Following our story on Friday concerning Connells Group and an alleged occurrence of a purchaser having their offer resubmitted after they apparently changed their mind about using Connells’ mortgage service, the National Trading Standards Estate and Letting Agency team issued a statement to EYE. It implies that the case may possibly be looked at by Trading Standards.
Given potential legal processes that may result from National Trading Standards investigations, we don’t comment on speculation about individual investigations.
As the regulator of estate agency work in the UK, National Trading Standards works with local authorities and other regulators and organisations to enforce the provisions of the Estate Agents Act.
The Act requires agents to pass on offers from prospective purchasers promptly and in writing to their clients (except for offers the client has said they do not wish to receive), and agents must not discriminate against a prospective purchaser on the grounds that they will not be, or unlikely to be, accepting connected services from the agent.
A failure to comply with these requirements is a trigger for enforcement action and could result in a business (or individual employees) being liable for a warning or prohibition order which would affect their ability to engage in estate agency work in the future.
Instances of discrimination or failing to pass on offers can be reported by consumers via Consumer advice – GOV.UK or by businesses or other organisations via Contact us (bristol.gov.uk).
Guidance on the requirements of the Estate Agents Act is available on our website: Regulations you must follow
Connells’ branch allegedly applied pressurised selling on a purchaser
Good, everyone in the industry knows Connells have been getting away with this for decades!
The law is clear, your offer is not subject to using the agencies additional services, no ifs, no buts!!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
It did not say it was conditional what it said was it as no stronger than the other offers.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
“and agents must not discriminate against a prospective purchaser on the grounds that they will not be, or unlikely to be, accepting connected services from the agent.”
It bis not the agents decision who they go with it is the clients.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Well Jan you are obviously a more trusting, less cynical and less experienced of corporate estate agents than me and I applaud you for that positive outlook on life.
I am just, old, grizzled and too cynical to be able to maintain such a positive attitude towards the industry as you do. Well done!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
No need to be rude I am not rude to you.
When I sell houses on my developments we do not accept any offer until/unless the buyer is qualified by our IFA.
Buyers are told they do not have to use our IFA but they will not proceed until they have been qualified.
Buyers are offered a £500.00 gift voucher if they choose to use our recommended sols.
Recently we had had one guy who wanted to buy who when he spoke to our IFA said he did not have leave to remain.
Another mentioned that he had CCJs – our IFA said they guy was not ever going to be offered a mortgage.
If we had not had these qualified we would have wasted time and money on buyers who were never going to be able to buy.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
You and any agent on behalf of the vendor are perfectly entitled to qualify your buyer before submitting an offer to the seller and depending on the vendor specific requirements, even before they view. It is in TPO code of conduct.
What you are not allowed to do, is make it a condition they have to use your FS when it comes to putting pen to paper with the buyers purchasing arrangements.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I know that
Equally if I have 2 offers
a – using our recommended IFA and sols
b – not using our recommended IFA and sols
I will go with buyer a
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I wasn’t aware that I was being rude Jan, as I was saying, I read your comments as believing that corporate agents are always putting their clients best interest first. That however, has not been my experience.
I apologise that I offended you, that was never my intention!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I have dealt with some corporate agents I trust totally – Savills in particular.
I have dealt with Connells in the past and found them to be very good.
I have dealt with some independent agents I trust totally.
I have dealt with some independent agents I would not trust as far as I could throw them.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Afternoon Jan
Just for debate sake…
I was “Buyer B” in your scenario…
Phrase why my offer was rejected? (The actual reason)
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Having worked in New Build. It would not actually be that difficult ie on the lines that. Our vendor is looking for a 28 day exchange and chose the other buyer because they were working with tried and trusted professionals used to working to these deadlines.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I understand why you are choosing the other buyer, but please tell me,
“I am not accepted because…..?”
I will finish it for you… “….because I am not using your FS person or your solicitor”
Your assumption yours will be quicker or better than mine is guess work. Not founded, especially if your argument is you have not tried or tested theirs. It kind of confirms the fact you’re guessing.
Confirming the benefits of accepting the other person, simply avoids answering the actual issue that, the other person was not chosen because they were not to using your people.
I think an estate agent / new house builder etc who will make decisions based on this should perhaps put a disclaimer in their property advert saying “If we get two interested parties and all things are equal, the buyer who uses our recommended service providers will be accepted over someone who doesn’t because we believe they will be a safer bet”
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Don’t disagree with that. The point is that where there is transaction that is relying on trust, good communication and speed -having a buyer who is for want of a better term willing to play the game to get the end result that works for everyone is preferable to someone that doesn’t.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
My point exactly about the previous article. The screenshot did not say that there was a condition that the in house advisor had to be used merely that the buyer had subsequently post offer’s acceptance chosen not to use them and were notifying the buyer that they were reporting to the solicitor acting for the vendor of this change. Two very different things and shoddy journalism when far from proven in this situation.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Because the purchaser had then apparently changed their mind about the use of Connells mortgage service the branch told him they would have to be resubmit his offer ‘along with others’.
If the journalism is shoddy, why are you here?
Nowhere does the text say, it was a condition that the property would be open to the market again if they withdrew their FS. They wouldn’t dare ….. prison! They elude to not being able to track the sale progression so had decided to remarket and it also implies they hadn’t asked the solicitors, they were going to! ………………..LOL, LOL, falling off my chair.
Now NTSEA are involved!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Clear contradiction on what you were saying last week where convinced that condition selling just because had been guilty before. Similarly latest article says only that case may be looked at by Trading Standards. Again means nothing
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
As I previously commented last week, this conditional practice has been going on since the beginning of time and isn’t just within our industry.
Some big players have in the past received some huge fines when they have been caught. A decade or two ago a countrywide franchise was caught and splattered all over a consumer TV programme for one of the worst cases of rigging FS for their own benefit. They were even telling the vendor the buyer had pulled out, when they hadn’t, but found a new buyer. At the same time they told the buyer that the the vendor had withdrawn the property. Guess which one was using their FS?
FS years gone-bye used to be cutthroat and all sorts of shenanigans went on, principally with the bigger players. As they could produce volume business to some lenders, they received extra gratuity for the volume, than a smaller agent was getting. Branch managers were tasked with FS targets, as not all the gratuity went to the mortgage advisor, some even incentivised front office staff to make mortgage appointments with cash bonus (who is brave to say that is still not happening!). The pressure on some was OTT, so no wonder it was happening.
The biggest issue was the lenders they were using. Everyone knows this was and probably is still today happening in some quarters. You can only use the panel of lenders head office say you can use. A practice that can get you into a lot of hot water if you happen to not be getting the best mortgage for the consumer and its not all about interest rates!
All too often people start to do something, it becomes the norm ……… and then you get caught.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
All of us commenting are just repeating what we said last week
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Time to regulate estate agency, and maybe developers?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
One of the worse agents I have come across in a personal capacity is RICS regulated. Regulation will not stop greedy people doing whatever they can to get their hands on as much cash as possible. If they are prepared to pimp their professionalism and personal integrity they will continue to flout rules that already guide them.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Skipton (high quality Society IMO) must be delighted! Wonder if they know ? Troubling times for the Connells Group #timetoflogit .
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Regulate EA, 100%!!! It is the owners decision in respect of which offer they are to accept yet it is the EA’s duty to be clear and conscise in respect of the details on each individual offer that are presented to the owners.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register