Industry bodies – and agents – will be watching the outcome of today’s proceedings in Parliament with interest.
Most, however, seemed to think that the Government’s decision to bring in its own amendment, requiring letting agents to belong to an ombudsman scheme, is a done deal.
The British Property Federation said it was a step in the right direction, but did not go far enough. It said further action would be needed to get rid of rogue agents.
Policy director Ian Fletcher said: “There are still issues on the table. We should not kid ourselves that this will expunge the sector of bad letting agents. For example, we will continue to campaign to have client money protection insurance extended so that money paid over by landlords and tenants is accounted for and not at risk.”
At RICS, global residential director Peter Bolton King also said it was a “big step forward” but called for letting agents to be required to join a professional regulation scheme.
He said: “The lettings market has for far too long been in danger of becoming the Wild West of property industry. While, clearly, there are good agents out there, the market has been dogged by poor practice and a lack of consumer protection.
“From now on, should a tenant or landlord experience problems due to poor service, they will be able to register their grievance with an independent redress scheme which, if appropriate, will investigate and award compensation.
“RICS has long called for regulation of the lettings industry, and this is a big step towards ensuring tenants and landlords are comprehensively protected.
“What we would now like to see is lettings and managing agents required to sign up to a professional regulation scheme that would ensure a better standard of professionalism right across the sector. We still think there is a very strong business case for better targeted regulation and we are working with Government to this effect.”
At NALS, chief executive Isobel Thomson supported the Government's last minute amendment and called for the industry to work together.
She said: “We welcome this common-sense approach to improving the consumer experience of renting and letting, and support the Government’s amendment as a considered measure.”
She went on: “We believe this is a sensible alternative to the heavy-handed bureaucracy of a formal regulatory regime which we believe would lead to increased rents for tenants and ultimately stifle entry into the market.
“All NALS agents under our strict registration criteria are required to be part of an ombudsman scheme.
“NALS believes that the introduction of mandatory membership of an ombudsman scheme is the first step, and there is more industry organisations can achieve.
“We need to work collaboratively for the interest of the consumer on initiatives such as the SAFEagent campaign to raise awareness among consumers of the protection they are afforded by using an agent who is part of a Client Money Protection Scheme.
“We see SAFEagent as wholly complementary to the proposed amendment for the benefit of the consumer.
“We await the outcome of the debate in Parliament.”
.jpg)
Comments
What is cmp?
I will take your silence as an apology. Humbled embarrassment is as good as a sorry.
You know about the law IO, what possible legal challenge can there be against expulsion from RICS for breaking the rule that prohibits nicking or borrowing money?
I doubt a legal challenge against a prison sentence for theft would hold much water even if one was intending only to 'borrow' money from the bank.
It is OK officer I am only borrowing this cash, Mummy and Daddy will have it back tomorrow, they wouldn't like the scandal.
Who was the public face and mouth piece of all that original Nals business? That was the beginning of all that is wrong with the present state of affairs.
An exercise in brown nosing Mr Blair wasn't it? That is how it came across to the very vast majority of ordinary members.
@ Re Nals
A bit of information for you. NALS was not set up by HDH with help from PBK it was set up by a group of regulatory bodies and originally had no regulatory function.
Now that it offers cmp it does have such a function and duty.
I sometimes wonder whether none of these bodies takes strong enough action, including defrocking and bankrupting members, because they fear their own Rules are not strongh enough to withstand legal challenges from those expelled members.
Just to clear things up, NALS is a scheme and not a regulating body. It was set up to protect consumers about a decade ago by Hugh Dunsmore-Hardy with help from PBK.
Nals is the organisation that ought to bring about better regulation but the reliance on keeping the industry sweet for its very existence means it will not achieve its goals. It is a fluffy pet Alsatian rather than a Guard dog.
I know exactly what I am talking about thank you very much.
Look through the RICs disciplinary hearings and all the evidence is there for all to see; One Agent got a bit tight on auction day and borrowed £381,000 from the client account. Being well connected they managed to put the cash back but this exactly the same act that nearly saw Mr Weston go to jail for borrowing a smaller ammount. The disciplinary hearing that knew all the facts but simply slapped his wrist and handed out the same costs as a hearing involving someone who had not had their CPD signed off.
It seems that there is one law for those with wealthy relatives and one for those without. I agree RICs should have stripped the said agents of their livelihood and reputations but in not doing so they are making a complete mockery of their own regulations by allowing and effectively condoning a serious breach of their own rules.
Seeing how you know so much please explain why some RICs agents are exempt and some are not.
Stonehenge - don't leave NALS off your list !! Everyone else seems to.
Surely the point is that unless and until one of these 'Hot air and Puffery' bodies actually DOES something (rather than continue to collect membership fees) such as unannounced spot checks on agents, nothing much will change I fear.
If any RICS, NAEA, ARLA member "dips" into their clients account then they will not be able to obtain the necessary annual accountant's certificate, and subsequently would lose their membership.
Hot Air and Puffery doesn't appear to understand this.
What exactly is Peter Bolton King trying to achieve?
He sits on top of the organisation with the strongest set of regulation for Estate Agents and Property Managers but can not stop wrong doing by his members. RICS members have membership to an ombudsman scheme but it is not enough to prevent Agents dipping into the Client account when they are financially up against the wall. If anything stands testament to the fact that regulation will not curb those who would do wrong from doing so, it is RICs itself.