An agent is to be referred to the industry regulator after being issued with a penalty charge for failing to belong to a property redress scheme.
Family-run Jayson Kent estate agents in Melksham was told to pay £1,000 in a notice issued by Wiltshire Council Trading Standards.
By law, all estate agents must belong to one of the two approved redress schemes – The Property Ombudsman or Property Redress Scheme – and to display details on their website and at their office.
Yvonne Bennett, Wiltshire Council’s trading standards manager, said: “Being part of a redress scheme is an important consumer protection issue.
“It enables people to access free, impartial and independent alternative dispute resolution, if they believe an estate agent has not acted appropriately.
“Mr Kent was asked to provide evidence of his membership some time before the penalty notice was issued following a complaint, but failed to do so. Mr Kent continues to trade as an estate agent since being given the fine in November, and as of January 7, 2019, is yet to join a redress scheme.
“We will now refer our investigation to the National Trading Standards Estate Agency Team to consider further action, which can include being banned as acting as an estate agent.”
However, the agency told a local paper that it had recently moved premises and that there had been an oversight in getting membership renewed.
The agent told the paper: “We had been members before and as soon as this was highlighted, we re-applied.”
EYE has also approached the agency for comment.
Quite right and proper that an agent should have an ombudsman membership or face consequences. Why, though, did trading standards fail to investigate and prosecute the hundreds of LPEs who were not Ombudsman members pre July 2016 and the hundreds of LPEs since who are individual members but do not advertise their individual membership details on the website or at their (home) offices as required? Why NTSEAT, why?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
This article isn’t about LPE’s or “online agents”. It doesn’t mention them. Try and go a day without having a snipe Chris. It’s not very becoming.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
If the law was applied and enforced equally, I would have no need. Sadly it isn’t. It appears that the powers that be only go after ‘low hanging fruit/ easy prosecutions. That needs continually highlighting until those who are paid to investigate and uphold the law do so without fear or favour. If you feel that is somehow unbecoming, that speaks volumes.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
SLF
In his post, Chris Wood’s first sentence acknowledges the fact that an Agent should face consequences for failure to comply with current Legislation.
However, you take exception to his reminding of a widescale failure to comply which was seemingly ignored/overlooked/swept under an exceedingly large carpet by the same authority that is now being seen to make an example of this single-branch agency for an identical breach.
Surely you cannot fail to agree that it would have been far more compelling to the industry to ensure their respective houses were in order to read news of a major name in the business feeling the wrath of Trading Standards for a massive breach of industry Legislation than the above article?
And surely you cannot fail but to agree that legislation should be applied equally and fairly to all.
Or… can you fail to agree?
The floor is yours…
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register