asa purplebricks
-
Latest property news
Shock rise in complaints about estate agency adverts during 2018
The Advertising Standards Authority watchdog says both the number of complaints and cases jumped last year compared to 2017.
Read More » -
Latest property news
Both Purplebricks and OpenRent change claims made on their websites following ASA investigations
Two of the UK’s largest online agents have been reported to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) about misleading claims on their websites. The first is Purplebricks, its 11th referral since it started up in 2015. A complainant challenged whether the way the company provides information about its standard fee of £849 was misleading. An icon is positioned next to text saying “our standard fee £849” which, when hovered over, pops up with the text: “This is our standard fee for everywhere outside of London and surrounding areas, where we charge £1199 inc VAT. Around 40% of our customers pay us a fixed fee of £300 to cover ALL viewings”. The complainant understood that the average fee was therefore likely to be higher than £849 and challenged whether this was misleading. The ASA says it agreed, saying that “we noted that it was only when a user hovered over the icon that information about the additional cost for the viewing service became visible”. “We approached the advertiser with our concerns and they agreed to amend their website.” Instead, the Purplebricks site now says “viewing service is optional £300” on the main page, rather than as a pop-up. OpenRent complaint The second…
Read More » -
Latest property news
Purplebricks agrees to clarify what ‘pay nothing upfront’ means on its website
It has been a busy week for the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) which has had to deal with three property firms referred to it by members of the public, including Purplebricks. This will be the fifth time this year the hybrid agency has been dealt with by the ASA and the tenth time overall since 2015. This time the hybrid agency has agreed to add a clickable but tiny ‘information’ symbol (see below) on its ‘What’s included in our fixed fee’ page next to the words ‘A choice to pay nothing upfront’. A member of the public complained that this could be misleading because, if a vendor chooses to pay later they either have to use Purplebricks’ Advanced Conveyancing Services or, if they don’t, pay an administration fee of £360 including VAT. After being contacted by the ASA, Purplebricks inserted the pop-up information button containing the words explaining this, and the case was resolved informally. Two other agents The other agents featuring in this week’s ASA cases include Property Collection Worldwide and Space4Living. Cambridge-based the Property Collection Worldwide had been reported for claiming to be the “UK’s leading estate agents’ marketing specialists”, a claim that when challenged it agreed to…
Read More » -
Latest property news
Purplebricks TV ads ARE misleading, says advertising watchdog
The long-running complaint by the Charter for Independent Estate Agents (CIELA) to the Advertising Standards Authority that Purplebricks TV ads are misleading has been upheld. Two ‘commisery’ adverts aired in March this year – one featuring a man screaming into a cupboard and another a woman falling into cake – were reported to the ASA by CIELA because, the now ‘on ice’ members organisation claimed, the adverts were misleading. It said the comparison in the ads between Purplebricks’ flat fee and traditional agents’ commission structure were not accurate and therefore misleading. The ASA has upheld this complaint – a valedictory win for CIELA only two weeks after it was announced it had not attracted enough members to go to full launch. Within its judgement published today, the ASA says that although it “acknowledged” the difference between flat fees and commission payments, it says flat fees are relatively new in the property market and that, because people move home infrequently, they wouldn’t be familiar with how a flat-fee worked, or that it is different from a commission. “We considered that it was not sufficiently clear in the ads that the fee payable to Purplebricks was not conditional on the sale of…
Read More »