eMoov yesterday made changes to its website – apparently the first online/hybrid agent to do so since the industry regulator issued a warning telling them not to make inaccurate claims about savings that customers could make.
eMoov has amended its comparison to a 1.3% high street agency fee, and also made it clear that accompanied viewings are not included in the headline price.
CEO Russell Quirk called on other firms to follow his lead.
He said: “We’ve noted the comments made by the Trading Standards Estate Agency Team regarding fee saving claims by online agents as outlined by Property Industry Eye earlier this week.
“I’ve met with the senior team here to discuss a solution to what in effect is this difference of opinion that exists between traditional agents and our sector on the subject of what is deemed a ‘standard fee’ to compare cost against.
“As a consequence of that we have identified what does seem to be a lower fee being charged as an average percentage across the UK and as represented by Which? and My Home Move data.
“This reduction in average estate agency fees across the industry is in our view a significant step forward in favour of consumer value and something that we have long championed.
“Accordingly, we have amended our website’s fee comparison figure to be based upon a 1.3% (including VAT) charge. Our supporting representations with regard to the sum that is likely to be saved by a customer that sells via eMoov have also been updated and in line with our average selling price.
“As a full-service truly hybrid estate agency we are one of very few online/hybrid businesses that operates a bona fide offer negotiation and sales progression approach using experienced negotiators to do so.
“However, in line with the comments made by Trading Standards, we recognise that whilst a large part of our role is scheduling thousands of viewings per month for our customers, we do not accompany those viewings unless an upgrade package is purchased.
“It is of course a fact that not all high street estate agencies accompany all viewings as standard either. However, for the avoidance of doubt and to ensure maximum transparency on this point we have added within our disclaimer text that ‘Accompanied viewings are excluded’ by comparison to (some) high street competitors.
“We hope that other online and hybrid agents will now follow our lead in having listened to the representations made by the authorities (and indeed to our colleagues in the wider industry) to clarify and update such comparisons.”
The differences are shown below. The first screengrab was taken last weekend and the second yesterday afternoon.
Comments (8)
Following on from my rantlet above, I’ve had some more thoughts on this.
Firstly – sorry for stealing your thunder, ‘aSalesAgent’. I can assure you that no-one ‘pooped in my cereal’ – I’m 100% proper ‘Gordon Gecko’ in that respect… but although it was a bit early and I don’t normally start to think in joined-up writing until the first cup of D&E kicks in, I reckon I sure wazzed all over Mr Quirk’s caviar and crackers before 8 bells!
Early bird and all that, I guess – you can have first bash at The Quirkster next time and I’ll settle for the sloppies!
Secondly – as has been today suggested to me by the owner of a multi-branch agency in my neck of the woods – the stated “savings” available to a vendor for paying eMoov to list on a NSPR basis (the validity of the word “sell” in their claim having already been #nuked) should surely be calculated on, at very worst, regional figures…
…and not the old “National” cherry which even the renowned statistical contortionist, ‘Bendy Q’ has to admit doesn’t work for a mahoosive chunk of the nation’s housing stock!
So – why be allowed to make it look like ‘the norrn’, when, as it states above:
“eMoov has amended its comparison to a 1.3% high street agency fee, and also made it clear that accompanied viewings are not included in the headline price.”?
Take just one example (and there are THOUSANDS…) An old sparring partner of mine (who has been very quiet recently) runs an Agency in Manchester. His company charges 0.6% (subject to £834 minimum Fee) INCLUDING Accompanied Viewing Service – so, he is only FIFTY QUID more than eMoov – but offering a superior package.
I cringe when typing this – but I dare say there will be those that could even be charging less…
… but the point is that many Agencies will be offering a package that costs LESS than Mr Quirk’s headline.
And then… following on from the above (in terms of one key point, at least – all will be revealed in the next few lines…)
From the article above:
“eMoov has… made it clear that accompanied viewings are not included in the headline price.”
“…in line with the comments made by Trading Standards, we recognise that… we do not accompany those viewings unless an upgrade package is purchased… and to ensure maximum transparency on this point we have added within our disclaimer text that ‘Accompanied viewings are excluded’ by comparison to (some) high street competitors.”
That’s pretty clear, then. Bold, precise and compelling, and all that.
SO – when they state on their website, as is evidenced above in the screenshot and as referred to in my original post
”…with no hidden costs…”
could someone point me to the cost of the “upgrade package” mentioned just a few lines above here?
‘COS IT AIN’T ANYWHERE TO BE SEEN ON THE “CHECKOUT” PAGE OF THEIR WEBSITE.
Or anywhere else, for that matter.
In fact – it looks pretty darn well “hidden” to me…
Surely it would be correct to say ‘List for £795’ …..?
Well done emoov for taking the lead but you should go further:
“Warning – this £x fee and any additional viewing service cost of £x is at risk, as it is payable whether a successful sale is agreed or not.”
Also, any fee savings should not be based on your average property price but RM’s accurate 10 regional property price index plus Scotland if you operate there.
So approximately 2/3 of UK has an average price of around £175,000 not your default sliding scale of £300,000 or default 1.8% fee as you acknowledge above.
So £175,000 x 1.3% inc vat = £2,275 or £1,820 as not all agents are vat registered.
How can this save on average £2,857 in these areas?
Also, how many of your customers end up paying two agency fees?
How does that save these customers £1000s if a sale is not completed through emoov?
Two things…
1. “Sell for just £795…”
REALLY? SELL?
“Sell” is a very precise word, Mr Quirk. In fact, some would say ‘bold, precise and compelling’ – like the wording of the good old PMA which stuffed so many whose written and even spoken claims got them into bovver. Then along came BPRs and CPRs which take misleading statements to an entirely new level of pain for less gain.
So – what about the percentage of your listings that DON’T sell? Or sell via other means?
Mr Quirk – for the avoidance of doubt (and the strong probability that the ASA will come’a’knocking on your door on the matter before too long, I suspect) – shouldn’t that say
“Sell OR DON’T as the case may be for just £795 (please note this is one of the highest NO SALE Fees in the UK…)”?
Seems the more accurate description of the service you provide.
What’s the word you NSPR jobbies like to use…? Oh yeah – transparent. That’s the very fellow!
2.”…with no hidden costs…”
Erm… again…
REALLY?
NO hidden costs? What about the accompanied viewings that you have specifically mentioned. THAT is “hidden” – you have to click the ‘i’ icon to read it.
I’d call that “hidden”. Wonder if ASA will? Or maybe even Trading Standards? Ombudsman? HomeOwnersAlliance? (okay – I made the last one up – like that would ever happen…)
Jeez – so many possible elephants in your little “transparent” room.
I dare say we’ll find out…
By the way – another name for a transparent room is a glass house.
Funny, innit – those old sayings don’t ‘alf have a habit of becoming relevant in modern-day life…
Actually this is I think a really important point. Since when has it been acceptable to say or imply something when selling your services that simply isn’t guaranteed.
So much more needs to be said about this.
I was going to make the same point about the “Sell Now for £795” button PeeBee, but – WOW – you took it to another level. Who pooped in your cereal this morning?!
“Sell Now” is simply being deceitful. The button should read ‘Market your property for £795’.
Two years too late Russell. With few notable exceptions, the call-centre sector has been ‘misleading’ (that’s the polite legal term) consumers since its inception.
A little harsh Chris, at least allow Russell the chance of appearing to be relevant in his sector still, an ego such as his will need that afterall.