Agents in Devon agreed a “consensus” to drop Zoopla, it was alleged yesterday (Wednesday) at the Competition Appeal Tribunal.
However, one leading agent in the west country, representing Stags, said he had not discussed his firm’s decision as to which other portal to drop with other agents. Nor did he know which portal other agents would be keeping or dropping if they joined OnTheMarket.
Stags partner Peter Symons also denied having previously seen an email which, it was alleged, had been sent to agents in the region including two colleagues and which was described as discussing ‘the plan’.
The tribunal is examining competition issues around the ‘one other portal’ (OOP) rule on the Agents’ Mutual-owned portal OnTheMarket.
The complainant is Gascoigne Halman, a Gold member of OTM which signed up in January 2014 when it was an independent.
It was bought by national estate agency chain Connells in October 2015.
AM alleges that Connells has “long-running strategic links with, and holds a £30m shareholding in, Zoopla”.
The tribunal was previously told that Zoopla had offered to pay as much as £250,000 of Connells’ legal costs.
AM claims that by signing the ‘Listing Agreement’ back in 2014, Gascoigne Halman agreed to the OOP rule.
It says that the contract means Gascoigne Halman can only display its clients’ properties on a maximum of one other competing portal, with the agreement in place for five years from January 2015 when OTM launched.
Giving evidence yesterday, Peter Symons, senior partner at Stags in Totnes, Devon, described the OOP rule as a vital tool for the “very small beast” to break into the property portals market.
He said one of the reasons for joining OTM was the increasing base prices of other property portals. It had nothing to do with the price of added extras offered by Zoopla.
The tribunal was told that medium size or small estate agents found the AM offer “risky” but “attractive”, with Rightmove and Zoopla becoming “increasingly expensive” for smaller businesses.
Mr Symons said that once they had decided to go with AM, it was a straight choice between Rightmove and Zoopla.
He said other online portals were “utterly insignificant” to Stags and although signing with AM was a risk, the OOP rule made good business sense.
“I had seen a number of portals try and fail to enter the market,” he said.
Although the partners at Stags were “concerned” that OTM could be another failure, they would not “sign up to something that didn’t have wheels”.
Mr Symons said it was a “comfort that there was significant members to get the ball rolling”.
He was reassured by AM that 18,000 offices had signed a letter of intent.
He said: “It was clear that OOP was a good strategy for these minnows to succeed in this large pool.
“It gave Agents’ Mutual a chance. There was a need for the OOP rule.
“The OOP rule gave us comfort; it told us this had a chance to work.
“It was a very small beast in a very competitive market.”
Paul Harris QC, representing Gascoigne Halman, highlighted an email sent by Mr Symons to AM chief executive Ian Springett.
In it Mr Symons raised concerns about future issues with the Office of Fair Trading.
While Mr Symons said it was a general question as it was a big decision, Mr Harris suggested it was directly to do with excluding online agents from membership.
Mr Harris said it was to keep out the “competitive threat to traditional agencies” like Stags.
He said Mr Symons sent the email as “You realised it was anti-competitive, didn’t you, to exclude online agencies.”
In the email Mr Symons allegedly said: “It seems to me the big drama is likely to be the OFT.”
Mr Symons denied that was the case and said his email was to question whether there were any issues or dramas that might come up later on.
He told the hearing that Stags did not discuss which other portal they would choose with any other agents.
He said he had “no idea” which portal other agencies would use.
Mr Harris handed him an email from Kevin Underwood at nearby Webbers in north Devon sent to a long list of other estate agents in the area.
Mr Harris said: “This is an email showing a consensus and plan by Devon estate agents about giving notice to Zoopla, sent to two people at your firm.”
Cc’d into the email, said Mr Harris, were Simon Cooper, a partner and office manager, and professional services administrator Dianne Shirazian based at Stags in Exeter.
Mr Harris said it “discussed the plan”.
Mr Symons said that he had never seen the email before, it was not sent to him and the contents were not brought up in any meetings.
Mr Harris put it to Mr Symons that OOP “damaged offerings by Rightmove and Zoopla”.
Mr Symons said the aim was not to damage but to disrupt and get traction.
He said he was pleased with AM’s progress in the last two years.
He said: “The growth was beyond what we expected but the big boys had upped their game as well.”
Mr Harris put it to him that the role of the OOP rule was to disrupt, and take properties from Zoopla.
He said: “Nearly everyone in your part of the world has dropped Zoopla.”
He said that “90% of those that signed up to OnTheMarket have dropped Zoopla”, adding: “It was their [Agents’ Mutual’s] objective to replace Zoopla as the number two by January 2016.”
The hearing continued as reported in the item above.
Unbelievable!
Alleged examples of colluding practices. What a disgrace.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I remember when agents in Wales dropped Rightmove in favour of Zoopla….
Something to do with who you work for tells me you’d find that a lot less of a “disgrace”
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Clearly this is wrong too! If is the case! Mr ‘real agent’ And in regards to your suggestion – wrong again! Try harder. An estate agent proffesional for 15 years
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Perhaps you should have stayed at school a trifle longer and learnt how to spell professional then.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Ooo touchy! Another Pro OTM agents dreams come crashing down 🙂
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Not at all. I simply saw an opportunity to own you….which I did.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
hahahhahahahaA spelling mistake is considered ‘owning’ what an interesting life you mr ‘real agent’
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Troll-o-lol-o-lol-o-lol-lol-lol……
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Quote: 1. It was their [Agents’ Mutual’s] objective to replace Zoopla as the number two by January 2016
2. He said Mr Symons sent the email as “You realised it was anti-competitive, didn’t you, to exclude online agencies.”
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
‘Quote: 1. It was their [Agents’ Mutual’s] objective to replace Zoopla as the number two by January 2016’
Question: Is there anything illegal in that ‘objective’, Mr Mealham?
Surely a business without an objective is a business doomed to failure?
‘2. He said Mr Symons sent the email as “You realised it was anti-competitive, didn’t you, to exclude online agencies.” ‘
The ‘He’ you are referring to, Mr Mealham. SAID that. Did he hold up proof of what “He said”?
Lawyers ‘say’ a lot of things. Somehow, they are allowed to make claims and accusations within a Courtroom that would get them placed in the same dock for Libel were it in outside of those confines.
It’s how they win or lose their cases.
Luckily for GH, Zoopla and co, I sincerely doubt they’ll be relying on your powers of sensationalist billshuttery and point-scoring where no points are up for grabs.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Mr pee-bee. We’ll see what the judge decides 🙂
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
@PeeBee:
You say: Question: Is there anything illegal in that ‘objective’, Mr Mealham?
How’s the song go? It’s not what you do, but the way that you do it. …….
‘He’ you are referring to, Mr Mealham. SAID that. Did he hold up proof of what “He said”? . ……… Not at all PeeBee, I have just quoted the PIE article.
‘Points’ PeeBee, what points?? Just observations
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
“Not at all PeeBee, I have just quoted the PIE article.”
The article contains 926 words. You chose to “quote” thirty-six of them.
You emboldened four of those that you felt made a point of some description. Basically, you doctored the “quote”.
So in reality you “quoted” nothing – instead you are blatantly using quoted words out of context in an attempt to engineer an issue out of bu99er all substance.
Brings an obvious question – Why, Mr Mealham… WHY?
Over to you for the obvious answer…
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
While we are confessing our sins, I was part of an orchestrated agent movement that told Vincent Boni where to shove his monopoly position price hike for the North Devon Journal way back in 1991, all the other agents in North Devon joined in too. Even to this day the affects of the orchestrated strike are in place and attempts to lure the big boys back with deals not available to smaller agents get turned down.
Offering to use income derived from independent agents to pay courts costs of a single corporate client inevitably against an organisation their clients are supporting highlights the unworkable practice of mixing two separate service industries each which has distinct loyalties and obligations.
We don’t have corporate agents in North Devon, so any sort of portal stock is governed by agents who compete on service, those agents are not a cartel but when pushed or bullied will act as one.
I suspect this court case is going to do harm to a lot of people, it is important that the agent benefits of Agents Mutual are not one of the victims.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
WELL SAID, Robert!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
As Robert said why shouldn’t we stand up to arrogant suppliers who think they have us by the short and curlies. For too long RM and Zoopla have hiked prices on a regular basis so why wouldn’t we support a new entry that aims to counteract this. It’s not colluding against Zoopla, simply trying to avoid being ripped off!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Please let me make it clear to everyone irrespective of the outcome of this case my views and opinions will not change.
Agents Mutual is beneficial to agents
Service suppliers to the industry have obligations and loyalties to their paying customers on an individual basis.
I am not going to change my mind based on the ebbs and flows of a court case.
The industry and agents will suffer irrespective of the outcome , that is a bad and sad thing for those of us who want to make it better.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register