In an extraordinary twist, it has emerged that the latest Advertising Standards Authority ruling on Purplebricks was released by mistake two weeks early.
On Wednesday, the ASA released its finding that Local Property Experts were both local and expert – in doing so, rejecting challenges made by four complainants.
However, yesterday afternoon it was revealed in an email to one of the complainants that the ruling should not have been published until November 8.
The disclosure was made by ASA operations manager Andrew Bruce in an email to one of the complainants, Chris Wood, of Cornish agency PDQ Estates.
He said: “Ordinarily, the Council’s decision would have been published on our website on Wednesday, 8 November.
“However, please note that due to a system error this ruling was published on our website today.
“We are investigating how this happened, but please accept our apologies for our failure to provide you with advanced notice of its publication.”
In a separate email to Wood yesterday, Bruce also referred to some “incorrect wording” due to the “same system error”.
This wording seems to have wrongly updated an earlier draft copy of the ruling sent to Wood, and to which he had raised some objections.
Wood, together with Plymouth Trading Standards and property consultant Alexander Dawson, were named as three complainants; the fourth was not named in line with the ASA policy of not identifying private consumers.
Wood, who continues to dispute the ASA ruling and to query whether all his points have been taken on board, told EYE yesterday: “This is unbelievable.
“It means that the ASA has not followed its own due processes.
“I and the other complainants – together with Purplebricks itself – should have seen an advance copy of the final ruling. We should have had a chance to review it and make any final representations.
“However, we did not have that opportunity. I do not know what happens next – whether the ASA will withdraw the ruling, amend it or re-publish it.”
However, the ASA said that despite jumping the gun on publication, the ruling will stand.
A spokesperson for the ASA yesterday evening said: “I can confirm we published the Purplebricks ruling slightly ahead of schedule. The investigation was, however, complete. The information on our website is the final ruling, there will be no further changes.”
The ruling published on Wednesday is here:
https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/purplebricks-group-plc-a17-376791.html
Comments (31)
Wow !!!
So does the following mean that ASA usually refers cases to Trading Standards, not vice versa?
Copy and paste this ASA link below into your browser and click read more under the title:
https://www.asa.org.uk/codes-and-rulings/trading-standards-referrals.html
Apparently, ASA regards Trading Standards as their’legal backstop’ – so odd that they appear to have overruled them in them in this instance?
I imagine Plymouth Trading Standards are somewhat ‘miffed’?
I have no axe to grind with either online or traditional agencies (love them all) – but I do have an issue with the attitude and competence of the ASA.
A few years ago I ran an ad campaign, which included, as part of a theme, a picture of a Labrador with its head in a paper bag! (Long story!!!)
Anyway, of the 20,000 leaflets we delivered, and the thousands that saw the ad in the local property paper, one person complained to the ASA.
As a result a minion called me and told me that if I took the ad down immediately, no further action would be taken. As it happened I did not intend to run the ad again anyway, but I sought to argue and told him to take a hike. I eventually established that I did have a right of appeal, but was advised this in a way that made it clear that I actually had bugger all chance of winning!
I did win the appeal and the story then appeared in the local paper – excellent additional free advertising, and the newspaper printed the photo as well.
My only other thought is that if you have a point to make in feedback, have the balls to attach your name to your comment!
Have a great day.
“My only other thought is that if you have a point to make in feedback, have the balls to attach your name to your comment!”
Sorry to ask this question for what seems like the quadrillionth time to probably the umpteenth person – but is there by chance a rule of thumb that makes a point with name attached somehow more or less valid than one without?
‘My LPE’ has been in his job for a whole month and has only ever worked in agency 30 miles away..
I’d struggle to let him do anything except make the tea!
Suggestion – stop calling our staff negotiators or valuers or listers. They are all local property experts. Use the term in all ads and promotional materials and when talking to customers. Ride on the back of the PB publicity machine. Dilute their message.
Agreed
You mean they haven’t copyright protected the term?!!
Don’t see how they could. The term is descriptive of anyone who is local and an expert on property. I have been one all my working life.
Local Full Service Property Experts
Interesting that the ASA effectively ruled against a trading standard complaint.
Does anyone know whether that has happened before?
Could NTSEAT, TPO or both overrule this decision if it disagrees?
See a dictionary definition of ‘local’ as defined below:
confined, restricted, contained, limited, localized;
circumscribed, delimited, specific, particular
Come on regulators, according to this English language definition you need to define and support the use of the word local as above.
NTSEAT have gone ominously quiet. Portal juggling is frequent in our area and whilst NTSEAT were originally on it, we don’t even get a response now when cast iron evidence is provided.
“…circumscribed…”
Some of them may well be – but is it in the Job Description?
I’m 100% FULL Service in that respect – so I guess I would never “qualify” as an LPE.
<sighs> Another shattered dream…
LPEs are circumscribed? Does that mean they indulge in hu-bris?
Andrew Overman made a very good point on the initial thread:
‘The ASA reviewed 52 CVs of LPEs and found that 41 had over five years’ experience, nine had less than five years and two had no previous experience.’
‘We submitted the CVs of 200 LPEs engaged in 2017 to the ASA, who had an average of 12 years of industry experience and all followed an extensive recruitment and training programme.’
What I want to know is:
What criteria did the ASA apply to choose which CVs they reviewed? They looked at around a quarter.
Were Purplebricks allowed to select (cherry-pick) the CVs they submitted? I believe the sample represented around a third of all LPEs.
If so, why?
If there are good answers to these questions, I’m more inclined to accept their ruling.
“also referred to some “incorrect wording” due to the “same system error”. This wording seems to have wrongly updated an earlier draft copy of the ruling sent to Wood, and to which he had raised some objections.”
So Chris Wood had received a copy of the ruling but not one with some wording updated? Is that correct?
So was this change in wording significant and if so what was the wording? I imagine insignificant otherwise the wording would have been quoted in the article.
Most likely a fuss about nothing but I am happy to be shown to be wrong :).
Belligerent and self protecting. ASA is an organisation unfit for purpose.
A someone with no recognised qualification or experience can rule on matters according to their own viewpoint and whim. There is no effective communication channel when it is obvious the case handler is out of their depth. The managers protect the case handler with a how very dare you challenge us attitude.
Unfortunately for ASA they have underestimated Mr Wood’s determination and dogged drive to see justice done.
This is the best ever!
The dastardly PB and their minions ASA causing havoc and distress to your white knight leader, who will prevail in glory.
How’s about making some kind of crass, smart-@$$ comment in your response to my thread in The Arena as I’ve been inviting you to do, dom-boy?
Surely that madras has worked up sufficient head of steam for you to let go that #cranial_constipation?
Or is the truth laid out in front of you just too hard to accept?
http://www.propertyindustryeye.com/forums/topic/the-incredible-shrinking-purple-listings/
Go on – be a devil. Give it your best shot.
I.
CAN’T.
WAIT.
PeeBee, perhaps nobody want to debate with you because of your demeaning attitude.
I presume dompritch134 is a grown man and deserves to be talked to in an adult way. Usually the way things are done in online forums so the issues can be discussed without stooping to the level of personal attacks.
cyberduck46
For a man who has stated he considers my posts a waste of his time you are now making a mockery of your own words by responding to one of them – moreso that it was not directed to you in the first place.
I also presume dompritch134 is a grown man – and that he therefore is more than able to come back with his own response. You’re not doing him any favours by mollycoddling him – he has to fluff up his own feathers and not be seen by others to be under your protective wing.
That being said, if you and/or dom-boy can’t handle what others can and do – which seems to be the case – then go find a nice cotton-wool padded playground to play in… somewhere that no nasty boys or girls like me can pull your hair, take your ball from you or make nasty-pasty faces in your general direction.
I have played here since the day the site opened – and for several years before that at our kind host’s previous domain – where it is noted you sometimes duck in and out. In the best art of a decade of posting my views and opinions I’ve been called all the names there are by waaaay bigger and better than you and your Purple #fanboy rival – and I’m still here. I’ve upset many – but always for what I consider the right reasons.
You’re out of your depth… but it was your decision to gatecrash the party – so don’t lump the blame on others when this particular duck and his pal can’t waddle the waddle, quack the quack or fight fire with anything other than crocodile tears.
I don’t expect a response.
Actually – scratch that. I don’t want one.
Or is it simply that Cyberdick and Domprick are the same person?
I have more than a strong suspicion that this is not the case – and we do actually have two PurpleBricks #fanboys competing to be the ultimate traditional Estate Agency #bunnyboiler.
Not many really – when you take into account the numbers of delighted buyers, sellers, landlords, tenants, viewers, staff members, mortgage advisers and all who post slavvery 5-star ‘reviews’ for them…
There really is not competing with your level of debate Dom.
Comeon the sycophancy is amusing.
>A someone with no recognised qualification or experience can rule on matters according to their own viewpoint and whim.
Makes you wonder why Trading Standards applied then? Plymouth Trading standards wan’t it, down there in Chris’ kneck of the woods if I’m not mistaken.
Trading Standards don’t need the ASA decision to act if they believe the term “local property expert” is misleading and would likely cause the average consumer to enter into a transactional decision.
So if we’re being consistent all the ASA decisions against PurpleBricks are being called into question are they? We can just say they were made by somebody with no recognised qualification and most likely made on a whim?
No Robert. They have underestimated the amount of free time Chris Wood’s seems to have and his obsession with complaining about Purplebricks. He’d be better off concentrating on his own business rather than constantly knocking and questioning his competition. It’s not becoming of a professional estate agent and is actually a bit odd.
Chamberlain waving a piece of white paper comes to mind here.
Just think how many Bruces there are in Oz. Now that’s really suspicious.
“The disclosure was made by ASA operations manager Andrew Bruce” – another Bruce! Hope they’re not related.
ASA operations manager Andrew Bruce? Not at all suspicious !!!!!!
We must’ve “hit send” simultaneously lol!