Dear Sheila


What’s on your mind? If it’s printable, share it with Letters to the Editor Re: The NFoPP


I


recently wrote to Peter Bolton King at NFOPP with regard to the Client Money Protection Levy. I thought you might be interested in


my letter and his response. It’s not really very reassuring and it looks like he is going to rack up more costs. Why do they need to employ someone to deal with the small groups?


Dear Mr Bolton King, Re: Client Money Protection


Scheme Levy 2011 and membership of the NAEA I write to protest at the hike in the annual levy. As an agent who only deals in commercial and professional work, I strongly object to having to bail out those who have traded fradulently, particularly on residential lettings. I delayed payment to see whether I could obtain the necessary protection from another source but it seems that if I want to remain a member of this organisation, I have no option.


I am seriously beginning to question whether it is worthwhile staying in the Association, having been a member since 1984. You do seem, in my view, to have lost your way quite significantly. The public has no idea what NFoPP stands for. They do have some understanding about the NAEA as it has been around far longer and is a recognisable name. The Association does nothing to promote ICBA so what is the point of belonging to it? You make no statements about business matters with that name in mind or promoting your commercial members. I guess 300 out of 6,500 don’t count for very much these days. Maybe my firm is unusual in


that we don’t have anything to do with selling houses or flats, unlike the vast majority of the membership. That was a conscious decision we took when setting the business up. I don’t recall being asked to vote on including all these


12 APRIL 2011 PROPERTYdrum


I wonder what the true membership of the NAEA is? I understood that it had fallen well under 10,000 and at a meeting I attended, the first for a long time, I was told it was 6,500 which I suspect is more likely. Yours sincerely,


Christopher Lawson, BA (Hons) FNAEA FICBA Lawson Commercial


Reply from


Peter Bolton King Dear Mr Lawson


Thank you for your letter of the Chris Lawson


different subsidiaries and NFoPP means nothing to me and nothing to the world at large. You would have done far better


to have kept the brand as the National Association of Estate Agents, with subsidiaries to it if necessary, and had a commercial membership within that branding; that was far more important and I actually used it and still promote the NAEA on our letterhead. I see nothing in the e-newsletter,


which we receive intermittently these days, about promotion of the schemes to the wider organisation. There has never been any specific promotion of the website towards commercial members so we don’t bother with it. More importantly, what are you actually doing for the members? You seem to be spending an awful lot of money on head office and amalgamating with other organisations but surely the aim should be be to promote the professionalism of the


organisation to the wider public. The only good thing at the


moment is I think that, from a PR point of view, bankers are hated more than estate agents. Yours sincerely,


Christopher Lawson, BA (Hons) FNAEA FICBA Lawson Commercial


28th February. When we looked at the options in respect of this year’s levy, we considered whether we should calculate it differently. We looked at the size of firm and whether we should consider the amount of money held. An analysis of claims for the last


two years shows that the problem generally is with small offices; not necessarily multi-branch firms or carrying large sums of money. There could be an argument to load the risk towards smaller firms. As you will appreciate, this is something we did not want to do. As you say, one of the problems with CMP insurance is that it is impossible for firms to obtain cover. As a result, currently the only organisations able to obtain this are ourselves, the RICS and NALS. The whole question of CMP is something that the Board will continue to review, I assure you that we want to find ways of making any levy fair. I note that you are a commercial agency. Can I check that you do actually hold clients money? If not, then there is no requirement to pay CMP. If you also carry out commercial management, then I assume you do hold client money, in which case CMP is required. I am afraid that commercial firms have been


Peter Bolton King


involved in some of the claims we have received, this is not limited to residential lettings. You mention that nobody


knows who NFoPP is. We are not advertising NFoPP, it is only a holding company. What is important is that the public understand the brands. You make the point that 300 members out of over 13,000 is not a high percentage. However, I believe we can grow the ICBA and we are looking at recruiting somebody to specifically deal with smaller divisions. We have not brought any


new brands into the organisation as we have been trying to concentrate on promoting what we have. Although a single brand would be far easier, we had to agree with ARLA, ICBA and NAVA that the brands would remain for ten years unless a substantial percentage of the membership voted otherwise. Your comment about


promoting the organisation and the wider public is well made. Almost all of our PR is aimed at getting the message across to the public and our Board are considering whether they should commit assets to aid A marketing campaign. I can assure you that I am aware that we need to try and control costs as much as possible and provide additional benefits to members. Yours sincerely,


Peter Bolton King FNAEA (Honoured), FRICS, CIPS (hon) Group Chief Executive NFoPP


!


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68