Three complaints against eMoov have all been upheld by the advertising watchdog.
The complaint, from a consumer, concerned statements on the eMoov website.
These said: “Looking to sell your home? Half Term: Sign up now & receive £220 off.”
The website also stated: “We’re local everywhere. We’ve sold in 98% of UK postcodes.”
The ad included a comparison table with the Brixton branch of Foxtons estate agents, which included various features such as number of listings, asking price and selling fee.
The table stated: “Compare us to traditional estate agents. Foxtons customers would have saved £13,449 … emmov National … Selling Fee … £595 … Foxtons Brixton … Selling Fee £14,044.”
The complainant challenged whether the half-term promotion was misleading, as they said the same money-off promotion had been offered earlier.
The complainant also challenged whether eMoov really had sold in 98% of UK postcodes, and whether Foxtons customers would have saved £13,449.
In response, eMoov said they had run two other promotions with the same money-off offer.
The firm produced a data sheet which it said supported the claim of having sold in 98% of UK postcodes. eMoov said most customers would understand the word ‘postcodes’ to mean ‘postcode areas’.
eMoov said the claim that Foxtons customers would have saved £13,449 was in fact lower than what they would actually have saved. eMoov had deliberately erred on the side of caution. The calculation was based on figures in late 2015 when the average asking price for a Foxtons Brixton property was £585,167 based on a 2% commission fee.
In fact, Foxtons’ terms and conditions showed the lowest rate was 2.7%. Based on the lower commission fee, savings would be £14,717; based on the higher fee, savings would be £19,821.
However, the ASA did not accept these arguments.
It said that the half-term offer was the same as two others. It had followed one promotion which had closed at the end of the previous month. The Advertising Standards Authority said that eMoov had in effect extended the closing date.
The Committee of Advertising Practice Code states that closing dates must not be changed unless circumstances out of the promoter’s control made it unavoidable.
Consumers who had taken up the initial offer may have hurried into the promotion, believing it was about to end, when they could have waited until it was more convenient.
On the claim that eMoov had sold in 98% of UK postcodes, the ASA said that consumers were likely to understand that these would be general postcodes, covered by the first part of the postcode, eg SE5.
However, the data provided showed broad areas, such as SE.
The claim that Foxtons’ Brixton clients would have made savings of £13,449 was not accepted by the ASA.
It said that that the comparison in costs was based on the national fees charged by eMoov and those in London charged by Foxtons. However, the quoted average asking price for Foxtons was significantly higher and impacted on the commission fee.
The ASA said this disparity exaggerated the likely savings that could be achieved by using eMoov.
In addition, the fee quoted in eMoov’s figures represented its lowest-fee option and excluded optional add-ons.
For these reasons, the ASA said that eMoov had not demonstrated the savings claim was representative of the amount that consumers could save by using eMoov rather than a traditional high street agent.
The ASA told eMoov not to repeat the advert, and not to say that customers could save specific amounts of money compared to high street agents in the absence of adequate substantiation.
It seems that attempting to mislead the public is eMoovs’ main strategy.
How many times have they quietly settled or been found guilty of misleading by the ASA now?
I hope the NTSEAT and TPOmb are looking careful at this firm who seem hell bent on deceiving the public.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Lost faith in the ASA a long time ago. Can not remember the last actual sanction.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
The ASA is not fit for purpose, it is a self regulating, self protecting organisation that has no meaningful escalation process for complaint.
Without consistency or guidelines individual cases are determined by unfathomable rules which are seemingly made up on the spot by individual case officers.
My example, I am not allowed to complain to ASA because I use my own name to post on Property Industry Eye. “because you know what you are talking about you are too qualified to make a complaint, you are an academic in the subject!”
I am convinced when Matt Lucas and David Walliams made Little Britain, ‘Compooter sez no’ was actually based on ASA; the similarities with the stubborn idiocy are far too strong to be coincidental.
To date I have been waiting 11 months for a reply to an email (despite two reminders) on how 75 miles can possibly considered local in an industry where local can be calculated as 7 miles. Local is not a subjective matter- ASA think it is. (for clarity; one case officer at ASA and her supervisor think it is, someone else there thinks “that’s ridiculous but its not their case”)
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
So it seems basically you can make up whatever lies you want. If reported and then found to be misleading the public you just need to change the ad.
How many of these online listers have had ads pulled and still keep breaking the law with nothing being done?
Hopefully the Virgin begathon will see this along with other reports on emove and not give the professional begger another penny.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
That post is so going to get moderated! Love it!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Screenshotted for posterity! ;o)
Only one small correction – the quoted name for the company actually belongs to YET ANOTHER call-centre Agent, based round the corner from the subject firm.
Other than that – bang on the money. Comment of the week nomination.
If Carlsberg did comments on EYE…
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Why moderated? Is he not begging for money. Is this not a regular thing he does?
If so he is a professional at it.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
There are sensitive people in this world who will go all DEFCON1 litigious if you’re a little bit mean.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
🙂
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Mr Quirk is obviously from the camp of ‘all publicity is good publicity’.
Perhaps a more considered approach to business would be appropriate. Then he may find himself not getting ‘bogged down’ with regular enquiries from the ASA.
No doubt though the ‘perpetual mouthpiece of the industry’ revels in the notoriety!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
The ASA say on their website “Our work includes acting on complaints and proactively checking the media to take action against misleading, harmful or offensive advertisements.”
In light of the observations above, to whom do we report them? 🙂
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
They new exactly what they were doing and intended to be misleading and dishonest. There was a time when it was policed and enforced rigoursly and would have received written warning prior to a banning order. But those were the days when men, were men. Those in power today are not fit for purpose. We see this sort of behaviour on a daily basis by both parties.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
To be fair at least I can now justifiably add to my sellers presentation a flyer which says “Emoove – Guilty of Making Misleading Claims”
Except they’ve hardly cropped up this year, so I don’t think I will bother.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
exactly. Having to lie to make money doesn’t normally work. Just desperation. Pity naea wont make an advert to warn the public about dodgy online industry. I.e. A plane with 1 wing or a car with 2 wheels…they are cheaper as well
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
According to the ASA website, “The ad must not appear again in its current form.”
I note with delight that there has been a substantial correction made in this respect.
That being said – the semi colon which has been removed never looked right where they’d put it in the first place.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Any new player in a market has to fight for its place and it is inevitable that the newcomers into the agency world will stretch – and sometimes break – the truth as they fight to establish themselves.
It might be forgivable if these lapses were rare and unintended. But they are neither. They are calculated to mislead the public either by omission or commission in order to win market share and it is high time that the ASA and Trading Standards grew some b*lls and tackled the persistent offenders – who unfortunately receive far, far too much publicity and credibility in the national media.
PIE readers know what hogwash is peddled by these shysters. The public don’t.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
These campaigns all reek of desperation to me.
Hasn’t anybody realised that the bright young things that own £500k+ property in Brixton are more than just a little tech savvy. That is to say that they know all about online estate agency in its various guises but they also know the difference between cost and value and choose to sell with a high street agent.
A quick check tells me that Foxtons currently have 90 properties for sale in Brixton, whilst Emoov have 10. The latter will generate around £4k of income (after fall throughs) whilst Foxtons current listings will generate around £731k. If I were an investor, I know which I would find the most attractive proposition.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register