On top of that he said there is little to no transparency as to how many of the properties that are listed actually go on to sell through the online platforms.
Purplebricks, for example, has had some bad customer reviews, based largely on this very issue. The agency is now in a legal battle with AllAgents.com, the website on which many of those reviews were posted. As such, the Purplebricks page on AllAgents was suspended. Some have argued, therefore, that rather than address the complaints, Purplebricks would sooner just limit the number of eyes which see them.
In his opinion piece, Phillips argues that an agent "must not place itself in a position where its own interests conflict with those of the principal or where there is a real possibility that will happen; and it must not profit from its position at the expense of the principal".
I don’t think you can say fairer than that. If the agent has no financial interest in selling the homeowner’s property, and works on a business model which very much accepts this as the norm, how can they believe that they are offering a fair service?
And so eMoov, one of Purplebricks’ competitors, has stepped up. Alongside its usual offer of charging customers £795 upfront regardless of whether the property is sold or not, it is now also offering a no-sell-no-fee payment structure, too.
The customers who choose the no-sell-no-fee structure will pay nothing if eMoov fails to sell their property, but if the online agent succeeds, the customer pays them £1495, handed to eMoov by the seller’s lawyer upon completion of the sale.
I think most of us are in agreement that this is great news for those who want to sell their property through an online agent, and even better for us in the industry who want to see innovation succeed and have been eternally disappointed by the sometimes less than compassionate business practices of some of the online sector’s biggest names.
Transparency and honesty are vital components to the future of online agency (not to mention PropTech as a whole). It seems that eMoov has thrown down a gauntlet with this decision, and it’s going to be fascinating to see whether its two major UK rivals, Purplebricks and YOPA, follow suit. I would suspect that the latter is far more likely to follow than the former.
It will also be interesting to see what ratio of eMoov customers go for the cheaper £795 fee, regardless of sale or not, and how many opt for the more expensive yet less risky option of no-sell-no-fee.
My prediction is that those who are looking to sell property that is well located in desirable areas, with convenient transport links and amenities, those who are confident that their property will sell quickly, will continue to choose the lower fee because they know that there is a good chance the property will sell quickly.
But those who have homes in less popular locations, as well as those who have put their homes on the market speculatively, with no real rush to sell, will likely opt to pay a little extra in fees if the property sells to avoid having to shell out if if doesn’t.
This is exciting; it’s what I, and many others, have been calling out for for some time now. I think it’s an important and morally astute play from eMoov, one which may also turn out to be fiscally savvy and one which I hope will force its competitors to take similar action.
If so, customers can stop being misled by advertising and the non-disclosure of accurate success statistics, and the industry as a whole can stop being splattered by the negative paint coming off the broad strokes of the ‘all online agencies are liars and cannot be trusted’ paint brush.
Throughout PropTech, and property as a whole, there is one thing that is undeniable and unavoidable; we have to give the customer control. Online agency has damaged PropTech’s reputation by not following this simple rule. One can only hope that this step from eMoov will encourage others to do something similar.
We have to remember that the whole idea of online agency came about as a result of consumer outcry. Homebuyers and sellers, not to mention renters, were fed up of being taken advantage of with unreasonable hidden fees from some agents. It seems now that the online agencies are falling into that same trap; if they continue to be immature with the truth, failure is surely their destiny. As far as I can tell, transparency is the only path to success.
*James Dearsley is a partner in PropTech Consult, digital transformation specialists for the real estate sector. To sign up to James’ Sunday PropTech Review, click here.
.png)
.jpg){kind=logo}
.jpg)
%20-%20IMAGE%20Client%20Accounting%20%E2%80%93%20what%20are%20your%20options.jpg)
.png)
.png)
.png)
%20(002).png)
%20(002).jpg)
.png)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
Housesimple had ‘no sell no fee’ option months before eMoov and it is much cheaper than eMoov too (£995).
eMoov just made more noise about it as always.
To be fair I've never seen an eMoov TV advert but plenty of Housesimple ones, surely that's making more noise than anything else?
why? if it ain't broke etc. unless... instructions falling, money running out, one thing for sure it's not because R.Q. has developed a conscience !
What a fantastic new innovation, maybe in the near future they will open some kind of building, maybe on high street of some kind, where the client can meet and deal a real person. It sounds a bit out there I know but maybe, just maybe......
No chance that it will work up North. Agents average fees are very low due to purple bricks’ popularity. Why would anybody use Emoov on a no sale - no fee basis when they can find numerous high street agents who will do it cheaper? Arguably, the local agent knows the area and can also be visited in person. Wheels are fallling off the online model.... All that has really happened is that online agents have cheapened the whole industry. How many of these online agents can make it when transactions are down and competion is ferocious? They’re going to have a rocky ride that’s for certain!
Please login to comment