More than four months after the hearing finished, the Competition Appeal Tribunal this afternoon delivered its judgment on Agents’ Mutual’s ‘one other portal rule’.
At first sight, the judgment looks to be a complete victory for Agents’ Mutual, in terms of the legality of the ‘one other portal’ rule, the exclusion of online-only agents, and the exclusivity.
In a summary of the judgment, the tribunal says that the ‘one other portal’ rule “was in any event, objectively necessary to the “Arrangements” (the various rules which bind members of Agents’ Mutual, namely the listing agreement, articles of association and membership rules) as a whole, which were pro-competitive.”
The judgment further says: “The rule did not form part of a wider concerted practice to ‘boycott’ Zoopla and was not invalid on that account.”
The case, between Agents’ Mutual and Connells brand Gascoigne Halman, was heard in February.
EYE will both update this story and issue more news once we – and others – have been able to assimilate the judgment in full.
The judgment is here: http://www.catribunal.org.uk/files/1262_Agents_Mutual_Judgment_CAT_15_050717.pdf
Looks in the favour of AM and OTM then!
Onwards and Upwards!!!!!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I read that as a conclusive win for Agents Mutual.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I cannot make it out! – Otm win?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Forgive the wall of text – I’ve copied and pasted it here.
__
For the reasons we have given, it is our unanimous conclusion that the Competition Issues are to be determined against Gascoigne Halman.
More specifically, we find and hold that: 162 (1) 1370BAs regards the One Other Portal Rule:
(i) 1479BThe rule does not infringe the Chapter I prohibition by object: see Section H(1) above.
(ii) 1480BThe rule does not infringe the Chapter I prohibition by effect: see Section H(2) above.
(iii) 148BThe rule is, in any event, objectively necessary to the Arrangements as a whole, which are pro-competitive: see Section H(3) above.
(iv) 1482BThe rule does not form part of a wider concerted practice to “boycott” Zoopla and is not invalid on that account: see Section K above.
(v) 1483BThe rule is not an exempt agreement within the meaning of section 9 of the Competition Act 1998: see Section L above.
(vi) 148BIf, contrary to our conclusions, the rule does infringe the Chapter I prohibition, then it is not severable from the Arrangements: see Section M above.
(2) 137BThe Bricks and Mortar Rule does not infringe the Chapter I prohibition by object: see Section I above. If, contrary to this conclusion, the rule does infringe the Chapter I prohibition, then it is severable from the Arrangements: see Section M above.
(3) 1372BThe Exclusive Promotion Rule does not infringe the Chapter I prohibition by object: see Section J above. If, contrary to this conclusion, the rule does infringe the Chapter I prohibition, we do not consider it to be objectively necessary. The Exclusive Promotion Rule is severable from the Arrangements: see Section M above.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I read that as a loss for GH on every count.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Where is Trevor and Danny?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Right here Smile. It would make sense to read through the court pdf first in full. The summary does raise some question marks. The decision is based on GH leaving OTM and not wider Competition areas
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Come on Trevor…. they see this as pro-competitive and needed to break in to a market which is very hard to break in to.
OTM win! and ZooCon and GH look stupid.
All hail Sir Springett.
Hammer Down, Case closed, thank you your honour.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Im here Smile, im not overly bothered to be honest . Got over this quite some time ago , just concentrating on selling houses . Im sure your happy that the court have ordered that OTM should be now be a brilliant supplier … oh wait … let’s see if Ian decided to sue another 1000
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Haha “not bothered” but “bothered enough” to have waded in before and during the case with your opinion. I like it Danny. Rather like getting dumped and saying, I didn’t like her anyway! (Never happened to me obvs).
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
LMAO.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I would like to say as a non-member that I wish AM, OTM and all the agents who are members the best of British. Local competitive forces have been the only thing that got in the way of me joining, but I have always deeply wanted them to succeed.
Existing members…..go out and have a celebratory drink on me tonight!
(good job you don’t know who I am!) 😉
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Do the right thing and call them today V and try and get a sensible rate before they go up 😉
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Congrats OTM
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
So, agents who signed cannot leave.
So who benefits? Not the OTM vendors.
They need all the help they can get to sell and therefore need their homes advertised to the widest possible audience.
That is NOT with an OTM agent and competitors who are not tied to OTM will pitch hard for OTM vendors now.
A pity for those agents stuck with OTM for years to come. Business will be limited and OTM will not go from strength to strength.
Simply put, customers have not heard of OTM.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Rightmove and its shareholders benefit!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Any agent who relies on a portal to sell houses for them does not deserve to still be in business! Portals are a tool, a necessary tool these days, but they are not the be all and end all.
Do you not think that those of us who entered into an agreement with AM did not know what we were doing? Of course we did – we made an informed choice, fully aware of the consequences of our actions!
Congrats OTM – onwards and upwards!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Oh dear…
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Wow if that’s been interpreted correctly that’s a canning for Zoopla…. damages claim coming in I would guess.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
It has cost OTM a lot of business so i would think so.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I would say they could successfully argue that they lost members, failed to recruit new ones and sustained a damage in reputation in the meantime.
Let’s just hope that Connells/Zoopla’s out of court settlement, which is how I see it going, gets passed on to the members!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Just had an email saying they are doing exactly that!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Win for OTM if my speed reading is anything to go by..
Good news for us as we are not an OTM agent so will continue to poach customers
Bad news for those stuck in contracts
Bad news for Zoopla
Good News for RM
All in my opinion.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Excerpt from email just in from Ian Springett/OTM…
“The proceedings before the Tribunal have been running since July last year with the Trial completing in February. The manner in which our opponents conducted the case has caused us to divert considerable resources and management time, as was presumably intended by those who funded it, including Zoopla.
The full judgment is lengthy and complex but its summary conclusions are clear. We will now work with our legal team to recover costs and losses incurred as well as deposit monies lodged by us in Court to cover the position had the competition law case been lost.
A residual, non-competition law element of the case with Gascoigne Halman is still to be completed and we will update you on this in due course.
In the immediate term, we will be ramping up our marketing activity to restore the strong growth in consumer traffic and leads OnTheMarket.com was delivering over its first two years of operations.
Looking further ahead, your Board has been working over the last few months on substantial new plans which will support the further development of OnTheMarket.com. These plans are well advanced but could not be finalised pending the outcome of the litigation. We will shortly be ready to share them with Members and, to this end, we will be contacting you over the next few days to invite you to attend one of a series of regional meetings starting at the end of this month. Our aim is to gain Members’ support for the new plans and be in a position to implement them from the end of August.
I would like to thank all those of our Members who have continued to give such strong support to Agents’ Mutual during what has been a challenging period for the Company.”
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
So, this makes OTM a popular and publicly well known site sending lots of leads how again??? Err…..
Does this also mean OTM reps are going to stop hiding from members?
Sorry to say, but OTM are finished either way. As contracts run out, people will continue to leave, quite simple really.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Still have two and a half years to go most of them, lot of time.
I am still very skeptical it will work but this is a great day for the members, especially the added fighting fund thet will now be recovered through the courts.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
People will continue to leave before their contracts run out. Many I know have left with no follow up, no chasing, no threat of legal action. If you are stuck with OTM, just cancel your DD and see what happens.
Quite why OTM chose to battle this, rather than settle quietly by way of an NDA is a little beyond me. It’s a win for them, yes and I really wanted OTM work but, simply put, it hasnt. As far as I can tell OTM has failed in Essex, Kent and London, the three regions that I know and operate in.
And yes, I am a little bitter. A founding member, my multi office opeation was lied to by the sales rep and then routinely shafted by paying 5 times what new members were being offered/paying.
OTM RIP.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
“If you are stuck with OTM, just cancel your DD and see what happens.”
Oh, chuff – here we go again…
Folks – the above ‘advice’ comes to you from the same poster who, on November 9 last year, made the comment here on EYE
“Having been in the industry for over 20 years, I am not naive and maybe it’s because of my length of service and having seen people at their very worse, that I also long to see people at their very best.”
yet with a single fourteen-word sentence, ‘docklander52’ thinks he strips away any professional, legal and moral argument for the observing the terms of a LEGAL CONTRACT, instead advocating the breaking of such a binding agreement… as he chose to do.
Taking into account the above, some might be forgiven for quietly suggesting to him that the place not to go looking for that elusive glimpse of the best of people would be in ones’ own bathroom mirror.
As we seem to have been here before, I’ll save you the bother of reposting your previous comment to me on this subject:
“PeeBee, I am unsure as why you seem so bitter towards me”
And, as previously stated, I will reiterate that – unlike your own admission of bitterness toward OTM – I’m not bitter towards you in the slightest. Trust me – you will know if and when that changes.
Now – you have here an opportunity to save the poor readership from your further embarrassment. Read back on previous encounters and engage only if you want to relive the experience. Which I sincerely hope you don’t.
Your choice, Mr docklander…
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
you probably didn’t mean your post to sound unpleasant and threatening, but…. it really does.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Surely it is more of an unpleasant response to an utterly unpleasant initial post?
Threatening? I don’t think so. ‘docklander52’ and I will never, I doubt, be found together in the same county unless he comes looking for me.
I wouldn’t waste the bus fare – and I’m too fat & lazy (credit: H Pryor) to do what my ancestors did and march down ‘that London’ to sort Suvvern eejits out.
So I guess he’s safe – except from whatever emanates from a click of the ‘Post Comment’ button.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Just cancel the DD – Docklander, you are aware what the court case has just said? – Anybody who is in breach of contract is fair game for OTM to go after.
All the agents (some in my area) that have already cancelled their DD’s will in the next week get a letter through the door asking them to put their stock back on OTM and will ask for the monthly subscriptions backdated.
The multi branch office in one of the towns i operate is going to have a bill of circa 15k – 20k drop through their door anyday now, and by all accounts they have been struggling financially recently.
Good luck finding 15k-20k when you are struggling to pay your staff!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
As far as I can gather, this case centred around the claim that OTM’s one-other policy was anti-competitive, etc. My defence would be entirely different Smile, and no, I don’t want to go into it here for obvious reasons.
And remember, SirBee, that a contract has obligations on both parties to meet the terms therein.
I don’t think my post was unpleasant. Unpleasant is the thought of agents who, aside from having to deal with an enormously challenging market, are trapped in a situation that COULD be seriosuly affecting their business. If you remember (and I am sure you do PB), I opened the floor for good-news OTM stories from my fellow readers. I received none. The floor is still open….
Any word from OTM and I will let you all know. I gather their time may be pretty much occupied elsewhere for a while.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Docklander – Have you seen the millions this case has cost connells?
I am sure the agents cancelling their contracts have in their mind very “Valid” reasons but end of the day they signed a 5 year legally binding contract. This case has shown the contract are inforcable.
If the agent is struggling to pay staff, straggling to find 15 – 20 grand to pay the subs due, They sure as mustard cannot pay a legal bill / court case costing hundreds of thousands / millions.
This ruling will allow OTM (rightfully so) to keep agents to the contracts they signed.
The only way of breaking it is dissolving their own company. (You then end up with a reputation like the Cream Club had).
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Smile, I agree that in this instance the contract, based on this case, is inforceable. I believe in other cases, it may not be.
Representing oneself certainly does not cost millions.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Admire your stance,
Fact of the matter is, even if an agent manages to get the case seen at the county court, a judgement from the high court produced by OTM alonfg the same lines the judge will not find in favour of the defendent.
And beleive me OTM will fight tooth and nail to make sure every agent stays committed and are in a very strong position.
If they had lost this court case then maybe it would be a different story.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
“And remember, SirBee, that a contract has obligations on both parties to meet the terms therein.”
You have me there – I simply cannot argue with Contractual obligation.
That being the case – which specific terms within the Contract have they failed to meet?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
What chances an appeal to the Court of Appeal? More costs. More uncertainty.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register