Over half of Martin & Co’s lettings franchise group is now trading in estate agency, with more to follow.
Managing director Ian Wilson – who today is calling for the lettings industry to set up a fighting fund to challenge Shelter – said that so far, just under 1,000 sales have been agreed and £500,000 worth of fees have been banked. The sales proposition was launched a year ago.
Wilson said: “Being a letting specialist is great when the estate agents stuck to their knitting, or the market favoured lettings.
“But we really do think that a modern property business has to be engaged in the buying, selling and letting of investment properties.”
Wilson said: “We will pass 30,000 managed properties in June, and if we did not offer sales I’d be seriously concerned about the potential to lose 10 or 15% of that portfolio over the next few years as clients test the option of selling.”
He said he thought that competitors Belvoir and Leaders, which have both stuck to lettings, must be concerned.
Wilson also called on the industry to establish a legal fighting fund to challenge Shelter’s moves to get letting agency fees to tenants banned.
Wilson pledged to put £1,000 into a fund, if 50 other businesses supported it.
He said: “Shelter is a charity and it benefits from tax advantages because of its charitable status. It has to expend its efforts on its charitable aims and if it strays into other political activities [such as helping people avoid paying letting agents fees], then it should be reported to the Charity Commissioner and tied up in legal action through the courts.
“As an industry we have the cash to pay for the best and most aggressive commercial lawyers to take Shelter on, but we have to act collectively. Tenant fees are probably worth £200m to us all, maybe much more, so it’s a fight worth having.”
For the full story, see today’s interview in the blog section. It makes for interesting and thought-provoking reading.
.png)
.jpg)
Comments
Sorry to disagree, to pour unqualified anecdotal evidence on a fire lit by Shelter is giving them [Shelter] unwarranted support.
It is no good just to blab out things that are widely reported by the media verbatim. It appears that Rogue Agents and Rogue Landlords are mythical beasts devised to support an otherwise weak position. Ms Kenny ought to be in a position where rather than recite stuff that appears on the telly, radio and internet that seems to fit the occasion she would have been better to take the lead in challenging Shelter rather than leave if to grass root Agents to orchestrate.
Arnie - with respect you must read Kenny's comment again - she definitely is not supportive of Shelter!!
In Wilson's blog he says she speaks a lot of sense... I'm also a loyal member of UKALA !!
One only has to look at the Facebook Likes and Links to Twitter that the main story has attracted to realise that a simple story has already reached a very large majority of Agents in this country, one tweet alone of the story went out to best part of 5000 followers!
The message to the trustees of Shelter ought to be clear, work with the honest and decent majority of Agents, allow us to earn an honest and fair living and let us deal with the low end providers of accommodation and low end Agents.
There is a thin line between campaigning and lobbying, Shelter clearly crossed the line in Scotland, does that mean Ian Wilson and the rest of the industry should have to put their hands in their pockets to prevent the same thing happening here?
One interesting conversation to hear would be the one between Ian Wilson and Ms Kenny who only the other day seemed to be supporting the Shelter campaign. Given Martin and Co are probably the single most influential member of UKALA and supporter of its ambitions to become a credible trade body it seemed strange for Ms Kenny to be baying with the hounds when here allegiance dictate she ought to be looking after the fox. Perhaps Ms Kenny didn’t realise the implications of the Shelter campaign were far more detrimental to the majority of decent agents than ever it would be on the fractional percentage of bad agents.
What Martin and Co are suggesting seems very sensible to me.
I think because Martin and Co have a presence north of the border they are aware of the danger of leaving it to a trade body to argue that fees are fair and reasonable.
In Scotland all the agents waited on ARLA or someone else to fight their corner and in the end nobody did anything and firms lost 7% of their income overnight.
@Ray Evans you asked " ARLA, to which many letting agents are paying subscriptions, is invisible to agents and the public! Why?"
With no disrespect intended at all to Ian Potter it is a case of where on earth does one start?
There is no doubt in my mind that Ian is exactly the right man to lead ARLA by the hand away from NFOPP to re-establish the respect ARLA used to enjoy. Ian Potter has a strong and sound understanding of the industry and the pressures that affect it.
Given the authority and power that anyone in Ian's position would have to face and challenge to effect positive change for the industry it is little surprise to me that Ian has a mammoth task on his hands. Given that he is also having to fight and rebuild a membership that has become disillusioned and apathetic at the disconnect between head office and member firms there really is huge pressure focused on one person. As a non ARLA member I might be talking out of turn, if so I apologise, but I think Ian needs help. He needs the support of ARLA firms and ARLA members before he can support them.
NFoPP is in my opinion a bloated administration that is trying to do too many things with too many staff to the detriment of its raison d'être. Free Ian Potter of the menial burdens of running an Association steeped in legacy not of his making and I think he would make a very worthy opponent to anyone who seeks to challenge the integrity of our industry. That is the point when ARLA members would receive the representation they are desperate for and deserve.
This issue is not really about whether an organization is a 'charity' or not. It is a Trades Union issue and the toothless union, ARLA, to which many letting agents are paying subscriptions, is invisible to agents and the public! Why?
There is little point is setting out to challenge Shelter, a meaningless bun fight simply wastes time and effort for the benefit only of the Solicitors and accountants involved.
I would suggest we set out to form our own charity, not to challenge Shelter but a distinct Charity that seeks to help our specific Industry sector
It has been highlighted how a significant and tax efficient fund could be easily amassed. As an industry we have demonstrated our altruistic nature and are proven generous givers of our time and money. It seems that with our experience of our own industry we are best placed to collect and distribute a charity fund in an efficient manner which is free of political ambition and personal ego.
There are some very well respected industry figures who I am sure would be willing to form a board of trustees so it seems sensible to form a new Industry Charity rather put together a fight fund to have a ruckus with Shelter.
I would suggest £50,000 would be better spent if it were a used to provide deposit loans to 50 or families who are struggling to raise a deposit. Families who would otherwise make sound tenants but to whom saving a typical deposit or the deposit on their next rental is a challenge they struggle to meet.
A deposit loan scheme could easily provide the so hard to save lump sum deposit that prevents many from securing a tenancy or moving between tenancies. With the loan repaid over the course of the tenancy or repaid once the previous tenancy deposit is returned. A deposit loan scheme would help the poorest of tenants into an accommodation that eludes them because of the demand to save a deposit on top of meagre disposable household budgets. A deposit loan fund levels the playing field for the poorest tenants where the need for secure accommodation is probably greatest.
Shelter can lobby hard to reduce agency fees for tenants; in reality all they would achieve is making securing a tenancy cheaper for comapitivly wealthy tenants without helping those in real need.
With our detailed knowledge of the real issues that face tenants and prospective tenants we are better placed to use charity donations to greater effect and on things more worthwhile than inflated salaries, PR, professional fees and political lobbying.