ARLA members have made their feelings clear about being made to pay the same fees for staff training courses as non-members.
In an increasingly frank exchange on a LinkedIn networking forum, agents have objected to the policy, which means that they have to pay to put their employees through ARLA training at the same rate as non-members.
Whilst ARLA membership is now purely individual, and not corporate, agents say this has been thoroughly muddled by the ARLA Licensing scheme, which licenses firms, not individuals.
The payment policy for training courses means that even where the boss of a lettings agent is an ARLA member and even where the agency itself is ARLA Licensed, staff are treated in exactly the same way as employees of non-ARLA members.
Yet it became clear as the exchanges continued that few agents appreciate this.
One wrote: “As a company we get nothing at all from ARLA. We would like to send our staff on a lot of the courses that are offered but not at the non-member prices. As the company is a member it should qualify for reduced fees for all staff.”
Another agreed: “If we are an ARLA licensed company, then our company should receive a discount. The fact that a non-ARLA company pays the same amount for their staff training as an ARLA Licensed company does not make sense… ARLA needs to adjust to the fact that it is now the company that is licensed. In the end it’s ARLA who will lose out on business from this.”
Deborah Woodbridge, who handles marketing at NFoPP, replied that course fee reduction “is a benefit to our members and must remain so. We would have many complaints if we were to allow non-members to access courses at member rates … There has to be a line drawn and a decision made at some point.”
Her reply did not satisfy others. One said it was ‘absurd’ that agents whose proprietors, partners or directors were ARLA members, had to pay the same for their staff as those firms with no ARLA connection at all.
And another said: “There is no doubt in my mind that ARLA will see the writing on the wall here and this policy will be changed.”
Eric Walker, boss of Bushells in London, commented: “ARLA created a dichotomy with licensing, and this should be reflected through discounts to those firms who take on the additional financial burden of licensing for the good of the consumer.”
The LinkedIn exchange also featured complaints by ARLA members about the cost of Client Money Protection.
.png)
.jpg)
Comments
my view is that the extra cost would be worth it if it had been rolled out to the public. As it is, there is NO advantage to the extra costs other than that which you tell customers.
Mr Walker is right - there should be some form or recognition as this may push others to meet the criteria and give new recruits a taster of the business. I for one wont invest in exams for a trainee until I know they are a) good and b) committed.
Come on ARLA - listen to your members for once.
The question is simple. Is ARLA's focus on being a business or on raising standards?
I believe its the latter in which case the more 'hoops' jumped through, the more of a discount you should receive. This would attract more members and get more staff trained and, in the long run, boost membership.
I am Licensed and object to paying the same for a trainee as an unlicensed firm does. Surely members should have some advantages. By making it more affordable, I could invest more in training, & retain staff who would probably proceed towards qualification and membership.
Its interesting and I can see both sides. It is true that if a body creates a 2 tier membership, those who commit more to consumer protection should be encouraged by attracting greater discounts to encourage others to sign up to what is effectively voluntary regulation rather than voluntary self improvement.
Its wrong of ARLA to claim membership is individual and not corporate when licensing is only available where PPD's sign up and provide COMPANY PI Insurance, CMP etc. I dont see the difference as this is effectively corporate membership however its dressed up.
I agree with Eric. Its seems ARLA want to have their cake and eat it. There is little benefit in being licensed as consumers just don't understand the difference and it just costs the member firm more money and there is no benefit in terms of discounts on courses. I read the Linked in Exchange - I just hope the suits in ARLA do as we are seriously questioning their motives.
Hopefully this will be raised at the conference, but I wont hold my breath!
We may just do that Mr F!
If ARLA members want training at a fees that are much less than aRLA will charge then just ask!
ARLA do seem to have the blinkers on for this one, and in a way I can see their point as they want to maximise their income, but they also need to understand that if they want to increase their 'visibility' they need more members.
In effect they are penalising ARLA member firms who want to bring their staff training up a level. I'd even suggest a three tier system; one for existing members, non members who are employed by ARLA member firms and then unaffiliated non members but I suspect they would just add a few pounds to the non member rate rather than reduce cost to member firms.
In my expereience very few people outside of the industry know who or what ARLA are; the general public perception of them is almost non existent when compared to similar bodies like RICS or even the Ombudsman Scheme.