In my years working alongside estate agents of all sizes, I’ve encountered one frustration time and again: the power held by service providers that can stymie even the most diligent agents.
Recently, I came across one such case that’s left me both concerned and, frankly, determined to see justice done.
I’ll share the story here, as it speaks volumes about the state of fair competition in our industry and how compliance hurdles are amplified by the monopolistic practices of certain dominant platforms.
RAY’S STORY: COMPLIANCE ON HIS TERMS – NOT THEIRS
Let’s call the agent in question Ray. Ray is a smaller, independent estate agent who takes his compliance responsibilities seriously.
He’s invested heavily – not just in time and money – in the meticulous work of ensuring his agency adheres to Consumer Protection Regulations (CPR) and the guidelines set by the National Trading Standards Estate and Letting Agency Team (NTSELAT).
Ray even built a new website tailored to present all the required material information, guaranteeing that every listing he represents meets both the letter and the spirit of the law.
PLATFORM ISSUES
But here’s the catch: the major service provider Ray relies on, a platform that charges him around £2,200 per month for his single branch, does not allow his listings to show this information in a compliant way on their site.
Despite all of Ray’s efforts, the platform insists on practices that make him fall short of the legal standards he is so committed to upholding.
This commercial decision – a choice made to align with the provider’s own business model rather than the regulation – has effectively forced Ray into non-compliance, leaving him trapped between his legal obligations and the monopolistic power of his service supplier.
RELAX
I’ve told Ray to relax; James Munro and his #local trading standards deputies have bigger fish to fry, such as agents charging fees to tenants in defiance of other property laws.
There’s more fundamental binary law-breaking that’s more easily prosecuted, but by the by, service suppliers should not be determining non-compliance.
THE FIGHT FOR EQUITY: COMPLIANCE SHOULD BE AN EQUAL RIGHT
This case is not only about compliance; it’s a battle for equity.
Ray’s challenge goes to the heart of what a fair marketplace should look like.
Every agent deserves the same opportunity to operate within the law, access compliant tools, and pay a fair rate.
In Ray’s case, he’s shouldering a substantial financial burden yet has no recourse to ensure his listings meet compliance standards on the platform.
“Many agents, both large and small, struggle with compliance due to inadequate support from their service providers.”
This disparity impacts not just Ray’s business but highlights a broader issue: many agents, both large and small, struggle with compliance due to inadequate support from their service providers.
According to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), any service provider with monopoly power has a duty to uphold fair market practices and ensure that all customers receive equitable treatment.
The right to compliance should be supported for every agent, regardless of size.
Ray’s case illustrates how far we have yet to go in achieving a level playing field for all agents.
BUSINESS PROTECTION FROM MISLEADING MARKETING
Ray’s dilemma also brings another regulatory concern to light: Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations (BPR).
By controlling how information is displayed, the platform in question could mislead potential buyers and impact Ray’s ability to comply with transparency requirements.
BPR obligates companies to provide fair, clear, and truthful marketing, which includes allowing compliant information to be prominently featured as part of any agent’s listings. Failure to do so misrepresents the agent’s business and undermines consumer trust.
FAIR COMPETITION AND EQUAL COMPLIANCE RIGHTS
This isn’t merely an isolated challenge for a small business; it’s emblematic of a structural issue that demands attention.
Every agent deserves access to platforms that support their legal obligations.
The fight for equity in the industry isn’t just about leveling the playing field financially; it’s about recognizing that legal compliance should not be held hostage to the business models of monopoly platforms.
If smaller agents are denied these rights, then it’s time to take this issue to the relevant authorities.
“I shouldn’t be paying to be made non-compliant by a service supplier.”
As Ray aptly noted: “I shouldn’t be paying to be made non-compliant by a service supplier when I’ve done all I can to ensure my listings meet the law.”
Ray’s frustration isn’t unique; it’s the frustration of countless independent agents who feel unheard by platforms that hold too much market control.
TAKING A STAND: DAVID AND GOLIATH
This case has shown me, and I hope many others, that it’s time for a reckoning.
When a service provider leverages its position to frustrate compliance and equity because it doesn’t suit their commercial model, that’s when our collective voices must be heard.
Ray may be the David in this situation, but with support and a push for regulatory scrutiny, even a Goliath can be held accountable.
The fight for equity is about more than fair fees; it’s about agents’ fundamental right to operate legally and transparently.
Let’s advocate for a market where integrity, compliance, and fair competition are the norm, not the exception.
Robert May is Advocate for Agents at MySSTC
Thank you for publishing this article Robyn