Sixty-five million years ago a rather large meteorite crashed to Earth and wiped out the dinosaurs. No such creature was spared – the slow and the ponderous, the ravenous, the large and the small – all were consigned to extinction in one decisive action that cleansed the planet and made way for innovation in the shape of mankind, because to think that we would have otherwise survived as a species as we crawled out of our ponds, shed our tails and walked upright fending off T-Rexes from all sides, is an unlikely Darwinian hypothesis. In other words, any extension to the Cretaceous era would undoubtedly have held us back.
I’m sorry, yoursauruses, but that loss was our absolute gain – which brings me nicely to a convenient parallel in that the UK estate agency industry is similarly constrained by a lumbering, heavy-footed collection of fossils – NAEA Propertymark.
Regulation of a profession is important and so we see varying degrees of oversight in just about every other industry especially health, pharmaceuticals, finance, manufacturing, aerospace and construction. Yet, quite inexplicably, the estate agency sector has been largely left to its own devices save for a few fragments of legislation that originated in the 1970’s.
This gap in accountability, you’d imagine, should fall to an industry trade-body to bridge. An organisation that is as equally forward thinking and innovative in progressing the boundaries of the profession as it is unwavering in its passion for protecting and standing up for its members.
So hands up who believe the NAEA have done so in recent years? Don’t all rush at once.
The absence of opinion, presence nor any attempt at modernisation from the bowels of Arbon House except for changing its name, is enough to make Sir Keir Starmer resemble a pro-active, torch-carrying political icon by comparison.
If the NAEA were an animal it would be a chameleon – not because it can instantly adapt to new environments, far from it. But because it is invisible to all but those that really strain to see it.
Last week the news broke that the exiting CEO Mark Hayward was not exiting after all. Instead he has been ‘persuaded’ to stay on in a senior role ‘to shape future policy’ – something that you might perhaps think he would have already turned his hand to during his initial seven-year tenure? Second time lucky I suppose.
This central task, one of strategy, usually the preserve of the actual CEO, will therefore not be carried out by the new boss and begs the question ‘What will the new CEO be doing if he’s not formulating and executing on the vision?’
And moreover, will members feel disgruntled at the fact that their hard-won £265 subscription will now be used to pay not one but two leaders at circa £250,000 a year each? I guess when you’re sitting on an annual revenue of over £5million and with more than £4million in the bank, you can afford to throw a bit of cash around unnecessarily, eh?
Quips aside, the current NAEA PropertyMark regime is nothing less than useless. It doesn’t actually do anything nor achieve anything. It offers nothing in the way of genuine support to agents and does not even bother to step-up to compensate the consumer for agents’ wrongdoings. It’s lobbying of government is vacuous and feeble and its membership standards such a low-bar that ‘safeguarding the public’ is merely a throwaway line as to be worthless in reality. If NAEA Propertymark were overseeing, say, pilots its regular checks on them would be to merely ask ‘Are you ok up there?’.
The harsh proof of their ineptitude is that complaints about estate agents are at an all-time high yet again and the NAEA has said zilch on the subject much less actually done anything to counter the problem.
Here’s some inconvenient truths that the Warwick Massive might want to address and be seen to address rather than just sitting counting their cash:
- Since 2013 when Mark Hayward was first installed as CEO, enquiries to the Property Ombudsman relating to issues concerning complaints about estate and letting agents have soared by 85% – to over 30,000 last year.
- It’s so bad where actual outcomes are concerned that the TPO awarded more than £2.2million in compensation to consumers in 2019. That’s a rise of 347% in the same seven-year period. Let that sink in for a moment.
Is this something that NAEA Propertymark, the self-ordained estate agency industry regulator, are proud of? They may as well be for all they are doing about it.
This is not just a problem for consumers and their experiences of our profession when moving home but is a perception issue that blights the industry. And it’s clear that despite the grand salaries and which have now doubled at the top, the NAEA are doing precisely nothing about this problem.
Yes, one of the worst professions for negative sentiment amongst the consumer matched only by traffic wardens, MPs and Sun journalists – and instead of grabbing the issue by the throat and dealing with it, Hayward and Co have sat and watched as the perception of our profession and complaints against it has significantly worsened.
It all sounds quite like jobs for the boys with a few lavish dinners thrown-in, doesn’t it.
In Summary:
- No mandatory admission exam for new ANAEA applicants. ‘Experience’ counts apparently, no matter how poor.
- No mandatory annual test of knowledge nor competence. In other words, no oversight.
- Pretty much zero agent expulsions
- No consumer compensation policy
- No voice or opinion on industry change and innovation
- £4million in the bank
- Two CEOs (in effect) and on over £500,000 a year between them
- Complaints rising every year to new record numbers. Up by an average of 22% each year since Mark Hayward took the hot-seat
Do you think that NAEA Propertymark is fit for purpose and can justify its member fees, the cash it’s sitting on and the golden salaries of its senior staff? The evidence would rather seem to suggest not.
The last time the universe got tired of a species so pointless and so archaic, it replaced it. And it’s perhaps time that evolution was encouraged to take such a course once again.
This article is the personal opinion of its author. Property Industry Eye has offered the NAEA an opportunity to respond.
Comments (14)
It’s so bad where actual outcomes are concerned that the TPO awarded more than £2.2million in compensation to consumers in 2019. That’s a rise of 347% in the same seven-year period. Let that sink in for a moment.
The 347% increase in awards from TPO has nothing to do with Mr Hayward’s term in office as CEO. If Mr Quirk had hard evidence that every one of those claims was against a NAEA member, he would have a right to blame the organisation. Sadly the majority of estate agents are still not members of NAEA or RICS and some act like car salesmen.
My grumble with the association for many years is that Corporate Estate Agency chains are able to display their membership of NAEA/ ARLA Propertymark – just because one of their directors is a member. Every office should have a manager who is a member before they can display the NAEA logo, as this is misleading to the public. This will change when ROPA comes into effect.
We shall have to wait and see whether the board’s decision to bring in a “non property person” in as CEO is a prudent decision and worthy of the salary. I would have sooner seen the outgoing CEO of ARLA upgraded to be joint CEO as he had years of experience in lobbying the four devolved governments and prior qualification as a barrister.
I’m not a fan of yours especially Mr Quirk but you echo what I have felt for years about NAEA, NFOPP, Propertymark, or whatever they are called now. They have spent a few of their £4m on name changes over the years.
And yes we need some form of qualification/regulation.But if the industry’s body doesn’t sort it out (which I doubt they have there capacity to do)then we will have to contend with a Government driven policy on the mater, which will be draconian because they don’t actually understand the industry.
So what’s the answer Mr Q?
I do not, and will never claim to be an advocate of Quirkys murmurings. And as AlwaysAnAgent has highlighted, what Mr Q has highlighted is indeed old news and regurgitating what everybody suspects. However, I am pleased that this topic has been brought to the fore again. As on previous occasions it quickly gets forgotten about, and nothing moves on or changes.
It is a subject (suitable alternative models) which needs to be addressed just as the organisation itself is to be questioned regarding, what is the actual point of them. Given the organisation is in place to police, guide and assist the estate agency profession and those who come into contact with it, (all on the proviso of an annual subscription of course), I personally believe their impartiality, or evidential lack of, should be held to account. And their accounts should be held aloft for all to see. £500,000 for two salaries! Really?? What real value is offered in return?
Poor Ros … she must be saddened by the airtime given to such poorly researched articles. Regurgitating old news, inaccurate facts & figures and other people’s ill informed comments, with a sprinkling of cynical personal opinions.
Reading Mr Quirk’s article sounds like when you follow the worst agent in town on a valuation, and hear that they spent the whole valuation slagging off your firm instead of selling their own. Usually its beause they are envious of what you do, because they have failed at what they do.
Oh, wait ……..
I no longer read anything written by Mr Quirk. I just go straight to the comments. They make more sense.
A LOT more.
And yet again no mention of PB trading update that was released today….
That the others had.
What a load of over-puffed nonsense. Propertymark offers great value for money with good training, webinars, legal advice, the ear of Government, plenty of useful resources. I’d call it a bargain. Look around the World at other property associations and you’ll realise. Every Association will have it’s own internal issues and Propertymark is no exception, but the improvements in recent years show that it has usefulness.
Appreciate what you are saying above but that hasn’t answered the question, what you say above is one piece of substance/ activity in 7 years, we have known for years that they aren’t fit for purpose except to all circle the wagons to protect their own backs/ salaries.
I have wondered for years and have asked, what do they do, they came to life long enough to block Chris Wood, he may or may not have been the answer for the industry but he would have been an innovative, working big move forward and with a team around him that would have put us in better and a brighter light.
Ive never heard on here or elsewhere anything good, positive or even defensive of mr Hayward or the rest of the board, only frustration, bewilderment and disappointment yet you, (I’m not a member but could have been 35 years ago) you bloody good (in the main) agents pay the fees yet seem not to ask questions and even here today there is only one post which is a stand against the article and didn’t even look at the possibility that something is awry, there is but who will question it, who can stop this seemingly rich gravy train and put the carriage back on the right and positive track because it isn’t this lot, Merry Christmas to you all, I’m sure NFLOP will be sending out cards or renewal notices soon.
£500K for 2 x CEOs? Ludicrous. And don’t tell me ‘It’s the market rate’.
Problem is, no one wants the top jobs. Same with the large chains and PLCs. Remember the article a few months ago with a long list of vacancies?
Must be true, because someone said it on Facebook….
The author has made his angle clear, although this angle isn’t new and it isn’t his angle.
The RoPA report published in July last year says clearly that there will be a new regulator which will be a public body and it won’t be any of the existing trade bodies. This is the extinction event that the author refers to.
It hasn’t been made clear when this will happen and both Coronavirus and Brexit will undoubtedly slow the process down. The leadership at NFOPP can see this coming and will need to reinvent themselves in advance.
Let’s not forget that NFOPP were at the table with Gov’s working group and they actively contributed to the RoPA report. The author of this piece played no part in steering Gov towards a new framework and his angle is 18 months old.