The Property Ombudsman has published new guidance to help home buyers recognise and avoid conditional selling, following the issues highlighted in the BBC Panorama documentary, Undercover Estate Agent.
The guidance reiterates that conditional selling, where an estate agent pressures a buyer into using specific services, such as its recommended solicitor or in-house mortgage broker, as a condition of accepting their offer, is prohibited under The Property Ombudsman’s Codes of Practice.
The new guidance aims to help consumers understand their rights and recognise when they may be experiencing unfair pressure or misinformation. If an agent insists that a buyer use its in-house or associated services, the buyer has the right to refuse and to expect to be treated fairly and reasonably.
Chief Ombudsman Lesley Horton said: “Conditional selling breaches our Code of Practice and has no place in a transparent property market. Estate agents must ensure that every buyer is treated fairly, with clear and honest communication at every stage of the process.
“Consumers should be able to trust that estate agents are acting fairly and equally, not using unfair tactics to influence their choices. Our new guidance is designed to provide home buyers with clear information about their rights and to remind agents of their obligations under the Code of Practice.”
Home buyers are free to choose their own insurance provider, mortgage broker and solicitor, and all offers must be passed to the seller promptly, regardless of what service provider/s the buyer has chosen to go with.
The Ombudsman says it will continue to monitor complaints relating to conditional selling and work closely with Government and industry bodies to promote best practice.
See TPO’s Consumer Guidance here.
Oooooh! Tough new guidance for BUYERS???
FFS! The buyers already KNOW that they are being conditionally sold to. But what do you do if you want to buy THAT house. You have no choice but to go along with it.
It would be great if the Ombudsman actually DID something!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
as a developer I would not consider an offer from anyone who had not been qualified by the acting agent
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Does this include buyers, who are willing to provide the required ID, being told they cannot buy a property if they do not pay the agent, or their third party provider, a fee for AML checks?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Interesting viewpoint; is charging for completing a legally mandatory AML check (third parties usually gather the necessary information to complete the check, agents always remain liable for the outcome) the same as not passing on an offer unless the buyer uses your recommended FA?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Buyers must provide proof of ID but any related costs, whether third party or not, should come out of the agent’s commission or charged to their client, the seller.
Buyers should not be prevented from offering on or buying a property because they refuse to pay the agent’s own costs of doing business. It’s no different to tenants not having to pay fees.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register