Estate agents are measuring up properties with huge discrepancies.
A report in the Financial Times says that the difference in measurements between two sets of floor plans for the same properties was as much as 300 sq ft.
The paper analysed over 200 properties in London, where homes are increasingly valued by the square foot. Currently, a square foot in London can fetch up to £6,000.
It says that as a result, buyers risk overpaying by tens of thousands of pounds because of what it calls “widespread” discrepancies.
The paper claims that several complaints have been made against Foxtons. It says one buyer who bought through Foxtons last year had the property recently measured by another agent, Kinleigh, Folkard & Hayward, who found a discrepancy of 68 sq ft less – the size of a small bedroom.
In another case, a seller of a rental property in Chelsea had it marketed by Foxtons as being 627 sq ft, but 550 sq ft when marketed by Douglas & Gordon estate agents.
Foxtons told the paper it did not value properties based on floor plans, adding: “It is accepted within the RICS code and industry in general that floor plans commissioned by different agencies are unlikely to be identical.”
It said the RICS code of practice allows for flexibility as to whether features such as alcoves and stairwells are included in the square footage.
The RICS code allows for no more than a 1% degree of inaccuracy in measurements, but the FT says that it found that more 100 floor plans varied by “significantly” more than this.
The FT says there are a number of reasons for the discrepancies, including differences in the way agents measure up, including the use of floor plan companies and computer programmes, and poorly trained staff.
.png)
.png)
.png)
Comments
I just admire foxtons(iam not a londoner so dont have to work against them fortunatly) .
When the press stops talking about foxtons they shoud worry..remember the english media hate a winner!
@haha - that said constant bad press in this day and age is VERY dangerous - Foxtons may find one day that their brand is so tarnished by so many little nagging problems that the general public will just want to stay away.
However, it probably makes them more money to play it fast and loose, ignore the little bad press and brow beat as many people as they can for as long as they can.
@Cynic - RICS guidelines specify only two standard ways of measuring a residential property the most used is GIA or gross internal area (the other is net internal area which factors out things like the thickness of internal walls). In any case the method should actually be specified.
As to where to measure to, the RICS are specific about that too, as is the misdescriptions act - if you measure into an alcove or cupboard you should say so and the GIA or NIA must take this into account.
Therefore there should never be a discrepancy in the figures for an overall internal size of a property at all, even though the room measurements themselves could appear to differ by as much as 12 inches in the case of a measurement to the front of a standard late Victorian (1890's) chimney breast (in North London say) as opposed to the alcove either side.
Considering how many agents rely on floorplans these days (and so they should) and the fact that owners want "no sale, no fee" it is no surprise that the cheapest option ends up being the provider of choice and produces a sub-par result.
What a huge surprise.
Now if only we could persuade owners to pay a listing fee...
Dopey media giving foxtons some free p.r. again. Who do you think greedy londerner's will use to sell their homes?? silly competitors playing tit for tat.
the market must be turning,,ive quite enjoyed being left alone by the basically thick, media for 5 years.
I have not seen the report so cannot comment specifically.
However different measurements can be acheived depending on what method is used, as per the RICS code of measuring practice their are different ways.
Net sales area excludes certain areas of a building.