Each association hold to the claim that their primary objectives are usually to support and streamline members' professional competence through an associated code of conduct, newsletters and training opportunities.
This principle is laudable. But if the mantra behind one association and another is more or less similar, then there would be cohesion to deliver the best service for its membership. There wouldn't be the need for splinter groups. Would there?
Let's now explore a little further what the words "rogue", "dubious" really mean.
Common English definition describes "rogue" as a dishonest or unprincipled person. This accommodates any act construed as insincere, unethical and not playing within set rules of engagement by any person or group.
Dubious, on the other hand is a qualifying adjective for any act that would cause doubt; of doubtful quality or propriety; questionable!
Simply put, both words suggest dodgy, deceitful behavioural act either by commission or intent.
With a broad definition as this, who then is a rouge or dubious agent? And what qualifies a safe agent?
There is none more suitable candidate to provide such unbiased appraisal than the last client who actually used the service on offer.
Every client deserves a reasonable level of good service. But since there is no such thing as a definitive perfect service, someone somewhere would always have a rant and a moan, even if it's only for the heck of it. That's human behaviour!
Then again, there are very bad services around. So to try and convince a client who strongly believes that they have been poorly served by an agent would be like asking the proverbial mountain to move to the left.
Justified or prejudiced, each client reserves the right to have an opinion of the service they received, as long as it is fair and does not cross the mudslinging slander/libel line. However, mere perception is not proof enough. Why? Unless you have used a service, your opinion could only be based on third party information, not your personal experience.
Service in this context is reminiscent to having agreed with applicable terms and conditions of that service, the subsequent signing of a binding contract and accepting keys for possession at check-in. To phone an agent for the purpose of comparing service charges would therefore not count as a fulfilled service. It's only a conduit for information gathering.
If then you have never used a particular agent's service, how would you determine whether they're the best or rubbish in what they do? Are all service levels the same across estate/letting agencies? Absolutely not!
Same goes for every other commercial business model, whether it's a Doctors' surgery, or a fish mongers. You can only make like-for-like comparisons in order to obtain a fair conclusion.
Anyone with some sort of reasoning and intent could presently set up an estate or letting agency and consequently make success of the business. Similarly, any one could set up a used car lot. They don't have to gain any 'superior' qualification to make a success of that business model either.
Reasoning, in this context is the ability to interpret the right thing, as opposed to that which is not right. Intent is the ideal to make a profit, possibly provide employment and potentially enjoy the eventual benefits which success brings.
So why do property agents have so much head battering in the public domain as 'rogues with dubious intent,' while the very important role they play is genuinely to strive to bridge and more often than not, hasten the process of providing essential accommodation in a professional manner for those who need it, and for a service fee?
There is currently no legislation determining minimum entry level qualification as base requirement to be identified as a scrupulous estate/letting agent, or to set one up. There is none for the motor trade either. Should there be one? Most agents who have been through any committed level of study and written examination would drum its benefits. Reason being that such dedicated study affords invaluable depth of knowledge that is essential to stay at par with the ever changing regulations covering the UK housing act. Currently it looks like a mine-field.
The onus therefore rests with the industry's Mr Bigs to initiate a collective framework necessary to formulate and implement industry accepted minimum entry levels.
Currently, associations like the RICS (Royal institution of chartered surveyors,) National Association of Estate Agents (NAEA), Association of Residential Letting Agents (ARLA - wrapped up under the banner of National Federation of Property Professionals - NFOPP), UK Association of Letting Agents (UKALA), The Guild of Property Professionals (TGP), National Approved Letting Scheme (NALS), Association of British Property Professionals (ABPP), provide some sort of leadership initiatives on matters concerning the industry.
Membership is not cheap though. What really is being paid for in disguise is this 'great opportunity' to use affiliation branded stickers as identification marks of participation on shop-fronts, printed materials or websites. What is being missed but equally important is the fact that registration with the property ombudsman (TPO) and adhering to its code of conduct is even a better option. Where there's a dispute, a contesting client tends to feel more confident bringing matters to a head with an independent redress scheme than to a member only association.
The fact that some associations appear to be tougher in executing the principles of their applicable code of conduct, bottom-line is - most are in it to make a profit. Unfortunately, profits are not ploughed back necessarily to support the general membership.
Die hard members would affirm, even swear to the beneficial sentiment what joining one association or another has brought to their balance sheet. Others may tell of significant increase in their portfolio or landlord/vendor clients. However, based only on the simple matter of joining a pressure group? It would be difficult to prove.
Association membership has its place in the wider scheme of things. It serves a purpose for people wishing to belong to a group. It may also be a good place for networking and passage of industry news, encourage structured training opportunities and maybe more.
What it doesn't do is; stop the agent with dishonest intent to defraud, regardless of how many membership stickers they display on shop windows. It all comes down primarily to that simple matter of honesty, fair play and decency. All things being equal, (they never usually are) nobody really needs the whip of a certain code of conduct hanging over them to do the right thing. If you ever find yourself at the point where you must, it would be worth reappraising your intentions.
The question that bothers me though is this; if the common goal is geared toward the benefit of their members, especially for the small independents, why are there so many property associations? And how is it that over the last twenty-five years or more, none of them have been able to come together as a strong force to combat the rip-off advertising portals? Surely this is what most agents would want. Why have agents continually paid high prices to keep property portals afloat? Agents keep portals in business. Without agents feeding portals, portals have no business. That's fact. With the money wasted by those running NFOPP, shame Property live didn't work for its members.
Regardless of spurious claims of influencing government policies on industry specific matters, the property sector with its numerous pressure groups, time and again have failed to make any significant gains either by standing up against the monopolistic pride of portals or influence any policy changes to legislation that may allow those who operate within the private rental sector boot out defaulting tenants without costing the landlord a fortune in lost revenue while the lengthy judicial process slowly grinds to obtain possession.
Why is it that all the associations covering lettings have failed to stem the tide where recalcitrant tenants are being encouraged in certain quarters to remain in properties, rack-up rental arrears and in some cases cause damages, until the day the bailiff turns up at the door.
The real losers are not the associations, nor the portals, but the long suffering landlord client and the distressed agent.
All said, how then do you then define a rouge agent?
Is he the one who levies a potential tenant a necessary administration fee to process their application, which generally involves obtaining the tenant client to complete a tenancy questionnaire, send out for references, check IDs and proof of addresses just to make sure people are who they claim to be? Agents should be highly commended for this sort of due diligence. The point remains, it is a payable service.
Is it the one who charges for services rendered to cover his ever rising operation cost?
How about the agent who slips a note wherever there's a notice, indicative of an empty property available for sale or for let, and tries to steal custom from another agent? Would this deplorable agent fall into the rogue agent classification? Think about it. Some agents are worse at this than others!
Is it the one who trawls the internet seeking out recently advertised stock from the competition, then rings up pretending to be an interested party just to obtain the property's address, and then deceitfully tries to plunder the lead?
Oh, how about the agent who liberally offers over inflated property appraisal in order to obtain an instruction? If he does not achieve the quoted price, does he qualify as a rogue agent or will he just walk away with a dishonest badge?
Now, as a customer, you probably wouldn't have given this a serious thought. You probably have followed the trend and scorned off on the usual suspects. But with a little insight to the daily duties of an estate/letting agent, I am sure you may have a different opinion as to who a rogue agent might really be, or do you?
Who's a safe agent? More like asking who is a safe goal-keeper. There's no such thing. Good agents know their craft and always eager to support their clients with knowledgeable advice to help. No bull-crap, just plain raw honesty based on fact. Funny thing is; most clients still prefer the bull-crap with a smile than be told what they'd prefer not to hear - the truth. But that's life!
