The SAFEagent initiative has now attracted nearly 1,000 agents.
All will be able to use the logo that shows the consumer that they are a letting firm that protects landlords’ and tenants’ money through a client money protection scheme.
SAFEagent has also gained powerful support from the National Union of Students, Which? and Citizens Advice.
They have added their enthusiastic endorsements to backers which already include the likes of Shelter, the Property Ombudsman and the Council of Mortgage Lenders.
In a statement, the NUS said: “NUS is proud to support the SAFEagent scheme. All too often, students can fall prey to letting agents who do not have client money protection, and so can in effect disappear with their (and their landlord's) money.
“We know that the private rented sector is growing, with more and more people relying on the rented accommodation, and therefore it’s vital that we have mechanisms in place to make this a safe and professional sector, and ensure that tenants are not left out of pocket.”
Gillian Guy, chief executive of Citizens Advice, said: “Citizens Advice has a long history of seeking to protect the interests of tenants in the private rented sector, who are often among those who can least afford to lose money to the unscrupulous.
“This scheme helps steer tenants towards reputable letting agents who are properly insured. We are pleased to support it.”
Nick Cooper, chair of the SAFE steering group, said: “Support from such bodies is a mark or recognition for the ethos behind SAFEagent and a boost to our campaign to raise consumer awareness of the need to make an informed choice when using a lettings and management agents to ensure that clients money is protected.
“We welcome the support that these organisations will provide to ensure consumer awareness of SAFE agent is continued well after the consumer launch, which is expected soon.
“With numbers now approaching 1,000 sign-ups, we are well on our way to really making a difference for consumers.”
How do you register for the SAFE mark?
The registration is very simple. You can download a form from www.safeagents.co.uk or contact 0845 519 7992 for more information. Details a firm will need to provide include:
• Name of the Client Money Protection (CMP) Scheme the firm is signed up to
• The renewal date for the Scheme
• Confirmation of the industry organisation the firm is part of and annual renewal date
Firms will be asked to meet the terms and conditions of the SAFE mark and pay a nominal cost of £50 marketing fee per single office firm (multi-site firms pay an additional £10 per office).
Comments
Industry Observer - forgive me - I omitted a key word.
For the sake of good order you stated "If you are an ARLA member cheer up they banned members from taking over firms with a client account black hole"
This is incorrect. I stated "In fact they never did provided the deficit was remedied" - I missed out the word 'immediately for which I apologise'.
In fact we acquired a small management company about 10 years ago which had a £90k defecit - the purchase price was agreed and part of this repaid the defict upon completion of the transaction with the blessing of ARLA. Our due diligence required us to ensure this was correct.
I agree that repaying it over a period of time was forbidden as clearly, at the point of acquisition, the purchasing company would have been in breach of ARLA rules. You will be aware that the ARLA audit does not review accounts at a fixed point in time, rather taken sample balances and payments over the course of the preceding year.
My point was that there is nothing to stop a firm buying an agent with a deficit provide that deficit does not exist after the sale completes.
@Realist
Unless you are very high up in ARLA and have been for some time and can correct me then..............
I can assure you that is not the gist of the position when myself and our MD discussed it in the Directors Club in London with Frances Burkenshaw (then Chairman and in whatever year she held the Chair but for sure 10 years ago) and the then General Secretary or whatever his position was called. The chap who Adrian Turner succeeded and who for years was their equivalent of Sepp Blatter (not on the take I mean but running it like his own private fiefdom!!).
In that conversation the position on taking over a company with a deficit and making it up over a period of time was discussed in detail, and they confirmed ARLA would not be happy with such a proposal EVEN IF IT HAD BEEN MADE GOOD BEFORE THE NEXT BYLAW 3 compliance audit.
I then seem to recall a few years later an article in Agreement reminding members of the position.
There are certyainlky very many in the position though, we can most certainly agree on that!!
Industry Observer - so having read you comments - they didn't ban it at all. In fact they never did provided the deficit was remedied. It has always been so.
A company taking over another with a deficit would fail its next audit if this were not the case.
With no deficit - there would be no CMP issues.
The point was that there are sadly many in this position. That was all.
Sceptic
You make valid points. Not much more to be said on this one I think.
Realist
If you are an ARLA member cheer up they banned members from taking over firms with a client account black hole about 10 years ago, maybe longer. Or at least they frowned heavily at the practice - which curiously arguably put the potential victim landlords and Tenants in a better position if the ARLA member did take over. The problem was the cmp policy and potential claims of course.
About 5 years ago I think it was they relaxed it to a degree - you could take them on, but had to make up the deficit in one hit and before completion of the transfer of business.
I am with Sceptic on this.
We have been offered 4 small independents in the last 12 months - all four have deficits on clients money prompting the sale.
Sad, unacceptable, regrettable, worrying - but true.
Not acceptance, I detest the effect that years of neglect from Government and regulators has had on the industry allowing a minority of bad agents to prosper.
Nevertheless, my suspicion is shared my many in the business and the issue is how to deal with it. Floodgate is an established legal concept which is why many precedents are not applied retrospectively.
I also think that if licencing were to work, there would need to be some sort of amnesty where agents with a deficit are supervised by proper auditors to redress the same.
I believe that a strong message to consumers under one banner will gradually erode the minority of rogue agents who ignore best practise and their ability to procure business. Ultimately only landlords can dictate that and the sooner they realise that cheap fees are not always good - the better.
I find the current situation wholly unacceptable - rather like uninsured drivers, I dont accept the position that 1 in 7 drivers not being insured in some parts of the country - nevertheless, it remains a fact.
@Sceptic
Ideal world? Moi - I'm the realist remember? No just a better world which is relatively easy to achieve (even if it takles time) as long as there is the will there.
Your second paragraph beggars belief. Not the first part about the inability I also suspect of the vast majority of agents (especially those not members of any regulatory body, which is also the vast majority) to submit client accounts that balance and have the money on deposit to prove it.
But your acceptance of that's how it is and we are stuck with it and if we tried to change it then Landlords (and tenants) would have problems. Really? Well more fool them for using unqualified and unscrupulous low fee charging agents in the first place and, dare I say it, of course unlicensed.
"Like agent licensing" - back to your view of an ideal world. I agree. BUT its NOT going to happen any time soon if ever.
Even if it did, when a licence is withdrawn for non compliance the same issues exist.
Lets be honest - meaningful licencing would require every agent to submit to an audit of the clients account. I suspect this would send many agents into administration and the floodgate of consequences would not be welcomed by landlords / tenants (aka voters)
Until then, one voluntary scheme such as SAFE at least brings the competing politics of the other organisations under one message and logo. Its clear, concise and simple.
@RachelS
They do if the contractor is a struck off ex GAS Safe man but is still on their database/website etc (as hwppened with CORGI some years ago).
I agree that if someone paints GAS SAFE on their van, prints it on their letterhead and stixcks the logo on the website then that is nothing to do with GSR - instead it is fraud and passing off. Both offences.
This highlights the whole conundrum for SAFEagent as it's sole raison d'etre is to confirm to the public that anyone claiming to be a SAFEagent is indeed safe courtesy of cmp.
I'm not saying there is a solution or criticising SAFEagent if they have difficuluty finding a cast iron safe one. Which like their logo it needs to be. Usually in my experience the solution to most problems is pretty simple it is the will to implement and the ability to enforce that implementation in a worthwhile manner that is the problem.
Like agent licensing.
To me, the key issue is that consumers need to be aware of CMP and Safe does that nicely.
You can never guard against people who 'claim' to members of an organisation that they are not really members of - that happens in all walks of life - just watch Rogue Traders!
No one criticises Gas Safe when a contractor purports to be registered when they are not.
My understanding following discussion with a SAFE member is this. An agent demonstrates CMP compliance for one year, paid for in advance. The only ways this can cease are 1) They resign from the organisation - but having paid up front, its more likely they will just not renew and as such would not meet SAFE criteria in Year 2.
2) To be expelled - this takes forever and even if an agent was subject to disciplinary action even in the first month of their year of membership, it is unlikely this sanction would happen in the same calendar year - if it did, then the TDS would be advised to safeguard tenants deposits and I understand that there is a system to inform the other bodies and Trading Standards who are also SAFE supporters.
Perhaps it would be a good idea for SAFE to put this matter on their website to better inform their supporters.
@ Ray Evans
Be careful Ray but as your new best friend may I counsel you against any critical concerns of this scheme at all. I too have been 100% in support of this scheme (which should be unnecessary but a good move it has happened) but have also expressed concerns about the monitoring of cmp being constantly in place. And been moaned at for doing so.
@Dave@CW
Again at the cost of likely criticism I fail to see how any members of NFoPP or RICS will cooperate with this in any way in terms of confirming membership and cmp in place. They had their chance and should have endorsed the move by their members who in turn could then have cited cooperation from them. A win-win situation totally lost. Now my fear is they will hide behind Data Protection which will suit their book.
The only way I can see, as someone else posted weeks ago on this issue, is by checking the various websites that SAFE applicants are members of a cmp holding body. This I fear is all SAFE can do and good luck to them - I hope there is cooperation we don't know about it would make life so much easier for SAFE and any tip off advsory notice that a member was being expelled from NFoPP etc.
@RealLets
The real litmus test is not the launch to the public (though that matters greatly) it is when the first SAFE member hits financial problems and public comfort is needed via the availability of the cmp to sort out personal losses quickly and in full.
I hope this happens but why EW@Bushells cannot simply say how the constant cmp cover being held by SAFE agents is to be verified as and when necessary - on application and annual renewal - defeats me
CAB support – a good thing I suppose but what a two edged sword that can be – ever dealt with a tenant who has gone to them for advice on receiving a s21 notice?
I have more faith in the Safe Group than the existing establishment. To their credit, they have got things done in a very short time.
I really cant see so many consumer bodies putting their name to a flawed initiative. I suspect, but maybe wrong, that Safe has some behind the scenes co-operation from ARLA, NAEA , TDS and the like. It would make sense but ARLA would want it made public as it could be seen as an endorsement. Just a thought.
A fair point Ray, but I understand that a system is in place - but in fairness don't know the details, however I am assured it is robust and similar to that which the TDS use to monitor their regulated members and the way in which NALS offers accreditation to theirs who obtain CMP from other regulators.
Nevertheless, you cant help but be impressed with the support the SAFE group has generated and the fact that they have got the subject to the fore.
The litmus test will be the consumer launch and the hope that the momentum isnt lost by this being delayed too long.
I have been a supporter of the SAFE 'kitemark' since its inception.
However it will sink or swim on the quality of the method employed to ensure that a SAFE registered firm is continuously insured by its provider. What will be the exact method employed in future to ensure this?
Well done! Which and CAB is a coup.
Excellent news - after the hammering Which? gave to agents recently, their support is invaluable especially from a public perception. I cant remember reading anywhere that ARLA had such support.
True - but you would be amazed how many defective notices under S21 have been served by landlords using their own documentation, and a few agents! Only yesterday, we had sight of one which stated possession was required 'ON' 1st July when of course it should state 'AFTER'. This will fail in Court and had to be reissued. Always worth checking!
McDonald v Fernandez [2003]