December 14, 2017 at 14:34 #50821
These were the questions posed to Chris Hamer, CEO of the NAEA. I do not believe they are unreasonable or onerous for a professional body to answer.
• Will you please confirm that, NAEA Propertymark, nor any of its subsidiaries received payment from Purplebricks (other than normal membership fees) for any engagements since trading as a private limited company or since as a PLC?
• Will Propertymark please confirm that all current Purplebricks franchisee members have AML, ICO etc. or lawfully held these when their membership was renewed and will be required to have these on renewal?
• Do Propertymark confirm or deny that one or more Purplebricks franchise members have been expelled or had their memberships terminated for noncompliance with AML, redress or ICO non-compliance?
• Given that non-compliance in these matters is a criminal offence, were the appropriate organisations (HMRC/ ICO/ TPOS) Warwickshire TSOs’ and NTSEAT informed and what action resulted? If not, please explain why not?
• Will Propertymark please confirm that it will adhere to any ruling or statement made by Warwickshire Trading Standards on estate agency/ related legislation as its primary authority?
• Will Propertymark make a formal public statement reiterating the position and advice of its own compliance team, that of HMRC, TPOS etc. that any individual trading as a PPD of a business, including franchisees, must have AML or ICO and, that not doing so, is a criminal offence as defined and, call on Warwickshire Primary Authority to investigate and take action against individuals and companies that are currently trading as a PPD, registered with a redress scheme but not registered with ICO or HMRC?
• In the alternate, will the board formally put on record that it agrees with the above statement or, a formal explanation of why it does not.
• Please confirm who at Purplebricks PLC is the member listed with Propertymark as the PPD for that company as I wish to bring a formal and serious complaint against that company.
This was the latest response from the NAEA to those questions
Thank you for your email and for that of 29 November in regard to which I apologise for my lack of acknowledgment.
You expressed the view in that 29 November email that I had responded to an earlier email (that of 23 November) in a careful and brief manner. I had indeed carefully considered the points you raised together with the questions you asked and determined that a brief response was, for me, the right approach.
I have not changed that view and it follows therefore that I have nothing further to add to my previous responses over the past few months or your email of 11 December.
- This topic was modified 12 months ago by Chris Wood.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.