Estate agents warned over competition law breaches

21 Apr 2016News

CMA caution estate agents against agreeing with rivals over use of property portal collusion

Estate agents that conspire with rivals over which online portals to list properties are risking being in breach of competition laws.

The warning comes in an open letter from the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), which has become aware that some estate agents may be making joint decisions to join the OnTheMarket portal.

Some agents have been accused of removing their business from competing portals, such as Rightmove and Zoopla, rather than reaching these decisions independently of each other.

The CMA has contacted agents it suspects may have been directly involved in such activity.

The authority is working closely with the National Association of Estate Agents and the Property Ombudsman to raise awareness of this issue.

Ann Pope, the CMA's senior director of antitrust, said: 'The online portals on which properties are listed is an important aspect of competition between estate agents and the choice of portal must be decided independently and not agreed with competitors.

'Estate agents that are found to be breaking competition law in this way could face significant fines.'

The open letter sent to estate agents highlights the potential consequences of breaking competition law.

Agents found to have breached competition law can be fined up to 10 per cent of their annual worldwide turnover, and directors of infringing companies can be disqualified from UK company directorships for up to 15 years.

In addition, individuals involved in certain activity, such as agreements to fix prices or allocate markets, may be prosecuted under the criminal cartel offence and could go to prison for up to five years and/or have to pay an unlimited fine.

Legal News desk contact: editorial@solicitorsjournal.com|

Estate agents that conspire with rivals over which online portals to list properties are risking being in breach of competition laws.

The warning comes in an open letter from the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), which has become aware that some estate agents may be making joint decisions to join the OnTheMarket portal.

Some agents have been accused of removing their business from competing portals, such as Rightmove and Zoopla, rather than reaching these decisions independently of each other.

The CMA has contacted agents it suspects may have been directly involved in such activity.

The authority is working closely with the National Association of Estate Agents and the Property Ombudsman to raise awareness of this issue.

'Estate agents that are found to be breaking competition law in this way could face significant fines.'

The open letter sent to estate agents highlights the potential consequences of breaking competition law.

Employment tribunal cases rising sharply

Recent Ministry of Justice figures reveal a significant increase in open Employment Tribunal cases and challenges faced by employers

SRA updates guidance for litigation supervision

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has enhanced its supervision guidelines to clarify litigation conduct after recent court rulings

Millions of fathers lack parental responsibility

Many fathers may be surprised to learn about their parental responsibility rights and how to secure them

Re Poundstretcher: cross-class cramdown survives even when six landlord classes say no

The Chancery Division sanctions Poundstretcher's restructuring plan despite six dissenting landlord classes, applying the Adler and Petrofac framework.

Ponsford v Sali: a property partnership's messy divorce shows why documentation wins partnership disputes

The Chancery Division takes a pragmatic, evidence based approach to untangling a property partnership built on undocumented cash dealings.

North Somerset District Council v Secretary of State: failing the flood sequential test is not the end of the story

The Planning Court confirms that a failed flood risk sequential test still gets weighed in the planning balance, not treated as an automatic refusal.

Thomas Armstrong (Aggregates) v Housing Secretary: when landfill buries a quarry's right to be reviewed

The Planning Court applies Pilkington and Hillside to find a 1954 quarry permission can no longer be revived under the ROMP regime.

Clerkenwell Lifestyle v HG Construction: be careful what you call "agreed" in extension of time correspondence

The TCC enforces a £955,943 adjudication award after rejecting a contractor's late attempt to recast email exchanges as a binding settlement.

Ward v Donnellan: when both sides lie, "no order for costs" is not a free pass

The Court of Appeal overturns a no order for costs ruling, finding a judge let a dishonest claimant off too lightly.

London Borough of Camden v BW: when a single missing fact can decide a capacity case

The Court of Protection finds an expert's failure to explore one consequence, losing a placement, was enough to undermine his capacity assessment.

Griffiths v Essex County Council: EAT clarifies causation in discrimination remedy awards and sends pension loss back for recalculation

A single act of indirect disability discrimination can ground a full loss of earnings award, even where a later constructive dismissal claim was framed only...