Registration for the new SAFEagent scheme is out-performing expectations.
Officially launched two weeks ago, the new SAFEagent kitemark scheme has already generated nearly 500 registrations from agents.
The SAFEagent initiative, launched by letting agents themselves, promotes a simple kitemark for the consumer to recognise letting firms that protect landlords’ and tenants’ money through Client Money Protection schemes.
The initiative, which will be promoted to consumers later this year following the push to agents, has received widespread support, including from the Ombudsman and Shelter – although both NFoPP and RICS have been lukewarm in their reception.
Shelter said: “We are supportive of the SAFEagent scheme. Our research has found that one million private renters have been the victim of scams and we welcome any initiative that helps tenants to make safe choices when they are looking for private rented accommodation to avoid unscrupulous letting agents and landlords.
“Shelter would like to see letting agents doing more to ensure tenants are well informed when they look for a private let, assuring tenants that their deposit will be protected, providing written tenancy agreements and carrying out inventories. Transparent fees schedules can also help tenants to size up the additional costs of renting a home. We believe these steps can help to avoid problems later on that can lead to tenancy breakdown.”
Nick Cooper, chair of the SAFE steering group, said: “We are delighted that so many agents have understood what we are trying to achieve and have already signed up to SAFE.
“It shows that there is clear demand for additional consumer protection and this new mark is already going a long way to satisfy it, which is good news for our consumer launch later this year.
“SAFEagent marks a huge leap forward in the effort to eliminate the potential threat posed to consumers by uninsured agents, who are able to operate in the private rented sector without Government intervention.
“We look forward to seeing many more agents making the positive move to register.”
The scheme carries with it a nominal cost of £50 per agent (an extra £10 per additional office) as a marketing fee.
See www.safeagents.co.uk or contact 0845 519 7992 for more information.
%20-%20IMAGE%20Client%20Accounting%20%E2%80%93%20what%20are%20your%20options.jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
Comments
My word this one seems to have kicked off again. OK let’s clarify a few things as I wish EW@Bushells would as there is no secrecy about it and no need to be coy about answering my legitimate questions on this forum and in this forum.
For example one other thing I’d be curious to know EW@Bushells (and I’ll bet a lot of other agents too) is who rang which of the other Committee members first – who actually first had the idea of the SAFE scheme?
I am an ARLA member but nothing more than that and have over 20 years in specialist lettings. I am 110% in support of SAFE and so is my company, always have been said. And as I have also always said along with other posters it shouldn’t be necessary if NFoPP and even NALS crowed more about cmp and its importance, but they haven’t.
My point is clarity and transparency.
I just want to know how initial applications are going to be vetted to confirm cmp cover at that time as that is what SAFE is all about. And as Ray Evans very wisely states below and as I have seen him say elsewhere, how that cmp cover is going to be monitored as ongoing as the wheels of discipline and expulsion tend to grind exceedingly slowly.
Some posters here have suggested answers which is fine though I wish they’d come from EW@Bushells.
Maybe the staff at SAFE HQ in Gloucester simply check relevant cmp providers websites that an applicant is indeed a member (as opposed to some CORGI engineers who used to continue using letterheads and decalled vans with the logo on). Not perfect but OK it will have to do if that’s the best they can do.
Which it probably will have to do because Superinjunction that is where the DP Act angle exists. Unless the data held by NFoPP and RICS is exempted under the DP Act (and maybe it is if it is on a firm as opposed to an individual), then if the SAFE verification approach on cmp is to ask the cmp providing regulatory body to confirm that the cmp cover is ‘live’ at the point of SAFE entry, then that body will refuse to do so even if it wants to. Under DP Act provisions.
And to date NFoPP and RICS have shown precious little inclination to want to do anything other than strangle SAFE at birth for obvious reasons.
All I ask is how such a critical feature of SAFE is to be dealt with, nothing more and nothing less. I couldn’t care less about the £50 what concerns me is that those displaying the SAFE logo are entitled to at all times.
I hope every cmp holding agent in the UK joins though again it should not be necessary. But more power to the collective cmp elbows because it is necessary.
You know what - I spoke to a member of SAFE today
- they unreservedly support ARLA and dont have a bad word to say about them - they are even members! They just support the other CMP providers as well. Nice that. No agenda.
ARLA members below board level want to support SAFE. Above they are too worried to knock it. They have been shocked at the speed of SAFE but genuinely seem wary of taking on the people behind it.
As someone said - SAFE should be unnecessary, but isnt because of the inactions of others - Govt included. Its a sticking plaster on a self inflicted cut.
Hopefully Tim Hyatt will modernise ARLA and support the idea.
Ray Evans
Well said - though I believe the founding members have already done an immense job - perhaps now is up to their peers to put all their differences behind them and unify in a non political message for the god of the consumer and industry. I phone one of the steering group who I know and played devils advocate - he spent a lot of time putting my concerns to rest. It really is well thought out.
You are right - the existing regulators have failed. ARLA are 30 years old - SAFE less than a month. Success aside - which has done more to bring this subject into focus?
Finally, one issue I raised was about agents who are members of DPS - or a custodial scheme. Why should they worry? The answer is obvious - rents, holding deposits, monies not yet registered, clients floats etc.
I am really impressed to see so many big names supporting safe. Agents doing that which regulators failed to - good stuff. Poachers turned gamekeeper? If only ARLA / RICS had the guts to support it they would earn respect.
I understand that SAFE is an organization that CHECKS ( I hope regularly because that is where this will succeed or fail) that a firm is a current member of a bone-fide CMP scheme, it does not usurp individual schemes. It will collate the various schemes (who have singularly failed to promote their protection to the public) under one logo – a kind of ‘kite-mark’. This should be a good thing because at present there is much confusion over what is what. Its ultimate success will be in the hands of the founding agents.
Well. regardless of Industry Observers bizarre observations, it some more big names have joined SAFE. Spicerhaart are a good organisation and wouldnt lend their name to the initiative without being pretty satisfied it would work.
I am glad we signed up and am glad to be part of a great idea which has had support from all.
I think there has been some confusion.
We are NALS members and my understanding is that as a consequence of NALS providing much of the admin for SAFE that we get the first years marketing fee waived.
Agents outside NALS pay £50.
I don't see why its such a big issue as this seems entirely fair.
Likewise, NALS offer accrediation to agents who have their CMP with ARLA, NAEA or RICs (as we do) - they must already have a mechanism for checking and to be alerted if there is a problem otherwise NALS wouldnt exist.
Industry Observer...
Are you really someone from ARLA? You seem to know too much
"you can't unless behind the scenes and off the record the providers are prepared to break the DP Act."
Data Protection? In the context of your question, if a member is expelled from an organisation, its made public one way or another. Results of disciplinary hearing, Trading Standards actions, reports in industry press etc. Why a DP issue?
Industry Observer:
Your question is on the assumption "if their provider will not confirm same to you. "
Why do you assume this? Phone the number mate and ask SAFE - its getting very nit picky and a little tiresome - joining ain't compulsory you know!
@EW
That isn't good enough by a long chalk. And I don't mean clarifying what is free and what isn't in SAFE emails to members that is good enough
I mean the verification that a SAFE member has cmp in place at all times. You say:-
"it would be inappropriate to announce the mechanism on a public forum, especially one that uses an anonymous format ."
What sort of reasoning is that - you aren't anonymous and if necessary Rosalind can verify that what is posted as the official word from SAFE on just how they are going to verify that alleged cmp cover held by prospective members is indeed in place as she will know if the statement comes either from your email address or that of another Committee member.
Eric this is fundamental to the whole SAFE structure. You are saying that members of SAFE must hold an accredited cmp cover.
Fine I'm all for that and so is Realist by the sound of it and frankly probably so is everyone else that posts here and especially on this subject. Or at least those that hold cmp will be!!
So don't be coy and shy especially when there is simply no justification for it. You are amongst friends here as everyone supports SAFE.
So answer the question - how is SAFE going to verify when an agent applies for membership that they do indeed hold cmp cover if their provider will not confirm same to you.
Simple question and I would have thought a simple answer - you can't unless behind the scenes and off the record the providers are prepared to break the DP Act. But given NALS involvement of course no way will NFoPP or RICS anyway. Unless there is yet another check box somewhere in T&Cs that allows the providers to confirm the information to SAFE.
If you can't so verify fair enough but at least we ought to know as it is the whole basis of SAFE's existence, our £50 and time spent promoting the scheme.
If you cannot do so here then I strongly recommend a press release double quick confirming how it is to be done. Because if it isn't then those signing up are going to question the cmp status of some of their fellow travellers
Industry Observer
I was thinking about the point you raised and ask this - How do the TDS know when a member is no longer part of an approved scheme - afterall, being such is a condition of their membership.
Bearing in NALS involvement, I should imagine a similar mechanism is in place. Afterall, if a member of NALS is kicked out - they alert the TDS ( I know this because I asked the TDS when they announced they would only accept accredited firms) so I imagine a reciprocal agreement is in place.
Thanks for the heads up - we will look into this and appreciate your bringing it to our attention.
As regards the other issue, it would be inappropriate to announce the mechanism on a public forum, especially one that uses an anonymous format . Specific enquiries should be directed to 0845 519 7992 in order that a precise and consistent message can be provided.
Thanks again for your valued input
Regards
EW
@EW
This really does just get compounded. The quote below is taken from the SAFE standard email sent to a new member in response to the online and then hard copy registration forms being received in Gloucester.
"Your free marketing pack will be forwarded to you in the next ten working days. It will contain promotional material for you to use promoting SAFEagent."
Please tell me that this isn't a disingenuous description and that the logo and technical stuff is the £50 but the marketing material is free after all - please? The technical stuff is attached to the email with the above quote in it - so in effect the marketing material isn't free then, is it?
May I suggest this email is re-worded?
@EW
Thanks for comprehensive response.
Can you answer my final points in mine of 9th June 1115 and how SAFE is going to do anything other than simply take a prospective member's word for it that they have cmp and are a current member of NFoPP, RICS or even NALS if you now face the same DP Act obstacle as will surely be thrown up by ARLA and NAEA and probably RICS.
How do you verify that an agent has valid, ongoing cmp if his provider of same will not confirm it to you?
Also do you have the stats of how many individual offices are registered members of ARLA and NALS? Or how many lettings offices NAEA still has in membership?
Cant see why there is so much debate - either join or dont. Vote with your feet. Lots seems to have joined - but lots havent. Time will tell.
I have been oblivious to this and hadnt even heard of safe until i looked on here!! Just checked out their website map and OMG - I seem to be alone on this. Seems a good idea - but how come I missed it? Never seen the press releases people are discussing!! Where did they appear?
Look - perspective please. SAFE should be totally unnecessary. Its success is the result of the failing of others rather than a great idea. In fact its the most obvious idea ever.
Have these SAFE agents just created a bandwagon others are jumping on? They have spotted an opportunity and maxed the PR potential - cleverly IMHO. ARLA / Rics etc could have stuffed this my simply putting their politics behind them. Ironically - their stubborness has allowed safe to succeed.
Combine that with the clout of those behind it and was it ever going to fail? Seriously - as if Foxtons would endorse a dead donkey.
However, whatever the motive - the end result is actually quite good whatever the original intentions.
Interesting thread - ultimately, it seems that very few people think Safe is anything other than a good idea. I expected more dissent - even the 'establishment' cant seem to knock it.
Perhaps actual agents will succeed where all else have failed - kind of ironic really.
The industry that everyone loves to hate finds a way to improve its own image whilst those who claim to be regulators do sod all. It actually feels quite good.
V Good answer from EW. Not their fault someone got the wrong end of the stick. Lots of organisations do the register now - pay later - even the Olympics tickets but they werent not as well organised! Fair point about website etc - cant have been cheap. We are intending to sign up - but am interested to see what NFLOPP [sic] say in the weeks to come. A good idea though and surprising response in a couple of weeks.
Industry Observer
Thanks for the message. I regret any confusion howsoever caused. I record however, that the first press release issued by SAFE was unambiguous - on 9th March it stated "The kitemark will be available for use by all agents in current CMP schemes. More details will be published next week but it will be free for agents in CMP schemes to register and a nominal charge for marketing material." This message was constant until the figure of £50 was announced. EAT reported that the cost would be "in the tens of pounds."
I appreciate that the term 'nominal' is subjective, however at no time has the figure of £10 been claimed by anyone associated with the scheme.
The idea was for agents to register their interest and when details of the scheme were released, have the option whether or not to join. Please bear in mind that a 10 office chain will only have to bear a cost of £140. Safe is not a commercial entity!
The website only went live on 27th May which was our launch date to industry. It would have been too much to expect agents to part with hard earned money before we had provided details and terms and conditions of the scheme. Registration was not in anyway binding but allowed us to gauge interest levels and assess the costs associated with launch.
SAFE is supported by NALS, but we have never commented on how NALS agents would join the scheme as it is a matter for them as of course some of their members may not want to join SAFE. Further, NALS have strict data protection policies and we have no access to any details of NALS agents.
Kindly also bear in mind that costs incurred in marketing is not simply restricted to stickers, leaflets & jpeg images. As you will appreciate, websites, designers, data input, linksbacks to agents, mapping, databases all have costs associated.
I am very grateful for your constructive comments and positive stance in supporting the initiative and would be happy to discuss any details with you at your convenience.
@EW at Bushells
I hear what you are saying but there was a lot of talk for a long time about the scheme being free. IN EAT and LAT but also Negotiator, property Drum and elsewhere. And that the marketing material in effect was an 'optional extra'. Originally £10 was quoted by someone, and then it became £50 and compulsory.
Maybe the problem is comment from outside Committee or NALS as opposed to just going by your and their pronouncements and the website - though with respect until this month the website has not said an awful lot either and in many respects still doesn't. For example apart from the logo what does the member get for their £50 that they know about before completing the application form?
I am 100% in favour of this scheme but there has been some goalpost moving by someone, obviously not you and probably not from within the SAFE family. But to give you another example originally NALS was to register all its members as SAFEagents. Now the members themselves have to register.
I understand why, you need the signed application form agreeing to the T&Cs and thus have the ability to charge NALS members next year after their first free year. But when did this change?
As I say I am 100% in favour of this scheme and it is obvious that the marketing material should be used by members and the scheme promoted by them. Equally obvious to me is that the sheme should have been up front right from the start and said it was £50 to join with then free marketing material.
Can you explain why that approach was not taken other than the desire to attract interest by using the understandably persuasive selling message that is the word "free"!!)
Well, a good take up. Nothing to add to the debate - but fascinated to see how ARLA / NAEA deal with it.
Surely they cant simply ignore it. Really, I would be happier if they endorsed it and then pressed home why they are the best regulator.
They could get immense PR off the back of it it they just used their brains and stopped being so stubborn.
We have joined simply because its a good idea.
I get fed up saying 'We are ARLA' and then others claim they are members of TPOS endorsed by OFT etc... If you explain to a landlord that this doesnt mean anything it sounds like you are bad mouthing the competition and landlords just dont believe it.
SAFE creates a level playing field. If you aren't a safe agent - why not? The website explains everything clearly and independently and will be a good instruction getter.
Dear Angry Agent - you do my friends on the Steering Group a disservice - but I am guilty as charged.
I invite you to give me a ring at HQ and we can talk about your concerns. 020 8772 9364
Thanks
I am fed up with SAFE - I wont be told what to do and resent the suggestion that if we dont join we arent honest agents,
I dont care who is involved - they are only in it for self interest - otherwise why would they bother? Foxtons????? Need I say more? Winkworth -franchise with a bitter HDH anti NAEA - Belvoir - have been done for clients money issues - northwood - not much better - bushells - a boutique London agent with an opiniated MD - Young London - who? Spicerhaart - keeping the ASA busy - Touchstone - whatever - NALS - failed idea trying to reinvent. 500 members = 500 mugs.
Jester - your post made me smile.
I know one of the founders of this very well as we worked together some years ago (the best days I have had in agency) and I have asked him about SAFE. I can confirm that its a genuine initiative. I assure all the sceptics that this is well planned and knowing him, it will succeed. NFoPP and the rest should embrace it - or they will lose out because Safe has no agenda. The fact is, some people have the guts to stand up and be counted rather than snipe at the efforts of others. RICS, ARLA NAEA will not support safe - but I would be very surprised if they tried to oppose it - if they do - they need to watch out! They are genuinely outgunned.
I was actually talking to one of the Steering Group on Friday - its a pretty genuine motive. They have apparently even put some of their own cash in to get it off the ground. They got some good PR out of it as well, but from what I was told, its more about hitting the cut price merchants who save money by not paying fees to ARLA, NALS, TPOS etc and highlighting the fact that a cheap fee can be very expensive.
He convinced us to sign up. Good night as well. Bad hangover though.
Well, I was very cynical. I was expecting this to turn into a Foxtons / Bushells / Winkworth - London PR publicity stunt.
Then I saw that Belvoir & Northwood were part of it as well. A national PR stunt?
But - not a hint of any of their names on the SAFE website - and not mentioned on the latest press release. Mmmmm.
So now I am wondering why they have done it? There are some serious players involved here.
What's in it for them? Surely it cant be a genuine selfless act from these firms - I mean.... Foxtons? There HAS to be a catch - I just cant find it.
Just looked at the map on their website showing the firms who have signed up - pretty impressive in 2 weeks.
Lest be real here.
SAFE wont solve the problems of those intent on dishonesty. It does however highlight the issue of CMP that the existing organisation have failed so monumentally to achieve.
For all ARLA / NAEA / RICS good intentions - they are too busy protecting their roll call of members and simply refuse to join forces and raise awareness. God knows - they have had long enough.
Hopefully, SAFE will make is simple for Landlords and finally make them aware that CMP exists and agents who dont have it usually have a damn good reason for not doing so.
It has been a real talking point ( particularly at our ARLA meeting)and credit to those behind it. ARLA as an organisation may not support it - but from what I heard - members do
We aren't members of anything anymore and have always been spot on with procedures and accounts. ARLA are very patronising and self obssessed.
The implication that just because you arent a members means you are dodgy sticks in my throat and annoys me, but it seems the industry only has itself to blame.
Nevertheless - you cant help but be impressed with the SAFE campaigns support so fast. What a difference between adminstrators / pen pushers when compared to real lettings agents. In that element at least - I am quite pleased that fellow agents have done well.
Not for us - but good luck anyway
I dont like being corralled in to joining anything. I dont like ARLA or NAEA but joined NALS as we believe in CMP.
Not overly happy with the whole "Your money may be ask risk in you dont use a SAFE agent" thing as it feels a bit like scaremongering
BUT - as we have CMP and considering the support they seem to be getting, my staff think that digging my heels in and not joining would be cutting off our noses....
We have a safe member next door who will ram the warning down every landlords throat. They are bad enough with being ARLA members telling everyone its so much better than NALS / NAEA
Any thoughts?
We have been following SAFE and recently joined after talking to a couple of the founders at a do recently. They have got it covered from what I can see and fended off the sceptics concerns. I wont go into details in case I get it wrong!!
Policing should be ok really. eg ARLA members pay their CMP and membership fees up front for the year - so providing the certificate which is easy to check - you know they are covered.
Only in the event the get expelled would their be an issue - an lets be honest - that takes forever and then the following year they would be able to rejoin Safe.
Trading Standards are on Board so there is additional policing there.
Fact is, TPOS have recently been in the press about an expelled member still using their logo. There have been others who have used ARLA and NAEA logos when not members.
There are lot of companies on Rogue Traders who claimed to be GAS SAFE and NIIC when they are not!!
There are always people who will lie about accreditation and blatant deliberate claims are impossible to police.
Industry Observer,
As part of the steering group and just for the record, never did we claim the cost would be £10. Specifically, I record we did not set the cost until last month.
In an earlier press release, we stated that registration was free and that firms who registered their interest and who later wanted to be part of the scheme when it went live would be charged a small fee which we indicated would be in the 'tens of pounds'.
Regards
EW
@CJW I stand corrected but then just as the £50 was originally £10 and optional that has changed too.
So it seems as has having to apply - the last I heard was that NALS was automatically entering all its members into the scheme. I was in correspondence with NALS only late last week and made reference to the auto registration of NALS members and no-one there said "Oh no that isn't happening now afyter all" - which is a pity.
When did that change but I stand corrected. So that presumably means what - 1500 members, how many member offices does NALS have now? I suppose the int is SAFE still needs the hard copy of the T&C acceptance via a signed application form in order to invoice the marketing fee.
And yes 500 forms in 9 days is pretty good going so as those questioning policing of this admirable scheme keep saying let's hope they've been checked thoroughly!!
The admin of going to various schemes and asking for confirmation the applicant is a member and does have cmp is very onerous - especially as only NALS will respond as presumably RICS and NFoPP will hide behind data protection.
What is SAFE through NALS going to do if the SAFE office staff cannot get confirmation of the cmp cover? They'll have to ask the applicant for written proof of their cmp but that doesn't mean they are still a member of whatever body and covered by its cmp scheme.
Even if the applicant contacts NFoPP or RICS and requests them to give the confirmation I'd wager they still won't or, if they do, will take many months to do so.
Presumably they will have to decline the applications because they cannot verify the prospective member has cmp and is entitled to display the logo etc - has anyone actually considered this obstacle to SAFE success beyond just in effect having NALS offices as members.
We too discussed this. We are with ARLA and will remain members as we still think its a quality brand which the high end market expects as do some of our corporate clients.
Nevertheless, not one of the staff could find ANY negatives to joining SAFE agent. It seems a no brainer - nothing to lose, minimal cost, outstanding endorsements from those outside industry.
If ARLA / RICS could simply say "Good idea - we support it" - then sell their brand off the back of it, it would be win win scenario. NALS has been very clever in supporting SAFE and it will pay them dividends.
Our ARLA regional rep told me, off the record, that they were joining SAFE!!
We had a meeting with the entire lettings team last night. We made a decision. ARLA is pointless and expensive and frankly, from our experience, don't give a monkeys about us, landlords or tenants. Only since SAFE stared have we heard a peep out of them.
Regulator? Their website shows their last disciplinary hearing was last September.
As such, we wont be renewing our membership and instead will stick with NALS who at least have had the courage of their convictions and supported SAFE which we have decided to join.
We all have more confidence in a scheme started by people who actually work on the front line of lettings. Foxtons, Winkwoths, Bushells et al are pretty successful and they deserve to be applauded to taking on the agency establishment.
I understand that SAFE is an organization will CHECK ( I hope regularly because that is where this will succeed or fail) that a firm is a current member of a bone-fide CMP scheme, it does not usurp individual schemes. It will collate the various schemes (who have singularly failed to promote their protection to the public) under one logo – a kind of ‘kite-mark’. It is not too expensive and should be a good thing because at present there is much confusion over what is what. However, its ultimate success will be in the hands of the agents
Industry Observer -
As a NALS member, we have received a letter advising that we are eligible to join, but we still have to apply as membership is not automatic.
We will join as there is no reason not to and its a good idea - but just haven't filled out the forms yet!
To process 500 applications in 9 working days is a pretty huge effort.
Figures vary on exactly how many lettings offices there are in the UK, but 10,000 is always accepted and recently I have seen 14,000 quoted. How anyone ever counts all these defeats me.
Anyway let's assume there are at least 10,000 and let's assume that the registrations will occur in two phases. First those who are fully aware of the scheme already and want to join immediately. Second those either unaware or who know but are like RachelS keeping a watching brief. This is the chicken and egg conundrum for SAFE as presumably it needs a minimum core number to take enough marketing fees initially to be able to promote to the public "later in the year".
Fair enough - but of those 10,000 I would guess that around 4,000 officeshold cmp as members of NFoPP, RICS and NALS.
On that basis is 500 that good a figure at this stage? And more to the point how many member offices does NALS have and are they included in that 500? One assumes so as presumably they would have been automatically entered into SAFE as soon as possible - why delay when the NALS numbers would have such a good impact on the overall figures?
Impressive considering how new the idea is. RICS & ARLA have had years to do something, but seem more preoccupied in flogging gala dinners than actually doing anything useful.
Whether you like safe or not - it certainly cant do any harm and is good for agents reputations in that at least they are trying.
I am not totally convinced SAFE will work - but we are watching more carefully than we were a couple of weeks ago.
Some of the big support cant be ignored.
I am fed up with ARLA - there really seems to be no benefit as far as we and our customers can see. I emailed them over licencing 2 weeks ago - no reply!
Bloody hell - no wonder ARLA have been dusting off their archaic PR machine - but would should the worry - its an endorsement not a threat.
Fair play the the SAFE team - you have to give them credit for getting so much support so quickly.
Those who can - do. Those who cant - regulate