports all their requirements, it means that there is no way for the public to differentiate between the law-abiding and criminal agents who are not members of the NAEA.
“CIELA suggests that, especially in more challenging market conditions, agents whose businesses do not meet minimum requirements and therefore flout the law should be easily identifiable and thus avoided by the public, benefiting law-abiding agents.”
The very lengthy statement concludes with a comment from Wright: “The last three months have been absolutely fascinating and have revealed that it is mostly the law-breakers who are afraid of CIELA’s formation.
“Professionally run, law-abiding agents who have expressed their support, but not yet joined, have explained that they need to be sure the rogue element of the industry cannot be members, before they commit to membership.
“So their stated reason for ‘wait and see’ is to be satisfied that the controls are in place to prevent any criminal agents being part of the organisation. Before their feedback, we had not fully appreciated the scale of this problem, i.e. just how many independent agents are breaking the law.
“These agents who act as though they are above the law are doing the worst damage to the industry. Before there is a chance of improving its reputation, these agents must be publicly identified, to protect the public from their deliberate criminality, or at best their sheer incompetence.”
EYE asked whether the attack on trade journals related specifically to us.
Wright told us: “All trade publications without exception have shied away from printing much of what we have said about Purplebricks, all for the same reasons. We’re merely making that observation and showing that when you push back against PB’s lawyers’ heavy-handed scare tactics, they don’t respond nor pursue.”
For the record, EYE has not received any letter from lawyers representing Purplebricks
EYE also defends the right of all of our readers to post comments on our site and would like to make it clear that you are welcome to do so. You have helped make our site what it is and we totally support free speech.
Regarding libel, however, we must strongly point out that contrary to CIELA’s advice, opinions can indeed be judged to be defamatory – and very expensive.
At EYE, we do very occasionally edit or remove posts which we believe might cross the line, and where we are concerned that our posters could get themselves (and us, as publishers) into potential trouble.
Anonymous Troll here.
Nobody I know is afraid of Ciela succeeding. Just the opposite, do not believe it will succeed.
As I and others have asked where do the monthly subs go?
I think the outburst shows Mr Wright is probably not the best person to head this.
Does he care to comment on the Road show in (I believe Birmingham) was cancelled due to lack of attendees?
Oh one more thing regarding the anonymous posting.
I have no agenda, no want for self publicity or increase my business on here. It makes no difference who I am.
Look at Chris Wood vocal (on all the right things) and as such “black balled” from standing as NAEA president. If he had posted anonymously good chance he could have stood.
You may or may not like my posts but I try and stick to fact not opinion. If you are here posting and selling be prepared to have your sale post scrutinised.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
As always, flattered by the likes but perplexed by the dislikes.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
How to make friends and influence people!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
This is madness.
A Kevin Keegan moment one might say.
Estate Agents do not and cannot collaborate was my comment in their last article
Clearly this article will not aid their progress, and whilst their dream of collaboration may be romantic enough, their delivery has been very poor
Sorry
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
The thrust of this article is a great shame. Surely it is better to win ‘hearts and minds’ rather than criticise.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
We, as a 2 office High Street Agent, have ourselves filed multi complaints to the ASA against false and misleading claims made by PB. We are not afraid of defending the truth.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
PB’s lawyers do indeed sabre rattle and as a man of modest means trying to earn an honest living, an initially bowel-loosening moment it can be too. That said, bullies tend not to prosper when faced down and stood up to and, as their increased pre-tax losses show, that appears to be the case.
As someone whose posts are occasionally ‘moderated’ on PIE, I have a good dialogue with the other Rosalind in my life and, whilst I do find removal occasionally frustrating, I also try to balance that with an understanding of PIEs’ legal position and neutrality.
CIELA had a laudable idea that I believe most readers of PIE either supported or, at the very least, acknowledged. It also has to be said that many on here, myself included, openly wished them well on PIE but chose not to join for a variety of reasons. CIELA must now examine why that is the case and not seek to blame others for its own situation.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Two points here:
1. This is typical behaviour from the founder – he just can’t help himself. His narrative is both strong and misguided. Surely this is a chance to reach out in a positive way? Of course, not all agents adhere to all legislative guidelines; but do they set out to do this on purpose? No. They need advice, help and guidance. So, rather than slamming the door, perhaps CIELA should assist and improve to raise standards across the board; knock out the bad habits and join an organisation that keeps you current and keeps you on the right side of the law. Sound better? I’d vote for an inclusive, collaborative and helpful offering rather than sign up to Stalins way or the highway.
2. Taking issue with Purple Bricks (and the trade press) is a sloppy move. It’s wasted energy and risks CIELA travelling in the wrong direction. Rather, focus on the mission – and work to further strengthen the wholesome nature of good, service based estate agency. To launch (sorry, pre-launch) with the main rhetoric being one of criticism gives out the immediate impression of defence. How about Charlie stops shadow boxing with his own reflection and puts the interests of the agents and the industry that we all care about so much, front and centre. It’s time to stop whining and time to start winning.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
You can almost hear how bemused Ros was when writing this story.
Same with us all.
Watershed moment – this could spell the end of a perfectly well meaning body just because of such dreadful PR.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I know Charlie having worked in the same building as him 5-6 years ago. He is a sensible, intelligent man. However, criticising all around him and those he hopes to gain the support of, whether he is right or wrong, is not an approach that will be very productive for this group.
When a vendor I speak to lists with another agent for 50k higher than its worth, I think they are an idiot. Do I call them an idiot to their face and then expect their business later down the line? of course not, I wish them good luck and hope in time they see the error of their ways.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
“Membership of CIELA, even at pre-launch stage, requires a legal declaration by an officer of the member company that all minimum legal requirements are being met”
Oh, well – there you go then. Yer actual cast-iron guarantee that all’s well, good and proper with a company.
Then clearly there is no way whatsoever that something along these lines
‘Here – do ‘us a favour and sign this, mate… just some legal cr@p we need for our file. Grand – there you go – that’ll be £35 a month, please.’
would be a typical Membership sign-up transcript!
Note to Mr Wright – if you ever want your Members checked out – and I mean ‘checked out’…
Another note to Mr Wright – if you don’t want anonymous trolls (like me…) writing weally weally nasty stuff about your little club…
…then don’t write it for them.
AND DON’T WRECK MY INDUSTRY WITH YOUR (in my opinion) FATALLY FLAWED CRUSADE – SUPPOSEDLY HATCHED TO REPRESENT ITS’ AND MY BEST INTERESTS.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Shocked to read the above, PeeBee – you’re usually such an upbeat and positive sort.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Pour yourself a skinny latte and get over what you think is ‘shock’, Mr Broadfoot.
You ain’t seen nothing yet.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
From the article body above:
“…an organisation to represent the collective interests of law-abiding independent agents”.
from their website:
“CIELA uniquely represents and fights for the collective interests of all independent agents.”
Which is it?
What is or are the difference(s) between the two?
How do CIELA plan in future to deny any Agent a Membership if they meet the minimum stated requirements on your website (has a pulse… has over £35 in their bank account…) – but turn out to be one of these heinous anonymous troll-type “culprits”?
And mores to the point – what about those which may have joined already? How will they handle their expulsion?
I’d like to put forward a suggestion – recreation of the scene of Worf’s discommendadtion from the Klingon Empire in Star trek TNG (S3 Ep17).
Very moving.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
It is sad to see/read this article as the core founding beliefs & purpose of CIELA are sound- if poorly communicated at times.
I, like so many agents across the UK, have been enfuriated by media channels (mainstream & industry alike) who all too often appear to quote PB press releases- seeminly without question. I find it astonishing that Chris Wood has been the largest voice undertaking detailed research to provide fact based challenges to their statements (a matter that, in my mind, should have seen him sail in to the NAEA not be barred from it). However, am I naive in thinking this could and should have come from our industry media?
The tackling of rogue elements in our industry, from all quarters (independent, corporate & online- or maybe that should be all thirds) is, as I understand, again something that we are all in agreement with. Only when this is done properly, can the public perception of our industry rise (as it should) and those that work hard to do well by their customers be suitably rewarded.
Whilst the presentation of these points may have been incorrectly handled, if you can see past that, the important points are still there. As member agents will decide exactly what the formation and strategy CIELA takes, I am still hopeful that many leaders out there can see past this ‘faux pas’ and recognise the considerable inherent value in this potential organisation. Charlie is the pre-launch figurehead- but it is the member agents that will shae the organisation (both as a founding structure and ongoing development)- and that can & will include how the organisations communcates and is represented going forwards.
Come to the roadshow events (I and several other FMs will be attending the London event) and get your questions and comments in face to face and see if your opinions can be swayed or concerns assuaged. If not, then you have lost a few precious hours and nothing more.
I still passionately believe that, with the right volume and calibre of agents onboard, this could be the organisation we have all been crying out for- and the only punt that we have to take right now is a commitment of around £10 per week. I wil hold out hope, perhaps naively, until this succeeds or fails. I sincerely hppe to see many of you at the London event on 12th.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Mr Byfield
“Only when this is done properly, can the public perception of our industry rise (as it should)”
I agree wholeheartedly. However you can’t ‘fix’ a rogue atom by spilitting it – which is exactly what CIELA is setting out to do. It continually refers to “the independent estate agency industry”. THERE IS NO “independent estate agency industry” and there never will be. It is a subset of a larger whole entity
You can’t fix a wonky chair by sawing off the wonky legs – no matter how much you all put in to buy the saw.
And THAT is what is the main issue with the vast majority of Agents – or I should say that WAS the main issue – until this latest Ratner Moment rantlet from Mr Wright.
I reckon what was aleways going to be an uphill struggle just went vertical – if not into sheer overhang.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Article above:
“CIELA is not anti-corporate, not anti-online…”
REALLY?
From their website:
“The simple goal of CIELA is to increase the market share of properties being sold and let by taking it away from Corporate and Online-Advertising agents…”
Tweet, today:
“CIELA push on with their fight against Purplebricks in Bristol:”
Yeah – not an anti- anything in sight.
From the ‘open letter to all independent estate agents who wish to own their future” (January 2017)
“We would not presume to tell anyone how to run their business, nor be trying to encourage better practice, because other organisations already do that.”
Really?
Or is it more a case that you just won’t let them play unless it’s with your ball; your playing field, your rules and your agenda. Oh – and you’re asking them for payment for the privilege as well, don’t forget.
Just how many ‘Ratner Moments’ can one person possibly create and hope to get away with?
PS – can I please have at least fifteen ‘Dislikes’ for this post – smile please and I are extremely competitive in this particular area – thank you ;o)
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I called Property Mark about an agent who was breaking their code of practice. A multi industry award winning agent!
“If the agent is prosecuted they would take action”
I called the Ombudsman
” You need to be a member to complain”
I called the 3 guys in Powys who work for Trading Standard and enforce the whole of the UK.
“We will look into this but not a priority”
The current regulation of our industry is a joke the wolf’s know the shepherd is not in the fields. The rest of us have an choice to play by the rules or lose business to those who do not.
It is time the industry took a stand before someone imposes regulation on us. Is CIELA the right body to do this the jury is out.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
While the original aims of CIELA are applauded the pursuit of excellence in the industry will never be achieved until there is a Government dictate requiring minimum levels of service/standards and qualification( time served experience and or by examination) and an easily understood number of regulations to adhere from ONE source.
We have the NAEA and the RICS and they appear not to be able to do it outside their membership so even with their ministerial level discussions what hope?
Maybe CIELA are having a Trumpmoment
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
“The industry will never be achieved until there is a Government dictate requiring minimum levels of service/standards”
Think you will find to be a legally trading agent you need:
1.Member of a Redress Scheme
2.Public Liability
3. Employers Liability
4. Registered with HMRC
5.Approved for Anti Money Laundering
6.Stand by ASA guidlines
7. Uphold the standards set by Trading Standards
8. Lettings you need to lodge deposit with DPS
9. Obide by the Estate Agency Act
10. Generally comply with the law.
All of the above are in place to safguard the public, almost all are enforcable by law or fines / custodial sentences may or can be enforced.
Regulating the industry will add no more protection to agents just cost the good agents more money, As the bad agents will still not comply.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
smile please thanks for the list and I am sure there are more in some corner none of us know about. You are right in that bad agents will not comply so compulsory registeration is needed but with effective teeth to kick out and revoke a practise licence
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Nick,
If any of the above are found to be breeched they in effect have their lisence revoked, fined or worse.
The powers are already in place to police, there is no appitite from the government to inforce.
If you allow the NAEA (Or any other body) to police the industry for them it is open to abuse and just added costs.
The FCA are suppose to regulate the financial services industry. All they do is set guidlines, they do not audit every firm every year. And as you saw with the Stndards & Poors debarcle which help lead to the financial meltdown in 2008 There is very little they do.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Top trumping all of those is case law precedent; the contractual duties of agents to their principals.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Mr Turner – you state
“While the original aims of CIELA are applauded the pursuit of excellence in the industry will never be achieved (until…)”
But here’s the thing – the “pursuit of excellence” you refer to is not one of their aims – original or otherwise – as can be seen in this quote from their ‘open letter’ of January:
“We would not presume to tell anyone how to run their business, nor be trying to encourage better practice, because other organisations already do that”
Too early with that applause, methinks…
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
‘there is no appitite from the government to inforce’. and therein, sadly, lies the problem.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Yep – Its sad but that is the case with any industry.
Formally regulating an industry is not a magic wand that will sort issues, in some cases it actually makes it worse.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Can you give an example of that?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Chose as many as you like, Hence one of the reasons we are leaving the EU.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I spent a year in Australia in Melbourne. The trams had been privatised and the first thing they did was removed the conductors to save costs. This worked for the year but over time more and more people realised if they did not pay then nothing happened. Slowly the number of people paying went from 95% to 50% the company went bust and had to be bailed out.
the moral of the story is half the people are honest the rest need to know they will get caught if they cheat the system.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register