Agent Chris Wood has continued to defy the Advertising Standard Authority’s ruling that he must take down claims that customers of Purplebricks and other agents have lost money.
The claims were made in a tweet last October and in a three-and-a-half year old blog on the PDQ Estates website.
The ASA ordered Wood to remove the claims in a ruling published on Wednesday.
But in a new blog on his site, Wood says that both the original blog and his tweet will remain published.
In the new blog, he calls the ASA’s ruling “bizarre”, claiming that it undermines many of its own previous decisions.
Wood, who produced evidence obtained from Zoopla to the ASA in an attempt to back up his claims, said the ruling “severely” undermined the reliability of ZPG’s data.
Additionally, he says, the ruling appears to suggest that any agents can claim a 100% list-to-sold ratio by using an infinite marketing period.
In other words, he says, “the property may sell at some time in the next few millennia, therefore it is inaccurate to class that customer as having lost money if it hasn’t sold within what many might deem a reasonable period of marketing”.
In his new blog, Wood says he has passed information and all data on to Cornwall Trading Standards.
Wood has made it clear in his new blog that local results for Cornwall may not reflect the national picture.
He is alleging that in a number of Truro postcodes, 41% of Purplebricks’ listed properties have sold.
A spokesperson for the ASA said: “Following a published ruling against PDQ Estates for misleading advertising we will assess whether the advertiser has brought its claims into line with the rules.
“We are passing this matter over to our compliance team who will consider next steps.”
https://blog.pdq-estates.co.uk/2018/07/11/response-to-todays-asa-ruling/
The ASA appear to be having a go at Chris, not about advertising his own agency, but about what he says about the pay anyway Call Centre Listers.
So someone needs to complain to the ASA about that classic line from the CCL’s about ‘paying commission but getting nothing more for your money’ (even though of course, one of the obvious things you do get for paying commission is a guaranteed sale!).
If ever there was a totally untrue statement that needs to be removed from all marketing, that is it!!!
BSOS23PC
.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I doubt it’s the ASA having a go. More like a horrid little regular poster on here is reporting him.
Still two can play that game.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
It was a malicious, vexatious complaint that is likely to backfire spectacularly. Apparently the data source Chris used as the basis of the blog is essentially the same data set as used to shout ‘look at us, look at us, we’re great innit?’
It hardly matters that the data is good enough for one claim but not another it’s where the data is coming from that is turning out to be the concern.
An agent’s dead file data should be the exclusive property of each individual agent. It is not something that should be hawked about like knock off to any ne’er-do-well who wants to buy it. I appreciate the same data is eventually made available through land registry but that is sanitised in such a way it does not give commercial advantage or disadvantage to anyone.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
>It was a malicious, vexatious complaint that is likely to backfire spectacularly.
You still don’t get it do you?
Surprised you didn’t bring the complaint yourself Robert. A sample size of 15! Really, that’s hilarious. Using Cornwall as a national indicator. Why don’t we use the worst area of a city as an indication of national crime? Must have turned a blind eye because Chris is your friend?
Your just another one of the hypocrites happy to mislead.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
#notnowTerry
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
“A sample size of 15! Really, that’s hilarious.”
From a leading haircare advert:
“80% of 101 agree…”
Would you please be so kind as to talk me – nice and slowly – through the number of people currently residing in the UK will you, ducky?
Even just the legal ones will do. Might be to your advantage.
Only the ones with hair, if you prefer – i it suits your bitter, twisted agenda.
Just when you have a minute.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
101 of 65 million people in the UK hair or not = 0.00015%
15 of 17.5 million owner occupied properties in the UK = 0.00008%
Hope that helps.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Not really, ‘ARC’.
Not all of your 17.5 million owner-occupied homes were on the market at the time.
Care to try another pointless statistic?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
No I’ll leave that to the experts like Chris.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
PeeBee, resident hypocrite & fraud with his usual support for his friends.
From just the other day (27th June 2018):
“In fact, it is good practice and the ASA has evolved from a process of ‘self-regulation and co-regulation’ – which this case (and all the others) are prima facie instances of – our industry keeping its’ own ‘members’ in check when they step out of line on the advertising/promotion front.”
Keeping it’s own ‘members’ in check?
I guess like your friend Robert May you missed your other friend’s website when you were rigorously keeping the industry in check.
Let me summarise the issue the ASA found with Chrs Woods’ attempted substantiation of his claims:
1. “We therefore considered that the properties which had been cited as withdrawn were very likely to include properties which had been sold on other websites”
2. “in one spreadsheet, the Land Registry data was incomplete, while the second spreadsheet was only comprised of properties cited as withdrawn. Furthermore, neither of the spreadsheets matched the list of properties instructed by PurpleBricks between October 2016 and 2017. We therefore considered that those spreadsheets could not be relied upon to determine the percentage of properties in that period that had been withdrawn without a sale.”
3. “That did not mean, however, that those properties were never sold after those ten months, and those figures did not in any case relate to the period and region cited in the ad. In any case, because we had not seen the source of the figure, it could not be relied upon as evidence.”
4. “the infographic they provided was only based on the West Cornwall area, which we considered was not sufficient to make a claim about the whole of the UK market as there was no evidence that properties sold in West Cornwall would be representative of the UK”
5. “PDQ had not shown us where the figures in the infographic were taken from, so we were unable to verify them. Similarly, they had not provided verification for the data in the image of the PowerPoint slide.”
6. “PDQ had provided further data obtained from Zoopla to substantiate the claim. However, that data only related to 15 properties, which was not sufficient to support a claim about the whole UK market.”
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
“I guess like your friend Robert May you missed your other friend’s website…”
Is THAT all this is about, ducky?
The fact that in your eyes we are FRIENDS?
That when when a great many of us ‘traditional’ Agents interact here on EYE, we show genuine cameraderie and kindred spirit – fuelled first and foremost by our love of our respective jobs and the ability to make a difference to the lives of others?
Is that ALL this is about?
If THAT is the case – then you’ve just ‘outed’ yourself as one sad, bitter, twisted individual.
For the record – I will support my friends – (NONE of whom I have ever met nor reasonably expect to do so… but for transparency I believe that I have been within 150 miles of some of them at least once in the eight or so years I have been lucky enough to correspond with them via our gracious host Frau Renshaw (in one pub or another…) – because they are supporting the industry that means more to me than everything other than my family.
No-one needs to go to the extraordinary lengths you have to pry, to poke – or to otherwise scheme to engineer unneccessary and anwarranted divertive attention on you, ducky…
…you’re clearly and unequivocally a frickin genius at lumping it all on yourself.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Thank you for the first compliment you have ever dished out. I am honoured that you see me as a friend to Peebee and Chris Wood. Between them they command more respect for their integrity and hard work for good than you are capable of understanding.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
What a pathetic loser, nothing better to do than come on here early Saturday morning to propagate the usual dribble. Man up, grow a spine and get a proper hobby.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
The press & broadcasters often quote RM & ZPG as sources of articles. Some agents make claims with no supporting source and go unchallenged.
Are agents now vicariously liable for data provided by others which is used in good faith and as part of a service they pay for?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Of course you’re responsible. I’m suprised you don’t know that you have to be able to substantiate any claims. The ASA offer a service to check what you are saying https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-and-resources/bespoke-copy-advice.html
Just don’t jump to the wrong conclusions like Chris did and you will be all right. There’s nothing from the ASA that I’ve seen that says the data was wrong, just Chris Wood’s jumped to the wrong conclusion.
From Chris Woods’ blog “While I appreciate you took the data at face value, your reliance on it does render the claims in your ads misleading because your claims assume that all properties cited as “withdrawn” have not been sold.”
Jumping to conclusions – that’s a schoolboy error.
It’s very easy making complaints to the ASA and encouraging others to do so but it’s a lot harder to substantiate claims. From a brief examination, I reckon there are hundreds of unsubstantiated claims on traditional Agents’ websites.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Have you been in touch with Rebecca Collins yet Cyber?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
My money’s on Chris Wood here and not this perpetual numpty.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
“It’s very easy making complaints to the ASA and encouraging others to do so…”
Speaking, as you are, in a bit of an expert capacity in that respect…
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
How bizarre, indeed Chris.
Has the company in question disputed your or the Jefferies data with the ASA or trading standards?
If not, why not?
Maybe, they would have to produce actual verifiable figures that may contradict their ‘quoted’ success rates?
If their listing to completion ratio really is 91, 88 or in excess of 80% why aren’t they promoting the hell out of these stats on their website or TV adverts or would that spotlight the fact that they charge regardless of sale and/or may have to justify such claims with ASA and/or TS?
As these stats have been ‘advertised’ why aren’t the ASA/TS investigating such bold claims and asking the portals, themselves, for verifiable proof within a fixed time frame of when their deferred payment contract is due regardless of sale/completion less fall through’s and including withdrawn and market break properties?
On behalf of those many users who have had to pay a huge amount for not ‘selling’ they need to establish what the odds of completing truly are and quickly to prevent any further ‘misleading’ marketing.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Thomas, let’s not get too hung up on just one of the many problems the ASA found with PDQ’s attempt at substantiation of their claims. See the full list above.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
ASA are toothless, they can’t and won’t do anything.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
What an odd thing to do. He should be embarrassed of himself and his actions.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register