Purplebricks reported again to Advertising Standards Authority

Purplebricks has been reported to the Advertising Standards Authority – with the matter resolved informally and no further action taken.

A spokesperson for the ASA said: “We received a complaint about a claim on Purplebricks’ website about viewing fees.

“A complainant challenged whether it was misleading as they believed it wasn’t clear that viewings were not included in the fixed fee.

“We approached Purplebricks with the concerns that had been raised and it agreed to amend the section that said ‘viewings – we take care of them all’ on its website.”

According to the ASA website, Purplebricks has been the subject of a number of complaints resulting in both rulings and complaints:

July 15, 2017 – complaint upheld in full.

https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/purple-bricks-company-ltd-a16-349973.html

September 14, 2016 – complaint upheld in part (two out of three matters raised in the same complaint were upheld)

https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/new-broom-ltd-a16-331595.html

March 30, 2016 – complaint upheld in part (three out of five matters raised in the same complaint were upheld)

https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/new-broom-ltd-a15-307287.html

There have been previous informal resolutions, with one on March 29 this year; three last year (August 31, July 13 and May 4); and one on October 14, 2015.

The ASA also today announced the informal resolution of a complaint about a listing on Rightmove placed by Hertfordshire agents Simmons Estates.

The listing said it was a four-bedroom property but a complainant said the property had three. The agent said the text had appeared in error, and that there were three bedrooms upstairs and an optional room downstairs.

The advert was amended, with no further action taken.

x

Email the story to a friend



17 Comments

  1. Andrew Overman

    “with the matter resolved informally and no further action taken”… now there’s a surprise.

    If the firms Trustpilot reviews were found to have been manipulated I wonder if the ASA would take that more seriously? Or whether it’d be just another slapped wrist?

    Report
    1. Peter

      I was reading a Which? article this morning in which PB were quoted as saying “we’re complying with the ASA’s rulings when requested”.

      So, knowing the ASA are afraid to use their power, PB simply comply only when requested to do so as there are no penalties. I think I might need to sit down and have a strong chat with my conscience and take the opportunity to review my morals and strong business ethic because I feel my business is disadvantaged by doing the right thing.

       

      Report
      1. AgentV

        Well said…. cynical misleading marketing, designed to attract business at any cost, once again will taint our whole industry.

        It is also not a fair playing field, when the opposition effectively do whatever they can to cheat the system.

        But, hey, even the NAEA does naff all about it, despite claiming they expect their members to uphold high standards!

        Report
      2. Chris Wood

        Sorry, did you use the words, conscience, morals and ethics?

        Report
        1. Peter

          Don’t be sorry, they were said with pride.

          Report
        2. FromTheHip64

          Does Chris Wood ever do anything with his life other than moan about Purplebricks? Very sad….methinks the man needs a hobby.

          Report
          1. PeeBee

            He has a hobby…

            …irritating plebs.

            Report
  2. Chris Wood

    Everyone makes the odd mistake, doesn’t clarify a claim fully etc. but, how many times does a firm have to fall foul of the ASA with either upheld (defended) claims and ‘informally resolved’ amendments, before someone takes a view that it may be a firm is unable to trade competently/ honestly or that there is a consistent, persistent attempt to mislead consumers?

    Report
    1. Simon Bradbury

      HI Chris,

      That’s a really good question. Is there actually a limit to the number of ‘informally resolved’ cases before stronger action is taken? I’d genuinely like to know.

      Report
    2. Malcolm Barnard

      Chris – I think you’re being a tad harsh. I mean it’s only the 9th time that they have been on the naughty step in the last two years!

      You would think the various trade bodies would step up to the mark and make some sort of comment on the types of claims that this sector of the industry have and continue to make.

      Report
      1. Chris Wood

        You would think. The silence, though, is deafening.

        Report
  3. PeeBee

    “A complainant challenged whether it was misleading as they believed it wasn’t clear that viewings were not included in the fixed fee.”

    I would suggest that the above paints a very watered-down picture of the situation – and that the reality was that viewings appeared to be included in the fixed Fee as seen here:

    https://ibb.co/b2g5ya

    and only when you clicked for more detail (which as we know many don’t)

    https://ibb.co/mJCpPF

    did the truth become apparent.

    Report
  4. Votta583

    Same old story, no enforcement no penalties just a slap on the wrist

    Report
    1. Malcolm Barnard

      Would you prefer that the claims made were left to go unchallenged?

      Report
  5. Chris Wood

    The usefulness of the ASA, I have previously said, is the opportunity it hands law-abiding agents and consumer journalists to legitimately claim that such agents have misled consumers (again). As was recently demonstrated with the BBC Watchdog and YouandYours programs, the public fallout from this is not without consequence for the share price etc. At some point, if agents continue to fall foul of the ASA/ NTSEAT etc. one regulatory body or another (perhaps a few) will take action. It is just a matter of time.

    Report
  6. Frown Please

    Quack?

    Report
  7. Ric

    Brown envelope indeed, problem…… it wouldn’t have what was expected in it….. they agreed £1,000 but open it to find £100, just put it down to a “small error” lol or the “small print” the extra £900 is deferred until the next complaint is upheld.

    Report
X

You must be logged in to report this comment!

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.