A complaint about an advert for online agent easyProperty has been informally resolved.
The advert featured text which said: “Get an offer within 20 weeks”; “Save £2,809 on estate agent fees”; “No commission fees”; and “Save with low fixed fees”.
The advert came up in a Google-sponsored search result for easyProperty and was reported to the Advertising Standards Authority.
The complainant, who was quoted a saving of less than £2,809 and was not given an explanation as to how the advertiser could get them offers within 20 weeks, challenged whether the claims were misleading and could be substantiated.
The ASA contacted easyProperty who removed two claims from its advertising:“Get an offer within 20 weeks”; and “Save £2,809 on estate agent fees”.
easyProperty agreed that in future ads it would use less definitive savings claims i.e. “You could save” and would make sufficiently clear that the “offer within 20 weeks” claim actually referred to its money-back guarantee offer, whereby consumers would receive a refund if their property wasn’t sold within 20 weeks.
Based on the fact the claims were no longer appearing and the advertiser had provided assurances that future ads would be prepared in line with the CAP code, the ASA says it considered no further action was necessary and closed the case informally.
More snake oil
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Chris, are you keeping any kind of record of all these “informally rrsolved” cases?
It would be interesting to reflect back on them. It might even be something mainstream journos might want to take to the general public…
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I just used the ‘Search’ box at top of this page and separately looked for ‘informally’ and ‘resolved’. Lots and lots there if you click through to the ‘older posts’
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
The journalists have been taking a good look at these stories for some time, rest assured.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Shaun77 – there is no need for anyone to keep a record – it’s all on the ASA website.
Makes for interesting reading…
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
A quick check of the ASA database shows 8 formal rulings and 16 informal resolutions against ‘call centre agents’. Is this one occasion where we can ‘tar a sector’ of the industry with the same brush?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
CALL CENTRE ESTATE AGENTS:::: shell be their new name…not online, not commission free..they are…..souless, hedgefunded pits just in it fo rthe money…the complete opposite of their propaganda…
bless you malcolm..
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 but I think others coined the phrase before me. I think credit may be due Chris Woods’ way for that one.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Given the multitude of ‘informal resolutions’ regarding online agents marketing claims it is quite clear that these businesses are just ‘chancing their arm’ and trying to get away with as many unsubstantiated claims as possible before the relevant Authorities catch up with them.
What is annoying with the ASA is that this resolution does not automatically mean that claims of the same type by others will be automatically looked into and ruled against. Individual complaints have to be made even if exactly the same claim is made by a similar business!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
We need a watchdog within the industry that monitors marketing and has the teeth to uphold standards and stop the public being deceived. Oh ……did someone say that already exists? Where?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
“Save £2,809 on estate agent fees”
Where’s your FACS – Fee Average per Completed Sale – easyProperty?
If you want to make claims of savings against a ‘no sale no fee’ model, let’s have the amount of fees you have been paid in total divided by the number of completed sales you have achieved. Go on then!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
AgentV- I don’t think you’ll ever get a reply to that question, all the while these figures reflect badly on their model! Assuming they do anyway and why the radio silence to a question so prominently asked by the industry.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Your right Aaron……but maybe the more we say it as agents, the more people will hear about it, the more people hear about it perhaps the general public will start stoping to think, take notice and ask the same question!
Then we will have a fairer playing field for all!!!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
The more interesting and meaningfull number is total invested, plus total losses plus total bank charges, plus total revenue divide by total completions.
If a firm losses £12 million in a financial year and lists 21600 fee paying properties the firm is burning £230,000 per week. It is losing £555 on every property it lists. (That should make the bloke who only burns £52,000 a week feel a bit better about his efforts)
All the cash poured into these firms amounts to nothing more than “our generous investors and bankers are subsidising your listing so we/they can make money selling shares to greedy people who are affraid of missing out”
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
The fact that an advert is withdrawn for being misleading speaks volumes that it was misleading and arguably dishonest and during the time it was being used, it gained financial benefit. Advertisements rules are clear, just like other laws. Can you imagine the crown court stopping a case if a conman turned around and said “I’m sorry, I won’t do it again”? The ASA is not fit for purpose until it is reformed with teeth and fines.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register