An estate agent has had a complaint upheld against it over the way it described a property.
The complainant was a previous resident and challenged four claims made about the property by Liverpool agent Ashbury Residential.
The Rightmove listing for the one-bedroom apartment gave as its key features “integrated audio system” and “gated access & TV”.
Further text stated: “Along with all the spectacular features of the apartment you will also benefit from: private drive. Remote control gated access with CCTV. Private secure car parking. Beautifully maintained grounds.”
However, the complainant said that neither the audio system nor the remote control gated access with CCTV worked.
The private drive and private parking were in fact shared with other residents.
And the “beautifully maintained grounds” was an incorrect claim because there was ongoing building work in the grounds.
Castle Estate (Liverpool), trading as Ashbury Residential, did not respond to the Advertising Standards Authority’s inquiries.
The ASA upheld all the challenges and has referred the matter to the Committee of Advertising Practice compliance team.
WHAT! The ASA upheld all the challenges? WIFE! WIFE! where’s the bunting? we’re having a party! Someone at ASA has read the chapter on ‘When informal resolution isn’t enough”
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
What this has not been informally resolved!
Meanwhile back at the ASA HQ they appear to ignore the fact that very many people are losing £100s if not £1000 plus by agreeing to pay some agents prior to a successful completion so they then may have to go on and use another estate agent thereby paying two agency fees without marketing the fact that their fee is at risk?
Are consumers more likely to have to pay two agency fees by using an Online line call centre agent first?
How does this save many of these consumers £1000s?
Come on ASA there are surely bigger more burning issues to refer to the Committee of Advertising Practice compliance team first?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Does anyone know what has become of the CIELA complaint about the PB adverts misleading the public into believing they can sell their home for free?
Has that ever been referred to the ASA?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
There doesn’t appear to be any mention of PB on the ASA website-I suggest we all make a complaint as individuals.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Deleted, I was talking rubbish!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I think the clue is “Ashbury Residential, did not respond to the Advertising Standards Authority’s inquiries”. I doubt this will go anywhere as the complainant confirmed there is “integrated audio system” and “gated access & TV”. No confirmation that agent misled, but claims of past tense. There is private parking and secure for residents, are they splitting hairs to claim being solely private to one resident when it says for residents …. in a group of flats! On face value, looks like the complainant has an axe to grind, when they are not at loss over the advertisement. Maybe there is more to this story and why they left the property? It wouldn’t suprise me if the agent chucked the request, in the waste bin. The ASA even after investigation can only ask them to amend wording, if it is at all necessary.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Hi Woodentop,
“I think the clue is “Ashbury Residential, did not respond to the Advertising Standards Authority’s inquiries”. I doubt this will go anywhere as the complainant confirmed there is “integrated audio system” and “gated access & TV””
…which apparently didnt work hence the complaint
– if i sold you a car on face value, which you confirm is actually a car and later find there’s no engine under that bonnet, would you complain, or would you accept you bought the car?
Ciao
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 still a car! but not a runner. The test is how you presented it. But our story in question is what used to be and no evidence it still is. There is no requirement to confirm if something that has been fitted actually works. That is why you have a survey and why a sensible agents has that disclaimer about testing fixtures and fittings.
Back to your car, who in their right mind wouldn’t try and take it for a test drive or look under the bonnet. Who as a buyer of the flat wouldn’t notice that the car park held other residents cars, try the door bell, etc “buyer beware” is the motto. Nothing in the story has been produced that suggests the agent went out of their way to misleed. The story is “it didn’t use to work” when the ex-resident lived there previously and how do they know it hasn’t been rectified. When is private, private? That depends on what you are trying to portray and the courts accept what is considered reasonable to the layman if there is doubt. Can the public park their car in a private area controlled by security gates and cctv (we assume signage is there)? Was the agent conveying private for “residents use only” we don’t know as the adverts hasn’t been produced for us to see actual wording. If there is any doubts, all the agent has to do is change it and the ASA can take no further action.
I don’t condone false advertising but this story seems like there is more to the complianants motives, rather than the agent was deliberatly misleading, possibly guideance on better use of words?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I believe this is renting, not buying
When is private private? When the gates work to keep the public out (as advertised)
Perhaps the complainant had repeatedly asked the agent to repair. Perhaps the agent refused and thats why they went to the ASA in the first place? Perhaps all the evidence was also supplied to the ASA to assist them in coming to the ruling..
If a rental agreement lists items, benefits and features it is the agents/landlords responsibility to maintain unless otherwise stated.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
An awful lot of perhaps! Private is not private by having gates. Don’t you mean secure? Private is no-one else is allowed to use it or can’t be seen. As to your last para, possibly only the agent if they are managing the property and not necessarily the landlord if the rent does not contyribute towards it and is defined as being a schedule in the lease for another responsibility …. possibly freeholder or other management company or consorteium of the tenants (very common these days). It wasn’t a rental agreement, it was an advert of what was there, not from evidence todate about claiming what did or didn’t work.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Hi Woodentop
I’m almost tempted to leave it there, but you’re totally out of context – track down the ad and drive by the property. its not a hard thing to do.
Private/Secure – doesnt matter, the ad suggested both.
You say private is for noone else to use – therefore you’ve endorsed the complaint made as the parking was for other residents also. thanks.
What was listed on the ad was also itemised on the rental agreement. Trust me!
Feel free to have the last word – I’ve better things to do over here being right 🙂
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
track down the ad and drive by the property. = No thanks, to far away and my comments are based on the content of EYE story.
Private/Secure – doesnt matter, the ad suggested both = Yes it does depending on its context!
You say private is for noone else to use – therefore you’ve endorsed the complaint made as the parking was for other residents also. thanks. = No I didn’t, it depends on the context of how Private was portrayed. However a quick check on RM = Apartments contained within this development each having access to the private car park with secure gated access. Did the lock work the day it was checked?
What was listed on the ad was also itemised on the rental agreement. Trust me! = I would if I could believe you. How come you have a copy of the rental agreement? But has nothing to do with the ASA.
Feel free to have the last word – I’ve better things to do over here being right. = Not convinced about being right, however
I respect your comment but as the advert is not published on EYE or you had indicated you are privvy to the advert on an unpublished property, until now. Maybe you can show all, so that everyone can see it. I may then change my view. As far as the rental agreement …. that is not the story or anything to do with the ASA. Consider reading again, the story is following a complaint “Ashbury Residential, did not respond to the Advertising Standards Authority’s inquiries”. They are innocent until proven guilty and the complaints have been upheld, subject to investigation as they failed to respond. You seem keen to damn them. Strange that you should have seen the rental agreement for this property ….. Never seen one posted in an advert for you to compare. Very fishy or just maybe “Yes Watson by deduction, he is likely to be the ex-resident or employee trying to dig themself out of a hole”.
You haven’t shown that past history is still current.
Thank you for letting me have the last word. Over to the ASA.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
wrong advert bud.
your whole theory is out of context, i do actually know of Ashbury, and I drive past that apartment every day 🙂
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I didn’t think you wanted another word! Ah a competitor then. Watson thinks you’re the source for EYE. I looked at their adverts which are bullet points and full details are available from the agents. If you’re that concerned, when you pass next time, can you shut the gate or is it that the residents want it left open.
The ASA will decide.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
you looked at their adverts but quoted from the wrong one?
I think you’re full of *hit – we’re talking about a specific advert, not “full details are available from the agents” and if you peruse over to their website you’ll see that in this case their own website advert uses the same exact wording..and frankly I’m bored of you, you clearly are ill informed.
The gates are non-working electric, with non-working fobs, and just why you are only focusing on this one area is beyond me. Do you have a gate related obsession, maybe that’s one for the shrinks to help you with.
..And the ASA already decided buddy:
“The ASA upheld all the challenges and has referred the matter to the Committee of Advertising Practice compliance team.”
https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/castle-estates–liverpool–ltd-a17-380500.html
I guess my ex really was right – you cant argue with STUPID!
Buddy boy, you’re embarrassing yourself. “Watson” – ha! Over and out!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Temper temper. You clearly know nothing about property misdecriptions or how the ASA work and what they can actually do. Clearly you have more interest and motive in this story and not produced one shred of evidence to support your claims. I have only commented on the context of the EYE published story until you escalated the saga to your own ends.
Rather than be offensive and let yourself down for all to see, wait for the ASA final ruling. Even though the ruling is upheld, it still has to be investigated and proven in court by Trading Standards that the adverts were wrong.
As I originally posted I think the clue is “Ashbury Residential, did not respond to the Advertising Standards Authority’s inquiries”. And that is excactly what the ASA said in the ruling. As the agent did not respond to enquiries they found in favour of the complainant. They didn’t at anytime agree that the adverts were actually misleading or that the complainant was right. As I said you have more motive to this story and no coincidence you are local to the story.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register