Vendors could claim against agents in illegal cartel scheme, says CMA

Vendors who lost money due to agents illegally price-fixing their commissions may be able to claim compensation, the Competition and Markets Authority has said.

The agents, in Burnham-on-Sea, Somerset, colluded to set a commission rate of 1.5%.

Four agents – Greenslade Taylor Hunt, Abbott and Frost, Gary Berryman Estate Agents and its parent company Warne Investments, and West Coast Property Services – were fined a total of £372,233.

All four admitted price fixing and co-operated with the CMA investigation.

A fifth agent, Annagram Estate Agents trading as CJ Hole, was not fined after its very early co-operation, and a sixth agent, Saxons PS, is still being investigated.

Now a CMA spokesperson, Rebecca Cassar, has told the local news service: “Once the CMA has issued a final decision, any members of the public that have lost out would be able to rely on the decision to prove the breach of competition law and seek compensation from the businesses concerned, if necessary by taking court action.

“The price-fixing agreement which the estate agents have admitted started in February 2014 and lasted just over a year.”

http://www.burnham-on-sea.com/news/2017/estate-agents-fine-update-09-03-17.php

x

Email the story to a friend



7 Comments

  1. Thomas Flowers

    So it appears that 1.5% was regarded as an excessive fee by the CMA ?
    Can you collude to fix a price which is 0.3% (20%) below what PB are openly advertising as their average quoted fee at point of property valuation?
    See the following saving comparison taken from PB’s site this morning:£3035: Source: Purplebricks customer survey of 1,489 customers who sold with Purplebricks between 06/09/14 – 07/07/16 claiming average traditional estate agent commission quoted at point of property valuation was 1.8% against an average property sold price of: £215,815
    So based on this 1.8% claim did those sellers in Somerset get a good deal?
    Is it anti-competitive to charge a ‘fixed’ loss leading upfront fee or credit agreement that may have been subsidised by around two thirds of the actual cost to list by ‘investors’ during their last accounting period?
    Is it fair on the small independent agent who is unable to float or gain share price investment to subsidise their charges to such a huge extent and for so long?            

    Report
    1. fluter

      Is the 1.8% supposed to represent 1.5% PLUS VAT? If not then I would love to know what % of agents across the country are able to charge 1.8% PLUS VAT

      Report
  2. FromTheHip64

    So a group of estate agents get together and all agree not to drop their fees below a level (1.5%) that would start to have a negative impact on the quality of service that a client would receive. And they all get fined. The world gets madder every day.

    Report
  3. Trevor Mealham

    The 1.5% amount isn’t the relevance ON ONE HAND, and on the other is a big part of the incriminating part as it shows 100% of local agents had uniform fixed their fee. It could have been a fee fix of 1% or 1.75% or 2% etc etc. The fact is 5 local agents set a SAME fee.

    Do a search on RM for agents in Burnham On Sea.

    http://www.rightmove.co.uk/estate-agents/Burnham-On-Sea.html

    The fact is there are only 5 agents showing. Thus 100% of the local agents had colluded to fix fee’s. The local consumers couldn’t wager negotiation to get ANY budge on the colluded chosen % that any local agent would charge.

    The 5 agents are all likely decent good people but they shouldn’t have 100% tied the local service to sell a home to a non negotiable 1.5% between 100% of the local agents.

     

    Report
    1. gk1uk2001

      Why not? If they all chose to charge the same fee and let “the best man (or woman) win” then that’s up to them. They can run their businesses as they see fit. If I’m honest I’d love for the local agents in my area to all agree to charge a similar fee and work on that basis rather than have some of them quoting fees as low as 0.3% to gain instructions, which is frankly unsustainable for any business. I don’t see it as anti-competition as there are other choices out there for vendors such as the online only agents who would charge less than 1.5% if the vendor is only interested in getting the lowest fee rather than actually getting a good service from a knowledgeable local agent. 

      Report
    2. PeeBee

      Mr Mealham… shame on you!

      “Do a search on RM for agents in Burnham On Sea.”

      From the man that screams that there’s more to Estate Agency than listing on the portals?

      Beggars belief.

      Report
      1. PeeBee

        Tell you what, Mr Mealham – widen your search.  Use the most widely used internet tool there is,

        Google search for “Estate Agents Burnham on Sea”

        231,000 results.

        Here’s the pick of the crop for you:

        Estate Agent Burnham-on-Sea – Sell For A Fixed Fee Of £780 (YOPA)

        Burnham-On-Sea #1 Estate Agent – Simple Fixed Fee Only £595 (HouseSimple)  

        Don’t Pay Commission To Sell – Why Not Pay a Fair fixed Fee? (Purplebricks)

        Burnham on Sea Agents – Much Lower Fees Too (eMoov)

        Seems to me like the public had PLENTY of choice over Agents AND Fees, Mr Mealham.

        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.