Online agent eMoov was the subject of a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority over its claim that it achieved 99% of the asking price.
The claim read: “We’re achieving 99% of asking price per sale compared to 95% by the typical UK estate agent.”
An ASA spokesperson said that a complainant challenged whether this was misleading, because it understood it referred to the last asking price before sale rather than the initial asking price.
They also challenged whether sufficient information was provided for the comparison against other UK estate agents to be verified.
The ASA spokesperson said: “We approached eMoov Ltd with the concerns that had been raised.
“It agreed to amend the claim and make qualifications more prominent.”
“On those grounds, we considered the matter resolved and closed the case on an informal basis.
eMoov looks to have been quick to change the claim.
Asked about it yesterday, founder Russell Quirk said of the complaint: “This was related to the age old ‘99% of asking price’ that we habitually achieve for our home sellers.
“It was a complaint that was submitted anonymously and that the ASA recently decided was resolved when we offered to add the word ‘last’ to the saving clause that was already in place stating ‘99% of “last* advertised price achieved’.”
However, the claim about achieving 99% of the asking price was still visible on the site this morning: scroll down a bit and it appears under the comparison with Foxtons.
Comments (8)
And the agents that keep sold properties on the portals after they have exchanged and completed.
Without doubt this case should be referred to Trading Standards for a full investigation.
You are having a laugh. Trading standards only shape the legislation they don’t get involved with the mucky and time consuming business of doing anything with it.
The devolving of central government powers out by tender to the cheapest bidder is simply a farcical jolly of ego and incompetence.
Its still saying it on Rightmove though.
They are probably paying RM £25k a month though.
Without doubt this case should be referred to Trading Standards for a full investigation.
The company has seriously misled consumers over an extended period of time. Knowing that it was misleading they used the 99% claim to influence consumers to use their services. They have profited from a falsehood and should be held to account.
The claim made the company look more successful than it really is, so what effect did that have on getting investors to hand over their money? That in itself should be looked at.
Truly, the Emperor is without his clothes this morning.
Sorry, Mr Quirk – care to run us through how many small tweaks exactly have been found necessary to be made to your website claims in the last couple of years or so?
The more we read about such things, the more it seems to me that techies now have a full-time job simply closing the gap between ‘stated’ and ‘barely acceptable’ in the eyes of the ASA these days…
Thanks for the ‘Dislike’
The very thought that I’ve rattled your cage just makes my day SOOOOO much better!
Pants.
Caught
Down.
With.
Rearrange to a well known phrase.