|Topic:||Re:Re:Re:Re:Harvey Nicks in Chiswick?|
|Posted by:||Robin Cox|
On 1 October 2013, the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 (PMA), which previously made it a criminal offence for estate agents to make false or misleading statements about properties being offered for sale, was repealed. The government has taken this step in order to reduce duplicate legislation because there are now two other pieces of legislation which regulate estate agents and other businesses involved in property sales and lettings: the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs) and the Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008 (BPRs).
Although the CPRs and BPRs have been in force for 5 years, they are still unfamiliar to many estate agents and consumers, which prompted the Office of Fair Trading to publish guidance specifically for estate agents on the new Regulations last year. Agents should be aware that the new Regulations offer far more protection to individuals against misleading sales particulars and advertising than the PMA.
In brief, the CPRs prohibit all traders from using unfair commercial practices in their dealings with individual consumers, and specifically estate agents are prohibited from engaging in commercial practices that are unfair to sellers, buyers, potential sellers or potential buyers of residential property.
The BPRs prohibit traders in all sectors, including estate agents, from using misleading practices in their business-to-business advertisements, which catches misleading marketing used to advertise property for sale.
Whereas the PMA only covered estate agents, the CPRs and BPRs are much wider in scope covering letting agents and property managers. Those agents found to have breached either the CPRs or BPRs could be at risk of prosecution by their local authority trading standards services who are responsible for enforcement by bringing criminal prosecutions. On conviction, agents can face substantial fines or in more serious cases imprisonment. However, agents will have a defence against such prosecutions provided they can demonstrate they took all reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence.
|Topic||Date Posted||Posted By|
|Harvey Nicks in Chiswick?||21/10/15 13:56:00||Ann Williams|
|Re:Harvey Nicks in Chiswick?||21/10/15 14:04:00||Gail Busza|
|Re:Harvey Nicks in Chiswick?||21/10/15 14:12:00||Ian Wylie|
|Re:Re:Harvey Nicks in Chiswick?||21/10/15 14:12:00||Katy Boardman|
|Re:Re:Re:Harvey Nicks in Chiswick?||21/10/15 15:54:00||Vanessa Smith|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Harvey Nicks in Chiswick?||21/10/15 15:58:00||Alex McDevitt|
|Re:Harvey Nicks in Chiswick?||21/10/15 16:12:00||Tina Gallacher|
|Re:Re:Harvey Nicks in Chiswick?||21/10/15 20:49:00||Ann Williams|
|Re:Re:Re:Harvey Nicks in Chiswick?||21/10/15 20:56:00||Georgina Flint|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Harvey Nicks in Chiswick?||21/10/15 21:04:00||bobby osborne|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Harvey Nicks in Chiswick?||21/10/15 21:09:00||Donna Fraser|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Harvey Nicks in Chiswick?||23/10/15 00:51:00||Robin Cox|