Propertymark has called for more clarity to be included in the proposed code of conduct for the sector.
A consultation on the Code of Practice for Residential Property Agents closed earlier this month.
Both ARLA and NAEA Propertymark welcomed the proposals – which set standards on aspects such as client money, complaints handling and treating customers fairly – but said some aspects could go further.
A response from the trade bodies suggests the code should designate professional bodies to help implement the future regulator’s rules.
NAEA Propertymark also calls for clearer distinctions between the roles of individual agents and agencies within the code.
For example, the code refers to agents having effective consumer complaints procedures in place.
However, NAEA Propertymark warns these procedures will be put in place by businesses or individual business owners rather than individuals as employees.
Furthermore, the code says that agents must handle information sensitively and in accordance with data protection legislation. These are rules that impact on both individuals and businesses.
Mark Hayward, chief executive of NAEA Propertymark, said: “This is the next step in the journey, and we are pleased that the industry has had an opportunity to engage in the process.
“We must get this overarching Code of Practice right so that there is transparency for both agents and consumers alike, as well as providing the correct information for sales agents across the UK and letting agents in England.”
Propertymark would welcome another trade body driven consumer code given they have been one of the groups designing it.
However consumer groups have walked away from yet another project designed by the sector for the sector. The reaction of the sector -silence and carry on.
We have seen decades of the sector looking to regulate itself and failing. The government had finally decided we needed a statutory code and produced the RoPA report under Lord Best in 2019
The sector has suddenly seen the chance to move the project forward while the government is busy doing other things.
The trade bodies have implied the project government backed but it is not. It has no endorsement by officials.
Teaching old dogs new tricks is going to take a bit more time. If you work in an industry with a poor reputation for customer service don’t decide you can design consumer codes by ignoring consumer interests. Don’t design a code by just asking your mates in other trade bodies and those who will not rock the boat from a few other groups.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Forgive me…..
An unregulated/shambolic Government trying to introduce “Regulation”.
Another meander down the meaningless avenue of paperweight justification that this and other Governments engage to mask that they simply keep themselves comfortable until their gilt edged taxpayer funded pensions arrive.
It’s high time this Glorified Virtual Bureaucracy was held to account, rather than simply forming “working parties” to review everyone but themselves.
The previous poster mentions….
“Teaching old dogs new tricks is going to take a bit more time. If you work in an industry with a poor reputation for customer service don’t decide you can design consumer codes by ignoring consumer interests.”
Apply that comment to Politicians and our Government! They are far, far away from being held as “reputable”!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register