Panorama: Undercover Estate Agent… But what did it uncover?

Truthfully, I didn’t exactly watch this exposé sweating with fear, peeking between trembling, slightly-parted fingers whilst cowering behind the sofa.

Nevertheless, I was in little doubt that it was going to be uncomfortable and likely to lay bare some of the worst behaviours in estate agency – and that I was going to hear about it the next day!

I was expecting underhand tactics, pressure selling, deliberate – indeed, cynical – inflating of valuations, and the biggie, as pre-advised in trailers and news blasts: ‘conditional selling’…

And as it happened… I felt it missed its mark, if that is what it was looking to expose.

I watched, and yes at moments I certainly cringed – but as it transpired, I felt the worst transgressions of this industry were not found, and what was found was perhaps not properly explored, nor was any trail of breadcrumbs followed.

And I mention breadcrumb trails, and hint that they should have looked for them, because what was perhaps remarkable, and could potentially have been sensational, was the fact that this wasn’t an exposé of some dodgy agent operating out of a first-floor back-office, but was in fact focussed on two of the biggest names in UK Estate Agency: Purple Bricks, and Connells…

It wasn’t a revelation

The reality is, what findings that were made during Panorama’s undercover investigation didn’t surprise us much at all.

I wouldn’t say it’s an open secret that these things go on, because that would suggest these things are kept ‘under wraps’ – and that’s simply not the case. It’s the opposite, in fact.

The reality is, nobody really needed Panorama to expose these things.

You only have to look at LinkedIn on any given day to see estate agents speaking up against these types of undesirable practices. Usually, it has to be said, agents from smaller, independent firms or self-employed agents – like our Members are, at The House Group.

So no – I wasn’t surprised. Disappointed? Absolutely. But surprised? Sadly, no.

What did Panorama claim to expose?

One main area that Panorama focussed on in The Undercover Estate Agent were the twin issues of cynical overvaluing just to win an instruction, followed by then incentivising staff to bring the price down.

The other focus was on ‘conditional selling’, i.e. forcing buyers to take out extra services such as mortgages through that agent’s in-house service, which wasn’t truly shown to take place in the documentary, it has to be said (and perhaps an unpopular opinion to voice!).

Nevertheless, it was clear to see that there was pressure was coming from above, for branch staff to be driving mortgage business – and indeed, it did seem on the surface that buyers using these services could be preferred – even if there was no evidence that they were favoured over any other buyer for that reason, in this investigation.

It is obvious how it could represent a conflict of interest, even if that were not shown in this documentary – and that, I believe, is where some justified outrage might lie.

The trouble is that when stories like these hit the headlines, we know it’s not those voices the public hears. They hear Martin Lewis, or an expert from Which?, and they think that it must be widespread and endemic.

The result of course, is that it causes sellers and buyers to become doubtful and reticent to take advice from agents, even when some things are in their interest. In other words, it paints us all with the same brush.

Are there ever good and valid reasons to use agent-recommended services?

There was a lot of focus in the programme on estate agents pushing buyers towards their in-house or recommended services, with the implication being that it was all about the commission.

In some businesses, that might be true – or at least partly true. But for many agents it simply isn’t that which motivates these recommendations.

We ourselves do recommend mortgage brokers and solicitors. Why wouldn’t we? If we trust certain people at certain firms to do the job well – people that we’ve built relationships with over years – why wouldn’t we recommend them to our buyers and sellers?

You’re not sure if you can afford to offer that amount? We need you to be sure, and we want to be sure, on behalf of you and behalf of our client. Why wouldn’t we want to help you find out, with the help of someone we think is the best person possible to give you that help?

You need a lawyer and you don’t have one in mind? Why wouldn’t I recommend someone that I know will get the job done well, who always responds, who acts quickly when there are enquiries and who won’t stop until they get your sale or purchase over line?

What’s the alternative – that I leave it to chance, and hope you pick a gem from an online search? Experience tells us to be afraid – be very afraid…

Now, we certainly wouldn’t want you spending close to £3,000 on your first time purchase, as per the example of the first time buyers in the Panorama piece.

But equally, we would be nervous to know you were using the ‘cheapest option out there’ – three times less expensive, apparently, as the journalist was so keen to be pointing out, as if they had just discovered the secret to eternal life rather than asked ChatGPT ‘how much do conveyancing fees cost’?

No matter what you are looking for in life, you’ll probably find cheaper versions out there.

You can spend £300 on a Weber barbecue, or £30 on a similar looking version from the middle of LIDL… they will both cook food over charcoals, but only one will still be there cooking food next summer over charcoals.

These are choices we all make – but when it comes to a sale going through or falling through, and therefore how we go about recommending lawyers, you can’t blame estate agents for suggesting lawyers that won’t fall apart after the property-transaction equivalent of a few wet and windy weekends.

One point to make though: if there are referral fees to be paid and earned, those things absolutely need to be disclosed.

And when it comes to poor lawyers being recommended by firms – not just estate agents but also mortgage brokers – solely based on the referral fees they are going to earn, that is when we do start to get cross.

Nevertheless, the act of recommending trusting professional services, in itself, is not a problem. In fact, we would say it could well be good agency.

When you have estate agents trying to steer a complex sale or a creaky chain through to completion, confidence and communication really matter.

• Estate agents, their clients, and the chain, all want to know a buyer really can proceed. The buyers themselves probably want to know!
• Estate agents, their clients, and the chain, all want to know their deal won’t collapse at the last minute. The buyers themselves probably want to know!
• Estate agents, their clients, and the chain, all want to know we can reach someone when we need to. We won’t want to sit on hold for 40 minutes to a national call centre, to speak to someone who isn’t the lawyer on the case. And of course, again – and at risk of repetition – buyers want that too.

A letter from an unknown broker declaring a buyer’s affordability doesn’t always give us the level of confidence we need to reassure our clients.

It’s not about mistrusting buyers, sometimes it is simply a case of wanting to prove something to ourselves – even if the mortgage or the conveyancing is ultimately undertaken by firms we don’t know (hey – do a great job, we might be recommending them in the future! We always want good people to work with).

These things are about making sure we keep a sale (and everyone in the chain) on track – and actually, any agent out there following this sort of protocol for these sorts of reasons, as opposed to target-hitting or ‘kickbacks’, are agents that we support.

As for Overvaluing? It’s a real problem… but we’ve said so repeatedly

We have spoken before about the damage caused by deliberate overvaluing, and this Panorama piece has only underlined the point that we (and many agents) make on a regular basis.

This isn’t a “one bad apple” situation. It is certainly not only Purple Bricks that do it – and nor will it be all Purple Bricks agents that do it.

It does feel pretty endemic throughout some parts of the industry – although I would bet it is more often seen where corporate listers are financially rewarded on volume, and not necessarily on accountability.

The effects of overvaluing can be seen by simply opening Rightmove on any given day. Properties which languish on the market for months, not just weeks – and the scary statistic that only 54% of properties that come to the market sell.

Well, we’ve been saying this for years and we’ll keep saying it: overvaluing is a scourge, and we pride ourselves on not doing so. And our results at The House Group, by comparison, speak for themselves.

Was this documentary needed?

To a degree, we should applaud Panorama for attempting to shine a light on these practices – uncomfortable as it can sometimes be, as an opponent of them that is nevertheless in the same industry.

That being said, I would say that their documentary did not in any way reveal a smoking gun.

Some mistakes were certainly made by subjects of this investigation, but over 6 weeks of filming I would be shocked if there weren’t mistakes. But, were those that were made to the detriment of anyone? I’m not sure.

If there had been a cash offer made that was squashed or passed over in favour of a lower offer that was taking up a mortgage with their in-house service, then it would be pitchforks and burning braziers, believe me.

But that wasn’t what we were given.

Ultimately, we saw a little bit of evidence of deliberate overvaluing, some fairly grievous over-pricing of related services, and some anecdotal (but I am not convinced ‘evidenced’) tales about incentives for price reductions.

With the Connells piece, we perhaps saw some questionable processes and practices, but I would be loathe to place the blame on the branch manager here when her targets and her training come from above; and there was literally no evidence of her committing the more serious offences of conditional selling or denial of offers, which had been suggested in the trailers and the news-blurbs.

Nevertheless, the pressure she and her team are clearly under to prioritise mortgage appointments rather than focusing on property sales looks like a problem to us. I imagine it looks like a problem to you, too. And the point is, that is a problem that comes from the top of the tree, not something being thought up and driven by branch operators.

And that is why I said earlier, I think it is a failure of journalism here to have not attempted to follow the breadcrumbs. A recording of a chat with a branch administrator, attempting to help out the new starter, is what we got. It was hardly Deep Throat.

ROPA might be the answer… but then again, so might enforcement

Do we see a case, at last, to finally bring forward The Regulation of Property Agents (ROPA)?

That would mean mandatory licensing, minimum qualifications, a new body to oversee the industry…

Perhaps.

But in the same breath I would also say that we don’t need to wait for new regulation to act. Poor behaviours and bad practices are already banned or even illegal.

The problem we have is, despite there being legislation in place that should prevent these things, there seems to be no enforcement.

So, when do we start seeing fines? Banning orders? Even criminal charges if the worst practices are found and proven?

Until real bad actors face real consequences, good agents will keep paying the price in reputation. And when I say ‘real bad actors’, I mean those at the top, pulling the strings.

We can bring in new legislation – but if it is enforced it in the same way as the law is enforced now, what will be the point?

We work every day to raise standards, but it only takes one scandal to set us back

Every day, we turn up to do a better job.

But exposés like this Undercover Estate Agent set us back, perpetuate the idea in many people’s minds that estate agents are a malign force, and make it harder for those of us trying to raise standards to get seen and heard.

In the public imagination, it’s the 1980s again – right down to shiny suits, pointy shoes and wide ties, probably.

But we know better than that. And those in Swindon that have worked with us know that too (and our reviews speak for themselves).

We do need a reckoning in this industry, I’ve got no doubt about that.

This documentary was not enough though, and it won’t lead to it. Nothing was actually caught and exposed – and therefore, for another while to come, I am sure, we will probably see things revert to same old, same old.

Not all estate agents are the same, however – and we won’t stop saying so.