Rat and Mouse
banner ad
Wed
04
Jul
Tesco - hung out to dry?

20070704Tesco
From Joe Slavin, CE of fish4:

fish4homes continually strives to provide the highest quality service to its network of clients. Because Tesco is one of the UK’s biggest and most widely-recognised brands, we initially felt that involvement in the Tesco Property Market initiative would give our new and existing customers’ property adverts maximum exposure and deliver maximum value for our partners moving forward.

Right, every little helps... but?

Since the launch of Tesco Property Market, we have received valuable customer feedback and have decided that our involvement with the site, in its current format, is not in the best interest of our clients. We are therefore terminating our agreement with Tesco.

Does this mean that Tesco will be left, shortly, with zero properties for sale?

Brightsale attacks Tesco [July 2, 2007]
Property portals don't freak out/do freak out over Tesco [July 2, 2007]
Tesco's piece of estate agency pie [June 29, 2007]

Technorati Tags: ,

Comments

It seems that fish4 have a 90-day termination clause in their contract, so Tesco will be able to use their listings for a little while still. However, they're going to have to get a lot of their own instructions in that time if they want a decent number of listings to attract people to the site once fish4 DO pull the plug.

Posted by Anon at July 4, 2007 2:38 PM

Comments

TESCO'S ACHILLES HEEL: Under the estate agents act (79) the OFT clearly states that an internet property retailer (not an agent), becomes an agent when they provide a For Sale board. In doing so, all estate agents will have to become members of the Ombudsman for Estate Agents. Estate Agents are responsible for their website content. A disclaimer back to the owner is of no value. The onus is on the agent. If an agent is silly enough to allow a seller to say what they want, ie that they have 4 beds, when really 2, or that they have an acre, when really 1/2 acre, then it is the agents responsibility under pma (property misdescription) to chech details are right. A breach of the Act is a criminal offence carrying a fine of up to �5,000 (Magistrates Court) or an unlimited fine (Crown Court). So really, is �199 for a potential fine of �5,000 really worth it?

Posted by Trevor Mealham at July 5, 2007 3:58 PM

Comments

Just to correct Trevor's comment - the Estate Agents Act makes no mention of internet property retailers as (in 1979) the internet didn't exist.... Also, the OFT's *guidance* on the subject of agency refers not to provision of a sign being an act of agency, but provision of a sign WITH THE COMPANY'S CONTACT NUMBER on it. The title "internet property retailer" is an invention of the OFT and has no legal or official definition anywhere - the websites they are trying to encompass with this title do not in fact 'retail' property (for which they would have to own the homes as 'stock', much like a high street shop). The last point linking the fines under the PMA to spending 199 with Tesco's is slightly misleading, as any private seller could not be fined under the PMA as this is a law which applies only to estate agents.

Posted by Martin Charlick at July 5, 2007 4:23 PM

Comments

It is unfortunate that a previous comment misquotes (again) the OFTs actual 'for sale board' ruling. This is exactly the same misquotation used by Estate Agents nationwide and is designed to act in their interests.
The EXACT quotation from the OFT is "providing clients with a 'For Sale' board and/or putting it up outside their property where the board contains your contact details." (where 'your' refers to the entity placing/owning/manufacturing the board.)
Note the precise reference to the 'contact details' of the company supplying the board or service. If the board contains only a method of contacting the householder and does not refer the interested party to request a physical introduction via the website operator then it is not a contravention of the rules. To do so would be a nonsense effectively banning homeowners from erecting or having their OWN 'for sale' board which the OFT recognised as such.


Posted by Jim at July 5, 2007 4:50 PM

Comments

OK, Martin Charlick. Very good. The internet didn't exist in 79, but above simplistic thoughts. To spell it out, its the actions that count: The fact that an outside company puts up the board with reference to their service 'TESCO' which refers callers to: yes TESCO's automated service is what counts. This automated pre-recorded service is via TESCO. Check this out. Go to http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/legal/estate-agents-act/retailers#named1
By the way. The OEA agree with me and confirm that they feel TESCO falls within the Estate Agents Act. Or look undre UK Google: Estate agent, internet, property, retailer.

Posted by Trevor Mealham at July 10, 2007 1:31 PM

Comments

If estate agents are doing a good, honest, job, why are they getting so angry about some competition. If they think the service Tesco's provide is no good, it won't take off and will be of no threat to them. Why don't you shut up moaning a do the job you think tou're so damn good at.

Posted by Jackie Thorn at September 5, 2007 1:52 PM

Comments

GREAT SITE:

A better alternative for estate agents. A true and new approach to mls.

FREE MEMBERSHIP TO INDEPENDENT AGENTS. MANY SVAINGS, DISCOUNTS AND INCOME STREAMS.

www.inea.co.uk

Posted by Trevor Mealham at June 4, 2008 6:35 PM

Comments

Hi, how I can send PM?


Posted by proslaviy at September 16, 2008 10:28 PM

Comments

You can email me.

tips - at - theratandmouse.co.uk

Posted by Ben at the Rat and Mouse at September 17, 2008 9:36 AM


Please feel free to comment on this entry







 


POSTCODES
THANKS TO
ENTRIES BY MONTH
ABOUT
UK PROPERTY RESOURCES
US / INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY BLOGS
LONDON BLOGS
CREDITS
Publisher Editor Technical and Design Hosting Software