National chain Martin & Co has signed up to become members of UKALA (the UK Association of Letting Agents) – potentially adding nearly 200 offices and virtually doubling the size of the association at a stroke.
UKALA, which is run at a remove by the National Landlords Association which took it over in 2010, relaunched last year after recruiting a new full-time executive, former Cluttons partner Caroline Kenny.
The association had been losing members and the recruitment of Martin & Co could represent something of a breakthrough.
Kenny says that the new membership offering is meeting with a positive response from agents. UKALA now provides member agents with client money protection insurance, tax investigation insurance, plus discounted products and services, and access to an advice line and online library.
Agent members can also network with landlords at NLA branch meetings.
Kenny said: “The industry reaction to the new UKALA proposition has been very encouraging, and it’s really positive to find that even established agents, such as Martin & Co, are seeing real business benefit in membership.
“We’ve had a steady stream of inquiries from small agents, right up to the larger chains.
“We’re also working hard on improving our offering even further with agents in mind. For example, we hope to make a best practice AST available to members soon and will be running a workshop alongside Mydeposits [the tenancy deposit scheme set up by the NLA] in April, providing guidance on how to avoid and deal with deposit disputes.”
Sue Hopson, brand standards director at Martin & Co, said: “I was surprised to find an organisation like UKALA: not only does it promote good practice amongst letting agents, but it also works in partnerships with landlords.
“As UKALA can now provide Client Money Protection, we had no doubts about recommending them to our franchise owners.
“We recognise that agents and landlords need to move in the same direction, influencing together the future of the lettings industry.
“Pulling together as agents, professional bodies and landlords seems an obvious move, yet it has taken until now for this to happen.”
.png)
Comments
Re "Not for no reason"
"Business leader does something to etiher make money or increase profits"
Yup, that must be the most un-contentious statement ever.
Why did I (for example) sit and pass the ARLA exam? Answer - so I had a better understanding of legislation and best practices, which enabled me to give a better service to my clients, which enabled me to retain existing clients and attract new ones, which . . . you guessed it, enabled me to increase profits and make more money.
If the chicken ran a business you can bet your life that the real reason he crossed the road was because there was more money to be made on the other side.
I'm guessing they either got a very good rate or even free? I'd join but would still need to be a member of TPS/ARLA etc to join SAFE.
Iam Wilson will have done this to make money or increase profits.
Does a landlord care if you are a member of UKALA? Does a landlord know about UKALA?
NO would be my thought...so why spend the best part of £500 per year on something which will not bring in one landlord
In the end a few people will always be ripped off whatever the level of regulations, look at financial services for example. Most landlords only care about void periods and achieving the highest rent
My Deposits and The NLA - The commonn denominator is Hamilton Fraser and I am sure they will have a hand in the CMP and being cynical the soon to come Martin and Co new landlord and tenant insurance offerings.
Aeromalid
Thank you for that from previous posts I did realise what the actual structure is.
But wouldn't such an arrangement via a less well known and probably financially less financially sound body make the premiums even more eye watering for the agent member than ARLA etc are now?
Industry Observer,
The indemnified party to any CMP insurance is the organisation providing the financial undertaking / promise to the members clients, in this case it is UKALA. As they are the 'insured' party under the contract - not the member firm or its clients - their insurer is not in the public domain unless they choose to do so. The member qualifies to be included by complying with the membership rules imposed by UKALA and the insurers rely exclusively on the organisations 'due diligence' to provide the risk management that allows the over arching Associations cover to be provided.
I believe I am right in saying that ARLA and NAEA are likely to be indemnified by a single arrangement under the NFoPP banner. So as a guess, I would think that as NLA and my|deposits are associated, then it is not unreasonable to assume that there is linkage.
Sorry but this all seems a bit odd to me.
First with all due respect UKALA is a nowhere body and the article says it all - 200 members and now doubling. Why on earth M&Co or indeed any other franchisor would not make it obligatory for franchisees to join at least NALS plus then by obligation TPO defeats me.
Years ago when you could join first and pass exams later ARLA was the weapon of choice but then in another move I never understood they moved their goalposts to make passing the Technical Award obligatory before you could join ARLA.
Looks a good move on the face of it - but why not let agents join but actually expel them if they have not completed the award within say 12 months?
Anyway what really interests me here is this sudden availability of cmp through UKALA? They as the item says are run very much at arms length by RLA and RLA doesn't provide cmp as they exist for private Landlords.
Far as I am aware there are only 5 sources of meaningful cmp still for the industry, these being:-
ARLA
NAEA
NALS
RICS
Law Society
or has something changed and there is now a meaningful 6th provider - emphasis very much on the word "meaningful"
Where is this automatic cmp for M&Co coming from?
who at ARLA knows both Jupix and CFPwinMan well enough to know for sure that (for example only , not accusing you of anything) the unallocated cash routine is not being used as a means to bypass TDS or that cash adjustments between landlords are not being used to pay Paul with some unauthorised assistance from Peter?
The answer is no-one and what is more concerning is that they will not recognise the need to have an industry wide set of standards and procedures covering all providers.
CFPwinman is the only software to be ICAEW accredited but ICAEW have failed to recognise that legislation changes in 2007 meant the software they were auditing in 2008 was already out of date. No one noticed, no-one cares and it is no-ones job to do anything about it.
That is the theory mate! When the auditor can not figure out what is going on, some agencies have failed audits multiple years running and nothing is done about it!
Partners/principals often resort to putting their own cash into accounts to make them balance without having a clue what is actually going on.
Auditors seeing that the books balance on a single entry basis are satisfied enough to sign them off as correct when in fact they have simply disguised a mess.
You name the person at each of the following regulating bodies who is tasked with looking at Client cash accounting issues.
ARLA ? RICS? NALS? TPO?
When you come up with a name perhaps we will get closer to knowing who to report Crooked agents to! (see other story)
Steve,
When does your in - house referencing and insurance offering start?
London Agent - I broadly agree. In common with other agents I had to submit a fairly detailed Acountant's report to gain ARLA membership, which in itself provides a reasonable degree of protection against black holes in client accounts. Equally, the very fact that an agent has voluntarily joined ARLA in the first place implies they're more likely than not to be trustworthy.
That said, clients have an extra layer of protection if the business is a MAC franchisee, because the MAC audit was far more thorough that the one my accountant provided for ARLA. Also, the MAC audit was done by someone who knows Jupix and CFP (the two property management software packages currently in use within MAC) inside out - unlike my accountant who knows nothing about either system.
Good agents with decent CMP through say NALS or ARLA are audited very thoroughly every year - you get chucked out very quickly if anything serious wrong!
You're an authority on this are you Rob?
The only reason Martin & Co (and to be fair Belvoir) did for a while have some high-profile failures was because the franchisors introduced regular audits which flushed them out.
I'm a MAC franchisee of ten years standing with (I'd like to think) a good reputation within the group. Nevertheless, Head Office have just concluded a full professional end-to-end audit of my client account.
How many independents out there have had their client accounts professionally audited?
My guess is that there's a significant minority of independents out there with holes in their client accounts but if no-one's actually looking for them they can, in theory and often in practice, run them like a Ponzi scheme for years and years.
And what disciplinary procedures are in place should the agent be a "Wrong-un"? Er............none apparently.
This could be very expensive for UKALA. M&Co have more than their fair share of failures, the CMP pay-outs could be serious. Until M&Co implement systems and controls that deal with client money they will continue to represent a significant risk to the market place.
They have only joined for the CMP.