Agents’ Mutual boss accused of running ‘crash, bang, wallop’ into suing Connells’ owned brand

| EYE Correspondent

Agents’ Mutual chief executive Ian Springett ran “crash, bang, wallop” into suing Gascoigne Halman as he knew the agent would be able to afford the court case, the Competition Tribunal Appeal heard yesterday (Wednesday).

The tribunal, which the day before was told that costs of the case are likely to be £6m, is examining competition issues around the ‘one other portal’ (OOP) rule on the Agents’ Mutual-owned portal OnTheMarket.

It was yesterday alleged that Mr Springett did not disclose other instances of members multi-listing on more than two portals in breach of the OOP policy.

Mr Springett wanted to protect the “major sum of money” he will receive if the five-year contracts with the agencies were successful, it was alleged.

Just a few days after Gascoigne Halman allegedly breached their contract with AM, Mr Springett applied for an urgent interim injunction, the Competition Appeal Tribunal heard.

But, it was claimed, he has never told the court that founding member Savills and Strutt & Parker had also breached their contracts.

Both of those agencies were in breach of the OOP as recently as two weeks ago, Paul Harris QC, representing Gascoigne Halman, said.

Mr Harris said Mr Springett had “exaggerated evidence to the court”.

Mr Harris accused him, saying: “You have given incomplete and misleading evidence when it suits your purpose.

“Following the alleged breach of contract by Gascoigne Halman, just a few days later, you issued for an urgent interim injunction.”

Mr Harris said that in it, Mr Springett stated that their actions would have a “speedy and catastrophic effect” on AM.

His application said that his company faced “risks that are very clear and very serious”.

But, Mr Harris asked Mr Springett: “You did not give the court the critical information, did you, [and] what you told them was not a full picture.”

He said that “at no point” did Mr Springett mention that he could have just hidden Gascoigne Halman’s listings from the website.

Mr Harris said this often-taken process by AM only came to light after it was brought to their attention by the press.

Mr Springett did not disclose that AM had hidden “a number of other” agents’ properties when they had faced similar breaches, it was alleged.

However Mr Springett said that none of the previous breaches were as large as Gascoigne Halman and that is why he pursued the litigation.

From the witness stand he claimed that Manchester-based Gascoigne Halman, who have 18 offices across South Cheshire “was the biggest breach of contract at that time”.

He said AM had taken action against them due to their “high public profile”.

Mr Harris called it false evidence.

He told the hearing that Strutt & Parker, who have 60 offices, and Savills who have more than 100, were much larger, more high profile and founder members of OTM.

Mr Harris said they had breached their contracts by listing properties on FT.com at the same time as OTM and Rightmove, “right in the thick of the injunction battle with Gascoigne Halman”.

Christie’s International Real Estate also listed properties on FT.com as well as Rightmove and OTM, breaching the OOP rule, the hearing was told.

Mr Harris claimed this had no effect on AM, let alone causing the company to enter a “death spiral”.

Mr Harris put it to Mr Springett: “You did not tell the court and did not tell Gascoigne Halman about the breach of the OOP. You were meant to give full and frank disclosure.”

Mr Springett said that FT.com did not pose such a threat as Zoopla or Rightmove so breaches of contract with that website were not treated as important in comparison.

He said the issues with Strutt & Parker and Savills had already been resolved before any litigation had to be taken.

Mr Harris then produced print-outs from web pages that showed multi-listed properties, one in Ascot, from both the agencies on FT.com, Rightmove and OTM, from just two weeks ago.

He produced another print-out of a Croft Residential property in Ripon and said: “That is another breach isn’t it?”, alleging that Mr Springett did not disclose any of those other breaches to the court.

“What you really wanted with the injunction was somebody likely to go through the court case and get a determination,” Mr Harris continued.

“That was the reason for taking on Gascoigne Halman in the litigation, [as] you knew they had been bought by Connells.

“You knew Connells had wanted to speak to you about Gascoigne Halman.

“You knew precisely well that having been bought by Connells they would be able to get through the court case and get the determination.

“It was the one reason you pushed at it.”

Mr Springett told the hearing that Gascoigne Halman had wanted to pursue the case. It had not wanted to talk about it and resolve it, unlike the others.

Mr Harris said that Gascoigne Halman had brought up the “mandatory mediation provision” set out in the contract at the first opportunity.

However, Mr Springett claimed that they never instigated it.

“Because you ran straight on into court in a matter of days once you knew about the breach when you went crash, bang, wallop into this litigation,” said Mr Harris.

“You did not take any steps for mediation.

“You sued without taking notice of the mandatory mediation provision.”

Mr Harris said that if the allegations put forward by Gascoigne Halman were proved, then the “contracts will be void and it will the end of the business” for Agents’ Mutual.

There is a great need for OOP to make Mr Springett’s ‘brainchild’ succeed, he said, addressing Mr Springett.

“You stand to make a lot of money if the venture succeeds.

“At the end of the five years, if the venture had been successful, you would get a major sum of money.”

Mr Springett agreed he would get a sum of the “accumulative profit”; whether or not it was ‘significant’ would depend on how successful the business was.

Mr Harris said: “If Gascoigne Halman succeed in what it sets out to in this competition defence, you will miss out on a significant amount.”

The hearing continues.

An account of earlier proceedings yesterday are in the report immediately below this one.

x

Email the story to a friend

More top news stories



42 Comments

  1. The Outsider
    February 9, 2017 at 07:13

    The moment you start to pick and choose who is allowed to advertise on multiple portals your OOP rule and ultimately your entire business model is doomed.

    This could be the final nail in the coffin for OTM.

    Report
    1. Thomas Flowers
      February 9, 2017 at 09:15

      Crash, bang, Wallop.

      So Springett instigated a massively expensive legal case at members expense.

      A good commander would never have aloud this particular battle to take place as the financial implications of potentially losing would be too great. One thing this corporate army has in abundance is backed finance?

      A good commander would have found a way through the mountains to avoid this particular battle.

      All armies march on their stomach and after a major defeat, when all the food has run are the troops likely to desert?

      Far too risky a strategy?

      This was not and never should have been a Waterloo.

      A good commander plans to have the resources to fight a series of smaller battles that favour their strengths?

      Member backed finance is not one of them.

      Was this the charge of the light brigade?

       

       

       

      Report
      1. Bless You
        February 9, 2017 at 10:12

        This would have been like a computer company going after Apple to kill Microsoft in 2000’s. Zoopla are the hero’s in my book. (apart from a ‘new price’ not going to top of zoopla listings page)

        What annoys me is that every agent was up for it until it came to the part of ditching rightmove..

        Technically the only reason OTM even launched was because they were clever enough to get agents to meet together. Unfortunalty the old guard in my town ( and it looks like every other city in UK) bottled it when it came to the big question of rightmove.

        Until somebody comes up with a way to get the consumer to choose. Rightmove is here to stay. Maybe its not that bad.

        …bless you rightmove.

         

         

         

         

        Report
    2. I want to believe
      February 9, 2017 at 12:51

      It’s a real shame that ‘Sun reader’ headlines like “Crash Bang Wallop” are being used to catch attention and detract from the question of the legalities of contractual obligations.

      Stay tuned for tomorrow we are hoping to bring to your attention the “Ding Dong Dollop” accusations levelled at Gascoigne Halman’s style of management.

      Can somebody please remind me how much these court room actors are getting paid for this drivel ? “So Mr Springett, you stand to make a few quid out of all this” – “well Sun reading actor in a funny wig” “I’m not doing it for free like you obviously are”

      Meanwhile the one chance our industry has of taking back control of it’s advertising becomes embroiled in a children’s pantomime.

      Report
      1. Ric
        February 9, 2017 at 12:58

        oh no it’s not!

        Report
      2. PeeBee
        February 9, 2017 at 15:47

        ‘I want to believe’ – I completely agree that the article ‘headline’ is more than slightly reminiscent of something that The Buttered Bun would splash over their front page – however there is a major difference here.

        The phrase is seemingly a direct quotation from the cakehole of the QC acting for Gascoigne Halman.

        Clearly, it is THEM who are trying to turn this into sensationalist tosh – as otherwise it won’t make page 24 anywhere else other than EYE, or on the bog door of the other pub.

        Those people and businesses concerned with agendas (hidden or otherwise) had better hope they are squeaky clean or have very well-covered tracks – as who knows what else is about to come churning out of the sausage machine to spoil the whole barbecue.

        As you say – shameful.

        Report
      3. I want to believe
        February 10, 2017 at 15:58

        Lets hope that after all the court room shinannigins are over the fate of OTM isn’t destined to be “it’s behind you”

        Report
  2. AgentV
    February 9, 2017 at 07:14

    It appears this case is rapidly progressing, and the evidence on both sides is reasonably straightforward…….so why on earth is it likely to cost £6 million? That’s possibly the equivalent of over 30 years worth of turnover for a small independent agency.

    Report
    1. AgentV
      February 9, 2017 at 07:22

      How can it possibly be an equivalent amount of work to over 3,000 completed house sales?

      Report
      1. Bless You
        February 9, 2017 at 10:15

        How can rightmove make 75% margin, how come independants are on a portal made by corporates. Its called picking the right job.

        Report
  3. The Outsider
    February 9, 2017 at 07:16

    Separately, on the news from a couple of days ago that Zoopla offered to pay some of GH legal costs, if I was at Rightmove I would have genuinely offered the same to OTM – telling the markets that competition for the consumer is a great thing.

    Keeping OTM in business after this will only continue to help them achieve their growth objectives.

    Report
  4. Fawkes
    February 9, 2017 at 07:21

    Pretty awful watching the OTM model being picked apart. I myself had experience of this very early on when considering signing up a 4 business operation. At the time a colleague, in partnership with a friend had 2 offices, one brand. He owned one, his pal the other … one brand, a few miles apart. Same website, advertising etc. OTM were happy to take them on, with one of them still advertising both offices properties on the Duopoly whilst one adhered to the only one portal rule. An arrangement that exists to this day.

    Report
  5. eltell
    February 9, 2017 at 07:42

    Are there any other independents like me who are most uncomfortable at seeing potentially a huge sum of money being risked by OTM instead of promoting the brand to the public?  We signed up in good faith for five years but havent seen or heard from our OTM rep for over a year.  What seemed to be a really good idea handing  back an internet presence to the sole contributors appears to have lost its way.  Perhaps if I stop my monthly direct debit I will hear from our rep!

    Report
    1. AgentV
      February 9, 2017 at 07:49

      Trouble is no one ever listens to the lone voice…..you need a collective of like thinking independents……oh but wait, would that be breaking any rules?

      Report
    2. Ric
      February 9, 2017 at 08:04

      This court case aside, my opinion we were really only counting down the clock to 2020 before most I think would have said, great but no more thanks anyway. It would still have been 3rd portal I think in 2020. Sorry AM/OTM! The numbers were just not exciting as it stood.

      So for me, the money was going down the pan anyway.

      In some ways however, we now have a situation where we can all crack on in 2017/2018, be it:

      1. AM lose – Most if not all dropping AM as our contracts are clearly void. Even if they drop the OOPR I did not sign up for the fundamental change to the core term of the contract.

      2. AM win – And lets use this as a reminder of how Z want to ensure they back the corps in to finishing us, if the corps cannot buy us out in the meantime.

      Report
    3. treehuggergraeme
      February 9, 2017 at 08:57

      Goodness knows what happened to one agent, one vote… more like one agent, no say whatsoever

      Report
  6. NGgibson
    February 9, 2017 at 07:50

    So let me get this straight. OTM founder members are aloud to break the OOP rule but Gasgoine Halman are not? Sounds Fair!

    Report
    1. Bless You
      February 9, 2017 at 10:19

      I new we shouldn’t have trusted those London agents.

      Report
  7. danny
    February 9, 2017 at 07:50

    In my opinion it is starting to look a little like Ian Springett doing whatever he wants , whenever he wants with no regard whatsoever for the consequences of his membership. So far he’s offered equity to the big three and gets a payout at the end of years if successful …. one company ,one vote hmmmm. Looks a little like this unravelling

    Report
    1. Trevor Mealham
      February 9, 2017 at 08:09

      Correct danny.

      If AM/OTM had got proper legal advice and not adopted an unfair embargo on other competitors be it portals or online only models in AM/OTMs roll out its likely AM would have done OK.

      Springett in court said the roll out was his plan.

      What I didnt like is his responses in court are more along the lines of he just rolled out what the members wanted.

      Its feeling like he is pushing blame on the 6000 agent members.

      If AM/OTM lose that could be a massive fine. What happens when/if GH Connells win?  Does RM and Z follow looking for lost subscription revenue?

      Report
      1. Ric
        February 9, 2017 at 08:25

        Morning Trevor, I would agree IF they are his words, it was more a case of us agreeing to the business model he proposed rather than what we asked for – otherwise it would have been our brainchild not his.

        As for RM/Z losses? All Anti-OTM trolls on here, continuously scoff at “no effect to Z and RM are stronger” so really?

        It would be hard to prove agents would have stayed on Z anyway! I think the very fact they supported OTM would show a court Z were clearly not favoured by these agents anyway and Z would have to prove beyond doubt they would have kept those agents regardless.

        Some of Z reports over the past 18 months of no effect and net gains, plus tipping 1/4 of a mil in to the court case may also be a sign of no loss there either, perhaps Z should have played the wounded card more!

        RM – Well everyone keeps saying it has strengthened their position so what loss there.

        If Z went for losses, the 6,000 would NEVER return I would imagine, so getting back however much “lost income” would I think say goodbye to more future income, if has not already with their offer to help fight against what the 6k member agents believed in.

        There is a bigger danger of the member agents suing for money back than your last line.

        Report
        1. danny
          February 9, 2017 at 08:32

          Trevor, please dont agree with me , youll do nothing for my likes score 😉 If your seriously suggesting Zoopla or Rightmove would sue its own membership after all this I seriously doubt that . I can however imagine the sound of thousands of estate agents up and down the country furiously tapping delete on the emails entitled “Following on fromthe OTM meeting”

          Report
          1. Ric
            February 9, 2017 at 08:37

            haha, even I gave you a like there! 😉

            Report
            1. Trevor Mealham
              February 9, 2017 at 08:58

              What was in the emails danny?

              Report
              1. PeeBee
                February 9, 2017 at 10:33

                Oh… WOULDN’T YOU LIKE TO KNOW!

                Report
                1. Trevor Mealham
                  February 9, 2017 at 11:25

                  Yes, or maybe I already do!

                  Report
                  1. PeeBee
                    February 9, 2017 at 11:42

                    So… you’ll be appearing as a witness I take it then…

                    Report
                    1. Trevor Mealham
                      February 9, 2017 at 11:57

                      @PeeBee. I think were all witnesses PeeBee with our own remits. I have not been asked to stand, but would happily do so.

                      Yesterday I had a morning meeting in London. I then had the afternoon spare so went to the CMA and simply sat in the public area.

                      I’ll likely go again as it was interesting to see one side battle their case whilst the other side gave their reason.

                      For sure it was clear that there is a lot of focus on the Competition Act 1998/ which is based on Eu Competition law.

                      Report
                    2. PeeBee
                      February 9, 2017 at 13:33

                      Mr Mealham

                      Are you Dutch, by any chance?

                      Report
                    3. Trevor Mealham
                      February 9, 2017 at 13:49

                      No not Dutch PeeBee. We can trace back to 11th Century England.

                      Why the Dutch comment?

                      Report
                    4. PeeBee
                      February 9, 2017 at 15:29

                      You have a habit of using the phrase ‘For sure…’ in your posts.

                      It’s a very ‘Dutch’ thing…

                      Report
    2. new life
      February 9, 2017 at 11:30

      Wasnt this the basis of communisum everyone is equal except some are more equal than others ??

      Report
  8. AgentPink92
    February 9, 2017 at 08:03

    AM’s rule of one …

    One other portal ..

    One member one vote …

    One rule for one and one rule for another …

    And allegedly one big pay out for one Mr Springett one day soon (well, hopefully M’Lord).

    Report
  9. lettingsguru
    February 9, 2017 at 08:51

    I’m not sure any party, win or lose, come out of this looking great.

    GH / Connells had a contract with OTM with specific terms – I assume that means their clients can now say to them, “I know what we signed up to but that doesn’t meaning anything, I mean look what you did to OTM…”

    Founder member signed up to the same I assume, but did their own thing- same goes for their clients.

    OTM picking and choosing their battles, not disclosing the facts – a bit like agents not disclosing to OTM that they were listed on 3+ portals….

    £6M to fight it!

    … and we wonder why our reputation as estate and letting agents is down there with politicians.

    Report
    1. AgentPink92
      February 9, 2017 at 09:01

      You can’t renege on a legal contract.

      The issue here is whether the OOP contract was legal – if not agents can walk away from it.

      Plus, if AM allowed its own founder members to break the OOP rule – it’s a hard argument to stop other agents doing the same.

       

      Report
      1. Trevor Mealham
        February 9, 2017 at 09:29

        Looking that way.

        Report
        1. Trevor Mealham
          February 9, 2017 at 09:48

          …… equally, just done a search for agents in N Ireland on the OTM site !!!!!!!!!!!! from loads to hardly any? HAVE THEY WALKED LEAVING AM/ OTM CONTRACTS with OTM not taking them to court????

          Report
  10. Ric
    February 9, 2017 at 12:15
    Report
  11. Rebel
    February 9, 2017 at 13:40

    We are the agents – we have let the tail wag the dog.

     

    Report
    1. PeeBee
      February 9, 2017 at 15:19

      SO true, Rebel.

      Report
  12. truthorlies23
    February 9, 2017 at 15:05

    This is appalling, no wonder Springett has gone to ground over the last 9 months, Agents Mutual? One company one vote? But here we are with OTM apparently risking thousands of gold members loan notes in a law suit without apparently once getting consent to do so.

    Report
    1. PeeBee
      February 9, 2017 at 15:48

      Quick question, truthorlies23 – Are you a Member of Agents’ Mutual?

      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.