Unrest as Propertymark agents mull agenda at this week’s AGM

| Rosalind Renshaw

With just days to go until the NFoPP AGM this Friday, disquiet among members appears to be growing.

EYE has heard a number of concerns:

These include:

  • The blocking of Chris Wood’s application to stand as vice-president of Propertymark NAEA.
  • The proposal to cut the size of the NFoPP board which critics say will reduce the input that members have into the governance of their organisation.
  • The proposal that the Presidents of both NAEA and ARLA can attend board meetings but not be allowed to speak or vote unless invited by the chairman; critics say this would mean their roles would be ‘neutered’.
  • The proposal to appoint an executive chairman, given that ex-Ombudsman Christopher Hamer is already in the post to which, it has emerged, he was appointed last year; there appears to be absolutely no criticism among members of Hamer himself.
  • Alleged lack of consultation, transparency and communication on the proposals prior to the AGM.
  • The accounts – which show a loss for the second year running – were apparently sent out after members had been asked to vote; critics say that by this Friday’s AGM, the ‘vast majority’ of members will have voted.
  • Reports that one person – believed to be NFoPP finance director Rob Clutton – has been placed on gardening leave and is understood to have invoked a grievance procedure; a second person, believed to be head of marketing Brian Schubert, is now understood to have left – with absolutely no suggestion of any wrongdoing.
  • The main concerns among members appear to be how transparent the organisation is, how it communicates and consults with members, and its direction of travel in the future – with questions asked as to whether NFoPP has ambitions to become a consumer-facing regulatory body, tasked for example with overseeing the impending lettings fee ban.

In particular, the College of Fellows – made up of some 50 experienced NAEA and ARLA agents plus members of the other NFoPP associations – has so far been unanimous in its concerns.

College members have been internally canvassed for their opinions on three questions: whether they agreed with the proposed changes; whether they were against the proposed changes; and whether they considered it appropriate that NFoPP members were able to register their vote online, without knowledge of the accounts.

Of the 30 of so Fellows who responded to the informal consultation, we are told that every single one voted no, yes and no. However, the College has no official standing when it comes to official voting.

Separately, agents EYE has spoken to are all backing what they believe is Wood’s right to stand for the role of vice-president.

They say their understanding is that constitutionally, any member can stand providing they have both a proposer and a seconder. They also say that they have never known a candidacy blocked before.

However, NAEA chief executive Mark Hayward has insisted that the interview panel which stopped Wood’s name going forward was part of a perfectly legitimate process.

While declining to comment on internal staff matters, Hayward has said that the proposals about the size of the board and the ability of Presidents to speak and vote are being put democratically.

EYE understands that while some possibilities have been considered – including the calling of an Extraordinary General Meeting – the likelihood is that this Friday’s AGM will simply go ahead as a better attended and perhaps livelier event than has previously been the case.

x

Email the story to a friend

More top news stories



13 Comments

  1. smile please
    June 12, 2017 at 06:51

    Without wishing to sound like a broken record….

    Wake up people.

    Naea is a for profit group wanting to enforce regulation so they can profit from it.

    Just look at the above.

    Are these changes and choices made for the good of it’s members or for the good of NAEA.

    Vote with your feet. When renewal comes up save the few hundred quid.

    The public do not even know who they are anyway.

    Report
    1. smile please
      June 12, 2017 at 09:20

      I am intriged by the dislikes.
      If i have got it wrong please tell me why instead of disliking.
      I am all for debate, maybe i do have it wrong.
      Be nice to hear why instead of a dislike. 

      Report
    2. NewsBoy
      June 12, 2017 at 11:33

      NAEA is, and has always been a member organisation working for its memebers. The problem with these current issues is that the members seem to be coming second and have not had any consultation on the changes.
      The Chris wood position is a separate issue. NAEA have NEVER had a situiation like this before and have never vetoed an application. This action by Mark Hayward is vindictive and unprecidented.
       

      Report
      1. AgentV
        June 12, 2017 at 11:46

        Untrustworthy, unnecessary, undemocratic…………anymore anyone?

        Report
  2. Robert May
    June 12, 2017 at 07:41

    How about “Propertymark” takes it’s personnel and it’s assets and goes and establishes itself as an independent start up company using whatever cash the directors have or can attract .  The new start up firm can make a case for whatever it intends to become and reap the rewards of it’s director’s experience, connections and cash.  It should not be allowed simply  to annexe all the history and assets of a member association that has been built over a considerable number of years by a huge amount of volunteer effort.

    ALL that’s been  amassed through the efforts of  NAEA members and subscriptions should be properly valued and acquired at a commercial rate if a new limited company is being set up and run for the benefit of its directors rather than it’s members.

    I think what I am trying to say is I’d quite like a trade association that puts members interests and standards ahead of attempts to make a profit.

     

    Report
    1. NewsBoy
      June 12, 2017 at 11:34

      Robert.  It is a member organisation so couldn’t do that. In recent times it is difficult to see how it is acting for its members but that is exactly what it is supposed to be doing!!

      Report
      1. AgentV
        June 12, 2017 at 11:54

        NewsBoy
        Yes but it seems to have a preference for some members above others. It’s fine for the online lister members to publicly defame other smaller members, but when Chris Wood wants to stand up to that and defend the majority of other members …they do their utmost to gag him!!!

        I suggest ALL members attending on Friday let their feelings be known verbally…..perhaps by chanting ‘We want Chris Wood…democracy should rule’ over and over until they listen (might be there all weekend though to get that to happen!). 

        Report
  3. AgentV
    June 12, 2017 at 07:51

    I can not agree more. They have effectively become a self serving closed club looking after themselves above the interest of their members.

    They didn’t want Chris because standing up for the truth might be disruptive of their new found source of income generation from their online lister friends.

    So they block Chris and continue to allow their online lister members to publicly ridicule the majority of their membership.

    I personally hope their losses are due to many smaller members leaving in protest.

    Smile please is totally right when he says the public don’t know who they are anyway. Good job…..otherwise the public would be questioning how an organisation which allows some members to openly rubbish other members can be considered in any shape or form  to be professional!!

    Report
  4. Essjaydee51
    June 12, 2017 at 08:06

    Let’s hope there is some back bone shown on Friday by the members, they are running at a loss for the second year, they must have Jeremy Corbyns tree but whose pockets are left to plunder and one of these boys club board members used to oversee fining us for bad service and unprofessional standards, really!

    Report
  5. AgentV
    June 12, 2017 at 08:38

    I would love to see what happens at this meeting on Friday. I do hope someone records it on their phone and posts it on PIE.

    Report
  6. NickTurner
    June 12, 2017 at 11:57

    Picking up the side issue mentioned by AgentV the public recognition of bodies representing trades and professions is so important and the need for a strap line after  letters essential. For example NAEA is what to the general public? ARLA is what to the general public? ( Possibly a manufacturer of dairy products?) the RICS is what to the general public?

    So many of the organisations mentioned by others in their comments above appear to have forgotten why they are there and what they are there to do. As a member of the RICS many grass root members feel the organsiation may be going down an international regulatary route that disenfranchises regional amd local members.

    The only property related body that seems to have it right is The Law Society. It says what it is and people will understand.

    Perhaps strap lines are out of favour with expert marketing moguls as the organisations believe the public know who and what they are and more of a worry the organisations themselves believe it.

    NAEA  a body representing Estate Agents in the UK

    ALRL a body representing Letting Agents in the UK

    RICS a body representing Surveyors worldwide

    The Law Society.

    Keep things simple – its not rocket science. If it ain’t broke then don’t break it. Hang on did a politician suggest an election recently!

     

    Report
  7. KByfield04
    June 12, 2017 at 15:47

    I think the fact there is not a single supportive comment on here says just about everything anyone needs to know. They need a massive shift in dorecton/management or they will be their own undoing.

    Report
  8. AgencyInsider
    June 12, 2017 at 17:14

    NAEA = Never Actually Enabled Anything

    ARLA = A Really Laughable Anachronism

    NFOPP = No F’in Opinions, Personality or Purpose

    propertymarrk = Words fail me.

    Report
X

You must be logged in to report this comment!

Log In Register

Back to Homepage

Comments are closed.

Thank you for signing up to our newsletter, we have sent you an email asking you to confirm your subscription. Additionally if you would like to create a free EYE account which allows you to comment on news stories and manage your email subscriptions please enter a password below.