The aspirant new trade body, the Charter for Independent Estate and Letting Agents (CIELA), has called for the Propertymark bodies to expel any agents who insult their members.
Founder Charlie Wright, who runs a software company, said in part of a long blog that independent agents have a poor industry reputation which “is absolutely in the interests of corporate and call-centre agents. It is precisely how they market themselves against the ‘hordes of rogue independents who deserve the terrible reputation they have’.”
He goes on: “The NAEA/ARLA has resolutely refused to stand up for independent agents, because of course their articles prevent them from favouring any one member, or group of members, over any other. They are a first class training organisation and I commend their courses and qualifications to every individual who wishes to further their professional expertise.
“But as a public branding exercise, the NAEA/ARLA is unable to help independents in the battle against corporates and call-centre agents. Their hands are tied and it’s not their fault.
He said that their silence over online firms “who openly insult the majority of their member base is staggering and I can only hope they are having urgent discussions as to how they can change their rules and expel any member who behaves in such a way”.
CIELA, which plans to do active public relations for independent agents, yesterday had a meeting with potential industry suppliers.
Wright said it was a very successful day, with CIELA looking for brand partners and event sponsors.
The NAEA/ Propertymark has always been a place for all agents of all business models to come together and, rightly so.
That said, Propertymark rules are very clear on conflicts of interest and conduct of its members and board/ Presidents etc. On this point, it needs to look very closely at itself and ask some hard questions in this area as a matter of urgency.
Propertymark should never become an organisation of ‘them and us’ except where ‘them’ are agents acting outside of the law and redress scheme codes and ‘us’ are law-abiding agents of ALL business models.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Nice to see that Charles (he seems to have elected to be known by his Sunday name these days, Ros!) is either reading EYE, or paying someone to do it for him (anything The Quirkster can do he can do better…) – as he seems to act on anything that AgentV posts within a couple of weeks or so.
Maybe it’s to give a little time for us to forget that our resident acronym fountain actually posted the suggestion here, so he can then try to claim it as his own ‘brainchild’?
Unfortunately, we have memories slightly longer than goldfish with alzheimers…
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
‘Acronym fountain’
Thanks for the compliment PeeBee. I guess it wouldn’t surprise you to know even one of our main telephone numbers spells out a phrase on a phone keypad!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
The only thing is Charlie don’t give them an excuse to hide behind.
If their heart was truly in standing up for their independent members they would be moving heaven and earth to do something about it.
Their silence on the matter is deafening ….giving the impression they are more willing to take the subscription money from their new found friends than possibly rock the boat.
No other organisation would allow some of its members to publicly ridicule and mock its other members. Would the BMA or RICS allow this situation to continue for instance!
They even refused to entertain the election of Chris, someone who would have undoubtably done what was right and restored some credibility. The fact that the very reason they gave was his willingness to speak out about what is wrong, is outrageous and testiment to the attitude that pervades within.
I feel very frustrated, that the representative body of our industry being seen to allow this, is doing far more harm than any good they might be doing.
An organisation that continues to allow such a situation to exist cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be regarded as being ‘professional’.
The one saving grace is that many of the public don’t even know who they are anymore, and are taking little notice of what is happening. If the public did see and take stock of this ridiculous sitiuation in a representative organisation, they might think we were all a bit of a ‘joke’.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Well said. Couldn’t agree more.
There is a very simple solution though. Leave them!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I am not a member Wardy. I took the hump a few years ago when they wouldn’t let new ‘owners and directors’ apply for a period.
I would have seriously considered joining now if Chris Wood had been elected, because I would know there would be a reasoned outspoken voice for what was right…..and ultmately best for the whole industry!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Maybe it’s just not the thing they do here ‘oop North – but I’ve yet to see a single advert, flyer (and I’ve seen THOUSANDS of them…) or other marketing widget from a corporate Agent which in any way, shape or form paints a picture of “…‘hordes of rogue independents who deserve the terrible reputation they have’.”
Has anyone?
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 havn’t come accross it in the West Midlands either. I also didn’t realise that as an independent that I automatically had a terrible reputation. I think sometimes overdoing or overstating something can have a counter effect against what you are trying to achieve.
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 sometimes overdoing or overstating something can have a counter effect against what you are trying to achieve.”
Keep watching – I’m of the belief we are witnessing it emerge from its’ cocoon.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Here’s a question for the readership.
Does anyone else consider this marketing message –
“Why pay the extortionate fee’s that most traditional high street estate agents will charge when we can market your home from just (insert today’s £UP-FRONT figure here)?”
– to be “an insult” to fellow members of a trade body or association?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Absolutely
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 your ‘vote’, AgentV.
Anyone else?
Or – more to the point – anyone disagree, for that matter?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Noticed in this example the word ‘marketed’ was used instead of ‘sell’! On the PB site it states;
Instruct us to sell for £849
Shouldn’t that be ‘Instruct us to market for £849’ or at least have a caveat in the same size letters saying ‘£849 is payable whether you sell or not’?
Also does this misleading statement/advert mean that anyone who has not sold to date, after paying, can claim their money back?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Would the person who ‘Disliked’ the comment please muster up the ‘nads to explain why?
Or was it just to get a warm, fuzzy feeling that somehow, a point had been made or scored?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register