Why did you become an estate agent?
I actually fell into the business by accident working initially in Hampshire, then one day decided to head to London … and that was down to my brother. He lived in Docklands which seemed magical to me. He persuaded me come to London and I was offered a position as manager of Alex Neil’s Tower Bridge office.
I stayed there for 11 years, rising to director, and was then group managing director for Bushells from 2008 until its acquisition last year. In February this year, I became regional managing director for Your Move.
How did Nick Cooper approach you about Northwood?
We had a beer together with one eye on the Ashes and I was advised of the change in my career path. The only emotional bit concerned the standard of the cricket.
Were Your Move understanding of your desire to take up your new job, and the circumstances of your doing so?
I enjoyed being RMD of the South-East and loved working with such a great team. We broke a lot of records thanks to the hard work of the staff for which I got credit, an arrangement I rather liked. When I broke my news, Helen Woodhouse and David Newnes were very understanding and immensely supportive. We parted as firm friends.
When did you first become involved in lettings?
I had no lettings experience until I started working in London in 1997. It was a very steep learning curve, but immensely enjoyable. I loved the pace of the industry, but some of the practices I witnessed made me want to do things properly.
How different do you think the two activities – selling and letting – are?
There are a number of common denominators and both are fundamentally a people business. Lettings has become increasingly more technical, and attention to detail is paramount.
The impact of what a lettings agent does has a more profound effect on customers than it does with sales where a number of professional advisers are involved.
Why did you become involved in SAFEagent?
I became fed up with people moaning about lettings agents and complaining that no one ever did anything about it. I was not alone, so a group of us started SAFEagent. A minority of agents give the rest a bad name and most agents do a good job.
I’m passionate about professional standards, but until proper compulsory regulation is introduced, we need to ensure that landlords and tenants are properly informed as to the risks of using unregulated agents. It’s always going to be a challenge to get rogue agents to comply with anything, so we need to empower the consumer.
I am immensely proud of what SAFEagent has achieved and am extremely grateful to all those who have supported it.
How does Northwood deal with tenancy deposits?
Each office is independently owned and operated, and as such is free to decide with which scheme deposits are registered. All franchisees are required to be members of a regulatory body, of the Property Ombudsman and of SAFEagent.
What is Northwood’s stance on fees to tenants and how they are displayed in adverts?
We fully understand and support the need for transparency and have always provided a fee guide for tenants. In fact, East Sussex Trading Standards used Northwood as an example of best practice and we will continue to be at the forefront of compliance.
I sincerely hope that Trading Standards take a very proactive stance on those agents who choose to ignore the November 1 deadline.
What are your ambitions for Northwood?
Our plan is to achieve 100 territories in the UK and develop the business further. We have some very exciting plans in the pipeline.
How do you view the membership bodies?
I have been a member of ARLA and NAEA for many years and am a huge supporter of our friends at NALS. In the absence of compulsory regulation, I believe agents should subscribe to a regulatory body, ensuring that they offer proper consumer protection.
It’s not about being part of a club, it’s a statement that you take the industry seriously and a message to consumers that you have chosen to subscribe to a professional code of practice.
Looking into your crystal ball generally, what do you think are and will be the issues for the agency world?
I think that agency is improving for the better but fear we are in danger of adding too many sticking plasters to fix a broken leg. We need cohesive regulation, not a plethora of registers, licences and red tape.
The truth is that an agent or landlord intent on doing something dishonest isn’t going to opt in or comply with any scheme which catches them out.
We need to focus upon consumer redress in a way that the myriad laws and regulation have failed to address. The fundamental problem remains: to whom does a landlord or tenant turn when their money isn’t where it should be?
I also believe that if all elements of the industry worked together, an early warning of potential problems could be established, protecting consumers and mitigating potential losses.
%20-%20IMAGE%20Client%20Accounting%20%E2%80%93%20what%20are%20your%20options.jpg)
.jpg)
Comments
I have to say that is simply a pathetic attempt at qualifying and quantifying Rogue Agency and if that is as good as you can come up with it rules you out of any intelligent discussion on the subject.
The reason for qualifying and quantifying rogue Agency is to establish who is losing out and by how much they are losing out or being inconvenienced. I think it is fair to say no-one died because of it. Once the cost of Roguery has been established the value of Roguery can be assessed. It is then possible to look at those calling for regulation and see if they are the ones who will derive benefit from regulation.
Christopher Hamer and his Limited liability company pretends to be an official government appointed ombudsman and is one of the main voices calling for compulsory redress, using and promoting the term Rogue Agent to lobby parliament. Does it not seem a bit odd that a firm who will profit from regulation should be allowed to lobby so actively when there is obvious financial gain to be had?
The trade associations have been haemorrhaging members in recent years because of their attitude towards their membership and the muteness on any matter where they should defend the membership, it is unsurprising therefore that RICS and ARLA are at the forefront of the call for regulation which will inevitably lead to compulsory membership.
Neither of these regulation lobbyists are putting forward substantial evidence of consumer loss and it is unsurprising that they want to silence anyone who requests quite reasonable evidence of their claims.
Regulation is appropriate if there is significant loss to the public but not if the commercial gain available to those calling for it out weighs the loss.
You haven't managed to say what exactly the problems are, once one understand what the individual issues are they can be ticked off one by one.
Lincoln Lass cited out of date tenancy agreements as an act of roguery, do you understand what she is going on about? I do; she is referring to a commercial income opportunity by the service suppliers who have told her to buy the 2013 set of agreements. The housing act has changed how much between 2012 and 2013? yet she and umpteen other firms will send their remittance for the 2013 set believing that anyone with a 2012 set is rogue. An AST is an AST and only an incomptetant agent will lose reputation or finance if a court deems a problem with any aggreement the have issued.
Sorry to burst your bubble and without meaning to be rude but if all you can come up with is a Janet and John level justification for regulation, CMP and Redress then you and your business deserves everything your competition can throw at you. Because you do not understand why you are losing business to these characters you have no hope of controlling them.
Give it up - please. The term 'Rogue' is simply any agent who operates outside the parameters one should expext, specifically,: competence, law, and discharging their duty of care to a consumer through compliance, insurance, redress, auditing and transparency.
A rogue may be dishonest, naive or incompetent.
There. That should cover it.
...to argue on line with unknown entities on the internet. What a pity Eric found time to snipe at a person using the moniker Big Ted on EAT rather than answering a simple question on here which he has without doubt read but is un-able/ un-willing to answer.
I hardly think politely requesting a reply to a simple question constitutes being argumentative
There is very little point in me writing an article for LAT when the point for discussion has been raised. Because I have asked Eric to define 'rogue agents' does not mean I do not understand the cliché.
Rogue Agents do not exist and perpetuating the myth is simply the modern day 'Here be Dragons'; a means to describe something one knows exists but can’t really explain. When I say they do not exist it is based on the fact that they are only agents by virtue of the fact they are acting for a landlord. They are not ‘Agents’ in any form that I recognise. I can take a knife and cut up a pig, it does not make me a Butcher.
It is not wrong to seek to change the terminology if my observations of who and what the problems are, based on 25 + years successful and highly competitive experience in the industry, gives me an opinion that differs from Shelter, Government, TSI who have Zero hours actual experience. (Mark Prisk was Housing Minister and did naff all with his experience)
What you need to bear in mind that I know how ill informed a string of government ministers at CLG have been; MP's are simply people who got voted into parliament by their constituents (often because they are only slightly more vote worthy than the other candidates) They are not smarter than you and I, they are not more experienced than you or I, they simply have authority due to circumstance.
12 or so months ago ARLA and RICS should have stood up and pointed out those operating on the lowest level of the industry WERE NOT AGENTS; they are spivs, crooks and opportunists doing what agents do but without experience, skill, integrity or morals. The reason they (ARLA/ RICS) did not do that was because they were too busy schmoozing Clive Betts and his pre-determined CLG inquiry. Their failure to defend the Industry [and use the opportunity to promote professional member firms] on this and the catalogue of Agent blaming/ knocking stories in the media are a certain cause of the question ‘ just whose side are you lot on?’
It is not all the fault of the MP's; they are briefed by civil servants, unfortunately those civil servants appear to be the very root of the problem. There appears to be not a single second of experience of the lettings industry within the entire CLG department. It is therefore unsurprising that the likes of Yvette Cooper and Eric Pickles come out with ill informed and incomplete legislation. In February 2007 a point was made to CLG about TDS, it was ignored and considered of no importance or consequence, 6 years later they Court of appeal said otherwise.
It is because no-one will/can define roguery that the appropriate regulation can not be put in place to control it or those that practice it.
The thing is, no one is going to debate on an industry forum with an unknown entity. If you have valid points to make, write your own article and if LAT deems it sensible, it will get published. I doubt any of the people mentioned really have time to argue on line - especially after having read some of your comments. If you don't understand the term 'rogue' - then there isn't much hope for you. Yep, its overused. but when its the term used by government, shelter, TSI etc, then to respond using another term causes confusion.
That might be the case but it seems he has already caught aloofness. A key skill set for anyone who wants to lord it over the property industry. Bolton-King, Hayward, Potter all remain stony silent on all matters other than when it is good to be heard shouting 'Hurrah' and ‘Hear Hear’ so you will forgive me for me for mistaking this interview as early doors Hustings
He has been asked a simple and straight forward question as a result of his interview; to define what a rogue agent is.
Eric is obviously a very popular chap, that is great but I am not sure why a character like him needs to delegate his response on this simple question to his besotted fans.
Eric.... ARLA MD???? Hahahahahaha - never in a million years.He';s a mate of mine and there is no way he would want that job and besides, he wouldn't mind me saying he would be rubbish. He has a unique way of expressing his opinions which wouldnt be well received ;)
Sorry Dave if you re- read the thread it was me who laid down the point for discussion knowing exactly where it would lead. You have now confirmed that whilst ARLA are banging out advice that only a section 8 should be used to gain posession from a bad tenant an agent is not automatically rogue for the using the more reliable S21 route.
The point I am making is that not using the 'right' form does not make an agent rogue yet people like Lincoln Lass claim it does.
Don't get me wrong I don't think there is anything wrong with Eric raising his profile, but if he is doing it to get himself in the frame for the ARLA MD position I would rather steer him down the road of standing up for the good and honest agents who belong to ARLA and question the likes of Shelter, Which and the BBC who are happy to portray us all as Rogue when in fact they aren't even bothering to check the logic of their own statistics or making the basic distinction between ARLA regulated agents and the rest.
The thing is, you are just talking utter tosh. They are very different things. Any good agent will know why its sometimes more economically viable to use S21 rather than the unreliable S8 route - but thats not the issue.
You said it was a notice to quit. It isn't according to Hale LJ in the test case. That's the point - you dont know what you are talking about and brilliantly fell into a trap which any trained agent would have spotted.
Anyway - its still a good interview - shame you diverted attention - amusing though it was.
But first I suggest you go and read up why it is often better to serve a Section21 notice in place of a section 8 and when you have done that ask your ARLA trainer why they didn't tell you that bit.
You are so wrong it's unbelievable you are in lettings at all.
S21 and S8 are entirely different and used for entirely different reasons. The first geeing notice landlord requires possession at the end of the term the second being for breach.
And the point is, had you done ARLA training, you would know that. That's why agents need to be members is a regulatory body with minimum standards.
We are both trying to make the same point
Because no-one is seemingly in charge of small matters such as the status of either Section 21 versus 8, with some judges favouring one others favouring the other , there is different practice in respect of section notices the length and breadth of the country and it is very much not determined by the law but local practice.
Hahaha. Saw this a mile off.
S21 is expressly not a notice to quit.
Very funny.
unaffilliated agent with no cmp or redress scheme goes home after 12 hours without replying to a childish retort from an agent who thinks every RICS, ARLA, SAFE, NAEA and UKALA Agents correctly serve Section 21 (4) a, Section 21 (1) b or Section 8 notices, much to the smug amusement of an Agent who admits her cheap competition are doing nothing wrong but still considers it reasonable to paint them as rogue even though there is clear and documented evidence of widespread double standards.
Melt. All that posturing but cant answer a simple question - still Google-ing?
@questionfromtheaudience - QED - LOL
Before I do, name me just 2. Go on. I challenge you
I bet you can't. Empty vessels......
How many notices to quit are there? name them and when they are used.
Everything you have mentioned is a misdemeanour committed by the entire spectrum of agencies.
It isn't possible to condemn a new cheap fee agent as rogue if and RICS executive member firm is committing exactly the same roguery.
Trust me I really would like to see the rogues hung drawn and quartered with their guts displayed on the gates of the town for all to see, but what someone has to do first is define rogue.
"They serve notices at the wrong time- ask any of the Lettings trainers the answer to that question and you will get as many varied answers as questions asked "
Have I just entered a new dimension? It's not rocket science. I have NEVER heard a trainer get this key issue wrong. Utter nonsense.
The 'cheap agents' are cheap because they cut corners and dont have the overheads which compliance, regular legal health-checks, training insurances etc attracts. They may be sincere. but they can be dangerous.
Just because a problem hasn't arisen, doesn't mean it wont. The phrase an accident waiting to happen springs to mind - and when it does, there is no safety net.
Personally. I think this CM Protect this is very dangerous - moreso when endorsed by TPOS - Surprised this hasn't been mentioned.
Its rather like knowing a neighbour who is good at electrics - its fine and he probably does a decent job with good intentions and all for a few quid or a beer or two. Then one day, he bodges something - a fire breaks out and you lose your house.
He is very sorry and upset. but being uninsured the fact he is a nice bloke is of little comfort.
Still, at least he was cheaper than a proper firm whose business he has been getting through recommendations - so that's ok.
@QfromtheAudience
"Non compliant contacts? care to explain that one, Not complying with what? who is losing out and what are they losing"
Er - the Law? Housing Acts, UTCCR's, CPR's etc. - such examples abound as do examples of agents serving flawed notices, not dealing properly with deposits, not having proper clients accounts, not having clients money properly audited - the list goes on.
I know of agents whose motives are pure and that are inherently honest who frankly haven't got a clue and their errors in good faith or otherwise could prejudice a landlord recovering their property and losing £1000's whilst mistakes are resolved.
Likewise, some tenants unsure of the rights and wrongs will sometimes just accept unfair terms and hidden charges.
Really, your questions have little point or substance.
Point of order here - you wont find EW ever having criticised ARLA. Trust me - it was one of the things I liked about SAFE. They openly supported membership of the regulators.
The only observation was that licencing confused people which was fair and ARLA agreed.
Non compliant contacts? care to explain that one, Not complying with what? who is losing out and what are they losing.
Not members of a redress scheme, if they have a robust complaints procedure they are not currently breaking any law.
They serve notices at the wrong time- ask any of the Lettings trainers the answer to that question and you will get as many varied answers as questions asked. Invariably that one comes back to the quality of trainer for whichever system they have installed. With that one, it is the agent and landlord who suffers from incorrectly served notices.
Failure to register deposit correctly has a detailed and known remedy, if the hearsay you have heard is reliable do something about it.
Not being members of anything isn't a crime but is probably a prime motivator behind the call for regulation, sticking the RICS gentlemans club to one side the trade bodies have suffered a decimation of membership because of their attitude towards members who have opposed regulation and suggested a robust trade body as ARLA was in the pre NFoPP days of Adrian Turner was all that was really required. There was a halycon time were and Agents aspired for ARLA membership but once NAEA's could get in with the same level of qualification and experience as your to local cheapies the whole organisation was devalued.
I am quite surprised by Eric's apparent turnabout in respect of ARLA the rhetoric in the early days of LAT coverage of SAFEagent is well worth recalling.
Anyhow seems to me your local cheap agents are winning instruction because the are nice people offering cheaper fees than you and the other main players in the area.
You then throw in a snipe about Foxtons, personally like them or loathe them their target vendors and target applicants love them as does the stock market.
I don't think you have described rogue agents you have described competition, and if you can't overcome the objections that are causing you to lose out to them in spite of all you do right and all they do wrong then something is more up with you than it is them.
An interesting interview. It makes a change to read one that isn't self serving and positive about everyone.
We have several agents who offer cheap fees who are not members of anything and, I understand, haven't bothered with any basic insurances.
2 aren't members of a redress scheme and none use compliant contracts and the staff no little about what they do,. They serve notices at the wrong time and we have heard of several issues regarding failure to register deposits.
No - they aren't criminal - in fact a couple are very nice - but they don't care about such things.
The secure business because they appear cheap - but in reality, they aren't. Hidden costs and problems abound. People moan, but they still use then because they quote cheap fees. Yes people talk, but that never bothered Foxtons,.
And once bitten what exactly does that customer do? they tell more of their friends and associates about the bad practice than they ever tell about the good.
Without naming them how many rougue agents operate in your immediate catchment? what are they doing wrong and how do you counter their goings on at the moment without the backing of regulation?
What a surprising statement from someone who purports to be associated with the legal profession.
In order to regulate against something hasn't the wrong got to be identified.
At present it is not against the law to be without any formal educational qualification yet still operate a client cash account which has on average £200,000 of tenant's depsits and transacts £1.68 of landlords monies. I would suggest having an teenage school leaver without a pass grade gcse mathematics running a client account constitutes a far more dubious practice than some ratty spiv who sets up and lets a few skanking bedsits each year. Then there is the wealthy RICS firm who uses the client account as an un- regulated pay day loan system; Such is the nature of the RICS that their members would never be painted as rogue even when caught misappropriating close to £400,000. However in contrast it seems charging a tenant a stiff administration fee to supplement an un economic letting fee is the worse crime in the industry.
I would not codone a single mal practice but until what is right and proper is defined by the action rather than the initials, membership or window sticker it is not right to condemn another agent because their perfectly legal business practice is not identical to ones own.
I can't see why anyone needs to qualify the term 'rogue' or debate semantics.
It means any agent who fails to comply with the Law or act negligently towards their customers whether though malpractice or ignorance.
Yes, its a term which is overused - but in fairness, what's the option? 'Dishonest, incompetent or complacent agents' seems a bit of a mouthful.
Look at the program 'Rogue Traders' - it covers thieves, the incompetent , uninsured and unqualified whose actions or inactions cause harm to others.
I don't see Matt Alright being asked - "Hang on a min, what is a rogue?"
"A sound and solid Lettings and Property Management business has nothing at all to fear from any rogue agent. "
Agreed, but the customers may
Because it is not clear who the rogues are and what they are doing to be rogues there is confusion.
Watchdog provided the nation with an insight into a rogue agent in Manchester. The Agent was not an Agent but a landlord and the tenant was not a residential tenant yet our industry was confusingly painted as rogur, not just the Spivs in Manchester all of us.
The TPO has claimed that complaints have doubled in 5 years without quantifying that the number of upheld complaints was only 0.02% of all tenancies in the year and the doubling was largely due to the number of letting agents subscribing to their redress scheme had more than quinrupled in same 5 year period.
'Rogue Agents' is unqualified and unquantified spin and having been involved with this industry for 27 years know that the only way to deal with rogues of any sort is on a local and individual level. Compete them out of the market with service and factual advice about their(the rogue) mal practice.
Anyway let Eric speak for himself, for once there is a chance of a long running thread that won't drop off the end of the page as other stories come in.
Hopefully it will be robust and some of the self appointed experts that are feeding the media with misinformation will be dragged to give account of their ill informed "expert advice"
A sound and solid Lettings and Property Management business has nothing at all to fear from any rogue agent.
Good interview - sensible points.
@ Question from the audience - "he is not a rogue - he's a very naughty boy"
The term is a bit cliched but I cant believe that it's confusing.
"It’s not about being part of a club, it’s a statement that you take the industry seriously and a message to consumers that you have chosen to subscribe to a professional code of practice"
Spot on.
Nice interview - I for one really miss my old RMD. It's not the same anymore.
Interesting. I agree that something needs to change and that if someone is intent on being dishonest then its damned hard to stop them unless they have to jump through hopes to open a business in the first place and customers are protected.
There are a few bent lawyers - but the Law Society looks after their victims in a way our industry does not.
As I have said before, the vast majority of agents aren't dodgy and the term 'rogue' is overused.
That said, there are two types of rogue in my opinion - those intent on wrong doing (very rare) and those who dont know any better or think that things only go wrong for other people. There may not be any intent, but the results can be the same.
I agree, there should be min standards, but more importantly, min levels of protection. Redress isn't enough.
Fair play - I admire someone who sees problems within an industry but tries to do something about it. Too many people whinge expecting someone else to do something.
Its easy to say that you believe in better standards, but to stick your head above the parapet is a bit harder
Decent interview. I like the idea of an early warning system.
Eric you have used the cliché term 'Rogue agent' please could you define and quantify what that is?
Shelter and other anti Agent organisations spawned this term relatively recently and we are seeing it pop up at every opportunity to justify regulation and here you the man who says he was "fed up with people moaning about lettings agents" essentially joining in the same campaign.
Based on the combined TPO Shelter and OFT complaints figures only 0.11% of all private sector tenancies raised a complaint against either their Agent or their landlord last year. That is not indicative of widespread roguery so I really do wonder whether there is a genuine desire to stamp out this final 11 complaints per 10,000 tenancies or whether it is just a cynical means to provide an official barrier to entry into the industry in order to control competition.
Having been previously assured of your fortitude, I really do hope you won't resort to the Henry Pryor excuse of only having dialogue with real people with real names.