Since 2019 the government has stated and re-stated its support for the principles of the recommendations without making any apparent progress in implementing them.
Now a Labour amendment to the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill to regulate property agents has been tabled following extensive lobbying from Propertymark and others on the issue.
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill was debated at Committee stage earlier this week after passing its Second Reading in the House of Commons on December 11.
The UK Government has stated that a ban on new leasehold houses, the end of marriage value, and a redress scheme for freeholders will be added as the Bill makes its way through Parliament.
Additionally, a consultation asking for views on options to halt ground rents for current leaseholders closed on Wednesday this week.
Timothy Douglas, Head of Policy and Campaigns at Propertymark, says: “It is really positive to see an amendment put forward to get the recommendations in Lord Best’s report on the Regulation of Property Agents on the statute book.
“The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill alongside other proposed housing legislation will bring huge change to the way people buy, sell, rent and live in property. However, currently there no minimum standards to work in the property sector and there are no statutory rules to ensure those buying, selling and managing property are suitably qualified.
“This amendment is an opportunity to provide a greater level of protection for consumers and should be widely supported.”
-
Here’s a summary of the RoPA working party recommendations:
Scope of new regulation: “We recommend that all those carrying out property agency work be regulated (including auctioneers, rent-to-rent firms, property guardian providers, international property agents, and online agents)” but this regulation will not extend to property portals like Rightmove and Zoopla nor to the Airbnb-style short-let sector.
“However, we recommend that the legislation required to regulate property agents should allow for future extension to the scope of regulation (e.g. to include at a future point regulation of landlords, freeholders and developers – as well as retirement housing managers and Right to Manage companies).”
-
The new regulator: “We do not consider that an existing body could take on the role of the new regulator. Therefore, Government should establish a new public body to undertake this role. The new regulator should be established and run with regard to general principles of good governance, including: independence, openness and transparency, accountability, integrity, clarity of purpose and effectiveness. The new regulator, through its board, should be accountable to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. It should publish an annual report on its progress in raising standards of property agents, using agreed key performance indicators – including customer satisfaction …
“We recommend that the new regulator take over responsibility for the approval of property agent redress and client money protection schemes. The new regulator should have the power to appoint a single ombudsman for property agents, rather than competing redress schemes, if they believe this to be the best way of improving standards.”
“The new regulator should be able to consider complaints from all sources. Where solicitors, lawyers or other professionals have evidence of possible illegal agent behaviour, they should be obliged to present it to the new regulator.”
-
Licensing: “To confirm appropriate qualifications and credentials, property agencies and qualifying agents should be required to hold and display a licence to practise from the new regulator. Before granting a licence, the new regulator should check that an agent has fulfilled its legal obligations (such as belonging to a redress scheme and submitting a copy of their annual audited accounts to the new regulator) – and that they have passed a fit-and-proper person test. We recommend that the new regulator should be able to vary licensing conditions as it sees fit and that it maintains accessible records of licensed property agents.”
-
Codes of Practice: “Codes of practice set out clear standards of behaviour. The Government has already committed to requiring that letting agents adhere to a code of practice, and we recommend that all property agents be required to do so. There should be a single, high- level set of principles applicable to all property agents which is set in statute: the ‘overarching’ code. Then, underneath, ‘regulatory’ codes specific to various aspects of property agent practice, binding only on those providing these types of services.
“Key principles for the ‘overarching’ code should include that agents must act with honesty and integrity; ensure all staff are appropriately qualified; declare conflicts of interest; and have an effective complaints procedure in place. To develop and maintain the ‘regulatory’ codes, the new regulator should establish a working group for each sector of property agency to work up sector-specific detail.”
-
Qualifications: “In the new regime, every property agency should be responsible for ensuring their staff are trained to the appropriate level and clear oversight arrangements are in place for junior staff. To ensure levels of qualification are appropriate yet proportionate, the working group recommend that licensed agents should be qualified to a minimum of level 3 of Ofqual’s Regulated Qualification Framework; company directors and managing agents should be qualified to a minimum of level 4 in most cases.”
The new regulator will be expected to develop a system of qualification quality control.
-
Leasehold and freehold charges: “The new regulator should be given a statutory duty to ensure transparency of leaseholder and freeholder charges, and should work with the sector (property agents, developers and consumers) to draw up the detail of the regulatory codes to underpin this aim as it applies to property agents … We recommend that the new regulator takes over from the First-tier Tribunal the power to block a landlord’s chosen managing agent where the leaseholders have reasonably exercised a veto. We also recommend that the new regulator provides information on managing agent performance to allow landlord freeholders - and where relevant, leaseholders - to make an informed choice of managing agent.”
-
Assurance and enforcement: “We recommend that the new regulator should have a range of options for enforcement action according to the seriousness of the infringement and how regularly it has occurred. These options should range from agreeing remedial actions and issuing warnings up to the revocation of licences and prosecutions for unlicensed practice.”
“The new regulator and other bodies (such as Trading Standards and redress schemes) will need to share information and work together effectively. There should be a system of flexible working between the new regulator and Trading Standards teams, and the new regulator should set out guidance clarifying their own and Trading Standards’ roles with regards to enforcement action to avoid duplication.”
.jpg)
%20-%20IMAGE%20Client%20Accounting%20%E2%80%93%20what%20are%20your%20options.jpg)
%20(002).png)
.png)
.png)
%20(002).jpg)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
Welcome to Labour and the nanny state.
That’s Labour !Regulate everything! This reason alone is why a labour government in this form should never be allowed into power.
More expense coming down the road. So, we have to pay an annual fee to HMRC for anti-money laundering, we have to pay an annual fee to a money protect scheme so as to protect client funds, we have to pay an annual fee to a property redress scheme, we have to pay annual fees for all sorts of insurance to cover our derrieres and now it seems we will have to pay more annual fees for organisations that are being suggested to deal with agents that probably subscribe to none of the above. There again it falls upon decent honest legitimate agents to cover the expense. This will simply destroy a lot of good genuine local community based agents and leave it to the corporates. Well done!
I would like to point out that being a member of Propertymark, I am not in favour of Ropa.
ROPA is mainly a money-making scheme for Propertymark and the companies that have a vested interest in the expensive courses.
There is a possibility of the introduction of a Licence Fee, another hidden Government Tax!.
Propertymark have never asked members to my knowledge if we wish to see the implementation of Ropa.
Speaking regularly to several independent agents like me, they do not agree for more regulation in the already over regulated property industry.
The former Housing Minister Rachel Maclean MP said: “There is a need for regulation of the property management sector!
Please tell me what qualifications an MP has to hold such a privileged position ……None that I know of.
Timothy Douglas, Head of Policy and Campaigns at Propertymark, also believes the need for regulation of property agents and the implementation of recommendations in Lord Best’s report.
The industry is currently policed by the Property Ombudsman schemes, whom do an excellent job in rooting out bad practice within the industry. They implement heavy fines for wrongdoing and have the power to expel agents for bad practice.
Propertymark constantly provide updates of regulatory requirements, without having to put members through arduous studying or exams.
I joined Propertymark to assure the public, that they are dealing with an agent that carries out their business practice within regulatory guidelines of the membership however, I feel that they are trying to overregulate the smaller independent members to force them out the industry, and allow bigger players to swallow them up, which is currently happening.
Labour are full on socialists......their only objective is to gain power ..........once in power central planning ensures poverty and hardship for all except the elite.........
Please login to comment