Property Ombudsman Christopher Hamer has reiterated his call for some form of regulation of letting agents.
He said that ‘realistically’, legislation is the only option, and called on the Government to stop dodging the issue.
At the very least he wants all letting agents to be required by law to join an Ombudsman scheme.
Hamer, whose annual report for last year is officially published today, said that the Government should heed the views of his own organisation, ARLA, RICS and consumer groups such as Which? so that, legally, lettings agents are treated in the same way as sales agents and provide a consistency of redress for consumers.
Whilst around 60% of lettings offices in the UK have voluntarily registered with TPO and follow its lettings Code of Practice, Hamer argues that unless legislation is amended, tenants and landlords alike will continue to be at risk if they use one of the 40% who do not belong to TPO or one of the associations.
He said: “The Government has made clear that it is looking to reduce the burden on businesses and has introduced its ‘Red Tape Challenge’ to de-clutter the statute books of unnecessary legislation. The Government also wishes to avoid imposing burdensome regulation on business, preferring instead that business sectors put their own houses in order.
“However, realistically legislation is the only vehicle that can bring 100% of letting agents within the fold.”
He added: “I would caution the Government that this is an issue which simply cannot be put off any longer.”
See also next story.
Comments
For the folk at the donkey sanctuary. They do a great job, they care about what they are doing, have lots of support and are tireless campaigners.
The trouble is Eric you and people like you need to ask if that is enough. TPO might be the assistance you and the SAFE agent need to provide a redress scheme for you and the members who are simply sick and tired of ARLA. Realistically the industry is over supplied with Agents who really ought not to be in the business, those Agents that have turned to lettings as a means of keeping the lights on in their offices.
SAFE Agent will provide a public reassurance sticker, a TPO sticker offering even more reassurance. That is all great and well intentioned but effectively there are people trading who should not be.
In my opinion only those agent capable of practising to ARLA standards should be able to account for client monies but the very existence of TPO is helping to facilitate much lower standards of Agent.
If Mr Hamer truly cares about the public and the industry he would shut up shop and force agents back to a proper industry regulator. Then if you and your fellow SAFE Agents do not like what the regulating body is up to, stand as a board executive and do something about it.
I am no fan of NFoPP but I do not think ARLA should be marred and tarred by its recent past and governance. If there were honesty about SAFE agent and TPO both exist purely as a result of failures at Arbon House in recent years.
Please explain why companies with 30 years clean trading history need to be regulated and be required to pay for their competitor's failures.
I am fairly sure in corporate firms where targets take priority over professional standards there might well be a need for a sane voice to call time on over zealous practice but in the independant world where pensioners investments and savings are not propping up a failing organisation, standards matter and the repercussions of mal practice which tend to last a bit longer than the latest batch negotiators, are avaoided at all cost.
Cosy up to Mr Hamer Eric one suspects your new role will give rise to plenty of correspondance with TPO
I think TPOS is a fantastic organisation. Not only do they make agents lives easier by negating the need for endless correspondence - but they are a tireless campaigner for improved standards and consumer redress. No organisation is perfect but His Royal Ombudsmaness and his team do a damn good job and more importantly, care about what they do. And no, I don't have any complains pending. ;)
I dealt with a complaint against a letting agent for a friend and Mr Hamer kept referring to a Section 21 as a Notice to Quit!!!
The TPO is clueless IMHO
It doesn't appear to have harmed selling agents so what's the difference from letting agents?
You can legislate as much as want. You can threaten hanging as a punishment for bad agents, you could even hang some of them. None of this will ever stop the last few percent of bad agents.
Everything we do in this world is never going to be 100% perfect. Our usual approach is to do our best and then mop and compensate to sort out what went wrong. If we can get most of the agents signing up to a procedure which in itself may not be perfect then we will have made major progress. This does not need legislation for the the dastardly, politically incorrect reasoning made in my first paragraph.
You have said "realistically legislation is the only option"
In isolation that is just a meaningless sound bite, please post exactly what the problems are and why existing Agent/clent case law is not enough to control it.
Please explain with evidence how legislation will improve perceived problems with the industry that you and your company profit from perpetuating.