The new kitemark initiative is to be called SAFEagent and will be launched by the end of April.
It will be free for agents in established client money protection (CMP) schemes to register, with a nominal charge for marketing material.
The initial launch of the kitemark will be aimed at agents, with a consumer launch in the early summer.
Nick Cooper, chairman of the group of agents behind the initiative, said he was delighted with the response so far.
He said: “The overwhelming feeling is that, at last, through the delivery of a simple message, we have the means to differentiate those agents who operate with CMP and those who don’t.”
Property Ombudsman Christopher Hamer has welcomed the initiative, as has the Residential Landlords Association whose chairman Alan Ward praised it as a “clear and recognisable brand”.
Top London agent Peter Rollings, of Marsh & Parsons, also issued a statement welcoming the scheme. He said: “It is a great idea which will help clean up the industry and support the consumer, and Marsh & Parsons will be supporting it wholeheartedly.”
However, of the industry organisations, only NALS has come forward to welcome the kitemark.
NALS, NAEA and RICS have yet to comment.
It has emerged that NALS charge substantially less for their CMP than NFoPP. While the latter has just hiked its premium to £432 a year, NALS (whose insurers are RSA) charges £249 to agents who do not hold tenancy deposit money because they use the DPS, and £329 a year to agents who do hold deposit money.
Isobel Thomson of NALS said: “It seemed to us to be only logical to charge agents less if they do not physically hold deposits.”
Comments
"Good idea, but without a multi million £ marketing budget, is one more window sticker going to raise awareness?"
Yes. Why? Because every agent with the kitemark will use it to their advantage and as such do the marketing for SAFE. TPOS, NLA etc are behind it.
He is still listed as a director on the TDS Ltd web site. The other comments re basis of response are verifiable on the NFoPP web site. NALS are shy or were served with a 'D' notice.
Reading comments on other threads, it seems clear that there is much confusion regarding the SAFEagent concept. Particularly one agent , who by his own admission is not a member of any of those bodies known to provide CMP cover, eulogising about joining the kite mark initiative immediately.
Forgetting RICS, who will probably view this as beneath their dignity as the only true professional body, this only applies to NFoPP members and NALS accredited agents.
NFoPP won't openly promote it as they will perceive association with NALS as a threat to their membership numbers.
Good idea, but without a multi million £ marketing budget, is one more window sticker going to raise awareness?
Not so sure John Hornsey is such a leading light at TDS now if involved with them at all. The comment about the ARLA policy no longer being a policy of first resort is news to me and if so weakens it's strength accordingly. The other comment worthy of making is that the NAEA policy ran into tremendous problems and I think several years ago there was a period when there was no NAEA cmp cover in place at all.
This new scheme is great news and should be promoted by all registered SAFEagent members on every occasion. But just one word of warning - that promotion has to be based on a 100% cast iron certainty that the relevant cmp scheme itself is rock solid and will pay out quickly.
If the ARLA cmp scheme is now indeed a last resort policy then it returns us to the days of taking ages to go through all the necessary hoops before the scheme could be called upon. It's all well and good telling the public their money is safe no matter what happens, that's great - but if claims take ages to be paid out that will not be so good.
Incidentally what happens if the agent is honest but the financial institution holding the client funds isn't?
SAFEagent membership should be restricted to those with client funds held in UK based institutions and, of course, on immediate call - the entire balance not a rolling proportion (as is required under ARLA rules)
Hardly surprising that NFoPP (ARLA & NAEA) haven't commented as they have a curious CMP history between the two organisations.
ARLA used to have the market leading 'first resort' CMP policy. It was arranged by John Hornsey (now TDS Ltd) with R&SA and formed the main thrust of their marketing / customer awareness for years. NAEA had an inferior 'last resort' policy during the entire period.
Following the merger, the two organisation apparently consolidated their respective covers with one insurer (believed to be NAEA's provider NU (Aviva)) on a last resort basis. However, ARLA continued to boast 'first resort' cover for years after the consolidation, but have now corrected their web site.
It is believed that NALS are insured with R&SA, though curiously are somewhat reticent about publishing the terms provided to the public. It may well be that they have the best consumer protection. However, it was the existence of the R&SA policy which secured their participation with TDS Ltd.
The real curiosity is that according to TDS Ltd they justify charging NALS agents a loaded contribution on the grounds that they can't recover losses from R&SA. Yet John Hornsey is ............ odd