Purplebricks told by ad watchdog not to repeat key claims about its fees

first_imgHome » News » Agencies & People » Purplebricks told by ad watchdog not to repeat key claims about its fees previous nextRegulation & LawPurplebricks told by ad watchdog not to repeat key claims about its feesDecision comes after company initially agreed to amend website in partnership with ASA following complaint by Hunters, which then appealed the original decision and won.Nigel Lewis27th June 201804,086 Views Purplebricks has been forced to alter its website after a landmark set of complaints against it were upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) today.The adjudication comes after an initial decision earlier this year by the watchdog went in its favour but was appealed by the complainant, who is franchised estate agency group Hunters.In summary, the ASA has told Purplebricks that it must not repeat the claim that its service is comparable to traditional agents without making it clear it charges extra for viewings, and that its website must make it much clearer that its fees are paid upfront, not after the sale.“The complaint, which came from a rival estate agency, was resolved four months ago in partnership with the ASA, made public by them and mutually agreed minor changes made to our website,” says a Purplebricks spokesperson.Agreed position“We were surprised when, only a day after reaching this agreed position and announcing it publicly, the same rival estate agent appealed this decision and their demands were met by the ASA. We believe this is unprecedented and unfair. We will appeal the ruling.”The adjudication comes after Hunters originally complained in October 2017 to the ASA about three claims made on the Purplebricks website, which the hybrid agency agreed to amend.Despite this, Hunters appealed the decision, insisting it was misleading to claim vendors could instruct Purplebricks to sell their homes for £849 because it was not clear that viewings were extra.It also said an online Purplebricks calculator illustrating claimed savings for vendors who used the hybrid agent’s service was also misleading; and that an infographic did not make it clear that Purplebricks charges its fees up-front.Three complaintsHunters had originally said it was misleading to claim that vendors could instruct Purplebricks for £849 (and £1,119 in London) because these fees did not include the additional £300 one-off viewings fee that 40% of its vendors choose to pay.Purplebricks argued that its fee structure was clear on its website, unlike many traditional agents, and that 60% of its customers did not pay the extra fee.The ASA also upheld Hunters’ claims that the hybrid agent’s online savings calculator was misleading, despite Purplebricks again arguing that all the applicable fees were highlighted.Lastly, the ASA said it was misleading of Purplebricks not to make it clear within the infographic that its fees were upfront because consumers, without adequate explanation, would assume the company operated the same way as traditional agents.“We are extremely disappointed with this ruling change and the process adopted,” says the Purplebricks spokesperson.“At Purplebricks we strive to ensure industry-leading levels of transparency by offering customers certainty of what they will pay to sell their house before they go on the market and a choice around whether they pay for our viewings services or undertake the viewings themselves.“Our customers know their homes best and 60% of them choose to show potential buyers around themselves and save some money.“Those who are too busy, or who prefer to leave it to our experts, pay a one-off £300 viewing fee to cover unlimited viewings. Customer choice has been a clearly communicated mainstay of our proposition and will remain so in the future.” misleading advertising Hunters advertising standards authority purpbricks ASA June 27, 2018Nigel LewisWhat’s your opinion? Cancel replyYou must be logged in to post a comment.Please note: This is a site for professional discussion. Comments will carry your full name and company.This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.Related articles Letting agent fined £11,500 over unlicenced rent-to-rent HMO3rd May 2021 BREAKING: Evictions paperwork must now include ‘breathing space’ scheme details30th April 2021 City dwellers most satisfied with where they live30th April 2021last_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *