OnTheMarket in challenge to regain agent that joined Zoopla

| Rosalind Renshaw

Gascoigne Halman, the major firm in the north that was bought by Connells last autumn, is back with OnTheMarket and no longer listing with Zoopla.

It follows legal action by OnTheMarket. However it is understood that the matter is not concluded and that there are  ongoing talks.

OTM, however, has made clear its determination to enforce contracts and have its ‘one other portal’ rule upheld.

It also looks set to lay down a marker for other agents involved in the current acquisition spree by corporates that back Zoopla – whereas the independents being bought may be signed up to OTM.

The action follows our report that Gascoigne Halman was quitting OTM.

Gascoigne Halman was an early Gold member of OTM and as such signed up to OTM’s one other portal rule.

Earlier this month, however, the firm told EYE that its acquisition by Connells – a stakeholder in Zoopla – meant that its departure from OTM was inevitable.

An OTM spokesperson last night said: “When it was announced that Gascoigne Halman was listing its properties on Zoopla / PrimeLocation as well as on Rightmove, we initiated appropriate legal action to address the situation.

“Gascoigne Halman remains a valued member of Agents’ Mutual and is complying with its contractual agreements to pay a monthly subscription fee and to list its properties at OnTheMarket.com and a maximum of one other portal, which continues to be Rightmove.”

Connells, LSL and Countrywide – although the latter has recently halved its holding – are all stakeholders in Zoopla.

We have invited Zoopla, Connells and Gascoigne Halman to comment.

Last night Connells simply said it was in discussions with OTM and Zoopla but was unable to issue an update.

Gascoigne Halman said it was  unable to comment.

x

Email the story to a friend

More top news stories



94 Comments

  1. HarryN
    February 24, 2016 at 07:11

    Looks like unfinished business to me!

    Report
    1. HarryN
      February 24, 2016 at 10:41

      Sorry to reply to my own thread, but it looks very much like PIE agrees with me – the headline has changed from:

      “OntheMarket Wins Legal Battle to regain agent who Rejoined Zoopla”

      to

      “OnTheMarket in challenge to regain agent that joined Zoopla”

      It will be very interesting to see how this one pans out.

      Report
    2. Bless You
      February 24, 2016 at 13:38

      um am i missing something..connells’s companies shouldnt be allowed on Onthemarket anyway..its companies like connells, lsl, countrytwide etc who ruin our industry by ‘owning the portals’ and paying nothing…

       

      Report
      1. smile please
        February 27, 2016 at 12:30

        They are allowed and OTM would welcome them with open arms.

        The issue is they must pay the same as everybody else which is one reason they will not join also the vested interest they have in the other portals.

        Report
  2. danny
    February 24, 2016 at 07:50

    Gascogne Halman remains a loyal member of OTM…. So we are suing then , what a mess. It shows a bit of desperation in my opinion …

    Report
    1. RealAgent
      February 24, 2016 at 08:22

      How is a company enforcing a contract a sign of desperation. Why don’t you stop paying your mobile phone contract and see how far that gets you.

      Report
      1. harry hood
        February 24, 2016 at 08:52

        but would you ever return to this mobile company again?

        Report
      2. smile please
        February 24, 2016 at 09:32

        RA – Supposing these posters are estate agents (debatable) lets make it even clearer for them.

        You have a sole selling rights contract on a property, you find a buyer, you set the sale up, sent memos. Then the vendor turns round and says “Sorry mate, going with the agent down the road now” – Are you telling me you would not go after the fee? – If you say you will not you are a liar as well as stupid.

        Report
        1. harry hood
          February 24, 2016 at 12:57

          everyone agrees with you smile please. that example yes.

          but what if the agent doesn’t actually do all that stuff you mentioned and can’t sell your house?

           

          Report
          1. smile please
            February 24, 2016 at 13:10

            Gascoigne Halman are not complaining that its does not work they are just terminating a contract.

            Report
  3. Gump
    February 24, 2016 at 08:27

    Using other agents money to get one agent back, smooth.

    Not really helping their cause is it

    Report
  4. Eric Walker
    February 24, 2016 at 08:32

    In fairness, I don’t think OTM had much choice. To do nothing would have set a precedent and with respect to Gascoigne Halman, they are big boys who chose to sign up and be bound by the contract. 

    Report
    1. devonagent
      February 24, 2016 at 08:37

      Agreed, Zoopla would be jumping all over this otherwise to win back agents

      Report
    2. harry hood
      February 24, 2016 at 12:12

      If we assume that GH will make a counter-argument, would be interesting to consider what this might be. One such route would be to pursue the breach of contract the other way, i.e. OTM had not fulfilled it’s promise and therefore this deems the contract void before GH need to continue its contracted duty.

      I’m not saying what is right or wrong or the counter argument will win. Just seeing if anyone else has a view on what the counter-argument is likely to be…..and surely we all agree there will be a counter-argument

      Report
  5. harry hood
    February 24, 2016 at 08:56

    This shows a vicious edge and is really going make agents think long and hard before signing a new contract with OTM

    Report
    1. Ric
      February 24, 2016 at 09:10

      How would you feel if your sole agency vendors were selling through the competition and getting paid, making a mockery of your terms?….. Give over harry,.

      OTM well and truly justified to go for this. A contract is a contract and as long as Gascoigne Halman trade under that name, in my opinion they should adhere to all of the contracts they “Gascoigne Halman” signed up to.

      If they don’t want to…. or Connells don’t want them to….. get the “Connells” name above the shop windows and not Gascoigne Halman.

      Report
      1. danny
        February 24, 2016 at 09:31

        how would you feel if you signed a contract for 5 years and then your competition where offered a contract for 1/5 of the time for 1/5 of the price for the same product ?

        Report
        1. Ric
          February 24, 2016 at 09:39

          What like Z? I get offered a £50 per branch contract twice a week! and fixed for quite some time! Anyone else paying Z more than that?

          May be it is news to you danny – but companies often try and entice people over (or back) with deals….. you are funny….. and you would know this if you were an estate agent…. not a No.2 as smile please says.

          Is it sunny in Z towers this morning? Lovely weather here 🙂

          Report
          1. danny
            February 24, 2016 at 14:56

            Ric, companies ,as you say , are entitled to do what they want . Mutuals with an articles of memorandium arent. Thats the point, as Springers bum boy im sure you dont mind paying 6 times the rate of others. Im glad your happy to subsidise their advertising…and as for the Zoopla towers thing.Weathers good, hows things in your expensive central London office that your members pay for. As your for something im automatically assuming your an OTM rep ?

            Report
            1. Ric
              February 25, 2016 at 17:25

              paying 6 times that of others – funny lad you….

              anyway…… my assumption was a touch fairer than yours…. I have told people I am for OTM but equally not shy about offending them if required – I think I was one of the first to puke at the logo! I still do to be fair…..and you could turn off all the websites for me – I don’t like any of them other than ric.co.uk

              you on the other hand had to comment on how bad they are for requesting a contract is adhered to! Really…..

              What professional opinion is there (Your view) that agents or anyone for that matter should treat signed contracts as if they do not exist? and warn people that a company is in some way wrong for expecting a contract is adhered to..

              PS – ROS – I can reply to comments now!!! 🙂

              Report
        2. smile please
          February 24, 2016 at 09:41

          Danny where is the evidence they are getting it for 1/5 the price? – Not a single agent that can be verified has come out and shown this.

          I am not OTM i called them to ask for the discount, they said they do not offer it.

          Report
  6. Ewan Foreman
    February 24, 2016 at 08:57

    Meanwhile Rightmove keep their heads down and concentrate on sending out invoices – such things seldom last forever!

    Report
  7. Trevor Mealham
    February 24, 2016 at 09:10

    Hey right. Which Court (wasn’t) that through. AM/OTM acts cartel like. I’ve heard many agencies saying that OTM fails to get them seen. I can’t see any Judge making an agent stay with something that achieves less for Joe Seller.

    Show us the court case PIE. ……..

    Report
  8. smile please
    February 24, 2016 at 09:14

    Reading the same old names and the same old,predictable responses makes me think two things.

    1. There are some very stupid people who are estate agents.

    2. There are some very vicious, stupid people pretending to be estate agents.

    I think i know which one it is!

    To have a go at OTM for chasing after a contract is quite frankly just stupid. As another poster points out imagine not paying your mobile bill, or the walking away from the expensive phone system you have installed in your office with 4 years to run, do you not think a company is within their rights to pursue?

    Report
    1. Ric
      February 24, 2016 at 09:32

      Clearly not EA’s as only EA’s on whatever side of the fence they are would agree that OTM are correct for chasing this one….. a contract is a contract! As we [EA’s] live our lives by Sole Agency T&C’s day in day out….. you know EA’s on the whole here will say fair doo’s – These comments are really outing the pretenders…..

      Your No.2 I suspect also!

      Report
      1. Trevor Mealham
        February 24, 2016 at 09:44

        Ric. A sole agency agreement doesn’t stop multi agency. You’d need a sole selling rights contract. There’s a big difference in legal application.

        Report
        1. Woodentop
          February 24, 2016 at 10:41

          It means the vendor is liable to pay all the agents, that is why we have multi agency and joint agreements.

          Report
    2. Bless You
      February 24, 2016 at 13:41

      agree, they should also have a word limit so the point is kept to..half use it as a business tool to ‘network’ and get name awareness for their speaking careers.

      Report
  9. Trevor Mealham
    February 24, 2016 at 09:15

    Just because a taxi firm creates a rule that it’s drivers can drive on the paths in rush hour. Doesn’t mean a court would uphold the company’s rules. Especially when consumers interests are at risk.

    Report
    1. Robert May
      February 24, 2016 at 09:33

      Contract Law isn’t something AM have dreamt up Trevor.

      Report
      1. Trevor Mealham
        February 24, 2016 at 09:42

        Agree Robert. I don’t think they understand that a contract restraining Agents against client best interest in cases and placing restraints on other traders in a market place is anti-competitive. EU law is a big stick to try and fight.

        As you can see below the CMA has recently started investigations into what they feel could be an unfair operative.

        Report
        1. Robert May
          February 24, 2016 at 10:25

          Can you explain this client’s best interest bit Trevor?  You have switched the story from a  straightforward contract law case OTM V GM onto your mastaermind specialist  subject of Cartels and your belief that the OOP breaches an agent’s duty of care to clients.

          In order to make that case and then for a case to be taken to court surely yo have to find someone who has been adversely affected by their agent only being on two portals rather than being on two portals only a different two portals than they were on up till last year.

          Report
          1. smile please
            February 24, 2016 at 10:44

            How can a seller be disadvantaged? – They can go to an agent that does not list with OTM if they are that bothered. Its such a silly argument and desperate.

            Report
            1. Trevor Mealham
              February 24, 2016 at 13:01

              Smile – not at all. Or do OTM agents say – we’ll put your home on the No.1 or 2 AND then on the third that gets far less traffic. Don’t think so.

              In a like way to CPR’s where an agent should be honest about a property description and related info. Alike, agents should state if marketing will be less in most areas than they could get elsewhere.

              If the silly one other portal rule was removed, AM/OTM would remove one big issue.

              Report
          2. Trevor Mealham
            February 24, 2016 at 10:55

            Robert – Joe Public goes to an agent in good faith to act in best interest.

            Many agents I have spoken to can show a drop in enquiries based on fact, ie Portal stats vs portal stats.

            So, which favours a consumer better. Higher buyer awareness or less. The factual evidence is there. The agent could pleased that AM/OTM gave the impression they were going to be no. 2 and failed at Yr 1.

            Robert your definitely wearing the AM/OTM t shirt today buddy.

            Lack of trade = staff jobs at risk too.

            Report
            1. smile please
              February 24, 2016 at 11:02

              So what about an agent that does not or has never advertised on RM?

              Surley in todays day and age a seller would expect their property on RM?

              You mention agents upset being with OTM can you prove half a dozen? – I have not spoken to any who are upset.

              Report
              1. Trevor Mealham
                February 24, 2016 at 13:02

                Yes – NTSEAT has details of many agents from me.

                Report
                1. smile please
                  February 24, 2016 at 13:11

                  Share them , i dont believe you.

                  Report
                  1. Trevor Mealham
                    February 24, 2016 at 14:08

                    So why should I share anything with someone who doesnt use their real name who basically says I am lying.

                    I also wont drop the agents names in it.

                    Report
            2. Robert May
              February 24, 2016 at 11:27

              No I’m not Trevor, disagreeing with your stance doesn’t mean anything other than I don’t agree.

              A drop in the number of enquiries is a red herring , an agent that secures a sale at a price agreeable and at terms agreeable to their client has done their job.

              Lack of trade = staff at risk too,  what is all that about? Transaction volumes fell last year having  been reasonably buoyant in 2014 but prior to AM existing transaction volumes were lower than  2015 so I can’t see you  successfully pinning that on OTM.

               

              Report
              1. Trevor Mealham
                February 24, 2016 at 13:04

                If trade goes down Robert. it means less funds in the purse = jobs at risk in some agencies where directors feel the AM/OTM contract is limiting what they can do.

                Report
                1. Robert May
                  February 24, 2016 at 13:49

                  So the AM reps held these directors hostage and forced them to sign? I don’t think so.

                  The consequences and limitations  of the contract and how hard it would be to get out of a 5 year contract were discussed at length on here at least 7 months ahead of launch.

                  Report
                  1. Trevor Mealham
                    February 24, 2016 at 14:11

                    Robert. Discussing here and what contract law says is two different things.

                     

                    Very simple googling highlights bits like EU law as to anti competitive trade. Write a contract that is anti law of the land and in parts, its less valuable than bog roll

                    Report
              2. Trevor Mealham
                February 27, 2016 at 08:21

                Robert, are you bonkers?

                A drop in enquiries a red herring???? Surely a drop in enquiries by using less reach is the whole point my friend!

                Report
    2. Ric
      February 24, 2016 at 09:43

      Trevor – Do you think it is fair and correct they should be allowed to “drop the OTM agreement” even though the public still see the Independent trading Name above the door?…

      Cake and Eat it springs to mind!

      Report
      1. Trevor Mealham
        February 24, 2016 at 09:45

        If they pull away the association would need removing as not to mislead.

        Report
        1. Ric
          February 24, 2016 at 09:51

          So as long as they trade under GH “the association” remains and therefore OTM quite right to say GH still trade and therefore the contract still stands.

          Report
      2. Trevor Mealham
        February 27, 2016 at 08:23

        No trade agreement frm a service supplier should compromise an agents actions to action client best interest. In particular for the commercial gain of the service supplier.

        Report
  10. Trevor Mealham
    February 24, 2016 at 09:25

    What’s interesting is that the CMA has recently opened an investigation

    The CMA is investigating a suspected anti-competitive arrangement/arrangements in the residential estate agency sector that may infringe Chapter I of CA98.

    Case reference: 50235
    It will be very interesting to see which group they are NOW looking into.  🙂

    Report
  11. Woodentop
    February 24, 2016 at 10:02

    Some very stupid and pathetic rhetoric coming from that one sided table. They would be the first to complain if their customers broke their contracts. What is the point in having a contract and TM considering you spout off so much about rules an regulations it is so hypocritical of you, but then everyone on EYE knows exactly what you agenda has been from day one and it is focused squarely at anti-OTM.

     

    The purpose of any contract for any business, verbal or written is to set out an order for a contract to be formed, the parties reach mutual assent to comply.

     

    This is the foundation for any business to be run. A breach of contract by either party can serious jeopardise the foundations of the other parties business. That is why they are used and enforced.

     

    Any person who breaches the terms that they freely entered into are liable to have the other party enforce any breach, as that decision is made for them by the offending party.

     

    Just about every business around the world does it, so why is it all of a sudden not acceptable when OTM is mentioned?

     

    Trevor Mealham, again you come out with inuendos, but foolishly you yourself have just infringed BPR’s by making the statement above………………

    case 50235 = This investigation has been launched on the basis of information received after compliance work undertaken following a previous CMA investigation into the advertising of fees in the estate and letting agency sector.

     

    You are exposed Trevor for what you are, manipulative and anti-OTM thru and thru. Shame on you.

    Report
    1. Woodentop
      February 24, 2016 at 10:50

      Hey 2 dislikes already, so which bit is wrong? Support you claim and I will consider a retraction.

      Report
      1. Trevor Mealham
        February 24, 2016 at 11:04

        Not me Woodentop.

        Equally, would YOU create a contract that restrained others in a market place.
        Anti-competitive agreements
        Companies can distort competition by cooperating with competitors, fixing prices or dividing the market up so that each one has a monopoly in part of the market. Anti-competitive agreements can be open or secret (e.g. cartels).

        They may be written down (either as an “agreement between companies” or in the decisions or rules of professional associations) or be less formal arrangements.

        Report
      2. harry hood
        February 24, 2016 at 12:08

        your very first sentence says a lot about your debating prowess

        Report
        1. Trevor Mealham
          February 24, 2016 at 13:06

          Harry Hood – the no not me was in reference to the fact I wasn’t one of the two dislikes. Think about it. …

          Report
    2. Trevor Mealham
      February 27, 2016 at 08:26

      The basis of a contract is FAIR trade conditions for BOTH parties to operate under.

      Report
      1. Woodentop
        February 27, 2016 at 16:48

        Nope, it is to protect the interest of the one from the other. So many contracts in this world are not fair!

        Report
  12. Trevor Mealham
    February 24, 2016 at 11:09

    Abuse of a dominant position
    A company can restrict competition if it is in a position of strength on a given market. A dominant position is not in itself anti-competitive, but if the company exploits this position to eliminate competition, it is considered to have abused it.
    Examples include:

    charging unreasonably high prices
    depriving smaller competitors
    obstructing competitors in the market (or in another related market) by forcing consumers to buy a product which is artificially related to a more popular, in-demand product
    refusing to deal with certain customers or offering special discounts to customers who buy all or most of their supplies from the dominant company
    making the sale of one product conditional on the sale of another product.

    http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consumers/abuse_en.html

    Report
    1. AgencyInsider
      February 24, 2016 at 11:18

      Oh do give it a rest Mr M. Your banging on about this is the most tiresome example of sado-masochistic ******* necrophilia* it has ever been my misfortune to witness.

       

      *Flogging a dead horse

      Report
      1. AgencyInsider
        February 24, 2016 at 11:32

        Oops. The censor won’t allow b*stial

        Report
    2. RealAgent
      February 24, 2016 at 12:14

      It’s just like my Grandad, he keeps saying the same things over and over again. We don’t listen to him either!

       

      Report
    3. BrandNew
      February 24, 2016 at 13:02

      Don’t you just love Trevor…….!!

      Every single point of the above could have ‘as per Rightmove’ placed after it, but does Trevor bang on about them, or threat the CMA should investigate their abuse of a dominant position?

      Of course not.

      Report
      1. Trevor Mealham
        February 24, 2016 at 13:21

        Incorrect. RM doesn’t restrain agents from using other portals. RM doesn’t ban online only agents.

        Report
        1. BrandNew
          February 24, 2016 at 13:39

          I can’t actually see that line in the original post above?

          Report
  13. Trevor Mealham
    February 24, 2016 at 13:10

    I love the fact, so many hide behind psuedo names. Love it. As jeremy Kyle would say – grow a pair and put your real names out there.

    The points I make are based on easy to Google facts in EU anti competitive sites, or UK gov sites etc..

    It’s also tiresome for me, when many choose to be ignorant to facts. It seems like we have many Emperors in new clothes in today’s debate. Never mind  🙂

    Report
    1. Woodentop
      February 24, 2016 at 13:50

      The thing is Trevor you come out with comments that other can argue about, as they see it as nuts. For me you manipulative facts. maybe, just maybe people would take your seriously if you came out and told everyone the real reason why your so anti OTM. Shall I do it for you INEA an organisation that you set up and is at odds with OTM over other portal rule as many agents won’t be able to use your portal.

       

      Not one person so far has shown what I posted is not correct and as one other person has also made comment everything you say about anti-competiveness also applies to RM. We can all see it Trevor.

      Report
      1. Trevor Mealham
        February 24, 2016 at 14:16

        They can use INEA. After a AM/OTM sales rep tried threatening our agents, we reported him to Trading Standards. We have several agents who are also on OTM and more other portals and platforms.

        I see the AM OTM restraints as Micky Mouse as they restrain and are anti competitive

        Report
      2. wardy
        February 24, 2016 at 14:38

        Trevor has a portal?

         

        Report
        1. Trevor Mealham
          February 24, 2016 at 15:21

          Trevor has 90-95% a MLS (multi-list). Only 5%-10% portal

          Report
  14. Bless You
    February 24, 2016 at 13:45

    The TREVOR MEALHAM show..he might be talking alot of sense but in fairness i skip his comments so i dont lose track of the main story… sorry trev… try not to respond…hold….hold

    Report
    1. AgencyInsider
      February 24, 2016 at 14:17

      Trevor would do himself – and all of us – an enormous favour if he started up new topics on the Arena forums and instead of cluttering up the news stories with his repetitive postings put his thoughts where they can actually be properly discussed and debated over an extended period of time. How about it Mr M?

      Report
      1. Trevor Mealham
        February 24, 2016 at 14:26

        AgencyInsider.  What I’m saying is to question the AM/OTM (cartel like agreement to restrain agents). So it is relevant, IF, the AM/OTM has Micky Mouse content that goes against the law of the land.

        Abuse of a dominant positionA company can restrict competition if it is in a position of strength on a given market. A dominant position is not in itself anti-competitive, but if the company exploits this position to eliminate competition, it is considered to have abused it.

        Anti-competitive agreementsCompanies can distort competition by cooperating with competitors, fixing prices or dividing the market up so that each one has a monopoly in part of the market. Anti-competitive agreements can be open or secret (e.g. cartels).

        Report
        1. AgencyInsider
          February 24, 2016 at 14:39

          You absolutely have the right to your views and to make them known. But if you want to be taken seriously you need to take on board that repeating the same mantra day in and day out is not going to win you influence. That is why I suggest that the proper place for what is clearly your long term campaign should be on the forums and not these news stories.

          Report
          1. AgencyInsider
            February 24, 2016 at 14:41

            p.s. Whoever disliked my initial comment about this – I don’t give a rodent’s rear end what you like or dislike.

            Report
  15. Traditionalist
    February 24, 2016 at 15:38

    Trevor: ‘ charging unreasonably high prices

    depriving smaller competitors ‘ 

    Sounds suspiciously like RM’s pricing structure for Corporates vs small Independents!

    Report
    1. mootz.uk
      February 24, 2016 at 16:11

      I’m amazed at what prices they charge per month (avg RM: £600+; Z: £300+; OTM: £280?). With 18,000 Agencies and how many branches? 30-40,000? It’s not hard to workout the sort of income they generate. When I first heard about OTM and its ‘protect our industry’ vibe, I thought it would clear them out. Yes they (RM/Z/OTM) run expensive advertising campaigns but the logo’s in your adverts and stickers you all put in your windows probably does just as much. You pretty much do all their advertising for them! Do you not feel like they’re all making mugs of you? (Agents).

      We currently have approx 60,000 listings and you would not believe how cheap a decent web server is to run per year. Seriously, with a mass market subscription it should not cost any more than £50/mth per branch… Which would only give an income of something like £1.5M/month..! But then how would they get by on that poultry sum!

      Report
    2. Trevor Mealham
      February 27, 2016 at 09:10

      Then work together. No portal at the mo has it right.

      Report
      1. PeeBee
        February 27, 2016 at 11:06

        So why use ANY of them?

        Report
  16. PeeBee
    February 24, 2016 at 20:14

    Mr Mealham

    You’ve had a spring in your step for a day or four that is impossible not to notice.

    Dropping hints left, right and centre about this CMA investigation.  Posting the same snippets here, there and everywhere – chucking what you seem to think is a lit Catherine wheel into every room and running off sniggering like a rabid hyena.

    You’ve gorn positively moist over it – and as people are pointing out it’s a little unsettling.

    So… here’s the thing.  CMA site states

    “This investigation has been launched on the basis of information received…  The CMA has not reached a view as to whether there is sufficient evidence of an infringement of competition law for it to issue a statement of objections to any of the parties under investigation.”

    On the basis that this seems to infer that those who are potentially under investigation have been neither officially or unofficially informed of their being investigated and that it is highly unlikely that any of said ‘parties’ would be shouting the news from the rooftops if they had been advised they were potentially subject of investigation, one question screams out to be asked – and it would simply be rude of me not to do the honours…

    How come you’re acting like you and you alone know something that the rest of the industry is blind, deaf and mute to, Mr Mealham?

    Seems to me you’ve got four possible answers.  I can’t wait to read which one you give.

    Oh – and ‘Pleading the Fifth’ isn’t one of them.

    To you…

    Report
    1. Trevor Mealham
      February 27, 2016 at 08:37

      Ummmm. Maybe the answer is. …. lets watch this space  🙂

      Report
      1. PeeBee
        February 27, 2016 at 08:47

        Oh, dear – avoidance of engagement.

        That doesn’t read well…

        Report
  17. PeeBee
    February 25, 2016 at 10:11

    Ladies and gentlemen… Mr Mealham seems to have left the building…

    Report
    1. PeeBee
      February 25, 2016 at 13:02

      **UPDATE**

      He’s back in the building – but avoiding this room like the plague ‘cos there’s a big hairy beastie sitting in the corner waiting for him and he’s a proper wuss!

      ;o)

      Report
      1. inthefield
        February 25, 2016 at 17:20

        TREVOR!! WHERE ARE YOU??

        The reason alot of people dont give their names as you point out above isn’t because they are frightened of what they are saying but are merely interested in giving their views. I think we can all figure out which side most of the posters are on or not on here, so their real names are pretty irrelevant . You give your name to promote yourself and try and get most of us to think of you as some sort of sage. Im not trying to sell anything on here therefore I remain anonymous.

        Report
        1. PeeBee
          February 25, 2016 at 18:01

          Oh believe me, inthefield, this one has been done to death!

          Mr Mealham apparently does not accept the logic that it is not who the poster is that matters – it is what the poster says that is of relevance.

          His borderline-obsessive need to know the identity of anyone that disagrees with or challenges his opinion is well documented both here and on the bog door down the other pub.

          I, for one, couldn’t give a fuppenny who dares to have an alternative viewpoint to mine.  It’s their democratic right…

          …regardless of how badly, sadly wrong they are! ;o)

          Report
        2. Trevor Mealham
          February 27, 2016 at 09:01

          No ‘in the field’  I give my name because its who I am. I rarely pitch, just sometimes go into explaination of what I do.

          I get involved in legislation because I have to know that what im creating is lawful for agents to use, which it is as legislation shows ‘sub agency’

          To me agency today is wrong for many reasons. With AM/OTM it bans some agent tyles and its AM/OTM that chose to ban other platforms.

          But RM, Z and AM/OTM all use a now dated single directional data flow.

          Even his forum allows message share. Even supermarkets open others stock to a bigger audience.

          In an age of making things more accessible and linking people and businesses, how does restraining data flow progress the industry.

          EU law is anti- anti competitive trade restraints. As were in the EU thats our rules too.

          Report
      2. Trevor Mealham
        February 27, 2016 at 08:40

        PeeBee. Now play nice. Sticks and stones and all that.

        I much prefer it when you engage intelligent conversation rather than playground mud sligning.

        Report
        1. PeeBee
          February 27, 2016 at 08:46

          It is an opinion I seem to share with many other posters on this site, Mr Mealham – and one which is given more weight by your own comments.

          Report
          1. Trevor Mealham
            February 27, 2016 at 09:08

            The sad thing PeeBee, is that if we knew more about your agency and practise and some of your old fashioned ways. My view is you have a lot more to offer.

            At times you talk of older style agency which im a fan of.

            Tech alone doesnt move this industry forward. In parts it makes it worse.

            Portals are just media outlets. To me the real value is when good agents all contribute. Not constantly compete.

            Report
            1. PeeBee
              February 27, 2016 at 11:05

              Sorry, Mr Mealham – I’m keeping my awesomeness to myself.

              I’m not sure that many in the industry could handle it.

              Report
  18. the message
    February 25, 2016 at 14:00

    For once I am on OTM side, good on them for protecting postion, fascinating how this plays out. Very brave call though – lose in court and huge can of worms opens.

     

    I cant get my head around the CMA stuff – lots of what Mealham says is true, but if the CMA doesnt care why should OTM. If they do care, the exclusivity falls away, but can’t believe that OTM members would be in trouble, UNLESS any of you have been stupid enough to leave documentary evidence of obvious collusion!

    Report
    1. Trevor Mealham
      February 27, 2016 at 08:46

      Compliments: the message.

      Much of what you say is very true. But for sure its worth further investigating the bits you may be unsure of.

      I know many that have dug deeper and they like I would not agree AM/OTM are protecting something that is a good part wrong. Even though they may want their rules upheld. Id love to see if the straw foundations are as solid as some others think.

      Report
  19. Woodentop
    February 27, 2016 at 16:55

    Actually I and I’m sure I am not alone would love to know what professional qualifications you have. Certainty law is not one of them?

    Report
    1. Woodentop
      February 27, 2016 at 16:55

      Question is for Trevor Mealham.

      Report
      1. Trevor Mealham
        March 3, 2016 at 01:18

        @ Woodentop. Ummmmm  30 years in the game.  I pulled TESCO Property Market up on a point of law 9 years ago and 6 weeks later they pulled TPM.

        Ive been involved in various Gov consultations with Treasury, HMRC, Trading Standards and what was the OFT. Some of my advisories have been adopted and versions of stand in legislation guidance.  So I have no law degree’s etc.

        I can point out bits of law that were my suggestions.  Can you?

        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.