The SAFEagent scheme will now be open for registration on May 27 – around a month later than was originally expected.
The consumer awareness campaign, originally due to be launched this summer, will now take place ‘later this year’.
Currently, agents can visit the website but only to register their interest in becoming a SAFE agent.
However, despite the apparent slippage in the timetable, strong support from the Trading Standards Institute (TSI) has bolstered the initiative, and the steering group has announced that it anticipates getting Government recognition for the SAFE kitemark, which will show which letting firms have client money protection insurance.
Ron Gainsford, chief executive of the TSI, said: “The Trading Standards Institute welcomes the introduction and promotion of a single mark to identify letting agents who are in Client Money Protection insurance schemes.
“Raising the money for a deposit and rent places a great financial strain on many people who wish to rent property and it will be invaluable to have one mark that can be promoted as the sign on the door that their money will be safe with that letting agent.
“Having just one mark will increase recall levels of the scheme and enable consumers to make sensible and safe choices of letting agents based on a raised awareness of the Client Protection Insurance scheme. In turn, this will help trading standards services in the fight to reduce the number of rogue and ‘uninsured’ letting agents who disappear with consumer money.”
Nick Cooper, chair of the SAFE Steering Group, said: “We are delighted to have already got such positive support for the SAFE concept, which will really help to get this off the ground. We believe this is a very positive move for the sector, and having the backing of industry bodies will help enormously to galvanise the sector into demonstrating its commitment to best practice and protect consumers and landlords from those unscrupulous agents.
“We also anticipate that ultimately we will get Government recognition for this new mark.”
Whilst NALS, the Property Ombudsman, Council of Mortgage Lenders and Residential Landlords Association have been quick to back the SAFE initiative, both the RICS and ARLA have been notably tepid in their reactions.
The steering group consists of: Nick Cooper, Northwood; Dorian Gonsalves, Belvoir; Eric Walker, Bushells; Sarah Tonkinson, Foxtons; John Midgley, Touchstone; Hugh Dunsmore-Hardy, Winkworth; and Neil Young, Young London.
Agents wishing to register can download forms 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 you are part of and annual renewal date.
Firms will be asked to meet the terms and conditions of the SAFE mark. The SAFE mark will be available for use by all agents in CMP schemes. It will be free for agents to register with a nominal charge of £50 for a single office firm for marketing material. Multi-site firms will pay an additional £10 per office.
The scheme will launch to consumers later in the year following the campaign to attract letting agents to adopt the SAFE mark.
%20-%20IMAGE%20Client%20Accounting%20%E2%80%93%20what%20are%20your%20options.jpg)
.jpg)
Comments
Immense idea - Hope you get the support form the cynical moaners. Those who can do - those who cant whine. We have signed up - good luck
Sod the politics and the past - at least SAFE got of their backsides and have tried to do something for the good of landlords and tenants.
Most seem to support the idea - a few snipe - but have nothing themselves. You have to hand it to SAFE - huge progress and support in a short space of time. Ombudsman & Trading standards!!
I met one of the SAFE group recently and discovered that THEY are even funding it and putting their money where their mouths are. ARLA couldnt even do that with their members money!
It would be interesting to know how many firms have registered.
Dave, probably best to focus on your comment 'et al'.
The reality is that RICS facilitated the provision of the affordable CMP cover for NALS - without them it wouldn't have existed. I know because I was there:)
ARLA, in my view were a disgrace. They were directors of NALS during the formative period - a massive conflict of interest - and as you correctly say, they saw them as a huge threat.to their pitiful attempt to try to totally dominate the letting industry. In my view they totally derailed a perfectly sound concept.
ARLA & NAEA 'merge' - common CMP, though not as good as the original ARLA offering.
NALS now does what ...... ?
Trading Standards? Great effort. Hope it works out - we registered today - it was a no brainer really. PLUS it will really pee off the fly-by-night undercutting wide-boy opposite!
Interesting comments.
The problem with NALS was that ARLA et al perceived them as cheaper alternative and as such competition that was a potential drain on their own membership.
As such, there has been little co-operation between 'competing' consumer champions which has led to the issue of CMP being lost in politics.
Safe seems to have set itself apart from this and as such I welcome the concept - but as has been said before - its the execution which will prove the key issue.
Cant fault the idea - just hope the execution and structure is in place. Only time will tell. As for the dissenters - why knock it? It seems there are a number of hypothetical issues which havent actually happened.
Cant see TPOS and Trading Standards supporting it unless its reasonably well planned.
As long as its not a money spinner for those involved - I am up for it - but couldnt stand the thought of giving Foxtons money!! (joke)
Sorry - how is this in any way confusing?
It seems simple - if you are member of a scheme, you can use the logo. Trading Standards back it so will police it. Its not hard to check who is registered and with whom.
I will back anything which improves the image of the business and stops the dodgy agents.
It seems that lots of consumer groups are pro SAFE. It would be a shame if it failed because of Agents themselves being cynical.
We talked about this at our management meeting and couldn't see any negatives. We pay a lot for CMP - so why not shout about it?
Mike S
You misunderstand. There is legislation in force to protect deposits - but no mechanism to ensure that the money is where it should be. A clients account can be plundered as has happened - clients accounts are not reported to companies house nor are they audited by agents outside the regulatory bodies. Further, deposit schemes do not protect rents nor floats.
Two agents near us went under - between them over £1m of clients money was lost.
All very confusing really. The concept of NALS was originally largely conceived as an industry kite mark, and heavily promoted itself as such. Setting a minimum standard to which the letting industry participants aspired. That standard always included the provision of CMP. It then somewhat confusingly positioned itself as a Trade Association and behaved as such - 'approved' / cheap insurance providers etc. It finally decided that it was the Industry Regulator, seemingly conferring 'licensed' status on those who subscribed - with what authority I have no idea and has never been explained.
There would be nothing wrong with the SAFE concept if it were to have the resources to police the use of the logo. The weakness of NALS is that it doesn't have the formal authority or resource. It will be very easy for those who wish to circumvent the 'qualification' requirement to do so, thus rendering the concept profoundly unsound.
One final comment, the only 'consumer' that is party to a letting transaction is the tenant. Their funds (deposits) are now adequately covered by the TDP legislation. The rent issue is a 'business to business' activity and is an issue between the landlord and his / her appointed agent.
It is interesting to note that some of the agents allegedly involved with the steering group are not neccesarily ones who might have been chosen by the industry as a whole! It is also interesting to note that this another public sector office who appear to be unable to work to a reliable deadline! It is also interesting to note that they appear to wish to intimidate many perfectly honest agents whilst at the same time attempting to profit from them with ludicrously expensive paperwork and stickers! I was under the distinct impression that agents have a legal responsibilty under government legislation to ensure clients monies are safe via deposit protection laws. If one is to be charitable towards this, then I take my hat off to whichever public sector employee thought this up, not so much to protect the public who are more than capable of looking after themselves but to protect expensive public sector jobs ! ! !
Problem will be ARLA & RICS. They wont like it because they will see it as competition. They are clubs who only seem to care about themselves - not consumers and not even their members. Can safe work without their endorsement? We will see. Personally I think its a good concept which sadly may fail as so many agents are struggling and dont really want to subscribe to more red tape.
I was unsure - but now trading standards are behind it maybe it will work. I hope it does - but worry about apathy from agents.
Whatever happens, it a good advert for Estate Agents trying to actually do something for the benefit of customers. Fair play for that. Many have tried and failed - but this idea seems to be getting some good press.
Cynical - the market ignores it as there is no consumer education. This may actually work - I hope it does. Frankly I am sick of the 5% merchants nicking business because they have low overheads and no code of practise or regulation.
Its about time landlords were told of the very real risks.
I think its an immense idea - Ok, so some of the agents have had issues with franchises - but these franchisees clients were PROTECTED by CMP. surely their involvement highlights the importance of a scheme that consumers identify with. Most landlords / tenants dont have a clue - its a great idea to make things clear.
Doomed to failiure as the market in general ignores this. Correct me if I am wrong, but are some the companies mentioned on the steering group companies that have had franchises go under owing tens of thousands of pounds. If I am correct, are these people the sort who should be running any type of sceme like this?