In 2018, I watched as the then housing minister stood on stage at a Propertymark conference and said that the industry did not want to be regulated. To which, the conference moderator, asked the audience ‘Which agents in the room support regulation?’ Over 500 hands shot up in seconds – there was overwhelming support in the room, but also, as we learnt later, across the membership to regulate the sector.
I wasn’t CEO of Propertymark then, but I was a member; I understood the benefits of professionalising a sector that has changed more in the last 10 years than in the previous 50. Digitisation; automation; legislation – the industry is evolving faster than ever, and the onus is on agents to have to keep up.
Typically, people’s homes are their biggest assets; we become custodians of those assets and when things go wrong arguably everyone – from the customer to the agent – has a lot to lose. And yet for the customer, there’s no way to distinguish between the agents that know what they are doing and those that don’t. It’s only fair to safeguard the public in a sector that is increasingly complex and competitive. Levelling the playing field with minimum levels of qualifications and a licence will put agents on a more equal footing with other professional sectors such as solicitors and financial advisors.
Suggesting that regulation is being forced on the sector is simply not true; in 2017 the government consulted openly with a call for evidence on its suggested approach to regulation to which any agent, interested party or individual could respond.
But of course, you had to be aware it was happening. Trade bodies, such as Propertymark, informed members, sought views and responded on behalf of the membership; we encouraged members to respond directly, to be part of the process and to have a voice. This is the benefit of belonging to a professional body – you have an opportunity to shape the sector you want to be part of, both as an individual and as a collective. In this case, we have drawn parameters for a future regulatory framework based on member insight and views, which we will continue to reflect as the proposals develop further.
A cohesive professional community which shares experience, advances skills and faces new challenges, monitoring professional standards at every step, will increase service levels. This community needs to represent views and interests on salient issues in the media and to government. As agents increasingly become multi-skilled and work across disciplines, the need to speak with one voice will become even more important; our role remains to help those agents and that member community.
Nathan Emerson is interim CEO at Propertymark.
Regretfully that isn’t my experience Nathan, there are some very experienced and respected people raising issues that should have been at the top of the trade associations’ and redress schemes agenda that have been ignored, criticised and ostracised for doing or saying what was correct and in the best professional interest of the industry.
Propertymark have lost a lot of friends, supporters and support and the key is to find favour with people who have been turned from advocates to critics. without them nothing will change.
THAT ROBERT MAY! (angry face with buffet in its beard emoji)
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Agreed that LA should be regulated.
BUT SO SHOULD ALL LL
That means a National LL Licensing Scheme.
Abolish all other licensing schemes.
All LL and their properties to be licensed at no more than £100 for a licence EVERY 5 years.
As part of that LL licence EVERY LL to undergo 35 hrs of CPD training every 5 years.
Perhaps a bit like RSW for LL who prefer not to do this to be required to use a REGULATED LA.
That should shake up the PRS and get rid of rogue LA and LL.
What’s not to like!??
Oh! I didn’t mention LL licensing requirements.
So
CTL letter from the lenders for the LL properties
CTL for the tenant types occupying.
Insurer letter confirming building insurance commensurate with tenant type occupying.
Freeholder permission to let
Leaseholder permission
Council permission
Relevant PP
Just complying with that little lot will result in about 3 million homeless tenants as few LL would be able to comply as they are operating fraudulent tenancies.
So yep let’s have a professional licensed PRS.
Those remaining compliant LL will be able to jack up rents to correct levels.
The homeless tenants will have to use park benches.
The illegal LL will either have to become compliant or leave the PRS.
Choices; choices!!!??
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register