‘We sell 88% of instructions within ten months,’ Purplebricks boss says

| Rosalind Renshaw

Purplebricks sells 88% of its instructions within ten months, its founder said at the weekend.

Michael Bruce was appearing on Radio 4’s Moneybox programme after a customer complained that in ten months, her property had received absolutely no interest but that she now had a bill to pay.

Joanne Buckley Scott had earlier posted up a graphic on Twitter claiming that the property, on the market since January, had received no viewings, offers or feedback.

On Moneybox, she said that she had gone for Purplebricks’ ‘pay later’ option and was now being charged because the property had been listed for ten months.

She admitted she had not fully read or understood Purplebricks’ terms and conditions.

Presenter Paul Lewis asked Bruce: “Why do you charge people if their homes don’t sell?”

Bruce said that people were fed up with paying “enormous amounts of money” to agents and that No Sale, No Fee was “fundamentally unfair”.

He went on: “We sell the greatest percentage of properties than any other agent in the UK.”

He said 88% of Purplebricks’ properties sell before the ten-month threshold, and that the remaining 12% would remain on the market until they also sold. Questioned by Lewis, Bruce repeated the claim of 88% of homes selling within ten months.

Bruce also said that Purplebricks is the “most positively reviewed” estate agent in the UK, and that it used Local Property Experts who know their area “inside out”.

Property pundit Henry Pryor also appeared on the programme saying that “a cold chill” was blowing down the high street.

Lewis asked Pryor why it wasn’t possible for members of the public to have direct access to the big property portals, and why did they have to go through an agent.

Pryor said that the portals “are worried that their paying customers would walk” if they allowed consumers direct access.

To which Lewis commented that this was “a restrictive practice”.

Pryor, a buying agent, said that a good estate agent could get a seller 10% more than a property was worth, whereas a bad agent could lose a seller 10% less than its value. Prior said that the national average of homes which sold after going on the market was 50%.

For those who missed it, you can listen to Moneybox at this link:

http://bbc.in/2eir09G

* Joanne Buckley Scott’s story was not explored in any detail on the programme. However, she has told EYE that she initially contacted Purplebricks on December 18 last year, asking for a valuation of her one-bedroom flat which is 50% shared ownership.

She instructed Purplebricks and was told her property would be listed by Boxing Day.

However, she claims that although she got her sales board before the New Year, the listing did not go live until January 4.

Buckley Scott claims that the first Local Property Expert left Purplebricks a couple of months later, and that after not hearing anything for a while, she had a phone call saying that Purplebricks would get her a Local Property Expert in Chester for the time being, until a new one for her area could be appointed.

She then says she did not hear anything for a further month or two.

She said that, having gone months without a single viewing or inquiry, she was shocked to be told that she would have to pay the fees in total.

She claims this was not explained to her at the initial meeting.

After complaining, Purplebricks reduced her fee by £200.

x

Email the story to a friend!

More top news stories



62 Comments

  1. Chri Wood
    October 17, 2016 at 07:03

    Looking forward to Mr Bruce substantiating those claims. An 88% sold record sounds rather as if they’re giving those customers homes away!

    Report
    1. AgentV
      October 17, 2016 at 15:14

      ‘She claims this was not explained to her at the initial meeting.’

      If this is actually true then it is outrageous.

      It should be categorically stated in the contract something along the lines of ‘by signing immediately below you understand that you are committed to a payment of x amount which must be paid no later than ten months after this date, whether your property is sold or not.’ This should also be explained to the customer.

      I understand that Mr B, after taking up a further career as a postman, has now apparently won the lottery and is lost in a plane searching for a remote island (or is it just a very strong lookalike), but I do think that is should be a caveat on all forms of PB advertising (and others with the same offering) that fees are charged on engaging the service…whether or not the property is sold.

      I think many members of the public automatically assume the service is ‘no sale-no fee’ because it is what they are naturally used to and conditioned to.

      Report
    2. P-Daddy
      October 17, 2016 at 15:56

      I thought this would amuse. The following is an investors comment from a bulletin board elsewhere…so is not an agents view but an investor who has used PB… There is an interesting bit of research from Zeus Capital on the Research Tree. Their summary for the market share growth in numbers of instructions is directly attributable to the increase in the number of LPE and once they are fully trained, revenue will drop!!!! Priceless;  although take brokers advice with the same pinch of salt as a Foxtons valuation.

      My experience as a buyer of a maisonette on PurpleBricks is consistent with the negative comments about this company made online by other users. However, as a buyer, I can not complain as this may eventually enable me to purchase the property at a lower price than if it had been sold through a different company. The person from PurpleBricks who did the viewing pointed out the “communal garden” to us but fortunately I had checked the Land Registry which showed that the garden was private and it was also a completely different piece of land to that occupied by the “communal garden”. It didn’t help that the person doing the viewing lived about 30 miles away in London so he did not know anything about the area. However, the really frustrating thing from our viewpoint is that we have now had an offer rejected online but there is no way for us to negotiate using the online system. We have been given the number of the PurpleBricks franchise holder but when we phone up to start negotiations there is no answer – perhaps he is on holiday. We have now written to the owners to check up on a few further details of the property (we could not see the garage inside because it was locked) and I hope the owners will indicate to us the range of price that they may accept. I am almost certain that this deal would be done and dusted if, as is normal, we could negotiate a price with the agent as we would offer very close to the asking price but having an estate agency service which does not allow any negotiation is just plain silly.

      Report
  2. AgencyInsider
    October 17, 2016 at 07:12

    10 months?! That just shows what you may get for your upfront payment.  Cr*p valuing, cr*p vendor care, cr*p results.

    Report
  3. AndrewOverman
    October 17, 2016 at 07:13

    Finally a list to sell ratio claim, from Mr Bruce, that’s now a matter of public record. That’s certainly not the ratio for my area but I’m sure a couple from within this group will be able to either qualify or rubbish this claim. Surely if this claim is found to be false it’s a CPR issue?

    Report
    1. Chri Wood
      October 17, 2016 at 07:29

      Looking at the ratio of new instructions to sstc on their website makes interesting reading, including at the claims of numbers coming to the market each month by the group.

      Report
      1. Thomas Flowers
        October 17, 2016 at 11:45

        I agree Chris.

        We need PeeBee on this trail.

        88%!

         

        It appears that PB have approx 198 pages of listings x 10 per listings per page = 1980 listings on RM today?

        SSTC and listings combined approx 326 pages x 10 per page = 3260 combined properties?

        3260 combined listings less 1980 on sale = 1280 sstc (have any of these completed)?

        Therefore 1280 sales divided by 1980 on market x 100 to get a percentage =

        65% of listings are market as sold?

        Can PB or anyone else clarify whether these observations are correct?

         

         

         

         

        Report
        1. P-Daddy
          October 17, 2016 at 12:20

          I have done a comparison on a region basis…just to stand chance of getting some slightly more detailed %. This is a Hampshire stat, currently 283 on the market including 170 stc which is a conversion rate currently of just over 60%! I’m sure others can do the same for their regions to give a tally for the whole country…but intriguing that we are both in the 60% region, unless there are some hot spots they cover in the country.

          Report
          1. Chri Wood
            October 17, 2016 at 12:38

            And of course, neither of these figures factors in sales that fall through once agreed. The instructions to SSTC numbers I have looked at on their website including some SSTC properties that might possibly need to be ‘audited’ (ahem), by Purplebricks, suggests that the 88% figure is going to take some explaining.

            Report
        2. PeeBee
          October 17, 2016 at 14:27

          PeeBee has been on that particular “trail” for a year, Mr Flowers.

          And many other trails, also.

          Report
          1. Chri Wood
            October 17, 2016 at 15:59

            My browser seems to be preventing ‘likes’ at present but, the thought was there Sir

            Report
          2. Thomas Flowers
            October 17, 2016 at 16:42

            That is exactly why I thought of you first PeeBee!

            If anyone can contradict this amazing 88% conversion rate, it is you.

            I, and many others are always grateful for your input and efforts.

             

            Report
            1. PeeBee
              October 17, 2016 at 22:23

              Thank you – your words are genuinely gratefully received.

              I’m going to have a look at the recorded “listings” for November & December 2015 to see how the stats stack.

              Won’t be a five-minute job – but watch this space…

              Report
  4. Ricky_Villa
    October 17, 2016 at 07:30

    Is it listing to sale agreed at 88% or listing to completion at 88% as there is a Big difference.

    Report
  5. simonjfisher
    October 17, 2016 at 07:42

    The only way it could be 88% is if it based only on properties that sell, i.e. 88% of properties that they are successful in selling get sold within 10 months. This way they could ignore the 75% that get fed up with waiting for something to happen & switch to an actual estate agent.

    Report
    1. mrharvey
      October 17, 2016 at 09:16

      That was going to be my point and seems to me the only way to spin this statistic.

      List 1,000 properties.

      Sell 100.

      88 of those sell within 10 months. The other 900, swept under the rug.

      Either way, it’s not much to boast about.

      Report
  6. Robert May
    October 17, 2016 at 07:50

    Mr Bruce also  said that people who sell ‘no sale, no fee’  are are being taxed to subsidise those who don’t sell.

    Working through  Purplebrick’s various claims and press releases  they list 3000 properties each month. That means  the 4320  (12% of 36,000)  vendors who don’t sell are spending  £4.66 million  subsidising those who do sell.   Rather than a tax I guess that really is money for nothing which makes it OK.

    Report
  7. Aaron
    October 17, 2016 at 08:20

    No Sale, No Fee was “fundamentally unfair”.

    I personally would suggest that it isn’t! Us as estate agents, listing agents or call centre ‘agents’ acting in the interest of their customers have a duty of care to give the correct advice, not to just win the instruction, but to enable that customer to achieve what they set out to – move home.

    If you as an estate agent cannot give the correct advice and fail to sell your customers property because you are a) not very good at your job; or b) are simply thinking of your self and your own listing statistics, why should you be paid?

    If you are confident of giving the most fantastic service to your customer, throughout the entire transaction & giving the best advice to enable your customer to achieve their goal, than working on a no sale no fee policy shouldn’t scare you and is certainly not ‘unfair’

    Report
  8. tpascoe63
    October 17, 2016 at 08:38

    Their “local property experts” are just former sales negotiators. They’re all paid on instruction, there is no carrot and no motivation to actually sell it once it’s listed.

    Report
    1. PeeBee
      October 17, 2016 at 09:43

      I would agree with the above… BUT…

      A recent Trustpilot review gives a slightly different cause for consideration on this:

      “(Name omitted) was very friendly but I felt rather patronising and when she asked for feedback only seemed to be interested in getting a 5 star rating in order for her to go on holiday to New York as a perk from Purple Bricks!! As I only had two conversations with (name omitted) who came quite late to the party there would be no 5 star rating from me I’m afraid”

      Interestingly, the reviewer, who went on to state “I think the concept of Purple Bricks is very good and if you have a house to sell which is pretty standard to the others in your area you will get a good service however from reading the reviews unfortunately the property expert I had lost interest very quickly and I will not be recommending Purple Bricks to anyone.” still gave the company a two-star rating.

      Some may say ‘that’s two too many’…

      Report
      1. Woodentop
        October 17, 2016 at 11:08

        The trouble with TrustPilot and the like, is the data is manipulated and then manipulated again to the advantage of PB & Co public relations. TrusPillot themselves have to have a system in place to weed out fakes and they would have us believe they do it, yes the obvious ones but they or any other review site can’t give guarantee that ANY review is genuine. Unless they can provide guarantees, the ASA should require anyone using reviews data to disclose “the rating cannot be corroborated and not all customer gave us 5 star”. The consumer is normally looking for reviews that didn’t give a 5 star, that’s the pitfall they are watching out for.

         

        As a national organisation but trading with much importance “at local level”, PB should be made to stop using national figures and made to use local stats to compare with local agents = like for like and relevant to the consumer. But then we all know that would really show them up!

        Report
      2. Trevor Mealham
        October 17, 2016 at 12:39

        PeeBee:  a ‘like’ for your comment.

        Interestingly, the reviewer, who went on to state “I think the concept of Purple Bricks is very good and if you have a house to sell which is pretty standard to the others in your area

        If like homes are available at like prices – a simple £25 FS board would pull in drivers by to find out more.

        All said RM and Z fail to have many of the other attributes proper agents have which is where real value is.

        Equally, if a home doesn’t sell, then No Sale No fee becomes much cheaper than money for no buyer.

        Report
  9. RealAgent
    October 17, 2016 at 08:54

    Certainly locally to me the cracks are beginning to show. I’ve been contacted by two of Purplebricks so called local experts looking for jobs within the last month.

    The reality is they are not selling anywhere near 88% of the property they take on and their local reps are now fielding loads of calls from unhappy vendors.

    Also for many of them they now have big tax bills to pay in January and  being self employed is not quite as much fun when they realise that you can stuff your pockets with sweets from the sweetshop, but at some point you need to pay for them.

     

    Report
    1. Trevor Mealham
      October 17, 2016 at 12:42

      Agree RealAgent.  Equally the PB reps are facing more ‘We can save you £housands models offering to list on main portals for much less – £99 in cases through to £399/£499

      How long will the VC’s keep funding flawed models

      Report
    2. AgentV
      October 17, 2016 at 13:50

      I am really interested in your comments RealAgent. Having spoken to these people, do you know how much are they typically renumerated per listing (is it 50% of the overall fee, for instance)…and how many listings have they been doing per month say? Also if they have been truly stuffing their pockets why are they looking to leave? You might have some valuable insight here.

      Report
  10. yawn
    October 17, 2016 at 08:58

    88% of those that actually SELL do so in 10 months or 88% of ALL listings? When will he be made to evidence his claims?

    Report
    1. g4lvo17
      October 17, 2016 at 09:22

      He states 88% of INSTRUCTIONS sell within 10 months, that’s highly improbable, but now on public record, lets see the facts please Mr Bruce and then we can all shut up and apply to you to be a “local” property expert !!!!!

      Report
  11. Eric Walker
    October 17, 2016 at 09:16

    ‘12% stay on the market until they are sold’

    I have noted 4 Purple Bricks boards near me which have been up so long they have started to sprout. Each of them now has a sold board – but sold by traditional high street agents. As such that statement cannot be accurate.

    How many vendors wait beyond 10 months to sell?

    Report
    1. PeeBee
      October 17, 2016 at 09:56

      Am I wrong – or have I seen somewhere that the PB ‘Listing Agreement’ is for a ten-month period?

      Report
      1. Chri Wood
        October 17, 2016 at 10:29

        Customers have to pay up within a 10 month period I believe…

        Report
        1. PeeBee
          October 17, 2016 at 10:44

          So… how long is their “Agreement” period for?

          Report
          1. Trevor Mealham
            October 17, 2016 at 12:46

            Its the 15th day that is important PeeBee, ie a day past the 14 day cooling off period when the signup contract for x weeks on the market is irrelevant.

            By then the moneys banked and non returnable. Or the pay later agreement has passed its earlier stage cancellation.

             

             

            Report
            1. PeeBee
              October 17, 2016 at 14:21

              My original comment is awaiting moderation as I have included the website addresses – this is the comment with them removed:

              Mr Mealham

              How many of PBs vendors are advised of – or qualify for – the fabled “14-Day Cooling Off Period”?

              On their Ts&Cs they state this:

              “Pease note: In the event that we have made your advert live by advertising it on <PB website, RM website, Z website>, we will for the purposes of the regulations have provided you an advertising service and as such you will not be entitled to a refund.”

              Report
  12. Herb
    October 17, 2016 at 09:53

    There are two aspects here.

    1. Your sale rate will be higher – if people have paid upfront they are more likely to stick it out with you for 10 months and keep reducing until you sell.

    2. 10 months is awful

    Report
  13. Chri Wood
    October 17, 2016 at 11:00

    Can anyone explain to me why, if you are selling 88% of your customers homes, that you aren’t screaming that statistic in all of your TV advertising?

    Report
    1. Trevor Mealham
      October 17, 2016 at 12:48

      Few would have the Flu jab, if the advert made a big fuss over the needle

      Report
  14. Woodentop
    October 17, 2016 at 11:27

    Anyone who says they can sell nearly 90% of their stock is probably the first in history. No agent with a large portfolio has ever achieved that, let alone in 10 months. Every agent has an abandoned rate, not liked property, over priced, poor survey, lender declines, switches agent, vendor or purchaser changes mind (varied reason). Small and very good agents hover around the 15% to 25%, while the corporates can get up to and over 50% fall through rate. The only way you can say you sell 88% is to sell under priced and even then takes 10 months or longer.

     

    Vendors don’t want to wait 10 months and the wheel comes off when they have to pay for a shobby service when they could have had it for free with a local agent, who has a local stock of potential buyers being 60% of the market not using the internet and that fixed fee model means PB hasn’t any incentive what the property sells for which goes against the Estate Agency Act of exposing the property to the market to get the best possible price.

     

    The message is: Did you instruct PB because of the fee, when the local high street agent may very well have charged you more, but not that more in many areas of the UK and more likely have got you more that would have paid the local agents extra fee and still left you with extra? You got more and get a better service!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Report
  15. AgentV
    October 17, 2016 at 13:32

    The only way to answer all the claims and questions about PB is to record the address and date listed of every new property they bring to market (so thats about 100 a day, say), and then record the date of sale completion when it appears on the land registry. This will give us the answers to;

    a). Date listed.

    b). Time from listing till completion.

    c). Eventual sale price compared to original asking price.

    d). As good as we can get evidence of the numbers and percentages actually listed and actually sold.

    It will also enable any delisting, relisting, juggling etc.to be highlighted

    I am sure a group of ten volunteers, to section up the country, could enable this to be done (each aiming to identify ten new instruction addresses a day). I am also sure Robert could cut down some of the work with some excellent software. Then there would be no quibble about the results claimed, and there would be evidence to refute false claims. After all that’s what we all want isn’t it?. We all believe claims are being made that aren’t true and we just want the ability to see the truth in verified numbers.

    Simples.

     

    Report
    1. Robert May
      October 17, 2016 at 14:06

      Given the seriousness of the claim by the CEO of a PLC  I suspect someone else will do all of that auditing. You will notice Mr Lewis was a bit taken aback and asks for confirmation of what was said.

      The numbers already counted up and published in this comment stream  cast doubt over the numbers of properties listed and the conversion rate.

      Report
  16. Tuf Luv
    October 17, 2016 at 13:49

    OK so I’m loaded, wanted in four states and just upgraded to a Samsung Note 7 (stop falling in love with me Ros) but Lewis and Pryor in the same room? Sorry doesn’t nearly cover it.

    “We sell the greatest percentage of properties than any other agent in the UK.” Spoken like a true fat kid. Jeez, high street agency could slap my momma in the face and I still wouldn’t go online because these check box agents only value the package of listings; as if only the total quantity matters. That lacks the acknowledgement of the effort and expense required to deliver a proper service. “Cold chill blowing down the high street.” Come on dude, carefully selecting aberrational points doesn’t indicate a pervasive agency problem. Unless you’re a j*rk off looking for clicks. Sweet baby Jes*s, how do you get to 88% when your feelings aren’t the metric?

    Dude, when I die I want it to be in a hospital. Liquored up and raving at some poor nurse about how these guys are nothing but a false flag operation. Amen to that.

    Report
  17. PeeBee
    October 17, 2016 at 15:34

    The programme in itself was shameful.  It was headlined as

    “Using an online estate agent will cost you money – even if your property doesn’t sell.”

    However, the young lady who the programme had been cobbled around had a few seconds to state a very small part of her dissatisfaction.

    The person, and her plight – the supposed subject of the programme – was shamelessly pushed to one side and what followed, in this case the remainder of the programme, was allowed to turn into advertising of services.

    And for padding there was more fluff supplied than could be extracted from the bellybuttons of every creature ever to walk the earth.

    The only positive thing to come from it – which sadly does nothing whatsoever for the plight of Ms Buckley-Scott – was that PB’s CEO has potentially challenged the use of the one-time King of the jewellery world’s name as synonym for a cataclysmic faux-pas with his own superb offering.

    Who knows… in future a monumental foot-in-the-gob job – such as a situation whereby fantasy statistics chucked into an argument for effect are challenged and transpire to be complete, unadulterated ******** – could well be referred to as “a Bruce Moment”.

    Stranger things have happened – and I’m sure Mr Ratner will swiftly get over the pain and embarrassment of the past biting his @$$ on a daily basis for several decades coming to an end.

    Is it too early to say

    ALL HAIL THE NEW ‘KING’?

    Report
    1. AgentV
      October 17, 2016 at 16:27

      Yes but who is going to prove or disprove the 88% claim? He also claimed it was the highest rate for any agent in the country. How does he know it is higher than my rate? How can he prove that unsubstantiated claim which millions of people might have heard being unchallenged by the BBC?

      Where is the evidence?

      There was also no one there who pointed out that PB is;

      a). Currently losing money….so investors are subsidising the offering. (and how long will that continue for)

      b). That walk away ‘money in pocket’ is worth more to people than saving on a fee.

      We desperately need a spokesman for the ‘independent agent’ to offer a balancing perspective to these claims (and it needs to be a selling agent…not a buying one). But more importantly we need the evidence gathered to refute claims (or equally prove them, if it is the truth – I just want it to be fair and just).

      There is no such thing as bad publicity…..it is still publicity….R..n air appeared to me to encourage it for years and it helped them grow exponentially.

      I worry unfortunately that the 88% claim ‘and the highest amongst any agent’ will remain unchallenged and unproven, and PB will have come to the notice of thousands of extra customers through the BBC.

      I hope PeeBee that you are right and my concerns are proven wrong….. but who is going to disprove the claims made?

      Report
    2. agency negotiation limited
      October 17, 2016 at 16:55

      Couldn’t agree more. The programme did nothing to improve the plight of the vendor and reduced her chances of writing off the liability to zero.  It seems that the original LPE left two months after the instruction. I presume he was paid for his ‘work’. He was temporarily replaced by the Chester LPE who has assumed the role of agent for the past eight months. Has he been paid out of the fee? If not, hardly surprising that his performance falls below any known standard.

       

      Report
      1. PeeBee
        October 17, 2016 at 17:22

        “Has he been paid out of the fee? If not, hardly surprising that his performance falls below any known standard.”

        Sir – this shows how little you appreciate the workings of our industry.

        A true career Estate Agent would simply roll up their sleeves and do the job with gusto… not because there is some financial reward for doing so – but because “it’s there to do.”

        I retweeted her plight to you two weeks ago.  What have you done for her in those two weeks?

        If I were local to this lady I would have happily offered to market her property for her at no charge whatsoever.

        From what I have seen your only input to date has been to ask whether the required result is a sale or an embarrassment – which in itself I would suggest you should be embarrassed for asking.

        Report
        1. agency negotiation limited
          October 18, 2016 at 08:59

          “What have I done for her in those two weeks?”.  I have asked numerous questions of her. Such as has she been in touch with the Lender to confirm her intention to sell? Does the shared ownership require that she first markets through them? Have they requested a surveyors valuation if it was necessary to sell through them first?  What was the initial asking price? Numerous questions. The majority of which went unanswered!! In part, my email’s to her were often unanswered as she claimed they had gone to her spam folder (which I presume you will find appropriate).

          I have recommended two agents in the Birkenhead area to her. Both have experience of selling shared-ownership flats. FYI, Karl Tatler and Lesley Hooks. They are both happy to appraise and the former has called me twice to follow up on my initial conversation with them.

          I advised Jo that I was happy to personally meet with Michael Bruce or email him to attempt to have the liability written-off. That I would be happy to manage the relationship with either of the agents she was to appoint in future to ensure they remained ‘on her case’.

          However, she was persuaded to take part in a dubious Radio 4 show that , in hindsight, has done very little at present to alleviate her situation. Hence my question on the Twitter feed concerning different agendas. Yes, it’s great to slag off PurpleBricks. I do it all the time. But, the prime concern in my mind was to reduce her liability as low as possible and, offering Michael Bruce prime time radio space to promote his services has done little to bring this about.

          Jo has emailed to tell me she now has decided to sell in January.

          I accept your comments about a true agent doing the job without reward “because it is there to do”. That I why I have been attempting to advise Jo. Without charge since it is inappropriate in this instance. However, there are many agents, in my experience, that are financially motivated and their priorities lie elsewhere if there is no reward. Short-sighted, I know, but there it is.

          The tweet that causes such unrest with both yourself and Robert May was a simple enough question. Are we here to embarrass PurpleBricks? (turns out the answer was yes). I wasn’t aware that when you first suggested my involvement there were other, far more worthy, persons on the case. Chris, Robert, Ros and your good self are far more capable of stoking that particular fire.

          Your original tweet to me was “Now would be a good time to convince me”. I think Jo has proved beyond doubt that vendors need help in choosing any estate agency. Many Eye contributors felt that was not the case. Time will tell.

          In case you might wonder. I am still happy to help Jo, whenever. She has my email.

          Report
          1. PeeBee
            October 18, 2016 at 11:58

            “Are we here to embarrass PurpleBricks? (turns out the answer was yes).”

            I’m sorry – the qualification for your “yes” to that question would be what, exactly?

             “I wasn’t aware that when you first suggested my involvement there were other, far more worthy, persons on the case.” 

            You had the link to the Tweet thread.  Poor preparation etc, etc…

            “Your original tweet to me was “Now would be a good time to convince me”.”

            Yes, it was – and up to the above post you have done nothing whatsoever in that respect, which I find most surprising.

            Rattling a few keys today to tell me you have apparently done all the above is one thing (under pressure I add) – yet you missed your chance to change my longstanding opinion of your purpose in our industry despite being fed the bait.

            You may think that doing so is of no importance – fair enough if that be the case – but I would respectfully suggest that you never know how much business that might have won for you.

            “That I why I have been attempting to advise Jo. Without charge since it is inappropriate in this instance.”

            You have no possible comprehension of how far down the snake you would have slid in my estimations had that not been the case.

            As is – you’re still on the same rung of the ladder you were on two weeks ago.

            “I think Jo has proved beyond doubt that vendors need help in choosing any estate agency.”

            There are always people who need help – just as there are people who don’t.  Rather than (as you suggest be the case) “causing embarrassment” for certain Agents, I and the rest of the group of Agents and Industry Suppliers have given up considerable time, trouble and in some cases incurred actual expense highlighting potential bad practice and working with Authorities to make our industry a safer place for vendors, purchasers, Landlords and tenants.

            It is all about the public, Sir – the Jo’s of this world – as they keep me and my colleagues in industry in the positions we are sitting in now.

            Report
            1. agency negotiation limited
              October 18, 2016 at 16:17

              The qualification for “Yes” would be that the majority of posts on this page have focused on undermining PurpleBricks ( a worthy cause), rather than on how Jo might be better helped. It is difficult, I appreciate, if the vendor fails to communicate sufficient information to make that practical, but given the position she finds herself in, your early advice to her on poor photos etc. may have been more helpful to her than most of the comments on this page.

              I stand by my original comment and conclusion that this has become more a ‘story’ How many of the above messages have offered advice to the vendor, other than your good self and two others? Ignore the fact that it was PurpleBricks. Let’s say it was a Wirral based high street agency that had done the exact same thing. Any story there?

              I do recognise the worthy work that you and many of your colleagues do to highlight bad practice and commend you for it.  The industry would be a lot worse off without you.

              It might well be that I am on the same rung of the ladder as was the case 2 weeks ago. Fortunately, I am not reliant on the “largesse” of the estate agency sector as are other agency review sites and service providers. I am committed to helping vendors achieve the best result when they come to selling. The message I put out is designed to deter those agents that I do not wish to work with. I find that the forward thinking agents appreciate what we are doing in helping vendors avoid mistakes such as instructing PurpleBricks and similar.

              I am not, as they say, holding my breath that we might move a rung or so up the ladder. But, thank you for including me in the original thread.

               

              Report
              1. PeeBee
                October 18, 2016 at 22:48

                “The qualification for “Yes” would be that the majority of posts on this page have focused on undermining PurpleBricks ( a worthy cause), rather than on how Jo might be better helped.”

                I disagree completely with your thought process here. For all you know none of the posters you are referring to even heard the programme, and are simply responding to the title and content of the article.

                I will repeat my previous comments – the actual programme was a sham.  A few seconds devoted to the plight of the lady and then thrown open to Messrs Bruce and Pryor to divert the attention to their own agendas and egos.

                The programme could still have been running on that fuel.

                It is easier – FAR easier – to see what is cataclysmically wrong with the listing of Jo’s property than it is to discern if anything is actually right.  Looking past the glaring, visible ‘wrongs’ that have been allowed to mar the listing – some of which I touched upon – it appears that the fundamental basis of the instruction itself – the advice offered by the Agent – was fatally flawed in the first instance.

                NONE of this was allowed to be touched upon in the programme.

                Hardly surprising, then, that comments based upon what has been reported above have not resulted in Ms Buckley-Scott’s white knight charging forth on his trusty steed and whip her to the safety of a successful sale, and instead concentrated on the preposterous claims of unrivaled success made by Mr Bruce – is it?

                Report
                1. agency negotiation limited
                  October 19, 2016 at 15:27

                  No, it is, as you say, hardly surprising then that the comments have concentrated on the preposterous claim by Mr. Bruce. I accept your argument.  You will find no disagreement from me either that the programme was an absolute sham for the reasons you state.

                  The difficulty with any media is that they control the content. Whilst it may have been a well-meaning to invite the attention of Radio 4, it did not serve the intended purpose. My question was: Is this a story? It turned into one, but I accept that this may not have aligned with the original intent.

                   

                   

                   

                  Report
                  1. PeeBee
                    October 20, 2016 at 12:57

                    “The difficulty with any media is that they control the content.”

                    The strapline on the R4 website stated

                    “Using an online estate agent will cost you money – even if your property doesn’t sell.”

                    How relevant was that to what the listeners heard?

                    They LOST CONTROL of the content – simple as. Or allowed it to be taken from them.

                    In my opinion, the baton was handed firmly to Messrs Bruce & Pryor for them to run their own races.

                    Poor form on the BBCs behalf.

                    Report
                    1. agency negotiation limited
                      October 20, 2016 at 15:27

                      Choice of Henry Pryor somewhat surprising. Chris Wood or Robert May would have provided more balance. As you rightly say. Shame on the BBC

                      Report
                    2. PeeBee
                      October 20, 2016 at 17:30

                      Maybe Mr Pryor wasn’t ‘chosen’…

                      …maybe ‘balance’ wasn’t on the agenda.

                      We will never know.

                      Report
  18. PeeBee
    October 17, 2016 at 17:00

    A quick run-through of the ‘main’ NoSalePayFee Agents websites:

    Purplebricks

    Instruct to sell for £849  Selling fee of £1,199 in London and surrounding areas

    eMoov

    “Sell for just £679” (less the ongoing £100 “Limited Time Offer” – a bit like MFI Sale…)

    HouseSimple

    “Fixed fees from £445 | No sale, no fee from £895”

    YOPA

    “FIXED £780 FEE. (£1,140 in some London postcodes)”

    EasyProperty

    “Sell your home from £475 inc VAT”

    NO mention of the “what if…?” – because of course to them there is NO “what if…?” – It’s banked, spent… and the interest has moved on to the next mark.

    Report
  19. Richard247
    October 17, 2016 at 21:55

    Wow that’s a lot of sales

    Report
    1. PeeBee
      October 17, 2016 at 22:06

      Or a lot of unadulterated MDT.

      You choose.  I have.

      Report
  20. PeeBee
    October 17, 2016 at 23:50

    On the programme, Mr Bruce states

    “…eighty-eight percent of people… sell their house prior to the period of deferment which is ten months…”

    Well… maybe they do.  He may well be spouting factual correctness – whether we like it or not.

    What he actually DOESN’T say, though, is that those 88% of homes sold within ten months actually sell through Purplebricks!

    They can sell any way they want to.  They can appoint another Agent to finish the job properly; Part-ex with a builder; go to WeBuyAnyRoofDotCom – takes your pick how you wants to get it sold, folk.

    Because let’s face the brutal truth – he doesn’t have to give a fuppenny whether they do or don’t.

    Report
  21. Fawkes
    October 18, 2016 at 07:14

    Not sure I’ve ever seen so many comments, so early in the morning. Talk about seize the day.

    I digress. IF, and its a very BIG if, the PB figures are even close to accurate, much of that will be due to the determined attitude of the vendors in question and little to do with that of PB. In my experience, many Vendors, unhappy as they may be, will stick with PB to the bitter end as have paid hundreds of pounds up front.

    Report
  22. Chrispy
    October 18, 2016 at 08:05

    Does anyone else just think that he was told by his team that of the houses PB do sell 88% sell within 10 months but in the interview he made the claim, was questioned on it and got flustered/ nervous and didn’t want to embarrass himself by being honest?

    Report
    1. PeeBee
      October 18, 2016 at 10:33

      There was an awful lot of “umming” and “erring” by Mr Bruce in the interview – but cold hard fact is that he said what he said and now, as an Officer of his PLC company, will have to account for it to any of his shareholders and/or authorities that see the very real need to question his very precise statement.

      Report
  23. Chri Wood
    October 18, 2016 at 12:30

    Mr Bruce was asked a specific question and then asked it again to clarify by Paul. If Mr Bruce misspoke (which can happen to anyone) he now needs to come clean and issue a retraction and a complete answer to the question by Paul.

    Alternatively, Purplebricks PLC, now need to justify these numbers and answer Pauls’ original question “how many paying customers actually go on to sell using PurpleBricks’ service”

    Report
    1. PeeBee
      October 18, 2016 at 13:27

      Chris – interesting correlation between the 88% figure that Mr Bruce blurted out at the weekend, and the previously quoted statistic (as reported here on EYE on 17/6/16), when Jeffries anthony Codling “challenged Purplebricks’ claim that it had a 77% conversion rate from instruction to sale.”

      All the eights… All the sevens… an increase of all the ones – legs eleven!

      What next – “All the nines… ninely nine” by Christmas, maybe?

      Sounds like they are playing BINGO with people’s homes and lives.

      An improvement on what some might say is Russian Roulette, I guess…

      Report
  24. Whaley
    October 22, 2016 at 09:29

    Any reason why the recording was taken down later in the day?

    Report
X

You must be logged in to report this comment!

Log In Register

Back to Homepage

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.