A Twitter campaign aimed at getting the industry bodies to go public with their inquiries into money laundering has resulted in an extraordinary exchange between the RICS and housing market commentator Henry Pryor.
An email from the RICS press office essentially tells Pryor to make contact direct through it.
Pryor, who released the correspondence to EYE, told us: “This is ridiculous. I will not be silenced.
“It is not even as though I regard myself as a journalist. I’m a buying agent, and very concerned about what has been going on.
“I cannot think of another issue which has brought our industry into more potential disrepute.”
Pryor, who says he was sickened by the apparent revelations into agents’ behaviour in the From Russia With Cash programme on July 7, has been regularly tweeting his disquiet ever since.
Both the NAEA and RICS immediately said they were launching their own inquiries after the programme aired, underlining their urgency.
Members of both bodies were featured in the programme, which showed agents apparently turning a blind eye to a clearly dodgy Russian buyer – in fact, an undercover reporter.
Pryor has been vigorously tweeting over the last six weeks, calling for both bodies to hurry up with their probes.
“Friends of mine are professional members of your organisation. They are owed your support especially if they did nothing wrong. Were they right or did they make a mistake?”
Following a tweet last week, he received an email from the RICS press office.
It said: “Further to your recent contact through Twitter . . . I would like to invite you to contact the press office directly with respect to any concerns that you may have regarding our regulatory procedures for members or concerns regarding our Professional Groups that you may have.
“We have now stated on a number of occasions that our investigations into allegations are thorough – and that all updates will be made publicly available on our website.
“We cannot state when an independent panel will publish the conclusions of their investigations – it is an independent panel and not for us to jeopardise any possible outcome it may have by commenting publicly until the full conclusions are made.”
Pryor replied saying that the RICS’s response to date “has been unacceptable”.
He also called for a visible sign of progress.
Pryor added: “Friends of mine are professional members of your organisation. They are owed your support especially if they did nothing wrong. Were they right or did they make a mistake?
“Companies I work with and who from whom I buy property are ‘regulated’ by RICS and again I suggest are owed support. Did they have the correct procedures in place and if not what should they have done?
“Most importantly the public needs to know where they stand and what RICS position on this is. When it comes to the very serious allegations that were made by the TV company, members, the public and the media require more than the lamentable statements that have been put out thus.”
He went on: “It is not good enough to kick this can down the road and I will continue to press publicly for your organisation to provide some leadership in this matter.
“Do of course continue to direct me and others to your website but I would recommend that you study the examples of other brands like Thomson Holidays and BP who made similar miscalculations about the best way of dealing with these things.
“You may have your own procedures but your members, the wider industry and the public deserve a more urgent and visible public response.”
Separately, in the last few days, EYE has asked both the NAEA and RICS for updates into their investigations.
We have had no reply from the RICS. The NAEA replied telling us there is no update and that its investigation remains ongoing.
Comments (16)
Good on you Henry. It seems at times that good agency practice and adherence to the laws of the land are now policed solely by a few honest men and women in the industry.
“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” – Various
RICS and NAEA are not going to cut off the hand that feeds them just like all trade bodies like ARLA they just want to sell expensive window stickers
That is pure, unadulterated rubbish. HYPOCRITICAL unadulterated rubbish to boot.
Reading your website you make idiotic statements such as
“A service that abides by the main principles defined in the Association of Residential Letting Agents (ARLA) Code of Practice. We are NOT members of ARLA.”
No? So you just abuse their name because they are a recognised entity. Funny, that.
Oh – hang on – you also state
“We only employ people with National Federation of Property Professionals (NFOPP) letting and property management qualifications.”
So basically YOUR STAFF are all Members of the “trade bodies” you openly ridicule on here yet shout out on your website – why? Oh, yeah – BECAUSE IT LOOKS GOOD AND GAINS YOU CREDIBILITY.
I have little doubt your staff all have their designation letters on their business cards.
So let’s be honest about this, shall we? You HAVE to abide by ARLA Code of Practice – YOUR STAFF are bound by it.
Glass houses are a dangerous place to be if you’re a compulsive stone-chucker.
And before you have a pop at my digging around on a boring Monday night… I haven’t even scratched at the surface yet.
And I LOVE scratching… opening cracks into chasms… and gnawing ankles.
Judging by what R. May has said in response to Henry Pryor’s letters, if the UK house-marketing sector is to Save Its Soul before its own ultimate demise ?????? Sorry
From what I see traditional agency is doing rather well compared to the emerging online sector which in two firms I have looked at in the past two days have burnt their way through about £1.6millon in under 3 years.
My reply to Mr Pryor was simply explaining that HMRC, OFT and CLG have been aware of money laundering and tax evasion for a number of years and it is they that are turning a blind eye to the practice and dismissing documented offers of help.
I think if you re-read my comment that instead of the unwillingness to change coming from our industry it is the government who is dragging their heels.
When you say that you can’t enter into short-fire stoic and opinionated debates, isn’t that exactly what you are trying to initiate? Deliberately misread something, post your usual blog promotion, despite being previously warned and banned from the site for doing so and then granting yourself anonymity from discussion with those you have falsely accused?
HOW To Get The Housing Market Operating Fairly Again:
I know I will probably be shouted down for posting on here or have my suggestions torn to bits (judging by previous experiences), but owing to the seriousness of the situation I feel bound, not simply to make a comment here but to raise questions and make some pertinent suggestions as to how things could best be resolved.
Judging by what R. May has said in response to Henry Pryor’s letters, if the UK house-marketing sector is to Save Its Soul before its own ultimate demise, some form of very substantial change and improvement from within the industry itself is now urgently needed.
The rate of turnover in the housing market is crippled by its own marketing methods and not by an insufficient potential supply of properties available to sell – or indeed by a lack of people wanting to move house. This is causing severe financial pain in the agency sector, though few practices appear prepared to admit this. The market needs to be improved so that it can start operating fairly in order to encourage the house-owning public to feel comfortable about moving more often. Until this happens, both buyers and sellers will continue to shrink away from starting to transact any more than the minimum numbers of sales, the only exceptions necessarily being primarily the three Ds – debt, divorce and death.
Specifically, families or the people forming them would clearly prefer to move house more often than around every 20 years on average – as is happening currently! This stark statistic, (source: http://www.propertychecklists.co.uk/articles/no-one-wants-to-move-home-anymore) in itself, clearly shows that there is now a serious problem.
I have no connection with Henry Prior myself but I agree with him that not doing anything about the problem he raises is simply not good enough. In my opinion it will result in the market continuing to ‘stagnate’, in terms of there being a lack of sufficient properties going on sale – at prices that are reflective of people’s ability to actually afford them. Money laundering is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to inefficiencies in the services currently operating the housing market itself.
If marketing methods for houses going up for sale were successfully improved, more properties would start going on sale and more activity in the marketplace would start to ensue. I can only place the blame for this failure firmly at the door of estate agency and the methods employed by those in it.
I agree, and have said before, that what needs to be done is to have a wholesale review of house marketing processes, and for appropriate change to happen swiftly, once the relevant improvements are decided upon.
If the NAEA cannot proactively achieve this then, again in my view, government needs to intervene to initiate the necessary market upgrades a reasonable time-scale. This market is a very important sector within the whole economy and as such it warrants government scrutiny. Judging by R. May’s comments however, this may be a tough ask?
For more information about what I believe needs to be done, as well as the how, the why, and the when, please refer back to the article which was published on the Property Match Blog some while before the last general election.
http://www.property-match.co.uk/blog/2013/12/05/estate-agents/want-functional-stable-housing-market/
This has been recently updated and gives considered details for resolving both supply and price inefficiencies identified within the UK housing market currently.
If anyone has a question about an aspect of these proposals they are welcome to communicate this with a view to discussing it with me in a timely and measured way of course. I’m afraid cannot enter into short-fire stoic and opinionated debates concerning such important matters on this site. A more calm and measured approach would be needed to deal with this on-going, intransigent problem needing an appropriate solution for the whole UK housing market. Any interested parties may contact me on the Property Match blog on this.
Peter, I find it disrespectful and rude to post links to your own website and expect people to converse with you there rather than here.
Not to mention he is completely wrong and barking mad!
Oh, dear. NEVER have I read something so fundamentally flawed; so ridiculous in its’ very makeup – and so twisted that if it were a rubber band it would propel a balsawood plane… which carries FAR more weight than this diatribe ever will… seventeen times around the globe before drifting off into the outer reaches of reality.
It seems that the whole of this “comment” (a brazen attempt at directing visits to his frankly woeful blogsite…) revolves around a flawed “stark statistic”, and his twisted taking on Robert May’s comment to add weight to the biggest non-argument in the history of f*ckwittery (credit: Jonnie).
Mr Hendry – you embarrass yourself YET again.
Furthermore, you now clearly seek to embarrass the industry that fed and clothed you and your family for decades.
THAT is the sad, disturbing part of this.
I have no idea whatsoever ‘it’ did to you to warrant such a vendetta – but like the #bunnyboiler fiasco of recent weeks – luckily no-one is taking you seriously.
Oh, where to start…?
Do you know what, I’m not even sure that I can be bothered tbh.
The country is massively short of property – and the only place that it makes financial sense to build new housing (i.e. the south) doesn’t want any more thank you very much.
On the basis that it costs (roughly, of course) about £150 per square foot to build a property to current building code levels (using UK registered tax paying builders of course) a modest 1,000ft2 house cost £150,000 plus the cost of the land, plus the legal costs, plus architects, plus fees, plus bank charges, etcetera, etcetera. Then of course the building company aren’t just doing it for the love of it, are they now?
There is a considerable portion of the country where you can buy a good condition 3 bed family home for less than £150,000.
The problem is 40-50 years of housing policy neglect by the politicians.
This can all be found on my blog, but I will be polite enough not to include a link 😉
The funny thing about this though is that IF the agent was honest, do you know what they should have done differently?
As far as the reporter/ TV programme makers would have known… Nothing.
There is an element of entrapment in the regulations.
If a customer approaches an agent and expresses intent to break the money laundering regulations, the agent has a duty to alert the authorities and continue on with the client as if nothing has happened.
So, if that had been me being filmed, as the designated Money Laundering Officer, then it would appear to an outside observer to be as dishonest as these guys here.
Now, my last statement could be considered libellous – shall we say allegedly dishonest?
But as the designated money laundering officer you should then report suspicions to the national crime agency and ask for permission to carry on with negotiations.
And this is the issue, they never reported the dodgy Russian to the NCA. And were seen to carry on negotiations. And in some cases arranging solicitors who know how to bend rules.
I know it was a witch hunt but there are fundamental issues within those firms. At best training needs to be addressed at worst conspiracy to commit fraud. Almost 2 months later NAEA, RIC’s have still not publicly come out and spoken about this.
Longer they leave it, the more it is brushed under the carpet and fallout will not be as bad. Hoping it will quietly disappear.
Is that what is best for the industry? This should have been jumped on straight away been awake up call to the industry. All it shows is money laundering is not taken seriously by agents and the supposed (voluntary) bodies do not take it seriously either for fear of upsetting its members.
As perhaps my last statement could be libelous – I would like to add allegedly 😉
Well done HP. I agree this a matter which needs to be public. If TV can produce a program for the public, then industry should speak up in the public domain. I dislike the ‘Shhh – call us privately‘ approach. If an organisation purports to be the bastions of professionalism then they need to stand up and explain. I understand that an investigation is afoot, but this doesn’t prevent a public statement of the policy in general, an agents responsibility and at what point wrong doing actually occurs.
If I had reported everyone who made fanciful claims during a viewing, the Anti Money Laundering brigade would have gone in to meltdown. I had one guy tell me he had been left a forgotten Van Gogh by his Auntie which would pay for the house – he hadn’t – but when we followed up the viewing discovered he had been sectioned.
At the offer stage the scrutiny begins. Rather like a conveyancing quote, there are no checks until the business of buying actually begins. Unless professional organisations tell agents & public what is expected, then good agents reputation may be tarnished unfairly.
Keep at it Henry, I for one would love to hear the outcome. I have often raised my voice on here how inept and not fit for purpose the NAEA is.
This is a time when they could have come out and justified there existence. Instead all they have done is prove by joining the NAEA all you are doing is paying for a logo.
With respect Henry you are wasting your time. I have been banging this drum via my local MP [who was a Minister at the time], HMRC, OFT and CLG since 2010 when if first became screamingly apparent.
There is no appetite to resolve it and HMRC have said (in writing) that a solution which wil control it is of ‘no interest’
The problem is there are too many snouts in a very lucrative through.