Purplebricks boss Michael Bruce was ‘shown the door’ says former City analyst

Former City analyst Anthony Codling has said that Purplebricks founder and CEO Michael Bruce was pushed from his job. Bruce’s departure, announced yesterday morning, prompted a 12% fall in Purplebricks’ share price.

On Sky News yesterday, Codling was asked by presenter Ian King if he was sure that Bruce had been shown the door.

Codling said that when someone is said to be leaving with immediate effect, this is City speak for being asked to leave.

Codling, who was with Jefferies Bank and is now CEO of Rummage4Property, said that he had never met a CEO more driven than Bruce.

He said Bruce’s departure will have been “a tough blow for him”.

But he said that he and Bruce had never seen eye to eye on the Purplebricks business model, which requires sellers to pay upfront.

Codling said that Purplebricks talked about the number of homes it had sold, but by ‘sold’ it meant ‘sold subject to contract’. That, said Codling, was not the same as being actually sold.

Codling claimed that customers believed they had a better chance of selling with Purplebricks than they did have.

At Jefferies, he had produced a report which claimed that only 50% of Purplebricks properties did actually sell.

Querying whether the business model was sustainable, Codling told Sky News: “There is a big question about asking people to pay whether or not they sell.”

Elsewhere Russell Quirk, former CEO of online agent Emoov which went into administration in December, said that Purplebricks’ ‘flawed’ decision to enter the Australian and US markets had come home to roost.

He was less sure than Codling about the nature of Bruce’s departure.

Quirk told Business Cloud: “I’m very surprised that Michael has left the business – whether he was asked to leave or if he felt he’d taken it as far as he could.

“He’s an incredibly impressive individual. He looked at the things eMoov hadn’t done right. He nailed the marketing and created a brand. In the UK he executed superbly.”

The Guardian, however, seems to be in no doubt that departure was not Bruce’s choice.

It says he was pushed out of the company, “the victim of a boardroom coup carried out by the chairman Paul Pindar with the blessing of major shareholders”.

The new boss at Purplebricks is Vic Darvey, 45, who joined in January when he was handed a golden hello worth £1.1m in share options. He was former managing director of MoneySupermarket, and previously at Lastminute which bought Online Travel Corporation, the firm he co-founded.

He says on his LinkedIn page that he is “passionate about building highly-engaged teams and am very focused on creating a culture of innovation and customer-centricity throughout an organisation”.

Michael Bruce had only recently taken charge of the US business, as well as being CEO of the Purplebricks group. He still owns 11% of the shares in Purplebricks. Yesterday, the share price tumbled nearly 12% to a low of about 121p, finishing the day at about 119p.

The big question in Australia now is will Purplebricks lose their shirts? It’s not a metaphorical question –  Purplebricks had not long become this year’s sponsor of ‘disruptive’ rugby league club Melbourne Storm.

https://ministryofsport.com.au/purplebricks-take-over-crown-as-storms-new-front-of-jersey-sponsor/

Homesearch EOS
x

Email the story to a friend



88 Comments

  1. Property Poke In The Eye

    Keep showing PB the love by clicking on their Google sponsored adverts.

    Report
    1. Bolty37

      That is very sad.

      Report
      1. PeeBee

        ‘Bolty37’

        What NSPR listing facilitator companies have done – and continue to do – to our industry and a great many of their clients is way beyond “very sad”.

        Report
  2. Hillofwad71

    Is Vic there?

    The new broom arrives with an impressive pedigree with plenty of success under his belt .With Michael  out of the door will now set about sweeping out “Mates of the Bruces from Burchell Edwards days”

    He wont be thanked either if he dithers making a diffcult decision on the USA

    https://www.businesscloud.co.uk/news/who-is-purple-bricks-new-ceo-vic-darvey

    However with Michael Bruce ‘s11% shareholding and Woodford 29.2% whose fundsare  under the cosh It looks very much that  the company will come into play and the Bruces will be very much part of all that  .Interesting times ahead

    Purplebricks the gift that keeps on giving

    Report
    1. Bless You

      ‘Highly engaged team’s ‘ is city speak for being a complete bartstuart to work for…
       
      Watch out LPE’s , looks like things just got a lot tougher!

      Report
    2. Mark Walker 2

      So no Estate Agency experience?  Worked out well at Countrywide…

      Report
      1. Hillofwad71

        Suspect he is a different kettle of fish  to Platt ,Sees Bricks more  as a Barclays Bank offering a range of financial services than a Tesco Unlike CWD probably values the input of experienced property professionals alongside

         

        Time will tell of course ! Challenging and  up against it

         

        Certainly has an impressive track record and definitely interesting to see his next steps .Bricks the never ending story

        Report
    3. tonycrew45

      Old duffers like me will remember the Danny Kaye song “ The Kings New Clothes”,from their childhood . For the rest of you, look it up, the sentiment is as relevant today as it was then. The industry continues to be at a crossroads, however I remain unconvinced that Purplebricks, at least in its current model is the solution. Maybe some changes at the top might Improve things, maybe they won’t, whatever the case those investors who believed the hype will be having to follow their money and open their wallets again and probably a few more times.

      As for Michael, I doubt he will lose much sleep, he’s had a result having trousered a good few bob on this latest cover of a rather old song.

      Tony Crew

       

      Report
      1. AgencyInsider

        Urgh. You have just brought forth an unwelcome vision of Michael Bruce that I am having some trouble shifting… The King is in the all together, But all together the all together, He’s all together as naked as the day that he was born

        Report
    4. cyber_truth

      Vic is not qualified and has no estate agency experience. During his time over the past 5 months in the UK, he has not won over any relations or motivated anyone. His biggest fan is Paul Pindar. 

      Report
  3. Moveaside01

    More importantly, how in the name of god does Quirk keep getting a say on matters like this?

    Who on earth would seek his opinion on anything that matters?

     

     

    Report
    1. AgencyInsider

      He is just a flavour of the moment with the ‘meeja’ and when all the payanyway-investor-money-burning-shysters have gone bust there will be nothing left for him to pontificate upon. That day can not come too soon.

      Report
      1. Bless You

        Lock him up, don’t interview him. 

        Report
  4. J1

    Non estate agents now in charge!

    It will only get worse!

    Good for the real agents.

    Lots of LPE’s will jump as Bruce had their love!

    What a disaster.

    Report
    1. AgencyInsider

      Neither of the Bruce bros ever were/are Estate Agents.

      Report
      1. jackobabe70

        that is incorrect 

        Report
    2. smile please

      Hear Alison Platt is still looking for a role, would make a super addition to their team 😉

      Report
      1. Alec25

        Love this! What a fantastic idea!

        Report
      2. Bless You

        Think she works in Tesco now on the retail counter. 

        Report
  5. JustPlainSavage04

    Their Lettings Director has also left the company.

    Report
    1. Property Poke In The Eye

      It’s all going down the pan!!

      Report
    2. Mark Walker 2

      Where was this nugget?

      Report
    3. KhanSh

      This was last week.

      Report
    4. jeremy1960

      They have a lettings department too????

      Report
    5. cyber_truth

      State Directors exited in California, Nevada and Arizona in the US all within the last 2 weeks before the Bruce announcement. A number of LPEs exited too in CA, FL and NY with employee resignations daily. There is currently no experienced leaders in place or confidence in the business. 

      Report
  6. MarkJ

    PB’s annual results to 30/4/2019 are available on 3/7/2019.

    Should be an interesting read….

    Report
    1. Property Poke In The Eye

      They have time to massage the figures.   So all losses with be shown abroad and they will say UK is doing fantastic blah blah blah!!!
      More cash please 😉

      Report
    2. Mark Walker 2

      Yes, heads have rolled after they have submitted their books for the y/e.  They already know what they look like.

      Report
    3. jackobabe70

      Sad

      Report
  7. Property Ear

    HMS Purplebricks is this morning listing badly and sinking fast. Captain Michael has abandoned ship and heads towards his dream desert island on his luxurious speedboat and must be congratulated on plotting such a lucrative course. Commander Kenny will surely soon follow. Woe are the thousands of paying passengers who so unwittingly bought a ticket to nowhere and, along with the doomed HMS Purplebricks, sink fast to the murky bottom.

    Report
  8. s71

    where is ducky???

    Report
    1. AgencyInsider

      Probably curled up in the foetal position, weeping at the departure of his purple master…

      Report
      1. Property Pundit

        Consoling ********.

        Report
  9. smile please

    as of 10am this morning shares at £1.09

    Report
  10. IHS

    Share price 108.60p and falling – as a more famous Brucie once said ‘good game, good game!’

    Report
    1. PeeBee

      Lost another 2p as of 1215.  Today’s low 103.2.

      Nearly 5 hours to go.

      Sub 100 at close?

      Report
      1. smile please

        Nope investors will pump a few quid in to give it a higher finish.

        Report
  11. Woodentop

    The wrong man (another one) is now in charge. With only 4%? of the market belonging to on-line, which keep going bankrupt …. PB will soon follow as here is no different to OZ and US ….. they don’t sell properties as the consumer is expecting and have a track record of all things the public perception historically loathes about estate agency. Far better people and bigger organisations have tried for decades to make it in Estate Agency and failed. It is a unique business which many cannot comprehend, unless you have worked in the industry. Estate Agency is a middleman service, one that without, the cogs of house moving cannot turn. Period.

    Report
    1. Sdaltaf101

       

      Woodentop you are without doubt a person of  limited knowledge with too much spare time on their hands.

       

      The reality is the “High Street Estate Agent” is an unqualified sector full of ex-car salesman who sell overpriced valuations on proprieties to leach a percentage of the home owners hard earned asset.  The only reason the High Street Estate Agent has been sustainable over the past 40+ years is due to ridiculous legislation introduced by Thatcher to protect the sector because she need new friends for her Bankers to play with. That legislation has been removed and replaced with technology so it is inevitable the high street agency is doomed.

       

       

       

      Please keep your head in the sand and your bum in the air.

       

      Lots of love and kisses,

       

       

      The Prophet Sdaltaf

       

      Report
      1. Woodentop

        And there ladies an gentleman is a prime example of someone who thinks they know something and don’t. Estate Agency was about long before Mrs T, many agents are qualified (some very highly). I think the word used, “leach” gives an indication of your prejudice. Technology has replaced ……. dream on boy, dream on for you forget who is using that technology …. the High Street. I have yet to find an estate agency qualified tech guy and not forgetting it is these so called Tech Agents that are going out of business having burned £m’s of other peoples money, failed as estate agents business and made their employees work horrendous hours and then redundant. Oh yeah,  replaced with technology = conmissary!

        Report
        1. Sdaltaf101

          Woodentop

           

          Previously you thought YOPA was on the high street so please give me the opportunity to show you the path to enlightenment.

           

          YOPA is not on the high street but will be soon.

           

          No……Estate Agents are not qualified as demonstrated by Doorsteps who claims he sold his first house when he was 15 and found out when it was play time

           

          Or, you could argue everyone is qualified, the fact remains there is no formal qualifications needed to be an estate agent.

           

          Yes, estate agents were around before Thatcher but is was the legislation introduced which forced innocent unsuspected home owners to sacrifice a percentage of their property to financially support a sector which is unsustainable.

           

          The collapse of CWD is a direct result of the hybrid model along with poor managerial decisions,  the weak and venerable independents will follow when the hybrid model arrives on the high street

           

          I see the future as Purple and the disruption will continue.

           

          Lots of love and kisses.

           

          The Prophet Sdaltaf

           

           

          Report
          1. Retiredandrelaxed

            Sdaltaf101

            Twice now you have referred to “legislation introduced which forced innocent unsuspected home owners to sacrifice a percentage of their property”

            I’d be really interested to know what legislation you are talking about

            Report
            1. Sdaltaf101

              Hello Retiredandrelzed,

               

              My pleasure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_Misdescriptions_Act_1991

               

              Report
              1. Retiredandrelaxed

                Thanks but that Act had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what agents charge. It’s sole purpose was to ensure that anything agents said (verbally or in writing) about a property was accurate.

                It certainly did not force homeowners to pay a fee based on a percentage of the value of their home. Charging such a percentage fee was the norm long before that piece of legislation came into effect.

                Report
                1. Sdaltaf101

                  That’s where GREED PLAY ITS PART.

                  It was a tap on the back by Thatcher to thank a sector who helped her sell off the Council houses and as a result we have the problem today with over inflated property prices, but that’s a different story for another day.

                  The Misdescriptions Act 1991 was a pointless Act which forced home owners to appoint an unqualified estate agent to measure rooms, what it did was restrict the advertising as it was legal to place a for sale sign on the property but illegal for the home owner to advertise in the local paper and in recent years the internet, to advertise the home owner has no other alternative but to give a percentage of their property to an unqualified estate agent to “measure rooms” which included a disclaimer so avoiding any liability so the Act was fundamentally flawed and serves no functional purpose other than line the pockets of sector which was unqualified, but loyal.

                  Also,

                   

                  There has never been a prosecution under the act which is why the act was abolished in 2013.

                   

                  When the home owner is forced to use an agent then the agent can charge what they want, as demonstrated over the years with the percentage on asset model which remains and don’t forget the price fixing.

                   

                  Report
                  1. PeeBee

                    Are you sniffing something?
                     
                    This entire post is complete and utter ********.
                     
                    Any chance you had of convincing a single impressionable or otherwise vulnerable to out-and-out *********** (credit: Jonnie) Agent on here that you knew in the slightest what you were blithering on about has just been #NUKED.
                     
                    I must say – it’s a cracking own goal you’ve scored there!  Geralds little 1991 faux pas simply pales into insinificance… completely overshadowed by what should now be known as Saldat’s Prophet and Loss Account.
                     
                    (Oh – and just between you and me, I think you’ve also let the feline out of the non-rigid container as to one of your other posting identities on EYE… but you can try and keep that one quiet if you like. 
                     
                    It would be awful for people to realise that you are twice the t0S$$er they already thought you were…)

                    Report
                    1. Sdaltaf101

                      PeeBee

                      Thank you for demonstrating the level of intelligence needed to be an estate agent.

                       

                      You are an excellent ambassador for your competitors, keep up the good work.

                      Lots of love and kisses.

                       

                      The Prophet Sdaltaf

                      Report
                  2. Retiredandrelaxed

                    I wouldn’t normally be dismissive or rude about posters as I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and has the right to express it but, if you spout a load of complete rubbish, be prepared to be called out on it.
                     
                    In this case, as PeeBee says, your last post on this subject (at 20:09) is absolute utter tosh, is based on complete fabrication and demonstrates that you are (at least on this subject) wholly and entirely deluded.
                     
                    The Act was not a “thank you” from Maggie to the EA industry, as you state – actually agents were very wary of the Act when it came into effect as it introduced potentially substantial financial penalties for a breach of the Act.
                     
                    The Act did not force homeowners to appoint an agent and made no reference to restrictions on advertising in papers on online. The Act only applied to Estate Agents and Developers – it did not apply to homeowners, who remained free to advertise their own own properties wherever they wanted and left them equally free to use the services of an agent or not, as they chose. It most certainly did not make it illegal for a homeowner to advertise their own property.
                     
                    You clearly haven’t read the Act or even a summary of it, which wouldn’t be a challenge as it’s not very long.
                     
                    There have been a number of cases under the Act (Google them if you want more info), which was actually repealed because it became unnecessary when the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations (CPRs) came into effect. The CPRs cover everything that the Act covered and go much further in imposing a requirement on agents to disclose all relevant matters that might influence the transactional decision of an average consumer.
                     
                    It’s a shame that you lost the plot so completely on this subject as I had enjoyed some of your other posts on PB and thought that you made some interesting points and had some good observations.
                     
                    As a result, I can only conclude that you are either have a really serious and deluded problem with estate agents, in which case I wonder what you are doing here or your are simply a troll whose intentions are to post more and more provocative rubbish to try to wind other posters up. Admittedly, if your motivation is the latter, I have allowed you a measure of success in replying!

                    Report
                    1. Sdaltaf101

                      The Act was not a “thank you” from Maggie to the EA industry, as you state – actually agents were very wary of the Act when it came into effect as it introduced potentially substantial financial penalties for a breach of the Act.
                       
                      – Which is why there is always a disclaimer, as I said pointless.
                       
                       
                      The Act did not force homeowners to appoint an agent and made no reference to restrictions on advertising in papers on online. The Act only applied to Estate Agents and Developers – it did not apply to homeowners, who remained free to advertise their own own properties wherever they wanted and left them equally free to use the services of an agent or not, as they chose. It most certainly did not make it illegal for a homeowner to advertise their own property.
                       
                      – Yes it did, you were unable to advertise in any newspapers and even today with the abolishment of the Act agents restrict private sales from advertising on the likes of Righmove, Zoopla and OTM.
                       
                      You clearly haven’t read the Act or even a summary of it, which wouldn’t be a challenge as it’s not very long.
                       
                      – Yes and also The regulatory framework for the home buyers and selling (OFT). Little confused with the “challenge as it’s not very long” comment if you could elaborate.
                       
                      There have been a number of cases under the Act (Google them if you want more info), which was actually repealed because it became unnecessary when the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations (CPRs) came into effect. The CPRs cover everything that the Act covered and go much further in imposing a requirement on agents to disclose all relevant matters that might influence the transactional decision of an average consumer.
                       
                      – No there has not, if there was please send me the links.
                      – CPR’s was introduced in 2008 and was successfully argued by the coalition that the Act could simply replace Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 and would offered more protection for the consumer.
                      – Clearly the “to disclose all relevant matter” has failed particularly with referral fees and other forms of financial remuneration which is still debated within the industry today.
                       
                       
                      It’s a shame that you lost the plot so completely on this subject as I had enjoyed some of your other posts on PB and thought that you made some interesting points and had some good observations.
                       
                      – I wasn’t aware I had lost the plot, I prefer to focus on the facts and then make considered conclusions.
                       
                       
                      As a result, I can only conclude that you are either have a really serious and deluded problem with estate agents, in which case I wonder what you are doing here or your are simply a troll whose intentions are to post more and more provocative rubbish to try to wind other posters up. Admittedly, if your motivation is the latter, I have allowed you a measure of success in replying!
                       
                      – I would enjoy this debate more if you focused on the facts rather than venting the venom through your fingers, if I was a troll I would be abusive with no factual evidence to substantiate any claims.
                       

                      Report
                    2. PeeBee

                      Prophet & Loss

                      In response to your request for evidence of PMA prosecutions below

                      “– No there has not, if there was please send me the links.”

                      Like you have previously stated, I am keen to help those less fortunate than the majority in terms of ability and basic understanding – so here you goes

                      telegraph.co.uk/news/1470410/Estate-agent-fined-over-false-double-glazing-claim.html

                      marketinglaw.osborneclarke.com/advertising-regulation/did-qualifiers-neutralise-garden-mis-claim/

                      newsshopper.co.uk/news/6278491.estate-agents-fined-3000/?ref=arc

                      Now – is three enough proof to shut you up, or are you going to continue to blag that you have an ounce of knowledge of our industry when we all know the very, VERY different truth?

                      Report
      2. smile please

        The Prophet Sdaltaf – Sorry you feel we do not know what we are talking about, but the vast majority of us run profitable long established businesses. Given most and nearly all online listers lose money year on year and have or are in the process of going bust, i think we are pretty well places to have an ‘Expert’ opinion.

        Report
        1. Sdaltaf101

          They loose money because they are disrupting the market, its a sound business strategy providing the money is available,  have you heard of Amazon they are also a disrupter who sold books, UBER is also a disrupter  who is about to float for billions and they have not earned £1. 
           
          The purpose of the disrupter is to decimate an unstable sector and establish market dominance, the national estate agency is currently crumbling and the focus will be on the independents so achieving market supremacy and then the prices will gradually increase along with their offering.
           
          Trust me my child, the future is Purple.
          Lots of love and kisses.The Prophet Sdaltaf

          Report
          1. Woodentop

            And there ladies an gentleman is a prime example of someone who thinks they know something and don’t.

             

            An utter load of tosh, we have just come back from a good night out and yes we logged on because before bed we wanted a great laugh and as expected The Prophet Sdaltaf hasn’t let us all down. Pure genius, all he need to do now is push the detonator button on his suicide vest and save everyone anymore of his ignorance and prejudice. A TROLL and weird or what!.

            Report
          2. Retiredandrelaxed

            Sdaltaf

             

            I can’t leave a direct reply to your post of yesterday timed at 23:25 so am leaving it here.

            I fail to see how your comment regarding disclaimers supports your argument that the Property Misdescription Act (PMA) was a thank you from Maggie to the Estate Agency industry. Disclaimers have little or no effect unless they are as “Bold, precise and compelling as the statement to which they relate”, in accordance with contemporaneous guidance from the OFT. Vague and/or general disclaimers at the end of a set of property details would have been insufficient for an agent to rely on in order to avoid prosecution under the Act (more later about this)

             

            As far as I can tell, the central theme to your argument is that the PMA somehow prevented homeowners trying to sell their homes privately by disallowing such advertising in newspapers. Your claim is factually incorrect – I repeat, the PMA did not contain any provisions to prevent homeowners from advertising their own properties in newspapers, online or in any other form of media. The text of the Act can be found in the link below, do read it and point out to us which sections support your claim.

             

            https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/29/contents/enacted

             

            It is not agents who prevent the advertising of private sales by homeowners on the property portals (RM, Z & OTM). The portals themselves place restrictions on who may or may not advertise, these are the portals own rules and business decisions.

             

            My thanks to the inimitable PeeBee for posting a number of links to reports of prosecutions under the PMA. The three that he has provided should be sufficient to demonstrate to you that your claim that there have been zero prosecutions is incorrect. However, here are a couple of my own additions.

             

            https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1486397/Estate-agent-fined-for-false-details-in-sale-of-own-house.html

             

            https://www.independent.co.uk/property/house-and-home/property-small-errors-lead-to-exaggerated-claims-the-property-misdescriptions-act-was-meant-to-1420264.html

             

            You seem to have shifted your argument with regard to the abolition of the PMA – in your post of 20;09 you state that the Act was abolished because there had been no prosecutions (incorrect) yet in your post of 23:25 you seem to be suggesting that the PMA was abolished because the 2008 CPRs rendered the PMA redundant as the CPRs offered better consumer protection (correct).

             

            The requirement to disclose referral fees and other remuneration is actually enshrined in the Estate Agents Act 1979. Sadly, the provisions of this Act have not been fully complied with, policed and enforced. My personal view is that current standards of transparency require that agents should disclose the existence and amount of referral fees when recommending additional services to their customers, such as conveyancing, financial and surveying services, for example.

             

            Your stated position is that ” I prefer to focus on the facts and then make considered conclusions.” This being the case, if your facts are incorrect, your considered conclusions are also likely to be incorrect.

            Report
  12. jackobabe70

    Commentators on this page, with no clue. You’re becoming a tabloid PIE

    Report
    1. Woodentop

      You are correct, you haven’t.

      Report
      1. jackobabe70
        Report
  13. natural_selection

    Question – Would you employ an ex PB LPE?

    Report
    1. Robert May

      There are some stormingly good local experts, liked, trusted and respected on their patch. An agency looking for good self motivated staff prepared to work  late into the early morning on a commission only basis could quite easily drop onto a winner with some of them.

      Report
    2. Ric

      Nah… imagine their petrol return expectations! haha

      Report
  14. IHS

    The problem with Purplebricks is that, from day one, they set out to rubbish professional Estate Agents in their advertising rather than promoting an alternative way of selling a property, listing the pros and cons of their cheaper ‘service’ and then conning the public into paying for something upfront that many of them didn’t get and now wonder why EA’s are delighted in their fall from grace. People in glass houses etc.

    Report
    1. SLF

      The public have never been conned. I worked for PB for a year and not once did I see a seller who didn’t know how PB worked. It’s a totally fake claim that online clients don’t know what they’re signing up to.

      Report
      1. Woodentop

        Tell me that again ….. on TV and radio: PB do everything that a high street agent does = not according to many of your customers after they have signed. 

        Report
        1. AgencyInsider

          Sorry SLF I cannot agree with you. I have lost count of the number of people who have said ‘Purplebricks don’t charge any commission so how do they make any money?’ Let’s be charitable and say that PBs ad message was not designed to mislead the public. However it’s actual effect is to do just that.

          Report
          1. PeeBee

            AgencyInsider I’ll second you on that one.

            I actually had a local solicitor ask me that exact question.

            Report
          2. The Future Is Tech

            They are quite clear that the fee is a marketing fee. It is a set fee which is payable on a pay now or pay later offer.

            The public are not being conned  PB have been honest with their costs. Why haven’t the high street agents ever been honest and transparent with fees? They are the con and it’s good to see that there is a much more cost effective way to sell.

            If you are 100% going to sell, its not a risk at all, if the price isn’t right it won’t sell for any agent listing it.

            PB have 6% market share? So thats 94% of estate agents who will do any say anything to discredit them. Those agents work really hard, much harder than your 9 til 5 branch manager.

            The haters are loving this news but failig to forget that if you keep focusing on PB your own business is going to fall beneath you – and get what? Nobody is going to care about your small pointless office, its the next charity shop.

            The future is tech

            Report
            1. Woodentop

              Lol.

              Report
            2. Robert May

              Since you’ve asked they are passive intermediary, internet listers and not  as they claim ‘proper’ estate agents as defined by case law precedent.

              Report
      2. AgentQ73

        1 whole year, did you get a party or a long service medal or something ?

         

        Report
  15. Hillofwad71

    SLF Picked this off Bricks unsold list at random as it was a village I lived in some years ago. Pleasant village on  the outskirts of Chester with easy access to motorway network
    Fairly well sought after and properties always been easy to sell
    https://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/43414732 Just look at the price changes Are you telling  me that this owner has had a good service Listed March 2017@ £650k and has had no less than FIVE price reductions since STILL UNSOLD    
    What was the seller told on listing? 

    Report
    1. SLF

      What was the seller told on listing? …I don’t know, and I agree, it doesn’t look like great service. Bear in mind I’m sure there are thousands of similar houses up with high street agents………but those don’t get mentioned.

      I’m definitely not a PB lover. My time there wasn’t great and it didn’t live up to all the promises. I could write a book but basically not enough business to go round to earn a decent living. Also not the work life balance iId hoped for!

      However just because I feel a bit scr3wed over by them I’m not going to lie or make false statements which happens so often on here and mainly from those who have never worked for a non high street agent.

       

      Report
  16. cyber_truth

    Michael Bruce firing was long overdue and Paul Pindar, Chairman did not act fast enough. He should be lead out of the business and both are guilty. Michael Bruce had the reins of all global operations, especially in the US where he purchased a $5 million dollar home 5 minutes from the office before they launched to influence every decision in the business. It’s why their local executive team exited along with other markets. Only ones remaining at Purplebricks are the ones that need a paycheck until they secure a better position. Vic Darvey has no estate agency experience and was not liked when he was introduced and does not have the trust or respect from the local UK team. It was a Paul Pindar hiring.  He will be in play to unwind global operations while trying to keep UK alive and would not surprised if he’s already looking for his next role.  This company has been destroyed and Bruce brothers lead the charge, driving the share price higher on speculation with global expansion and then selling before they reported to then city. I expect a full investigation into their security dealings and family members that reaped the benefits through positions, stock grants and more. Kenny Bruce had his in-laws on payroll in the US and Michael Bruce hired his brother inlaw to lead a team in the UK. In the US, they brought a 27-year old kid with no qualifications to lead California as State Director, despite everyone’s objections. Bruce brothers killed the company they started and the Board did nothing until it was too late.  Bruce’s protected some people who were drinking friends using investor’s capital. Stay tuned as we expect a response from regulators and institutional investors that demand their money back once more is disclosed on Bruce brother’s reckless behavior across the globe with the Board just watching. Only the desperate remain with the company.    

    Report
    1. JVSOZ

      Hey cyber_truth,

      I reckon you’re on the money mate.

      Report
    2. jackobabe70

      Sounds bitter to me

      Report
      1. The Future Is Tech

        Total nonsense again. Where do these people come from. Useless agent in an office with nothing better to do? You are the type this industry needs rid of.
        Cyber_truth? Cyber_troll is more appropriate 

        Report
        1. PeeBee

          “GET BACK, you waves…

          …BACK, I SAY!!”

          Welcome to ‘Stage 1’ (denial).  It gets easier from here.

          Utterly laughable.

          Report
  17. Woodentop

    Bruce brothers lead the charge, driving the share price higher on speculation with global expansion and then selling before they reported to then city. I expect a full investigation into their security dealings and family members that reaped the benefits through positions, stock grants and more.

     

    This was noted some years back when Bruce made wild and exaggerating statements, his failed fiasco over negative customer reviews and company support from not so independent analysts which have been found to be wanting as the actual performance has never matched. Long over due investigation by the city. It will be interesting to see if any of the major investors have some security locked into their investment and will become obvious if the wheel falls off sooner than later.

    Report
    1. Mark Walker

      I hate to be the party pooper but any City regulators have as much to lose from this as anyone. They passed the company to float whilst it was not legally compliantly trading. I doubt they will want to have that brought up again. Better to let it slide back into obscurity and save their own faces.

      Report
      1. Chris Wood

        Too many journalists have been threatened by PBs’ own or silenced by in-house cautious lawyers for any regulators to be allowed to let this drop. Anecdotal stories of his and hers Ferrari’s being bought by very senior people because “we need to lose some money fast”. As previously indicated, I am aware of at least one very powerful body taking more than a passing interest in this firm, it’s business operations and leadership.

        Report
        1. Woodentop

          Lets put aside PB and look at it from any business doing what the so called on-line only revolution did.

           

          They couldn’t fund their own enterprise.

          They didn’t offer anything that the High Street was already doing with Hi-Tec.

          They did less for less

          Their income stream (excluding investors capital) is based on numbers which assumed mass growth, ignoring the industry will fluctuate and become very difficult in a recession and as anyone with common sense in business (why the banks wouldn’t touch them) looks good on paper in but in reality there is no utopia. ([proven to be the case)

          They had their hands wrapped by regulators and even fined for misleading.

          They were valued (as is the practice) at extortionate price with no assets or trading experience.

          Trading supporters are questionable conflict of independence and not qualified in the industry

          95% of consumers have shunned them after several years

          The high street has had to pick up the aftermath of vendors left well and trying stuffed by those that took the money and failed to deliver.

          Burned multi £m’s to end up going into administration or about to

          Share values have collapsed

          The only winners were senior management fat cat salaries and gratuities

          Far bigger financial companies with hands on day to day supervision previously tried and failed

           

           

          Not exactly a glowing CV of success or for any further investment and still there are some who keep your head in the sand and your bum in the air.

           

          Report
  18. Retiredandrelaxed

    Sdaltaf

     

    I can’t leave a direct reply to your post of yesterday timed at 23:25 so am leaving it here.

     

    I fail to see how your comment regarding disclaimers supports your argument that the Property Misdescription Act (PMA) was a thank you from Maggie to the Estate Agency industry. Disclaimers have little or no effect unless they are as “Bold, precise and compelling as the statement to which they relate”, in accordance with contemporaneous guidance from the OFT. Vague and/or general disclaimers at the end of a set of property details would have been insufficient for an agent to rely on in order to avoid prosecution under the Act.

     

    As far as I can tell, the central theme to your argument is that the PMA somehow prevented homeowners trying to sell their homes privately by disallowing such advertising in newspapers. Your claim is factually incorrect – I repeat, the PMA did not contain any provisions to prevent homeowners from advertising their own properties in newspapers, online or in any other form of media. The text of the Act can be found in the link below, do read it and point out to us which sections support your claim.

     

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/29/contents/enacted

     

    It is not agents who prevent the advertising of private sales by homeowners on the property portals (RM, Z & OTM). The portals themselves place restrictions on who may or may not advertise, these are the portals own rules and business decisions.

     

    My thanks to the inimitable PeeBee for posting a number of links to reports of prosecutions under the PMA. The three that he has provided should be sufficient to demonstrate to you that your claim that there have been zero prosecutions is incorrect. However, here are a couple of my own additions.

     

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1486397/Estate-agent-fined-for-false-details-in-sale-of-own-house.html

     

    https://www.independent.co.uk/property/house-and-home/property-small-errors-lead-to-exaggerated-claims-the-property-misdescriptions-act-was-meant-to-1420264.html

     

    You seem to have shifted your argument with regard to the abolition of the PMA – in your post of 20;09 you state that the Act was abolished because there had been no prosecutions (incorrect) yet in your post of 23:25 you seem to be suggesting that the PMA was abolished because the 2008 CPRs rendered the PMA redundant as the CPRs offered better consumer protection (correct).

     

    The requirement to disclose referral fees and other remuneration is actually enshrined in the Estate Agents Act 1979. Sadly, the provisions of this Act have not been fully complied with, policed and enforced. My personal view is that current standards of transparency require that agents should disclose the existence and amount of referral fees when recommending additional services to their customers, such as conveyancing, financial and surveying services, for example.

     

    Your stated position is that ” I prefer to focus on the facts and then make considered conclusions.” This being the case, if your facts are incorrect, your considered conclusions are also likely to be incorrect.

    Report
  19. Retiredandrelaxed

    Sdaltaf
     
    I can’t leave a direct reply to your post of yesterday timed at 23:25 so am leaving it here.
     
    I fail to see how your comment regarding disclaimers supports your argument that the Property Misdescription Act (PMA) was a thank you from Maggie to the Estate Agency industry. Disclaimers have little or no effect unless they are as “Bold, precise and compelling as the statement to which they relate”, in accordance with contemporaneous guidance from the OFT. Vague and/or general disclaimers at the end of a set of property details would have been insufficient for an agent to rely on in order to avoid prosecution under the Act (more later about this)
     
    As far as I can tell, the central theme to your argument is that the PMA somehow prevented homeowners trying to sell their homes privately by disallowing such advertising in newspapers. Your claim is factually incorrect – I repeat, the PMA did not contain any provisions to prevent homeowners from advertising their own properties in newspapers, online or in any other form of media. The text of the Act can be found in the link below, do read it and point out to us which sections support your claim.
     
    legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/29/contents/enacted
     
    It is not agents who prevent the advertising of private sales by homeowners on the property portals (RM, Z & OTM). The portals themselves place restrictions on who may or may not advertise, these are the portals own rules and business decisions. 
     
    My thanks to the inimitable PeeBee for posting a number of links to reports of prosecutions under the PMA. The three that he has provided should be sufficient to demonstrate to you that your claim that there have been zero prosecutions is incorrect. However, here are a couple of my own additions.
     
    telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1486397/Estate-agent-fined-for-false-details-in-sale-of-own-house.html
     
    independent.co.uk/property/house-and-home/property-small-errors-lead-to-exaggerated-claims-the-property-misdescriptions-act-was-meant-to-1420264.html
     
    You seem to have shifted your argument with regard to the abolition of the PMA – in your post of 20;09 you state that the Act was abolished because there had been no prosecutions (incorrect) yet in your post of 23:25 you seem to be suggesting that the PMA was abolished because the 2008 CPRs rendered the PMA redundant as the CPRs offered better consumer protection (correct).
     
    The requirement to disclose referral fees and other remuneration is actually enshrined in the Estate Agents Act 1979. Sadly, the provisions of this Act have not been fully complied with, policed and enforced. My personal view is that current standards of transparency require that agents should disclose the existence and amount of referral fees when recommending additional services to their customers, such as conveyancing, financial and surveying services, for example.
     
    Your stated position is that ” I prefer to focus on the facts and then make considered conclusions.” This being the case, if your facts are incorrect, your considered conclusions are also likely to be incorrect.

    Report
    1. PeeBee

      Retiredandrelaxed

      I genuinely applaud your keeping it eloquent and reasoned with the likes of this individual.  I lost the will to do so a while ago I’m sorry to admit.

      I was going to say that in this single post you have firmly nailed Prophet & Loss’s b@lls to the floor.

      But that is incorrect.  He nailed them there himself – you have however explained to him in clear and precise terms that picking up a hammer, laying ones’ danglies on the floor and striking an iron spike in order to drive it through the ‘ticle tissue and thus impaling said nads onto the surface beneath is both unwise and avoidable unless you are a very determined… unstable… or plain stupid individual.

      Thing is – people like this (funny how they all seem to congregate on PB-centric articles, innit…) seem to have an infinite supply of nails, so I would expect him to come back for seconds.  And thirds.

      Therefore I am already looking forward to your next response to the eejit’s next inaccuracy-laden rantlet.

      Report
      1. Retiredandrelaxed

        Thanks, I take that as high praise coming from one with a fine track record of fixing other peoples self exposed dangly bits to the floor!
         
        There are plenty of charlatans, incompetents and lay-abouts within the industry but I get really ticked off when people start criticising the industry as a whole based on a completely false premise, such as Sdaltaf’s utter and complete lack of understanding of the PMA.
         

        Report
    2. PeeBee

      Prophet & Loss
       
      I’m pretty certain that you won’t bother looking up any of the links that have been posted by Retiredandrelaxed or myself to prove you woefully incorrect in terms of PMA-based prosecutions – such is your misplaced belief in your own ‘knowledge’.
       
      But this is a small extract from the latter of those posted by Randr, from an article in The Independent dated 4 June 1994:
       
      “This was exactly the kind of case that the Property Misdescriptions Act was brought in to deal with a year ago. There have been some seven successful prosecutions so far, with a similar number in the pipeline.”
       
      Feel free to pick up that hammer again, sunshine – they are your b@lls…  

      Report
    3. Retiredandrelaxed

      Profuse apologies to all for the double post – the site didn’t seem to have accepted the first so I reposted my response to Sdaltaf and only realised both posts had shown up when it was too late to edit or delete one
       
      Edit: Oh gawd – I see it is actually triplicated – sorry.
       
      Still, it does give Mr Sdaltaf every chance of seeing it and responding. 🙂
       

      Report
      1. PeeBee

        Apology unnecessary – the post was more than worthy of a double showing!! ;o)

        Report
  20. AgentV

    Hmmm I was obviously very busy the day this story came out. Just can’t help myself from however adding;

    BSOS23PC

    Report
X

You must be logged in to report this comment!

Comments are closed.

Thank you for signing up to our newsletter, we have sent you an email asking you to confirm your subscription. Additionally if you would like to create a free EYE account which allows you to comment on news stories and manage your email subscriptions please enter a password below.