Russell Quirk may have already irked plenty of estate agents in his time as boss of collapsed online brand Emoov and his latest views may also raise some eyebrows.
Quirk, who has launched his own public relations agency Proper PR and become a prominent TV commentator since Emoov entered administration just months after a £2m crowdfunding campaign, has suggested that all agents should be licenced.
He is hoping to generate conversation around this issue at the Propertymark One conference on 27 June where he is hosting two panels.
Quirk said: “I want licencing to come up in these conversations, because I think it's a very important subject for agents.”
He will highlight that many countries around the world including the US and Australia have mandatory licensing for estate agents, with England not even near making the list.
To gain an estate agency license in these countries, an estate agent must demonstrate an understanding of the law, rules, and regulations of the sector.
An agent must also pass a knowledge test about general good practise and the best practise for consumers right now.
He added: “Once you are licensed, it is a bit like having a driver’s licence, so if you mess up, do something bad or wrong, you are subject to sanction.
“We are one of the only countries that doesn’t have licensing and I think it is completely outdated.
“We need to be properly regulated as an industry, and counties like America and Australia have already set the standard for how the industry should be operating.
“I also think that there should also be an ability to ban people and take licenses away if they have engaged in wrongful practise.”
With estate agents dealing with around 1m sales transactions and 3m lettings transactions every year, there needs to be more legislation in place to provide oversight on the industry, rather than the ancient legislation still in place, Quirk said.
He added: “We mustn’t forget that we are dealing here, not with just big assets, not just something that is worth a lot of money, but the livelihoods and the financial vulnerability of millions of people.
“Licensing is an added benefit for consumers, knowing an estate agent is not going to take advantage of them, and their money.”
In a recent survey, Proper PR found that 75% of agents thought that estate agents in England should be licensed, meaning, 25% thought they shouldn’t be licensed.
Quirk added: “I would go as far as to say, agents that do not support the industry being licenced on an individual basis maybe have something to hide.
“I believe that introducing licensing will raise industry standards. Every agent should have their client’s best interests at heart and be furthering their education and excelling in the best practise for the industry.”
.jpg){kind=avatar}
.png)
.jpg){kind=logo}
.jpg)
.png)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
Curious how this "happens" to be taking place at the Propertymark conference...
Propertymark also "happened" to be on the RoPA working group, and "happened" to sit on the RoPA qualifications sub committee... and as it turns out the qualifications which RoPA recommends "happen" to be a carbon copy of Propertymark's qualifications. All very circumstantial I'm sure.
I wonder if Propertymark "happen" to be a client of RQ and I wonder if this "happens" to be how they have decided to use their members money... on a PR campaign which they hope will force every agent in the land who "does a viewing" to have to take out their qualification...
The whole thing has a rather unfortunate "chumocracy" feel about it.
I don't think Propertymark have ever been secretive or obtuse about seeking the (official) professionalising of our industry by making it licensed. I think Im right in saying they've been lobbying gov in this regard for close to 50 years now. As the largest group representing agents and the broader residential community and one of the largest providers of training- isn't this logical that they would seek a major role were this to happen?
I'm not sure what the conspiracy is here James?
KB, there is a big difference between lobbying for regulation / licencing because you believe it to be the right thing to do, and then sitting in the room writing the legislation which will in effect enshrine in law your business model.
I know a great many agents who find their proximity to RoPA despite the obvious conflict of interest to be "unfortunate".
When you look at the make up of the RoPA working group there was not one body / representative who might be considered to be a dissenting voice, and a significant number of members who would ultimately stand to profit from the regulation of our industry.
Regardless of what Proeprtymark, us agents or the public want in this regard- successive governments for 50 years have shown little to no interest in implementing this. There is no mention of it anywhere in the government's current and far-reaching proposals for the property market. I am also not aware of any interest shown by Labour or Lib Dems in this regard.
Whilst I am all in favour of raising the standards of our profession, I don't believe licencing will change anything much. A rogue will always be a rogue. There are measures in place now to deal with undesirable agents, the issue is implementation and Trading Standards having the manpower to police it properly.
You are 100% right on that Maurice. The issue isn't regulation it is enforcement of regulation.
Under RoPA Trading Standards remain the "teeth" of the regulator. So nothing will change.
If Emoov had been licensed would the 1.5M that the general public lost when it got liquidated have been personally underwritten by RQ, sometimes I think that RQ needs to have a few mirrors put up in his house and realise that scams like Emoov do far more damage than a tiny amount of criminals who operate as agents, solicitors or brokers. Where the red-herring of further licensing is not even on their radar. Looking at the amount of solicitors who get struck off weekly, or the amount of financial advisers in prison due to fraud, it is a tiny amount, similar to other trades and professions. There are 16,00 agents and in fact 50,000 operations doing property in the UK, how many are registered at HMRC for AML, I think about 43%, so there goes your big idea of licensing, if folks fail to sign up and pay up to be licensed ... they operate outside anyway.
And your point 'James' is well made, in that RoPA is just an idea ... not an act of law, its genesis was 2017, so seven years on and not an Act of law, so there is an argument that paying to be RoPA qualified is a bit naughty if it never hits the statute book, or is replaced by a completely different framework, if for instance Labour gets in and Lisa Nandy the Shadow housing secretary (aka I do not have a clue about housing - but landlords are scum, closely followed by estate agents) gets to shape policy and RoPA is replaced by some left wing thought tank, who spends another seven years in endless meetings. A bit like getting an A' level in Mathematics and your certificate on the wall, only to find Labour say you need a new Nandy Certificate to be an agent, refunds anybody?
There definitely needs to be a change. I've seen pop up Estate agents with no experience in selling homes, blagging their way through the process to sellers, literally winging it. How can you take advice from someone who doesn't know what knotweed is, what searches are or trust them in valuing your home? It's crazy.
Please login to comment